14April2011

“Doing it all” to share gospel blessings

Written By robfaircloth

Most believers and even many unbelievers with a modicum of biblical familiarity might recognize the apostle Paul’s famous proclamation that “I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some” (1 Corinthians 9:22).

In current evangelical circles Paul’s example is applied to the concept of “contextualization” — just how far a believer may go in looking like the people in a culture in order to gain audience with them, and prayerfully, win them to Christ. It is also appealed to in discussions about “stumbling blocks” — just how far mature believers may go in exercising their liberty in Christ when an immature believer with a weak conscience sees that liberty and is offended.

Neither of those will be addressed here.

This is because in the next verse Paul says “I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings” (1 Corinthians 9:23, ESV). Other versions translate Paul’s reasons as: “that I may become a partner in its benefits” (HCSB); “that I may become a fellower partaker in it” (NASB); that Paul may “share in its blessings” (NLT).

But hasn’t Paul already experienced the blessings of the gospel? At this point, he has already been converted, received special instruction from Jesus himself, and the fruit of his ministry has confirmed the operation of the Spirit within him. Why does he “do all” this — forego payment, give up rights, become all things to all people — in order to “share with them in its blessings”?

What Paul describes here is a gospel that is not individualistic. He proclaims a faith that is not private. Paul describes a faith and a gospel that blesses its adherents in part because it is shared; part of the blessing of the gospel message is that once I am saved I am privileged to tell the gospel to others and play a part in bringing them to faith in Christ. The blessings Paul describes here are the joy of seeing others see the manifold excellence of the Savior and the thrill of witnessing the gospel as the power of God for salvation (Romans 1:16-17).

There is an element here of Paul’s joy in simply increasing the number of people with whom he shares the status of joint-heirs with Christ. Paul does what he does in order to have a bigger faith family.

But the emphasis seems to be that the believer receives blessing in telling others the gospel, and in seeing them come to faith. And this blessing, this joy, is such that it motivates us to drastic, self-less, other-oriented action in order to participate in it.

11April2011

Morality, Christian ethics and the “fair share”

Written By robfaircloth

There is something wickedly attractive about comparing coffers.

Especially when you look around and see rampant need — need in the federal treasury, need in the state accounts, need down the street — we find it very appealing to look at those who have much (the “rich”) and to suppose that they could do something.

It’s easy, then, when we suppose they could do something, to suppose they should do something. Contemporary social discourse and political expectation have taught us to refer to this should as the “rich paying their fair share.” It’s then not very difficult at all, since they should do something, to require them to do something.  And we have found an ingenious method of requiring the “rich” to pay “their fair share”: the U.S. tax code.

But despite its wicked attractiveness, there is something morally reprehensible about this train of logic and where it leads.

This is true because the “rich” — those the rest of us suppose are not paying “their fair share” — comprise a very small percentage of the three hundred million or so citizens of the United States. And because we set the tax code in large part by the result of majority vote, why, it is not surprising that the majority find it relatively easy to majority-vote the code into compelling the “rich” to give up “their fair share.”

Even the term “their fair share” is disingenuous. What happens in reality is that the majority vote for programs and projects and handouts that they know they will not — indeed cannot — pay for, and as we can see in our present economic situation causes entire states and the U.S. Treasury itself to spend more than what they have. We vote for spending that is not necessary, send the bill to the “rich”, and insult them by referring to it as “their fair share.”

Our nationalistic, centralized government is in part to blame. Rather than contribute our taxes to the local authorities and deal with the “rich” man we know, we send votes to Washington, DC, which then converts them to money (“block grants”) and sends it back to us. It’s much easier to compel the rich guy from the other side of the country to send his “fair share” than it is to look across the table at the rich man from across the street, and tell him that he has too much and we’ve come to collect his “fair share.”

Jesus Christ certainly suggested that we should care for the poor, the widow, the orphan. But he did not direct that charge to governments. Instead, he put that burden on individuals, and he did not imply that they could then obey with other peoples’ money.

Covetousness has been sanctified with relative poverty, and dressed up in a nice majority-rule suit.

8April2011

Hungry? How ’bout an oil tortilla?

Written By robfaircloth

Recent headlines remind us of the fact that the push for so-called “bio-fuels” to replace petroleum — all in the name of decreasing global warming (sorry, “climate change”) — is increasing the cost of food all over the world.

This should be no surprise, really.

When we shuck corn only to put it down our gas tank, and leave perfectly good oil in the ground, it doesn’t take the proverbial rocket scientist to figure out that the prices of both ethanol gas and food will increase. When there is less corn to put down our collective gullet, what remains of it will cost more.

Orthodox religious communities who maintain belief in man’s stewardship of the earth and its resources should seriously begin talking about this, if they haven’t already. It is no stretch to hold that taking the food out of poor mouths in order to fuel automobiles raises serious moral questions. This is especially so when the solution is to use oil for what it’s good for — fueling automobiles, which would free us to use corn for what it’s good for — fueling babies.

Some will say that the scientific evidence is clear and that man-made greenhouse emissions cause climate change. Assuming, arguendo, that the many presumptions and assumptions in this claim are correct, this still leaves the bio-fuel crowd in a curious position: put corn in our gas tanks now to avoid the potential loss of life from a melting glacier some time in the future, while taking corn out of the mouths of the world’s poor now and leaving them to definite starvation and death in food riots.

It is a gross distortion of the creation mandate (Genesis 2) to abandon the use of a peferctly good resource (oil and its by-products) and to mis-use another resource (food) to account for its absence.

6April2011

Does NOT burning the Qu’ran protect soldiers?

Written By robfaircloth1 Comment on Does NOT burning the Qu’ran protect soldiers?

Let’s dispatch from the start one dark cloud over this whole discussion: Terry Jones and his Qu’ran-burning stunt more resemble a scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail than it resembles orthodox Christianity.

The sad reality is that while the witch trial in Monty Python was an entertaining spoof, Jones’ “Qu-ran trial” is neither entertaining nor satire, and instead reveals an all-too-real distortion of biblical Christianity.

Even so, the naivete in the media’s insistence that burning a Qu’ran in Florida justifies the slaughter of humans in Afghanistan is astonishing, and, we should begin to suspect, reveals its outright fear.

Top military brass also pleaded with Americans to cease activity such as Jones’s, and while the plea was broadcast on national media, one suspects that the request was made directly to a small church in the State of Florida. According to that official, burning the Qu’ran in Florida endangers soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan. Yet when we consider that soldiers on the ground are in danger by definition, it is difficult to imagine that a bit of fire and smoke and a holy book an ocean away truly increases the degree of risk posed to American military.

What this should reveal to non-Muslims everywhere is the nature of present-day Islam. As John Piper and Denny Burk have said elsewhere, there is a fundamental difference between it and Christianity. In Islam, desecration of the holy book on a different continent justifies the slaughter of soldiers from the same country, soldiers who do not smell of smoke.

Christian Bibles are destroyed or confiscated or mistreated every day.Yet we do not see Christians taking revenge on others for it, or the “Christian government” denouncing the action. Christians are imprisoned, persecuted and murdered every day. Yet we do not see Christian taking hostiges and beheading people, or the “Christian government” even expressing concern about the fact.

What explains the difference in the response of the two religions?

What explains the deference that Western governments and media give to Islam, the “religion of peace”? It is becoming apparent that the respective treatment that religions receive is in direct proportion to the degree of fear that they instill.

4April2011

Jesus needs a new marketing firm

Written By robfaircloth

“The kingdom is like a man scattering seed.” “The kingdom is like a grain of mustard seed…the smallest in the ground.”

Really? The kingdom of heaven is like that? As marketing and recruiting go, Jesus violates all the rules. Why not say that the kingdom is like the Wal-Mart empire? Or that the kingdom is like the Bill Gates Microsoft® domain? Or that the kingdom has the influence of facebook?

Because Jesus doesn’t recruit people to the kingdom with appeals to the size of its castles, moats, armies or impressive walls. The kingdom is attractive and desirable because of the goodness of its King.

Here Jesus — following on the heels of his parable of the soils — provides two kingdom principles and two kingdom comparisons.

Kingdom Principle 1: the hidden Christ will be revealed (4:21-23)

Though he spoke earlier about letting his disciples in on the “secret” of the kingdom that the “outsiders” didn’t have, here he teaches that the situation won’t always remain the same. Using the illustration of the lamp, he indicates that whatever God has obscured or hidden or disguised is that way only temporarily. Beginning with the resurrection and ascension, God began to reveal these things.

Because of the structure of Mark’s grammar and Old Testament references, there is good reason to believe that Jesus is the “lamp” that comes in not to remain hidden, but to be lifted up and revealed to all. This will occur when he comes again, when “every eye will see” (Rev1:7) “every knee will bow, and every tongue confess” (Phi2:10). At that point, however, the time for diligent hearing is over.

Kingdom Principle 2: the diligent hearer will be rewarded (4:24-25)

“Listen up!” When men are diligent to listen deliberately and attentively to what Jesus says, God grants understanding and gives even more understanding. Hearing is not like a doorway, whose threshhold is crossed and left behind. Followers of Christ enter the kingdom hearing, and continue hearing to continue entering the kingdom.

Kingdom Comparison 1: the unobserved process (4:26-29)

This parable seems to teach that the sower — distributing the word — casts his seed out and waits until the harvest. He can even sleep well, knowing that even though he doesn’t see and doesn’t understand how the seed works in the soil of human hearts, God is tending to that. Not only that, he isn’t disturbed or troubled by an apparent lack of result. God tends to that, too.

Kingdom Comparison 2: the unexpected result (4:30-32)

From mustard seed that can barely be seen to bush so large that birds nest in its branches, the kingdom exhibits unexecpted — and divinely ordained — results. At some point, what may not look like much now will come to glorious fruition. And the glory of the kingdom is not merely its size, but its inhabitants.

Considering Old Testament references and the allusions Jesus gives here, the glory of the kingdom consists in part of the number of nations benefiting from its reign. People from every tribe, tongue and nation will receive the seed of the Word, be part of the harvest, and find refuge, provision and comfort in the kingdom of Christ.

31March2011

Today’s idol-burger

Written By robfaircloth

A church member criticizes another believer for mowing grass on Sunday afternoon, saying that it causes him to “stumble.” Another church member criticizes a believer for drinking a beer with his supper, claiming it causes him to “stumble.”

In 1 Corinthians chapter 8, Paul addresses “stumbling blocks”, but not mowing grass or drinking beer. Paul addressed a situation in which formerly pagan idol-worshipers had been converted to Christ. Because they came out of the culture that sacrificed animals to pagan gods, and the unused meat was sold to the markets and then sold to the public, they were sensitive to the use of that meat by other believers.

Paul seems to direct mature believers — those who had “knowledge” and whose conscience was not “weak” — to be aware of such problems and to follow his lead in avoiding the eating of meat if it causes the weaker brother to stumble.

But “stumbling” seemed much more than merely being offended, or learning about a new freedom in Christ. To Paul, stumbling seemed to involve the operation of the conscience to avoid certain behavior — eating the proverbial “idol-burger” — and being tempted to eat the burger by seeing other believers eat.

Our anecdotal episodes of mowing grass and drinking beer with supper don’t seem to fit with Paul’s description.

What situations today correspond to that which Paul described? Is it simply a new believer, who was brought up believing that Christians don’t drink beer, then seeing a fellow believer drink beer? Is it simply a believer witnessing another believer mowing his grass on Sunday and beginning to mow his own grass on Sunday?

29March2011

Common law versus Islamic law

Written By robfaircloth

There’s a reason why it’s called “common law.”

A Florida judge’s recent determination to employ Islamic law (“Sharia law”) in a case before him reveals the further slide away from any consensus among those appearing before United States courts as to what law should be used to decide disputes between us.

This is nothing new. The use of international law and treaties by the U.S. Supreme Court brought it into the limelight when justices suggested that for certain decisions, the precedent of previous Court decisions (the principle of stare decisis) would not govern. What is new is that the favored law of a particular group has been granted privileged status.

To highlight the problem associated with the use of particular religious law, let’s consider a hypothetical example.

For instance, in a state that permits divorce for any reason, or for no reason, suppose that one of the parties suggests to the court that the couple both claim to follow Christ, and did so at the time they were married, and that they accept the Holy Bible as governing the lives of Christ-followers. Suppose also that one of the parties claims that the Bible teaches that a married couple should not separate except in the case of sexual immorality. There is no sexual immorality; therefore, the court should not grant the divorce.

Regardless of the perspective on divorce that any of us reading this take, in our hypothetical example the court handling the divorce — if consistent with the Islamic law decision in Florida — would be required to enter into a theological examination of the Bible for legitimate grounds for divorce. If different than the law enacted by that state’s legislature, the Biblical interpretation would overrule statutory law.

“Common law” (generally, the case law used prior to enacting statutory law) was derived when cases were decided over time using common understandings of the rules and principles that governed a body of citizens. Thus common law — and the statutory law that largely replaced it — become impossible when there are such fundamental differences of opinion about what law should govern the disputes between us.

When I — a Christian businessman — resort to the civil court for the resolution of a commercial dispute, I am yielding to the state’s understanding of right and wrong to decide it, not the biblical rule that a thief must pay restitution plus an additional amount. If a Christian church goes to court to enforce its contract rights as an incorporated entity, it yields to the state’s process for deciding such disputes.

It is legal disaster when a church — Islamic or otherwise — goes to civil court to enforce rights that use different law than that adopted by the state in which it sits. What would happen, under the Florida court’s logic, if an Islamic church went to court with the Christian church down the street? Or if a Muslim sued a Christian?

At this point with the Florida decision, Islamic law has been used to settle an intra-Islamic dispute. The next step is for the court to enforce Islamic law against a non-Muslim.

While the arrival of “all nations” at the shores of the United States makes world missionaries of virtually all Christ-followers, the arrival of multi-national law — “uncommon law” — might portend difficulty for Christian missionaries to freely proselytize those nations.