DISTORTIONS

Speaking of the Apostle Paul and his letters to the early church, Peter wrote the following:

15 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.

16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

17 Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position.

18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen. (2 Peter 3)

The misinterpretation and distortion of Scripture is a perennial challenge for believers.

You can't believe every Bible teacher you hear. 

It is striking that the first misinterpretations of Paul's words got kicked off while he and Peter were still alive and writing!

Peter points out that neither promoting nor accepting distorted teaching is a matter of intelligence.

According to Peter, for those distorting Scripture, the problem is either ignorance or instability. (And ignorance is not the same as stupidity.)

And the problem on the receiving end is a lack of vigilance, leading to the familiar phenomenon of "being carried away" by an idea. (Again, neither is tied directly to intelligence.)

I did a search for "false teachers" and related terms in the Bible. At least two-thirds of the books of the New Testament address the issue. That points to a significant problem, doesn't it? 

Our response must be vigilance, as Peter taught. And that should include openness to the possibility that some theological "truth" we are holding to or promoting is a distortion of God's word. 

We are not immune, no matter how smart we think we are. 

PSA'S COURTROOM DRAMA

One of the most famous analogies for Penal Substitutionary Atonement is the courtroom. 

Stephen Morrison* gives a brief and accurate summary of the analogy:

"God is a holy judge, and we are the guilty sinners. God’s justice demands payment, demands our death, and therefore God’s wrath is against us until payment is made. We deserve punishment, but we are unable to pay back God’s justice or appease His wrath. But Jesus Christ came out of love for us and died in our place; God punished Jesus instead of us, thus paying back the Father’s justice, satisfying His wrath, and saving us from hell.  God turned His back on Jesus Christ, and in forsaking Him, God now accepts us as His children. God’s wrath is appeased, God’s (retributive) justice is satisfied, and God can now accept us as His own. This is penal substitution: Jesus Christ is punished (penal) in our place (substitution)."

I have heard it preached this way: A guilty man (representing you and me) is brought into a courtroom. The judge (representing God) declares him guilty - because he is. Although the judge loves the man and desires to let him off, because of his justice, the judge cannot do it. Just at the moment of condemnation, the judge's son (representing Jesus) steps out of the shadows and says, "Father, *I* will gladly suffer this man's verdict on his behalf". The judge agrees, his son is punished in place of the man, and both love and justice are upheld. 

Whatever else the analogy illustrates, it brings to the foreground one of the biggest issues with PSA:

By its very claims, it divides the Trinity. (When you read Morrison's paragraph or my simplified version above, did it occur to you that "God" and "Jesus Christ" are not two different beings?) PSA begs the question: Is Jesus God or not?

In Penal Substitutionary Atonement, either Jesus is not really and fully God or, if He is, then God is punishing Himself. 

And if God is punishing Himself to satisfy His own Justice - How is that Justice exactly? 

AND if God is punishing Himself for the sins of humanity - Could that not be understood as just another way of saying that God absorbs the cost of our sins into Himself? (Which IS basically what I believe.) 

*Morrison doesn't believe in PSA, so there is a chance that a proponent of PSA might be able to accuse him of misrepresenting the theory, but I have certainly heard it preached this way. 

A LAST MINUTE FAVOR

There is so much packed into this brief story in Luke 23: 

39 One of the criminals who hung there heaped abuse on [Jesus]. “Are You not the Christ?” he said. “Save Yourself and us!”

40 But the other one rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same judgment? 41 We are punished justly, for we are receiving what our actions deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when You come into Your kingdom!”

43 And Jesus said to him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

Imagine being a condemned criminal hanging on a cross, a few painful hours away from certain death, and looking at the guy nailed to the cross next to you, also condemned and dying, and saying, “I have a favor to ask once this is all over”! 

Something VERY unusual must be going through your mind … and heart.

From this very brief snippet of the interaction between Jesus and the two thieves, it is clear the second thief knew some things about Jesus. (Had he been among the crowds listening to Jesus’ preaching? Perhaps he was there picking people’s pockets!).

Here are 6 things the second thief knew about the Man hanging on the cross next to him:

1. He knew His name was Jesus – Yeshua – “Yahweh Saves”
2. He knew Jesus was innocent – in contrast to his own guilt. This was a confession of sorts – agreeing with God about his sinfulness.
3. He knew Jesus was some sort of King – He brought up Jesus’ "kingdom".
4. He believed Jesus would somehow – even at this late hour - come into His own Kingdom. 
5. He had come to hope and believe that Jesus had Power – Why else would you ask him for a favor to follow the execution?
6. He had come to conclude that God was good and MIGHT actually love him enough to want him in His presence!

Isn't it interesting that the second thief understood that Jesus had power, but may not use it to rescue them all from the crosses in that moment (like the first thief mockingly suggested)? He understood it to be a power that extended far beyond a last minute physical rescue. 

In my past life I was a high school English teacher. Teaching Shakespeare was one of my greatest joys. And my greatest terror. Much of the world's admiration for Shakespeare came from the fact that he was equally adept at writing tragedies as he was at comedies. 

In a tragedy, the end of the play is all death and destruction. The annihilation of all hope. 

In a comedy, the story first arcs toward that same conclusion (absolute disaster and despair) and then – miraculously – the best of all possible outcomes dawns, leaving the happiest of happy endings. 

On the cross, Jesus took what looked like a surefire tragedy and turned it into a divine comedy, the happiest of all happy endings. 

At least for the thief – and anyone else who recognizes Him for who He is. 

Both thieves knew that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, the Savior. 

One believed it ... and woke up in paradise. 

FAULTY PREMISES OF PSA

As far as I can tell, the logic behind Penal Substitutionary Atonement goes like this:

1. God is just.
2. Therefore, God cannot let sin go unpunished. 
3. For a human to be forgiven means sin goes unpunished.
4. To win our forgiveness, Jesus - though perfectly innocent - had to go to the cross and bear the punishment which we deserved.
5. Now that God has meted out His punishment on His Son, He can forgive us.

Point #1 is obviously supported by Scripture, so PSA gets off to a good start.

But then the wheels come off immediately at Point #2. Can you show me where Scripture teaches that every sin must be punished by God or else his justice is compromised? (Instead, the Bible says that "mercy triumphs over judgment", James 2:13.)

Point #3 is true, but this is simply the definition of "forgiveness"! If the forgiven sin must still be punished - even vicariously as Point #4 would have it - then that offense was not in fact forgiven. 

It was repaid. 

If I say, "I forgive you for lying to me" and then turn around and punish you for lying to me, did I really forgive you? And how in the world would it make sense for me to punish someone else for your lie and then call that "justice"?

Points 4 and 5 are faulty conclusions because they are built on faulty premises. 

What does Scripture say?

Do you think this passage from Isaiah 30:18 sounds like the kind of hardcore justice which the God of PSA exhibits? -

Therefore the Lord waits to be gracious to you, and therefore he exalts himself to show mercy to you. For the Lord is a God of justice; blessed are all those who wait for him.

And what can PSA say in the light of Psalm 103:10-14? -

He does not deal with us according to our sins, nor repay us according to our iniquities. For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his steadfast love toward those who fear him; as far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us. As a father shows compassion to his children, so the Lord shows compassion to those who fear him. For he knows our frame; he remembers that we are dust.

It's fine to spend time hypothesizing about how the cross works, but any resulting theory needs to be grounded in Scripture and it needs to go no further than Scripture allows. 

“Love, not anger, brought Jesus to the cross. Golgotha came as a result of God’s great desire to forgive, not his reluctance.”

― Richard J. Foster

WHAT PSA GETS RIGHT

I have mentioned that I am not a fan of the sort of preaching which claims Jesus accomplished our reconciliation with God by suffering God's wrath while on the cross, the punishment which we ourselves deserved. This theory about how the crucifixion worked is called Penal Substitutionary Atonement. And I think it is a distortion of the Good News. 

Nevertheless, the foundation of PSA is solid. Here is what Penal Substitutionary Atonement gets right about the suffering and death of Christ:

1) The concept of Jesus as the "Lamb of God" (John the Baptist's first proclamation about Jesus is recorded in John 1:29 - "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!")

2) Jesus serving as a substitute for us (1 Peter 3:18 - "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.")

3) Jesus bearing our sins on the cross (1 Peter 2:24 - "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.")

But to jump from Jesus bearing our sins as the Lamb in our place to saying He suffered God's wrath is more philosophical than scriptural. I find it interesting that the handful of New Testament texts from which proponents of PSA draw their conclusion that the Father punished the Son on the cross are all from Paul. (And, as far as I can see, not one explicitly and plainly makes the claim of Jesus enduring God's wrath on the cross.)

If PSA is the reality behind the cross, why don't we see it in the Gospels? Why doesn't Jesus let His disciples know that He will be suffering the Father's wrath as He dies? In John's Gospel, we even get glimpses of the opposite: that God takes great pleasure in His Son's sacrifice. For instance, take the words John records from Jesus at the Last Supper describing his impending death: "Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified in him." (13:31) 

THE central text used to bolster Penal Substitutionary Atonement, though, is Isaiah 53. And there are plenty of arguments back and forth about that text. All I know with certainty is that it does not explicitly say that God pours out wrath on Jesus.

And here's something interesting about Isaiah 53: It is the source of "By His wounds we are healed" which Peter cites in the passage above under point #3. But notice that when Peter cites this supposed PSA passage, his point looks more like the "Moral Influence" and "Christus Victor" theories. 

Look at the context of Peter's quotes from Isaiah. He's talking about how slaves should submit to their earthly masters, even if the master is cruel:

19 For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. 20 But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21 To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. 22 "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." 23 When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. 24 "He himself bore our sins" in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; "by his wounds you have been healed." 25 For "you were like sheep going astray," but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

Peter here affirms some of the good foundations of Penal Substitutionary Atonement - Jesus bearing our sins and suffering in our place - without even a hint of Him being punished under the wrath of God in the process. 

Instead, Peter points to Jesus's death as being what has set believers free to return to the Shepherd (Christus Victor). And the suffering Jesus endured without retaliation serves as an example to us that we should "follow in His steps" (Moral Influence). 

DID JESUS SUFFER GOD'S WRATH ON THE CROSS?

Yesterday I gave some sample hymn lyrics and Scripture which support three longstanding theories of the Atonement - Moral Influence, Ransom, and Christus Victor. Personally, I consider all three to be sound and biblical frameworks for understanding how the cross of Christ brought reconciliation between God and Man. 

But none of those three are currently as fashionable in American Evangelical churches as a fourth theory, namely "Penal Substitutionary Atonement" (PSA).

Now that label might be unfamiliar to most Christians, but the concept is not. In fact, I feel like I need to tread lightly here because many think of PSA as essential to the gospel. (While I think of it as a distortion of the gospel.)

PSA says that in bearing our sins in His body, Jesus suffered the punishment from God's hand which we ourselves deserved for our sins. God's righteous wrath was poured out on His Son. This, then, is what satisfies God's justice and makes it possible for Him to forgive our sins. 

One of the best examples of this understanding of the crucifixion in lyric form is from a newer hymn, "In Christ Alone":

'Til on that cross as Jesus died
The wrath of God was satisfied
For every sin on Him was laid
Here in the death of Christ I live

For the longest time, I didn't question God's wrath being poured out on His Son for our sins. It sure sounded right to me. And maybe it sounds right to you. We've certainly heard it preached often enough, especially around Easter and in evangelistic sermons. 

But have you read it in Scripture? Or just heard it asserted and repeated?

Here's the tricky part of this discussion: I am in full agreement with the foundations of PSA: Jesus bearing our sins and acting as our substitute, His suffering on the cross, and certainly the fact that we deserve punishment for our sins. All of that IS Scriptural, no doubt about it.

The part that I find to be extrabiblical is God pouring out His wrath on Jesus to satisfy His own justice. THIS is the part - and it's the keystone of PSA - that I would challenge you to show me in the Bible. 

I don't see it. In fact, I find it to be a presupposition that contradicts clear Biblical teaching. 

But before we get into that, tomorrow I want to highlight those aspects of the Atonement which PSA gets right. 

[As a reminder, I am writing here merely my own thought process as I have wrestled with these ideas - If you disagree with me about PSA, then let's have a discussion!]

A SAMPLING OF THEORIES OF THE ATONEMENT

Believers are united in acknowledging that the death of Christ was necessary to bring reconciliation between God and humans. 

Most believers have likely never given much thought to various theories about HOW Christ's death on the cross actually accomplished that reconciliation. 

The CONTENTS of the various theories, though, are familiar to anyone in any church who pays attention to Scripture and sings along with the hymnal. That's because these theories are based on the Bible (for the most part!) and, thus, they find expression in the hymns we sing. 

Here are three example theories of the Atonement along with illustrations from a hymn and the Bible:

#1 The Ransom Theory

As found in "I Will Sing of My Redeemer":

Sing, O sing of my Redeemer, With His blood He purchased me.

On the cross He sealed my pardon, Paid the debt and made me free.

You'll notice the author, Philip Bliss, manages to avoid specifying to WHOM the payment was made. Was it the Devil? The Father? Some thing or somebody else?

This lack of specificity is not a weakness in Bliss' lyrics, though. In fact it is admirable. That's because Bliss goes no further than what Scripture does when using similar language about the crucifixion.

Take for example 1 Peter 1:18-19 ESV -

"Knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot."

#2 Christus Victor

Here's the final verse of "Worship Christ, the Risen King":

We acclaim Your life, O Jesus; Now we sing Your victory.

Sin and hell may seek to seize us, But Your conquest keeps us free.

Stand in triumph, stand in triumph; Worship Christ, the risen King!

That's clearly the "Christus Victor" theory of the atonement - on the cross and through the resurrection, Jesus defeats sin and Satan and so wins our freedom from sin. 

Check out John 16:33 - “In the world you face persecution. But take courage; I have conquered the world!”

#3 The Moral Influence Theory

The final verse of "When I Survey the Wondrous Cross" is a good example of this theory which holds that Christ's life, death, and resurrection was mainly about providing us with an example to follow:

Were the whole realm of nature mine,

that were an offering far too small;

love so amazing, so divine,

demands my soul, my life, my all.

In Scripture we find verses like 1 Peter 2:21 - “For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his footsteps." 

So which of the theories is "right"?

Many theologians hold that the believer's best approach to understanding the mechanics behind the death of Christ is to hold a blend of the various theories. This is fitting because the language of Scripture employs at least these three. 

In holding a combination of various theories, we acknowledge the fact that much mystery surrounds the cross.

Fortunately we do not have to completely understand Jesus' death on the cross in order to benefit from the freedom, forgiveness, and reconciliation it brings.

C.S. Lewis writes in Mere Christianity:

"A man can eat his dinner without understanding exactly how food nourishes him. A man can accept what Christ has done without knowing how it works: indeed, he certainly would not know how it works until he has accepted it."

SERMON FOLLOW UP

When it comes to preaching, I tend to bite off more than I can chew in 20 to 25 minutes. (To the congregation: I am aware of this and I am working on it! I appreciate your patience. 😉 I will get it figured out eventually.)

This morning I bit off such a big mouthful that I nearly choked. Almost required a spiritual Heimlich Maneuver!

With Good Friday fast approaching, I wanted to address various theories of the atonement: HOW exactly did the death of Christ on the cross achieve our reconciliation with God? (The mechanics of the crucifixion are not super clear from Scripture and so, over the years, theologians developed various theories to explain how it all worked. Some are complementary to each other and some are in competition.) I also wanted to discuss why it mattered AND which were helpful AND why I find one in particular deserving of rejection. 

That made for a sermon with a few too many parts. And as a result, no part got fully developed.

My wife told me afterward that maybe the whole thing was a subject more fitting for a Lenten Bible study. In other words, 6 or 7 hourlong discussions rather than a single 30 minute sermon!

I see that ... now. 

So, to take another stab at explaining this topic and why it should matter to the believer (especially during Holy Week), I intend to dedicate a few upcoming blog posts here to the task of clarification. I will then be posting those links to the church Facebook page. 

With any luck, I will get some questions and feedback. 

And, God willing, clear away any confusion. 

WHO ISSUES THE PAYCHECK?

Romans 6:23 - For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

This is one of the most quoted verses in the book of Romans. (In all the Bible, for that matter.)

The standard interpretation goes something like this: "When you sin, God in time will bring His punishment of death. However, He offers eternal life to those who trust in His Son."

In other words, God offers eternal life as an escape hatch from the just penalty He has decreed for all who sin. 

And that's the way I have always understood it. 

But I realized the other day that I may have been missing something here in Romans 6:23 and it skews the interpretation. Maybe you've always seen this, but it was a lightbulb moment for me. Look at the basic structure of the sentence:

The wages OF SIN is death, 
but the gift OF GOD is eternal life. 

It doesn't say "The wages of SINNING is death ..."

"Sin" is being personified! And Paul is contrasting Sin as a master against God as a master. Death is the paycheck from SIN. Not a punishment from God. 

Romans 6:23 is part of an analogy: We are either slaves to Sin or slaves to God. If we work for Sin, we reap shameful fruit and get paid in death. If we work for God, we reap the fruit of holiness and He gives us eternal life as a free gift. 

Look at the verse in context:

20 For when you were slaves to sin, you were free of obligation to righteousness. 21 What fruit did you reap at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? The outcome of those things is death. 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the fruit you reap leads to holiness, and the outcome is eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I think it makes a world of difference to understand death as a natural consequence of serving Sin rather than thinking of it as a harsh punishment from an angry God. 

WHO INFLICTS CHRIST'S SUFFERING?

As Holy Week approaches, I've been trying to get a handle on the meaning of the crucifixion this week. There's nothing in all of theology that is more important.

Or more daunting. 

The last thing I want to do is misrepresent the crucifixion - in particular what is happening behind the scenes in God's economy.

I've been hovering in the Gospel of John these past few weeks and there's very little commentary on the Father's direct involvement in the whole ordeal of the Son's death beyond giving Jesus a heads up that the betrayal, the denial, and the crucifixion are coming. (And also the resurrection!) So it does seems to be playing out according to foreknowledge, if not a preordained plan.

Jesus speaks of what's about to happen in these terms:

"Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified in him." (John 13:31)

He also speaks of "going to the Father" and sending the Holy Spirit. 

And "the world must learn that I love the Father and that I do exactly what my Father has commanded me." (14:31)

Interestingly, there's not a word that I have found in John concerning Jesus being punished for the sins of the world.

As far as John's narration of the flesh and blood events, it seems obvious that it is "the world" that is persecuting Jesus and sending him to the cross. In particular it is the High Priest Caiaphas, the Roman Governor Pilate, the crowds stirred up by the ruling Jews, and the soldiers who all bear some responsibility for the suffering of Jesus. 

I guess what I was looking for in John was some indication of "Penal Substitutionary Atonement" being acknowledged - the teaching that ultimately it is God the Father inflicting the suffering on Jesus. PSA says the Father punishes the Son on our behalf so that we can be forgiven.

If PSA is the whole point of the death of Christ - as many teach - wouldn't Jesus have slipped some teaching about PSA into all that he said to his disciples on the night before his arrest? 

As far as I can tell, though, the Father sends the Son to the cross and warns him about it beforehand, but it's humanity which inflicts the punishment. 

NO ADVANTAGE

As I have been finishing up the prospectus for my dissertation, the modern believer's lack of discipline within the life of the spirit has been much on my mind.

As Mark Twain famously noted, “The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.” Consistent daily Scripture study seems a habit out of reach for the majority of Christians. I asked some of the pillars of my own church what they would guess if asked what percent of the church members read their bibles on a daily basis.

The consensus was 5%. That felt about right - but it shouldn't.

According to a recent Pew Research Poll, though, 63% of Evangelical Protestants claim to read the Bible "at least once per week". 

Does that sound a little high to you? Do you think they are counting reading along during worship?

A quarter of those Evangelicals polled admitted to reading their Bible only "several times a year" (7%) or "seldom/never" (18%).

One could argue that Christians across the board, having the power of the Holy Spirit behind them, should stand out as paragons of self-discipline in a world of self-indulgence. No such divergence in discipline is apparent to me though. Do you see it? Isn't "self-control" one of the gifts of the Spirit?

We have been “given much” in terms of education and literacy, but are we living up to the “much which is expected”? 

NOT MISSING MUCH

I accidentally watched a few minutes of NBC News on my phone tonight.

We don't have a TV set at home and sometimes I forget that people still watch television - or that it's even still a thing! (We do have Netflix and Prime and we can stream both through a video projector in our living room, but I watch no more than one or two hours a week typically.)

Anyway, the news clips I watched struck me as so ridiculous. There was stuff about President Biden and Hunter and claims of corruption. If I followed the story correctly, it seems the Republicans are charging the Democrats with corruption and the Democrats are saying it is the Republicans who are corrupt. This was followed by a big update on Princess Kate's health. 

All speculation. No actual facts. 

No actual news.

I don't feel like I am missing anything by no longer keeping up on politics as closely as I once did. In fact, I am glad I have stopped paying attention to it. 

Much better for my mental health. 

SUPERCOMMUNICATORS

I am nearly half way through Supercommunicators by Charles Duhigg and I am finding it very useful and not at all what I expected.

I thought from the title and the subtitle (How to Unlock the Secret Language of Connection) that it might provide some guidance in how I might become a better Preacher.

But what I am finding instead is guidance in how I might become a better Pastor. 

This book is not so much about speaking in order to be heard as it is about connecting with others in conversation through asking questions, listening deeply, and sharing in vulnerability.

Duhigg maintains that nobody likes to be stuck in shallow conversations that never get beyond small talk.

Personally, I have always hated small talk - always desired to move beyond it to the stuff that really matters. (But I thought I was largely alone in this.)

I didn't have the tools necessary to move small talk to something deeper, so I have always tended to walk away from most conversations as quickly ... and as awkwardly ... as possible.

But Duhigg has some very simple, straightforward advice for going deep in conversation. And doing it quickly.

Before I share his "secrets" here, I want to test them out for myself. 

I will report back. 

In the meantime, if you're dying of curiosity, you can get his book yourself (it's worth the price) or catch him on any number of recent podcasts where he has appeared since the launch of the book a couple of weeks ago. 

EXERCISING MY VOICE

I have recently become conscious of a nasty little holdover from my early years of shyness: the weakness of my voice. 

If I am paying attention, throughout the day I catch myself engaged in "vocal slouching". Half-hearted, mumbly vocalizations punctuated with lots of throat clearing. 

And it interferes with life. 

I've been thinking of creating some videos to post online for Mission Resource - since social media has moved on from still photos to video. But I get so self-conscious on camera and I cannot stand the sound of my own voice when I hear it played back. It's so nasally. 

And that got me thinking about the poor congregation that has to listen to me preach every Sunday. 

(Not to mention what my wife and kids and coworkers have to endure from day to day!)

And then it occurred to me that voices - like posture and physiques and dozens of other aspects of daily life - can likely be improved. With focused effort.

(Perhaps even dramatically so. Who knows?)

So I am making an effort. I am trying to eliminate mumbling, speaking loudly and clearly as consistently as possible. (It's hit and miss.) I have also found some vocal exercises suggested on YouTube that are too embarrassing to do when anyone else is in the house. They are now part of my daily shower routine after Melissa and Sarah head off to school. 

And guess what. I think I am hearing an overall improvement even after just a few weeks. Great motivation to keep it going and even step it up a notch.

It's humbling to still be figuring out such basic stuff at the age of 55.  

THE CONTEXT OF SIN

"We do not understand another human being when we know only that what he or she did is wrong, unkind, destructive, or whatever. We need to know the internal considerations that prompted the behavior. There is always some context in which the most offensive actions can have their own kind of sense. This does not mean they are justified, only that they can be understandable." (Nathaniel Branden in Six Pillars of Self-Esteem, p.94)

There are some parallels between the way God calls us to deal with our own sins and the sins of others. 

When considering our own sins, confession and repentance are in reach only when we move beyond mere recognition of our sinful behaviors and into the consciousness of the context in which they occur.

As for dealing with other people, compassion and forgiveness involve moving beyond recognition of the sinful behavior of others to consciousness of the context in which those sins occur.

If we go no further than the mere recognition of other people's sinful behavior, we are simply being judgmental.

(And that's a serious no-no.)

WHEN ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING IS DECREED IN ADVANCE...

What sends a soul to hell?

While doing some garage work this afternoon, I listened to one of my favorite Christian YouTubers, Kevin Thompson. His channel is called Beyond the Fundamentals and he is unlike any other Christian thinker on the internet. He's a good old boy from Louisiana with a mind like a steel trap. His approach to Scripture is fresh and I often come away from his videos thinking, "How did I never see that before?"

He's also a former Calvinist who now has a deep understanding of the flaws in that theological system. 

Thompson pointed out something today that I had never pondered: In Calvinism, if you are "sent to hell" as one of those who were not fortunate enough to be among "The Elect", it ultimately has nothing to do with sin.

That's because everything you think and say and do in this life was decreed long before your existence. And that includes your final destination. The final judgment against you was predetermined from eternity past - it is not contingent on your sin.

If your theology holds, as the Westminster Confession puts it, that:

"God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass"

Then, that includes the predestination of each of the Elect to salvation (Which the Calvinist likes to highlight)

AND that includes the predestination of each of the Non-Elect to eternal damnation (Which is a bit problematic for the Calvinist).

I mean, it's widely known that Calvinism has a major vulnerability to being accused of "unfairness" in God's saving grace not being offered to all. 

But when you stop to consider that billions of souls were decreed by God to eternity in hell before the world was even created and certainly, then, before they sinned even the smallest of sins ...

Well, that's monstrous.

And yet, the Westminster Confession goes on to explain God does this in such a way "as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."

I'm sorry, that that bit of nonsensical writing should have been shot down the day after it was written.

CANVA FUN

Tonight I got caught up in a little community project for which I volunteered recently. Every other month the town of Westport, Indiana publishes and mails the "Town Crier" - a 32 page publication with a community calendar, recipes, a directory, and ads for local businesses.

I signed up to help out with proofreading and graphic design. 

The staff is all volunteer and apparently none of the current group is very artsy. (Or they're all very busy and don't have time to make things look pretty.)

So in the past, some of the Crier's ads were created by scanning business cards. Many of these have become nearly unreadable in print because they are copies of copies. 

One ad was even a picture of a business card resting on somebody's kitchen counter:

Not a particularly good look. 

But the fix was pretty easy. I found the company on Facebook and grabbed a screen shot of the same business card from their photos. It will be much cleaner and much easier to read in the upcoming April/May edition.

Fortunately, I love messing around with Canva. It's a creative outlet for me. And I know it's fulfilling some need for artistry in my life because I completely lose track of time once I get started reworking ads for the Crier.

Here are a few I have either recreated from faded business cards or made from scratch:

CONVERTIBLE LIFE

It's spring break for the local schools but there was no trip to Florida in the cards for Melissa, Sarah, and me this week. Time and budget refused to cooperate.

So I have been working and Sarah has picked up extra hours at the clothing store and Melissa has been spring cleaning at home. Nothing too exciting.

But yesterday morning the weather was holding the promise of a perfect spring day and the three of us had a few afternoon hours to spare, so we decided to head to Brown County for lunch and shopping. 

At first I was worried that our window was too narrow. It was already past noon and the drive to Nashville takes at least 30 minutes each way. Sarah needed to be at her second job - scooping ice cream - by 4:00 PM. 

I ended up being so glad I hadn't decided to bail on account of time. You see, I had not factored Sarah's little convertible Beetle into my thinking.

The convertible meant that the hour of travel wasn't a hassle to endure - it was a part of the fun of the afternoon.

A BIG part.

We rolled the top back, Sarah cranked up the 80s tunes, and we soaked up as much sun as we could. 

The lunch was fine and the shopping was enjoyable, though short-lived. But the highlight of the day - of my week - was the ride there and back.

It left me pondering my daily life and work. 

How can life be less "getting from Point A to Point B" and more "top down, sun in my face, and wind in my hair"?

REALITY

This word "truth" that Pilate asks Jesus about - it is alethea in the Greek. The word shows up 109 times in the New Testament. It's a pretty important concept!

With "What is Truth?", Pilate gives voice to a central question of Scripture ... and human existence.

Jesus answers, "I am the Truth."

When I looked up alethea in Strong's Concordance, it says, "In ancient Greek culture, alḗtheia was synonymous for "reality" as the opposite of illusion, i.e. fact."

Thinking of Jesus saying "I am Reality" hits a little differently, doesn't it?

Is that because we tend to think of Christian faith as merely a set of propositional statements that we give mental assent to? In other words, we use "true" in this way:

God is Triune in nature? True.

Jesus was sinless? True.

Jesus was crucified, died, and was buried? On the third day He rose from the dead? True, True, True, and True.

So these things end up being a simple binaries in our minds. If something is not true, it is false. If something is true, it is not false. And that's easy to give mental assent to. 

But to step back and say Jesus is REALITY? 

This seems broader and deeper somehow. 

I need to chew on this more...

WHAT IS TRUTH?

In America of 2024, Pilate's question to Jesus is more germane than ever: "What is truth?" (John 18:38)

We are inundated with information - but most of us have learned to question the validity of nearly every "fact" presented to us by the TV, radio, and internet. We have learned the news is fake and, with the advent of AI, we can't even trust our eyes or ears. We can count on even the hardest of facts and data to be spun one direction or another. And we now know to ask the experts, "Who is funding you?" 

It's almost enough to drive one to madness. 

This is why I find "probability thinking" to be helpful in preserving sanity. In regard to everything from politics to gossip, rather than jump to a firm conclusion of "this is true" or "that never happened", I am more likely these days to think, "I give that an 80% chance of being true". And, more often than not, I accept the reality that I may never know whether or not any particular thing is true. 

Were we encountering just as much sketchy information ten or twenty years ago? Maybe we were just more gullible and naive?

I think that's 90% probable!  

Maybe Truth has always been elusive in day to day life. Maybe a genuine search for Truth has always been iffy and exhausting. And maybe Pilate's question to Jesus was meant to express his own struggles with determining the truth. 

Christianity's claim that Truth is a Person, and not merely a set of statements or claims or propositions, goes undervalued by most believers. It's worth some serious contemplation. 

And it makes it that much more important to follow Him.

DEBATING JOHN 6:44

John 6:44 quotes Jesus as saying, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day."

A few days ago, a debate over this verse arrested the attention of that small sliver of the internet obsessed with Calvinism. (And, yes, I am among that crowd.) Dr. James White argued the Calvinist side and Dr. Leighton Flowers took what he calls the "Provisionist" side, aka Non Calvinist. 

Many a Calvinist points to John 6:44 as foundational to their entire systematic theology. It seems pretty straightforward: Nobody can come to Jesus unless they are chosen by the Father and irresistibly drawn to Him.

I would never argue that the verse couldn't be read in this way, especially in isolation. 

What I do argue against is the Calvinist interpretation being the only sensible way to read verse 44 or the most obvious way to read it. If you even take one more verse and consider the entire context of the opening chapters of John, the Calvinist interpretation begins to evaporate:

44“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.

Jesus is talking to Jews who are not convinced He truly came from the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Many of them were cultural Jews, following the Law and going through the motions but never having an authentic relationship with the Father. 

So which message sounds most appropriate for this crowd:

A. It's pretty obvious that I am sent by the Father - at least to those who have already been learning from the Father before they knew the Messiah had arrived. After all, we sound alike. So you can trust me.

Or

B. You can't come to me unless God has already chosen you - if He has, He will drag you to me and there is nothing on earth which will prevent it. On the other hand, if you were not chosen by the Father, your salvation is just not meant to be - and there is nothing you can do about that.

Which message sounds like Jesus and which one strikes you as "coming out of left field"?

I am not sure where the debate is.

BROTHERS

This weekend I was able to spend more time with two of my three brothers than I have in a long time. We all tend to stay pretty busy and, sadly, since mom passed away in 2019, we just don't tend to have large family gatherings on a regular basis.

So it was pretty special to see both Spencer and Russ in a single weekend.

Spencer came to see me. He made the effort to get to Sardinia with some of his family to be witness to my baptism this morning and then they all stuck around for the luncheon afterwards. It was awesome to have them present. He said he almost teared up. 😉

As for my younger brother, Melissa and I went to see him. Russ was in the hospital for an appendectomy that became anything but routine. In fact, it got a little scary at points. 

So much so that when I visited him Friday night, I almost told him that I loved him!

Thankfully, this evening we visited him again and he seemed to be moving toward full recovery, so we are grateful. 

I hope neither one reads this and think that I care about them! 

(My oldest brother is OK too, I guess.)

PREPARING MY TESTIMONY

Since I am being baptized tomorrow morning, instead of a standard sermon, I have decided to give my testimony.

Narrowing down 55 years of God's love and movement in my life to fit within a 20 minute window has been no small challenge.

There are at least three different angles I have considered touching on - Books, Events, and People.

Influential Books:

Radical by David Platt – which I read on the way back from my first trip to Haiti.

The Power of Positive Thinking by Norman Vincent Peale – which first introduced me to the concept of mindset, decades before I really explored the possibilities.

The Growing Up Pains of Adrian Plass by Adrian Plass – which showed me Christian writing full of humor, vulnerability, and authenticity.

Shadow of the Almighty by Elisabeth Elliot – which illustrated a soul sold out to serving Jesus.

Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis – more recently helping me solidify the basics of my theology.

 

Influential people:

My parents

Youth leaders like Tom and Marcia Kuhn during high school and Tom Shepherd during my college years

Pastors like Bill Clayton, Jack Haskins, Mark Van Valen, and Phil and Connie Dicks

Friends like Mark Kline and Kate and Storly Michel 

Partners in ministry like Tim Price, Jamie Hudgins, all our missionary friends in Haiti, and, especially, my wife

My four kids, who have taught me so much about life and faith

 

Influential moments:

My first true friend, Pete Haskins, arriving in town when I was in 3^rd grade

Death of my friend Phil during my Junior year of High School

Goodwill Camp in MA – my 1^st exposure to poverty and its effects

The close of my senior year at Wabash College – when God redirected me into youth ministry

My decision to attend Asbury Seminary in 95

Meeting Melissa in 99, marrying in 2000 and moving to Florida

My Dad’s death and our return to Indiana in 2002

Transition out of youth ministry and into teaching in 2005

My first short term mission trip to Haiti in 2010

Moving to Haiti in 2013 – the best move for our whole family

Our return from Haiti in 2020 – where I learned about spiritual growth through pain

Coming on staff at Sardinia Baptist Church in 2023 - where I feel like the next chapter of my life will unfold

There has never been a single pivotal moment that I could point to and say, "This is where I first met Jesus". I used to think that was a weakness in my testimony - I wanted something dramatic like the drug addict whose life is turned on a dime by an encounter with Jesus.

But I realize now that I am fortunate to be able to look back and see so many times when God was at work in my life, gently guiding me toward discovering those "good works" which He "prepared in advance" for me to do. 

IMPORTANT THREADS

When I start seeing common threads running through books that have caught my attention, I tend to take it as an important life lesson God is trying to teach me.

I was recently rereading Steven Pressfield's The War of Art after hearing him interviewed on a podcast and I was reminded of a basic idea which is starting to take root in my mind: the author's concept of "Resistance".

Pressfield's entire book is about how humans must overcome Resistance in all its various forms - fear, procrastination, drama, etc - if we have any hope of fulfilling our purpose in life. 

Here's a good summary from Pressfield early in the book:

"Most of us have two lives. The life we live, and the unlived life within us. Between the two stands Resistance." (In the chapter called The Unlived Life, no page numbers.)

As I am starting into Nathaniel Branden's The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem, I am realizing although Pressfield is an artist and Branden is an academic, the two authors are talking about the same subject.

In his introduction, Branden writes, "Underneath all my work, the core idea I wanted to teach was: Your life is important. Honor it. Fight for your highest possibilities."  (p.xii, emphasis in original) 

Both acknowledge two levels of life - in biblical terms, the natural man and the spiritual man.

Both acknowledge a struggle against forces intent on keeping us down - in biblical terms, the flesh which needs to be crucified.

And both hold out the hope that anyone can live at the higher level - the "abundant life" which Jesus offers.

Pressfield writes, "If you believe in God (and I do) you must declare Resistance evil, for it prevents us from achieving the life God intended." 

I have wrestled with Resistance since childhood and, at 55, I am finally starting to get the upper hand. 

THIS is getting to the core of life and to the main problem of life and THIS is why I love to read. 

SELF-ESTEEM AND STABILITY

It's weird to read nonfiction books written late last century. Often you find writers of the 1980s and 90s quite critical of the state of American culture.  

As I read their negative assessments of societal trends, I always think, "You ain't seen nothin yet!" 

Nathaniel Branden published The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem in 1994. 

Check out his description of "the times" in the early 90s:

The turbulence of our times demands strong selves with a clear sense of identity, competence, and worth. With a breakdown of cultural consensus, an absence of worthy role models, little in the public arena to inspire our allegiance, and disorientingly rapid change a permanent feature of our lives, it is a dangerous moment in history not to know who we are or not to trust ourselves. The stability we cannot find in the world we must create within ours own persons. (xi)

How do you think we have done with "creating stability in our own persons" over the past three decades? 

Was Branden a prophet? 

Is it coincidence that with our population's sense of identity, competence, and worth being anything but clear, the challenges he outlined in 1994 - the fracture of consensus, loss of role models, loss of faith in public institutions, and the disorientation of rapid change - have only grown a hundred times worse?

I am anxious to read on and see what Branden says can be done to strengthen individuals' self-esteem, which he defines in part as "the health of the mind" and "the immune system of consciousness".

Hopefully, he has some answers. We need some bad.

Hopefully it's not too late.

3 BOOKS

Yesterday I invited havoc into my daily schedule. I ordered three new books at once.

And since I ordered through Amazon, all three arrived today.

The 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene. (I've heard this book referenced by many different people over the last few years and finally decided to put it in my "cart". It was first published in 1998. It is a lot more involved than I imagined it - 430 pages of small print!)

Supercommunicators by Charles Duhigg. (Communication is a topic which has long interested me and all the more so since I became a pastor. Years ago, Duhigg authored the first truly influential book on habit formation, so I was familiar with the quality of his work. This book is brand new - published this year. I heard Duhigg promoting it on a recent podcast.)

The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem by Nathaniel Branden. (I heard a podcaster cite this as a book which has greatly influenced his life. I had never heard of it, but I was intrigued by an idea which the podcaster cited from the book - something which might fit with my dissertation. The book was first published in 1994 and represents the culmination of decades of research on self-esteem by Branden. Interestingly, the author is the one who popularized the term "self-esteem" in the first place. That's a good sign you are hearing from THE expert in the field.)

This evening I took time to read a few pages in each of the 3 books as a way to determine which I wanted to dive into first. The easy winner was The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem. It drew me in entirely.

This is good - it means I can justify the time reading as being toward my dissertation. And from what I have read so far, I think it will be helpful to me not only academically, but personally and professionally. 

Based on the book's insight into human nature in the early pages, I have already decided it is something every pastor should read - we will see if that opinion strengthens or weakens as I continue on. 

REVEREND G-----

I wrote yesterday about pastors who see their congregations as adversaries to be defeated rather than sheep to be tended.

In my experience as a youth pastor for 15 years, no pastor more perfectly epitomized this particular failing than Reverend G-----. He not only disliked the congregation, he held special contempt for the teens of the church.

I was just out of college and working to combine the youth groups of two mid-sized United Methodist churches in the small town of LeMars, Iowa. This meant that once a week I endured an hour-long meeting with the two pastors. Reverend G was the pastor of the wealthier church. 

Here are two things I heard him say - multiple times each - during those meetings:

1) "I don't care what the people of this church think about me. I work for Des Moines." (That's where the UM Conference was headquartered.)

And, my favorite:

2) "I don't even understand why we have a youth pastor. You work with ... what ... maybe ten or fifteen percent of the congregation? And they are ten percent who don't pay tithes." 

As you might guess, that church did not exactly flourish under Reverend G's leadership! And the youth group did not survive. (The teens were terrified of him.) 

Eventually I quit as youth pastor of his church and continued to work part-time with the other. The secretary, the choir director, and the custodian were not far behind me in offering their resignations. 

Sad.

FRIEND OR FOE

Recently I met a pastor who spoke to me about his congregation in terms which were not even friendly, much less warm.

In fact, he sounded rather antagonistic. This man referred to his church as "them" rather than "we". 

The weekly offering was growing a little thin and the future of the church was uncertain. "They did it to themselves," he explained.

How sad! 

I am coming up on my one year anniversary at Sardinia Baptist Church and I couldn't be happier. I consider each person there not only as a brother or sister in Christ, but as a friend. I have two desires: to get to know each individual better and to be found worthy of being their pastor. 

I thought about all this as I was reading the Apostle Paul's letter to the Thessalonians this morning. 

Paul's genuinely warm feelings toward all of his church plants has often struck me. To the Thessalonians, for example, he wrote, "We wanted to come to you—certainly I, Paul, did, again and again—but Satan blocked our way. For what is our hope, our joy, or the crown in which we will glory in the presence of our Lord Jesus when he comes? Is it not you? Indeed, you are our glory and joy." (1 Thess. 2:18-20)

Imagine a pastor counting the congregation not as adversaries, but as a hope, a joy, and a future crown to glory in when Jesus comes.

I am blessed!

PEOPLE WHO WORRY ME

For years now there have been two groups of people who make me nervous about our nation's future:

1. People who don't see their favorite news source (be it Fox News or CNN) as having a bias.
2. People who are 100% supportive of every individual and every initiative connected to their political party. 

Now I am adding the folks who are oblivious to both the potential of AI as well as its pervasiveness. If they can't spot fakes now while the AI is still learning, heaven help us as it evolves. 

Here's a recent example from Facebook where someone posted "photos" of Star Wars themed cakes. Even by the thumbnails I could see these were AI fakes. And I don't think it takes Sherlock Holmes to deduce the fakery. Look:

Stormtroopers with lightsabers. R2D2 with a stormtrooper head. The land speeder shaped like a speed boat ... with its own lightsaber.

Below we have a stormtrooper wearing Darth Vader's cloak and the words "SARSTER WTARWARS". 

Samuel explained to me tonight why AI struggles with human hands and letters of words, but I didn't understand a word he was saying. 

This one is not even possible in three dimensions:

And finally a Mandalorian themed cake wishing someone named "BE?" a very "HIARPPY BIRTHDAAY"!

To be fair, the comments below these "photos" included quite a few gripes about the obvious AI fakery, but they also included numerous comments along the same lines as these actual quotes:

"These look so good (and they probably taste good too)!"

"Wow, impressive cakes"

"LOVE IT!!!!"

Some even requested the name of the baker in hopes of ordering one for their next birthday.

God help us! 

What's going to happen (likely this election year) when the internet brings us some deep fake of a candidate saying or doing something scandalous and half the population ends up convinced it's real?

On the bright side, somehow I feel a little less alone in navigating the cultural absurdity which is the 2020s based on the simple fact that someone took the time to make the following meme and then add it to the comment stream: