Author Archives: Dan C.

Evangelizing Pirates

Posted by Dan C. on

SENTENCING OF THE PIRATE MAJOR STEDE BONNET

AT CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12TH, 1718

From Captain Charles Johnson’s

“A General History of the Robberies and Murders of the Most Notorious Pirates.” London, 1724.

On the 28th of October, 1718, a court of Vice Admiralty was held at Charleston, in South Carolina, and by several adjournments continued until Wednesday, the 12th of November following, for the trial of the Pirates taken in a sloop formerly called the Revenge, but afterwards the Royal James, before Nicholas Trot, Esq., Judge of the Vice Admiralty, and chief Justice of the said Province of South Carolina, and other assistant judges.

Here be the Lord Chief Justice’s Speech, upon his Pronouncing Sentence on Major Stede Bonnet.

“Major Stede Bonnet, you stand here convicted upon two indictments of piracy; one by the verdict of the jury, and the other by your own confession.

Although you were indicted but for two facts, yet you know that at your trial it was fully proved, even by an unwilling witness, that you piratically took and rifled no less than thirteen vessels since you sailed from North Carolina.

So that you might have been indicted and convicted on eleven more acts of piracy since you took the benefit of the King’s Act of Grace, and pretended to leave that wicked course of life.

Not to mention the many acts of piracy you committed before; for which, if your pardon from man was never so authentic, yet you must expect to answer for them before God.

You know that the crimes you have committed are evil in themselves, and contrary to the light and law of nature, as well as the law of God, by which you are commanded that you shall not steal (Exo. 20.15). And the Apostle St. Paul expressly affirms that thieves shall not inherit the Kingdom of God (I Cor. 6.10).

But to theft you have added a greater sin, which is murder. How many you may have killed of those that resisted you in the committing of your former piracies, I know not, but this we all know, that besides the wounded you killed no less than eighteen persons out of those that were sent by lawful authority to suppress you, and put a stop to those rapines that you daily acted.

And, however you might fancy that that was killing men fairly in open fight, yet this know, that the power of the sword not being committed into your hands by any lawful authority, you were not empowered to use any force, or fight anyone; and therefore those persons that fell in that action, in doing their duty to their King and Country, were murdered, and their blood now cries out for vengeance and justice against you. For it is the voice of Nature confirmed by the Law of God, that whosoever sheddeth man’s blood by man shall his blood be shed (Gen. 9.6).

And consider that Death is not the only punishment due to Murderers; for they are threatened to have their part in the lake witch burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second Death (Rev. 21. 8 See Chap. 22. 15). Words which carry that terror with them that considering your circumstances and your guilt, surely the sound of them must make you tremble, for who can dwell with everlasting burnings? (Isaiah 33.14).

As the testimony of your conscience must convince you of the great and many evils you have committed, by which you have highly offended God, and provoked most justly His wrath and indignation against you, so I suppose I need not tell you that the only way of obtaining pardon and remission of your sins from God is by a true and unfeigned repentance and faith in Christ, by whose meritorious Death and Passion you can only hope for salvation.

You being a gentleman that have had the advantage of a liberal education, and being generally esteemed a man of letters, I believe it will be needless for me to explain to you the nature of repentance and faith in Christ, they being so fully and often mentioned in the Scriptures that you cannot but know them. And therefore, perhaps, for that reason it might be thought by some improper for me to have said so much to you, as I have already upon this occasion. Neither should I have done it, but that considering the course of your life and actions, I have just reason to fear that the principles of religion that had been instilled into you by your education have been at least corrupted, if not entirely defaced, by the Scepticism and Infidelity of this wicked age; and that what time you allowed for study was rather applied to the Polite Literature and the vain philosophy of the times, than a serious search after the Law and Will of God, as revealed unto us in the Holy Scriptures. For had your delight been in the Law of the Lord and that you had meditated therein day and night (Psalm 1.2) you would have then found that God’s Word was a lamp unto your feet, and a light to your path (Psalm 119.105) and that you would account all other knowledge but loss in comparison of the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus (Phil. 3.8) who to them that are called is the power of God and the wisdom of God (I Cor. 1.24) even the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the world (Chap. 2.7).

You would then have esteemed the Scriptures as the Great charter of Heaven, and which delivered to us not only the most perfect laws and rules of life, but also discovered to us the Acts of Pardon from God, wherein they have offended those righteous laws. For in them only is to be found the great mystery of fallen man’s Redemption which the angels desire to look into (I Pet. 1.12).

And they would have taught you that Sin is the debasing of human nature as being a deviation from that Purity, Rectitude and Holiness in which God created us, and that Virtue and Religion and walking by the laws of God were altogether preferable to the ways of Sin and Satan, for that the ways of Virtue are ways of pleasantness, and all their paths are peace (Prov. 3.17).

But what you could not learn from God’s Word, by reason of your carelessly or but superficially considering the same, I hope the course of His Providence and the present afflictions that He hath laid upon you, hath now convinced you of the same. For however in your seeming prosperity you might make a mock at your sins (Prov. 14.9) yet know that you see God’s hand hath reached you, and brought you to public justice, I hope your present unhappy circumstances hath made you seriously reflect upon your past actions and course of life; and that you are now sensible of the greatness of your sins, and that you find the burden of them is intolerable.

And that therefore being thus labouring and heavy laden with sin (Matt. 11.28) you will esteem that as the most valuable knowledge, that can show you how you can be reconciled to that supreme God that you have so highly offended; and that can reveal to you Him who is not only the powerful Advocate with the Father for you (I John 2.1) but also who hath paid that debt that is due for your sins by His own Death upon the Cross for you; and thereby made full satisfaction for the justice of God. And this is to be found nowhere but in God’s Word, which discovers to us that Lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world (John 1. 29) which is Christ the Son of God; for this know and be assured, that there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby they must be saved (Acts 4.12) but only by the name of the Lord Jesus.

But then consider how He invites all sinners to come unto Him and that he will give them rest (Matt. 11.28) for He assure us that he came to seek and to save that which was lost (Luke 19.10; Matt. 18.11) and hath promised that he that cometh to him, he will in no wise cast out (John 6.37).

So that if you will now sincerely turn to Him, though late, even at the eleventh hour (Matt. 20.6, 9) He will receive you.

But surely I need not tell you that the terms of His mercy is Faith and Repentance.

And do not mistake the nature of repentance to be only a bare sorrow for your sins, arising from the consideration of the evil and punishment they have now brought upon you; but your sorrow must arise from the consideration of your having offended a gracious and merciful God.

But I shall not pretend to give you any particular directions as to the nature of repentance. I consider that I speak to a person whose offences have proceeded not so much from his not knowing, as to his slighting and neglecting his duty. Neither is it proper for me to give advice, out of the way of my own profession.

You may have that better delivered to you by those who have made Divinity their particular study and who, by their knowledge as well as their office, as being ambassadors of Christ (II Cor 5.20) are best qualified to give you instruction therein.

I only heartily wish that what, in compassion to your soul, I have now said to you upon this sad and solemn occasion, by exhorting you in general to faith and repentance, may have that due effect upon you that thereby you may become a true penitent.

And therefore, having now discharged my duty to you as a Christian by giving you the best council I can, with respect to the salvation of your soul, I must now do my office as a judge.

The sentence that the Law hath appointed to pass on you for your offences, and which this court doth therefore award is;

That you, the said Stede Bonnet, shall go from hence to the place from whence you came, and from thence to the place of execution, where you shall be hanged by the neck till you are dead.

And the God of Infinite Mercy be merciful to your soul.”

Near the end of November, 1718, The Pirate Major Stede Bonnet was executed between the tides at the White Point near Charleston, pursuant to his sentence.

“Steel Trap” Minds

Posted by Dan C. on

“A mind like a steel trap” usually means either:

1. The ability to remember absolutely everything.

2. A characteristic of the mind akin to being ‘rusted shut’.

The former is commendable for the most part but extremely rare. The latter is much more prevalent in the ranks of fallen human beings and a significant hindrance to intelligent dialogue.

Augustine and Pelagius

Posted by Dan C. on

by R. C. Sproul

"It is Augustine who gave us the Reformation." So wrote B. B. Warfield in his assessment of the influence of Augustine on church history. It is not only that Luther was an Augustinian monk, or that Calvin quoted Augustine more than any other theologian that provoked Warfield’s remark. Rather, it was that the Reformation witnessed the ultimate triumph of Augustine’s doctrine of grace over the legacy of the Pelagian view of man.

Humanism, in all its subtle forms, recapitulates the unvarnished Pelagianism against which Augustine struggled. Though Pelagius was condemned as a heretic by Rome, and its modified form, Semi-Pelagianism was likewise condemned by the Council of Orange in 529, the basic assumptions of this view persisted throughout church history to reappear in Medieval Catholicism, Renaissance Humanism, Socinianism, Arminianism, and modern Liberalism. The seminal thought of Pelagius survives today not as a trace or tangential influence but is pervasive in the modern church. Indeed, the modern church is held captive by it.

What was the core issue between Augustine and Pelagius? The heart of the debate centered on the doctrine of original sin, particularly with respect to the question of the extent to which the will of fallen man is "free." Adolph Harnack said:

There has never, perhaps, been another crisis of equal importance in church history in which the opponents have expressed the principles at issue so clearly and abstractly. The Arian dispute before the Nicene Council can alone be compared with it. (History of Agmer V/IV/3)

The controversy began when the British monk, Pelagius, opposed at Rome Augustine’s famous prayer: "Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire." Pelagius recoiled in horror at the idea that a divine gift (grace) is necessary to perform what God commands. For Pelagius and his followers responsibility always implies ability. If man has the moral responsibility to obey the law of God, he must also have the moral ability to do it.

Harnack summarizes Pelagian thought:

Nature, free-will, virtue and law, these strictly defined and made independent of the notion of God – were the catch-words of Pelagianism: self-acquired virtue is the supreme good which is followed by reward. Religion and morality lie in the sphere of the free spirit; they are at any moment by man’s own effort.

The difference between Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism is more a difference of degree than of kind. To be sure, on the surface there seems like there is a huge difference between the two, particularly with respect to original sin and to the sinner’s dependence upon grace. Pelagius categorically denied the doctrine of original sin, arguing that Adam’s sin affected Adam alone and that infants at birth are in the same state as Adam was before the Fall. Pelagius also argued that though grace may facilitate the achieving of righteousness, it is not necessary to that end. Also, he insisted that the constituent nature of humanity is not convertible; it is indestructively good.

Over against Pelagius, Semi-Pelagianism does have a doctrine of original sin whereby mankind is considered fallen. Consequently grace not only facilitates virtue, it is necessary for virtue to ensue. Man’s nature can be changed and has been changed by the Fall.

However, in Semi-Pelagianism there remains a moral ability within man that is unaffected by the Fall. We call this an "island of righteousness" by which the fallen sinner still has the inherent ability to incline or move himself to cooperate with God’s grace. Grace is necessary but not necessarily effective. Its effect always depends upon the sinner’s cooperation with it by virtue of the exercise of the will.

It is not by accident that Martin Luther considered The Bondage of the Will to be his most important book. He saw in Erasmus a man who, despite his protests to the contrary, was a Pelagian in Catholic clothing. Luther saw that lurking beneath the controversy of merit and grace, and faith and works was the issue of to what degree the human will is enslaved by sin and to what degree we are dependent upon grace for our liberation. Luther argued from the Bible that the flesh profits nothing and that this "nothing" is not a little "something."

Augustine’s view of the Fall was opposed to both Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. He said that mankind is a massa peccati, a "mess of sin," incapable of raising itself from spiritual death. For Augustine man can no more move or incline himself to God than an empty glass can fill itself. For Augustine the initial work of divine grace by which the soul is liberated from the bondage of sin is sovereign and operative. To be sure we cooperate with this grace, but only after the initial divine work of liberation.

Augustine did not deny that fallen man still has a will and that the will is capable of making choices. He argued that fallen man still has a free will (liberium arbitrium) but has lost his moral liberty (libertas). The state of original sin leaves us in the wretched condition of being unable to refrain from sinning. We still are able to choose what we desire, but our desires remain chained by our evil impulses. He argued that the freedom that remains in the will always leads to sin. Thus in the flesh we are free only to sin, a hollow freedom indeed. It is freedom without liberty, a real moral bondage. True liberty can only come from without, from the work of God on the soul. Therefore we are not only partly dependent upon grace for our conversion but totally dependent upon grace.

Modern Evangelicalism sprung from the Reformation whose roots were planted by Augustine. But today the Reformational and Augustinian view of grace is all but eclipsed in Evangelicalism. Where Luther triumphed in the sixteenth century, subsequent generations gave the nod to Erasmus.

Modern evangelicals repudiate unvarnished Pelagianism and frequently Semi-Pelagianism as well. It is insisted that grace is necessary for salvation and that man is fallen. The will is acknowledged to be severely weakened even to the point of being "99 percent" dependent upon grace for its liberation. But that one percent of unaffected moral ability or spiritual power which becomes the decisive difference between salvation and perdition is the link that preserves the chain to Pelagius. We have not broken free from the Pelagian captivity of the church.

That one percent is the "little something" Luther sought to demolish because it removes the sola from sola gratia and ultimately the sola from sola fide. The irony may be that though modern Evangelicalism loudly and repeatedly denounces Humanism as the mortal enemy of Christianity, it entertains a Humanistic view of man and of the will at its deepest core.

We need an Augustine or a Luther to speak to us anew lest the light of God’s grace be not only over-shadowed but be obliterated in our time.

R. C. Sproul is now the distinguished visiting professor of systematic theology and apologetics at Knox Theological Seminary.

Used by permission of Ligonier Ministries, copyright 1996. Review postings to a discussion forum on this article’s subject at Ligonier Ministries’ previous Web site location: http://www1.gospelcom.net/HyperNews/get/tt/ttsubrc-06-96.html.

English Grammar: Use of Conditional Expressions

Posted by Dan C. on

Here’s an example of a ‘conditional (hypothetical) expression:

“If I were to ‘feel’ judged by something said that was a general observation/comment that was not personally directed to, or specifically about me by name, “I have a problem”.

To those who have been schooled in the use of the English language, the above is known as a hypothetical, or conditional statement/expression. One purpose of such expressions is to facilitate objective and profitable dialogue. An additional benefit of using ‘hypothetials’ is to try and prevent discussion participants from ‘feeling bad’ because they think they have been personally accused of something or are being judged.

The statement at the top of this post was made in response to a comment implying that it was rude to say something that might cause another person to ‘feel’ judged, even if that something was not directed toward a specific individual. The “IF I” hypothetical was intentionally inserted to express exactly how I would feel about myself under a certain ‘condition’. so that there would be no possibility of my having been judgmental of anyone other than me.

Sad to say, my use of the ‘conditional’ was not received well. Either it was not understood, or the intended receiver of my comment thought I was being intentionally sarcastic. Perhaps both. Anyway, I see only a few options from this point in time

1. Continue trying to explain the use of ‘conditional’ expressions.

2. Express myself using monosyllabic words/terms that are more easily understood. (Kind of a ‘read my lips’ thing. Whoops….do I smell real sarcasm?)

3. Refrain from saying anything that could even remotely result in someone ‘feeling’ judged.

4. Shake the dust off my shoes and move on down the road.

Any suggestions out there?

Eisegesis Unplugged – 1 Thessalonians 5:21

Posted by Dan C. on

Exegesis and eisegesis are two conflicting approaches in Bible study. Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text.

The opposite approach to Scripture is eisegesis, which is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants.

Obviously, only exegesis does justice to the text. Eisegesis is a mishandling of the text and often leads to a misinterpretation. Exegesis is concerned with discovering the true meaning of the text, respecting its grammar, syntax, and setting. Eisegesis is concerned only with making a point, even at the expense of the meaning of words.

The Passage

“test everything; hold fast what is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21 )

In recent weeks, in a ‘bologospheric’ encounter concerning a current issue in the church, I was told that the above passage authorizes, if not commands believers to examine everything going on in the church and expose all of the ‘dirt’ we find using whatever means we have, including the blogosphere.

While the ‘current issue’ being discussed is very real and the need for justice great, it’s not the issue of this little article, nor will it be named. Rather, we need to find out exactly what the above passage really says about testing/proving things. For that, we need to look at the context.

First of all, our ‘out of context’ passage is part of a larger thought beginning in verse 20:

20 Do not despise prophecies, 21 but test everything (prove all things-KJV); hold fast what is good.” (ESV)

Sometimes the chapter and verse numbers men inserted into the text(s) hinder the best understanding of passages in the Bible. This might be one of those times. If we take out the verse numbers, we are left with:

“Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good.”

Note that we are talking specifically about ‘prophecies’ (and not to despise them), then told to test ‘everything’. To what does ‘everything’ refer?

From a couple of good commentaries concerning ‘prophecies’:

“…the prophecies of the Old Testament concerning the first coming of Christ, concerning his person, office, and work, his obedience, sufferings, and death, his resurrection from the dead, ascension and session at God’s right hand…there are many prophecies which regard things to be done, and yet to be done under the Gospel dispensation, …also the predictions of Christ concerning his own sufferings and death, and resurrection from the dead,… the prophecies of private men, such as Agabus, and others, in the apostle’s time… the explanation of Scripture, and the preaching of the word”[i]

“…whether exercised in inspired teaching, or in predicting the future. “Despised” by some as beneath “tongues,” which seemed most miraculous…”[ii]

The above interpretations are just a few of the many similar commentary notes concerning our passage that clearly limit ‘prophesies’ to biblical topics and spiritual matters. Therefore , the ‘everything’ following the ‘but’ is contextually limited to biblical topics and spiritual matters.

But what if we remove the ‘but’? Would that change the interpretation of ‘everything’?

We offer that it probably doesn’t change the intended meaning, and here’s why. The letter was written by Paul to believers in the Thessalonian church, sometime after he and Silas had spent some time there, in order to encourage them to spiritual growth/sanctification, address some eschatological issues, and how to properly respond to ‘prophesies’.

Also, if we look at the post-resurrection NT letters and writings for other examples of ‘testing’/’proving’ things, they seem to always concern biblically discerning the truthfulness and trustworthiness of what we are being taught by spiritual leaders. Perhaps the best example is the account of Berean believers examining the teachings of the Apostle Paul under the light of Scripture that was available to them (See Acts 17). A secondary purpose of examining what we are being taught is being able to identify wolves hanging out in the sheep pens.

Conclusion

Whatever ‘test everything’ means, it is NOT a directive to believers to air the ‘dirty laundry of the church’ in the public square. Our chief role in the public square is to present the crucified and resurrected Christ as the atoning sacrifice for the sins of men. As for ‘doing our laundry’, we have sufficient guidance for that also within the pages of Scripture. That however, is a discussion all its own.

[i] John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible Commentary

[ii] Commentary, Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, Jamison, Fausset and Brown

No Compromise

Posted by Dan C. on

There are a couple of great conversations located at No Compromise Radio (http://www.nocompromiseradio.com/no-co-ever/ ). The participants are Phil Johnson, Dr. James White, Dr. Carl Trueman, and the host, Pastor Mike Abendroth. The topics discussed revolve around compromises being made in today’s evangelical church.

On the Behavior of Believers

Posted by Dan C. on

How is it that Christians should behave/respond in various situations in which we find ourselves?

If you answer “Depends of the situation” you would be absolutely correct. It is also extremely advantageous and profitable for us that we have’s ‘book of standards’ that helps us along the way – our Bibles.

The question that follows is this: “What about those situations for which there is no specific command, or answer that is ‘caveman’ plain to guide our behavior?

Well, I’m glad you asked that question! I am happy to announce that we are even given guidance for the tough situations! Consider the following:

First, we have the very first teaching point found in the Westminster Shorter Catechism that, while not specific to any particular situation, asks and answers one of the greatest questions known to all men everywhere, in every language, tribe, and nation, across all time.

Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, [a] and to enjoy him for ever. [b]

     [a]. Ps. 86:9; Isa. 60:21; Rom. 11:36; I Cor. 6:20; 10:31; Rev. 4:11

     [b]. Ps. 16:5-11; 144:15; Isa. 12:2; Luke 2:10; Phil. 4:4; Rev. 21:3-4

I invite you to consider both the Q&A and the scriptural support. After doing that you think it’s a wrong answer, contact me.

Then we have at least one preacher (there have been many more) that took the first premise (man’s chief end) to an even broader conclusion:

“Christianity says, “the end of all being is the glory of God.”  Humanism says, “the end of all being is the happiness of men.” And one was born in hell – the deification of man. And one was born in heaven – the glorification of God.” – From a 1964 sermon by Paris Reidhead “Ten Shekels and a Shirt”

If you are still not convinced we have a passage from the Apostle Paul to the believers in Thessalonica that closes any loopholes we think we may have uncovered from the words of mere men:

31 So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God.. – 1 Cor 10:31-32

The context of that passage had to do with idol feasts and partaking of the Lord’s Supper, and the ‘whatever you do’ is the loophole closer, and an airtight one at that.

“Whatever you do, do ALL to the glory of God.”

When we are unsure of how to behave or how to respond to situations around us, we can always ask ourselves “Does this behavior/response Glorify God?”

Another question we might ask is: “How does my behavior/response help or hinder the proclamation of the Gospel to a lost and dying world?”

Bear in mind that those who are still in bondage to their sin are by nature rebels and enemies of God, looking for any excuse whatsoever to continue running from the God they know exists. Poor Christian behavior in the marketplace/public square by a professing believer will always provide a reason to keep running away from God (suppress the truth –[See Rom 1]). Non-believers, although they excuse certain behavior of other non-believers at times, have an uncanny knack for knowing how we ought to behave and calling us on it, all the while putting the ‘pedal to the metal’ in their flight from the truth that can save them from Hell and a Christless eternity.

There you have it. A bit of behavioral guidance for professing believers. How do we apply that guidance to our daily lives? Simple. Just ask yourself a couple of questions and let the answer guide your behavior.

______________________

Food for thought on a Sunday afternoon.

A bit of wisdom in a difficult situation. . .

Posted by Dan C. on

The following article was written by Tim Challies, an outsider to the issues surrounding Sovereign Grace Ministries. At least one ‘Christian’ blogger has thrown the author under the bus, where C.J. Mahaney has been has already been tossed, along with anyone any everyone who has not already pronounced judgment, by many who claim to be doing God’s work of ‘discernment’.  We are talking about professing believers passing judgment here, Anyway, I think it is a well written article from an ‘outsider’ – at least it expresses my own thoughts about the situation.

Thinking Biblically About C.J. Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries

by Tim Challies

These have been troubling days for C.J. Mahaney and everyone associated with Sovereign Grace Ministries. Once a thriving and growing group of churches, SGM has recently seen many of its key churches and leaders disassociate themselves, including the flagship Covenant Life Church under the leadership of Joshua Harris. This turbulence has followed allegations that C.J. Mahaney has proven to be unqualified as a leader, having damaged many important relationships through pride, judgmentalism and deceit. These charges forced a leave of absence, decisions about church governance, discussions about the jurisdiction of denominational leaders, and so much more. As churches have separated, friendships have been disrupted and long-time working relationships severed. In the midst of all of this, SGM’s ministry headquarters relocated from Gaithersburg, Maryland to Louisville, Kentucky, where C.J. has planted Sovereign Grace Church of Louisville.

More recently, the ministry has faced allegations that many years ago there was significant sexual abuse within Covenant Life Church and its associated school. Though none of the current SGM leaders have been implicated in this abuse, a lawsuit that will soon go before the courts alleges that they responded unwisely when it was reported to them and that they failed to take sufficient action on behalf of victims. National media outlets have taken up the story. SGM has sought dismissal of the suit on the basis of the First Amendment and on the basis of unclear allegations.

Today I want to explore how we can think about all of this in what I hope is a distinctly Christian way. Some have heard bits of information through blogs or word of mouth. Some have read stories in the Christian or mainstream media. Most of us struggle to think well and wisely about it. I have no more information than you do, so will be relying on what has already been made public through media new and old.

Before I begin, it may be useful for me to explain the nature of my relationship with C.J. Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries, though there is actually very little to explain. I recall meeting Mahaney only one time and for no more than two or three minutes. To my knowledge we have never corresponded by email or any other media. He and I have never shared a speaking platform and I have never spoken at a SGM event (though I did liveblog a couple of them several years ago). All this to say that I write as an outside observer rather than as a personal friend and write this article primarily for the benefit of other outside observers.

Now, let me share how I have been thinking about it.

There Are Implications

Obviously the situation carries far-reaching implications for Mahaney and for SGM. But there are implications for you and me as well. The Bible is clear that a distinguishing characteristic of Christians is to be our love for one another. John 13:35 says it plainly: "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." Love for other Christians is the great test of our commitment to Christ and our likeness to him. This love is put to the test in a unique way in the midst of trouble and disagreement.

This situation is unfolding before a watching world that loves nothing more than to see Christians in disunity, accusing one another, fighting one another, making a mockery of the gospel that brings peace. You and I are responsible to do well here, to be above reproach in our thoughts, words and actions. We are responsible to be marked by love whether evaluating a difficult situation or taking appropriate action. We can make the gospel look great or we can make it look insignificant.

Believe and Hope All Things

The great theme of the Bible is God’s unfailing love. In 1 Corinthians 13 Paul explains some of the implications of this love, saying that it "believes all things, hopes all things and endures all things" (v7). This is not a call to be naive or to deny the obvious, but an instruction to maintain a hopeful attitude toward others, even, and perhaps especially, those who have been accused. The Christian’s attitude toward others, especially in difficult times, is to be one of optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than doubt. We, of all people, should be slow to put aside hope and belief. This means that I owe it to C.J. Mahaney, to SGM and to those who have levelled allegations to believe the best about them, to hope all things for them.

As it pertains to the sexual abuse lawsuit I do not take this to mean that I necessarily presume innocence until guilt is proven (since, after all, there are professed Christians as both accusers and defenders) but rather that I am to do my best to withhold judgment until the God-ordained civil authorities have been able to do their work. It is for them to evaluate the case and to pass judgment, it is for me to withhold judgment until that time, especially so since these are, by their very nature, allegations and not yet proven facts.

As it pertains to the other charges and to the rift between SGM and the former SGM churches, I am also being deliberate to hold back judgment, believing that both the SGM leadership and those who are leaving are doing what they believe is right before the Lord. This sinful world is such that this happens, that believers, churches and associations of churches are at times driven away from one another. Even Paul and Barnabas had to go their separate ways for a time. Sometimes this happens when a deliberately divisive person disrupts unity; other times it happens when Christians can no longer agree. It is always sad but also a fact of life in a sinful world where we are all opposed by an enemy who is bent on our destruction. Because I am not a part of SGM I am not forced to take a side and, therefore, will not.

The One Who States His Case First

I have been careful to keep in mind Proverbs 18:17 which says, "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him." It is so simple, but so consistently and demonstrably true. There are always two sides to a disagreement and often one side chooses to speak loudly and boldly and the other to remain silent. This is particularly true when one side is acting on the counsel of legal advisors who will almost always insist upon withholding evidence until formal legal proceedings have begun. We tend to believe that the side that is slow or hesitant to release information must be in the wrong, that their silence is an admission of guilt. Keep in mind, though, that Jesus did not protest his innocence and that people took this as a sign of his guilt, though he, of all men, was completely innocent.

If I am going to believe and hope all things, if I am going to be slow to pass judgment, then I also need to understand that neither side has publicized all of the facts. These things may be known in time and I do well to wait for that time if it comes.

Consider What I Need to Know

This is an issue of greater urgency to some than others. The way each of us thinks through it will depend on the extent to which we are stakeholders, to our relational proximity to those involved and even geographic proximity. If you are a member at a SGM church this issue is very urgent, and particularly so if your church is considering withdrawing from the association. However, the majority of us are far on the outside with very little at stake. For this reason many of us simply do not need to have an opinion.

The farther we are from being stakeholders, the less the likelihood that we are equipped to helpfully evaluate the facts and that we can do anything helpful with the information we learn. The farther we are from being close to those involved, the greater the likelihood that we are drawn more to the scandal of it all than any noble purpose. Not all knowledge builds us up; not all knowledge helps us; not all knowledge helps us love God and love one another in deeper ways. The fact that today’s media allows us to have access to facts, does not necessarily give license to avail ourselves of them.

If it is true that I am called to love other Christians, that I am called to believe and hope all things, that I am far outside this situation, then I think I do well to learn less rather than more. I need to know only enough to understand that I don’t need to know anything more! For example, when the leaders of a church call a members’ meeting knowing that there may be someone there transcribing the meeting with a view to making it public, and when that church’s pastor specifically asks outsiders not to read the meeting’s proceedings, I, as an outside observer, do well to honor that request as a show of love and respect to a brother in Christ. When thousands of pages of documentation appear on web sites, I do not benefit from reading and studying every word.

For this reason I have deliberately avoided learning too much. I have had to question my motives, especially since I have repeatedly been on the receiving end of scathing criticism for not using my platform to speak out against Mahaney. I have chosen to read the news stories, to understand the basic facts, but conscience compels me to stop there. To do more may not be spiritually beneficial, it may not reflect good time management, and it may not be loving toward those who are involved.

Conclusion

In a situation as difficult as this one, especially in a situation as difficult as this one, the Lord calls me, he calls each of his people, to pursue peace and love and unity. I take this as a call to consider carefully what information I learn, to keep in mind that none of us has access to all of the facts, that I am to believe and hope all things of every believer, and that there are important and wide-reaching implications for each one of us.

Kentucky High School Graduates Ignore Objections, Pray at Ceremony

Posted by Dan C. on

A Kentucky high school continued its tradition of having a student lead a prayer during graduation ceremonies, despite objections by at least six students, Fox News reports. Jonathan Hardwick, class of 2013 president at Lincoln County High School in Stanford, was given a standing ovation after he delivered a prayer during Friday’s commencement. A video of Hardwick’s prayer quickly hit social media, with most online comments supporting his decision. "Thank you for helping us get here safely today, Lord, and thank you for the many blessings you have given us," Hardwick said as part of the prayer. Lincoln High principal Tim Godbey acknowledged that six students — including at least one atheist — had asked him not to allow a student-led prayer at the ceremony. Godbey, who is Christian, said under separation of church and state laws, faculty members have never been able to pray publicly on school grounds or during school-sponsored events, but he noted that the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit students from praying as long as they are not disrupted. Ricky Smith, an atheist who has been lobbying for a "moment of silence" to replace prayer during government meetings in the area, said he intended to notify the American Civil Liberties Union and the Freedom From Religion Foundation about Lincoln’s public prayer, which he feels violated the civil rights of students who are not Christians. (Online Source)

While I heartily commend those who take a positive stance for prayer, I think there are several common threads in these situations:

1. The false interpretation of ‘church/state separation’ is always a factor. It was about the state establishing a state religion such as was in England.

2. The protesters’ objections aren’t, at the deepest level, about prayer. They have ‘God’ issues. No one’s civil rights are really violated when there are public expressions of faith, any more than the civil rights of believers are violated when the world around them slanders and blasphemes their God.

3. Freedom ‘from’ religion cannot be obtained via institutions of men. We are all ‘religious’ by nature (Romans 1). The best that can be obtained is ‘outside’ reminders being removed from the minds of those who suppress truth they inherently know.

4. Christians can be a bit over the top in their ‘celebrations’ , whether it’s thunderous applause for the one who actually prayed in public (as in the video clip), or viral social media ‘idolizing’ the individual who prayed. It might be better to  just humbly added an ‘Amen!’ to the prayer instead of displaying the ‘us v. them’ aspects of the issue.

_____________________

Food for thought on a Friday morning.