All of Repentance

"Repentance is not just turning from sin. It's also turning towards Christ."

Ray Ortlund

What is my motive?

"As I seek to do this, I need to remind myself constantly that this is not a game I am playing. If I begin to enjoy it as a kind of intellectual exercise, then I am cruel and can expect no real spiritual results. As I push the man off his false balance, he must be able to feel that I care for him, and the cruelty and ugliness of it all will destroy me as well. Merely to be abstract and cold is to show that I don not really believe this person to be created in God's image and therefore one of my kind. Pushing him towards the logic of his presuppositions is gong to cause him pain: therefore, I must not push any further than I need to."

Francis Schaeffer
Found in Questioning Evangelism, p.120

Missing the Mark?

"...It doesn't help that some Christians have tried to illustrate sin as an archery term.

'Sin is simply missing the mark,' they say. 'The same Greek word for sin is used as anarchery term, so we're all just 'target-missers.''

Well the same Greek word might be used, but the two concepts couldn't be further apart. When the Bible describes the nature of our rebellion against God, it paints an uglier picture than our simply missing a bull's eye (see Rom 3:10-18). Rather than aiming carefully at God's target, we turn our backs and shoot arrows everywhere else. Wanting to please ourselves, we ignore the true bull's eye and set our affections on seductive targets that cannot satisfy, sanctify, or save. We are not primarily target-missers; we are self-centered false-target worshippers..."

Randy Newman
Questioning Evangelism, p. 81

Carson on the Outpouring of the Holy Spirit

In short, I see biblical support for the thesis that although all true believers have received the Holy Spirit and have been baptized in the Holy Spirit, nevertheless the Holy Spirit is not necessarily poured out on each individual Christian in precisely equivalent quantities (if I may use the language of quantity inherent in the metaphor of “filling”). How else can we explain the peculiar unction that characterizes the service of some relatively unprepossessing ministers?

Although I find no biblical support for a second-blessing theology, I do find support for a second-, third-, fourth-, or fifth-blessing theology.

Although I find no charisma biblically established as the criterion of a second enduement of the Spirit, I do find that there are degrees of unction, blessing, service, and holy joy, along with some more currently celebrated gifts, associated with those whose hearts have been specially touched by the sovereign God.

Although I think it extremely dangerous to pursue a second blessing attested by tongues, I think it no less dangerous not to pant after God at all, and to be satisfied with a merely creedal Christianity that is kosher but complacent, orthodox but ossified, sound but soundly asleep.

D.A. Carson

Showing the Spirit, 160.

The Way

Some also have wished that the next way to their Father's house were here that they might be troubled no more with either Hills or Mountains to go over; but the way is the way and there's an end.

-John Bunyan

Contempt is a well-recognized defensive reaction.

-I.A. Richards

Ignorant Teachers

Alas, what can hey teach and not mislead,
Ignorant of themselves, of God much more,
And how the world began, and man fell.

John Milton

Reason Versus Rationalism

Lady Reason talks with John

...

"They could not have, for their sciences are not concerned at all with the general relations of this country to anything that may lie East of it or West of it. The indeed will tell you that their researches have proved that if two things are similar, the fair one is always the copy of the foul one. But their only reason to say so is that they have already decided that the fairest things of all--that is the Landlord, and, if you like, the mountains and the Island--are a mere copy of this country. They pretend that their researches lead to that doctrine:but in fact they assume that doctrine first and interpret their researches by it."

"But they have reasons for assuming it."

"They have none, for they have ceased to listen to the only people who can tell them anything about it."

"Who are they?"

"They are younger sisters of mine, and their names are Philosophy and Theology."

C.S.Lewis
Pilgrim's Regress
Book Four, Chapter II: Archtype and Ectype (p.49)

There are plenty of lessons. Be careful what, and whom, you love. Good
beginnings do not guarantee good endings. Heed the warnings of God while
there is time; if you don’t, you will eventually become so hardened that even his
most dire threats will leave you unmoved. At the canonical level, even the most
blessed, protected, and endowed dynasty, chosen from within the Lord’s chosen
people, is announcing its end: it will fall apart. Oh, how we need a Savior, a king
from heaven!

D.A. Carson
For the Love of God, Volume I
October 8th devotion, commentary on I Kings 11

For a man solemnly to undertake the interpretation of any portion of Scripture without invocation of God, to be taught and instructed by his Spirit, is a high provocation of him; nor shall I expect the discovery of truth from any one who thus proudly engages in a work so much above his ability.

-John Owen

Pharoah to be Slain

In the eleventh year, in the third month, on the first day of the month, the word of the LORD came to me: “Son of man, say to Pharaoh king of Egypt and to his multitude:
“Whom are you like in your greatness?
Behold, Assyria was a cedar in Lebanon,
with beautiful branches and forest shade,
and of towering height,
its top among the clouds.
The waters nourished it;
the deep made it grow tall,
making its rivers flow
around the place of its planting,
sending forth its streams
to all the trees of the field.
So it towered high
above all the trees of the field;
its boughs grew large
and its branches long
from abundant water in its shoots.
All the birds of the heavens
made their nests in its boughs;
under its branches all the beasts of the field
gave birth to their young,
and under its shadow
lived all great nations.
It was beautiful in its greatness,
in the length of its branches;
for its roots went down
to abundant waters.
The cedars in the garden of God could not rival it,
nor the fir trees equal its boughs;
neither were the plane trees
like its branches;
no tree in the garden of God
was its equal in beauty.
I made it beautiful
in the mass of its branches,
and all the trees of Eden envied it,
that were in the garden of God.
“Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: Because it towered high and set its top among the clouds, and its heart was proud of its height, I will give it into the hand of a mighty one of the nations. He shall surely deal with it as its wickedness deserves. I have cast it out. Foreigners, the most ruthless of nations, have cut it down and left it. On the mountains and in all the valleys its branches have fallen, and its boughs have been broken in all the ravines of the land, and all the peoples of the earth have gone away from its shadow and left it. On its fallen trunk dwell all the birds of the heavens, and on its branches are all the beasts of the field. All this is in order that no trees by the waters may grow to towering height or set their tops among the clouds, and that no trees that drink water may reach up to them in height. For they are all given over to death, to the world below, among the children of man, with those who go down to the pit.
“Thus says the Lord GOD: On the day the cedar went down to Sheol I caused mourning; I closed the deep over it, and restrained its rivers, and many waters were stopped. I clothed Lebanon in gloom for it, and all the trees of the field fainted because of it. I made the nations quake at the sound of its fall, when I cast it down to Sheol with those who go down to the pit. And all the trees of Eden, the choice and best of Lebanon, all that drink water, were comforted in the world below. They also went down to Sheol with it, to those who are slain by the sword; yes, those who were its arm, who lived under its shadow among the nations.
“Whom are you thus like in glory and in greatness among the trees of Eden? You shall be brought down with the trees of Eden to the world below. You shall lie among the uncircumcised, with those who are slain by the sword.
“This is Pharaoh and all his multitude, declares the Lord GOD.”

(Ezekiel 31 ESV)

“A most astonishing misconception has long dominated the modern mind on the subject of St. Paul.  It is to this effect: that Jesus preached a kindly and simple religion (found in the gospels) and that St. Paul afterwards corrupted it into a cruel and complicated religion (found in the epistles).  This is really quite untenable.  All the most terrifying texts came from the mouth of our Lord; all the texts on which we can base such warrant as we have for hoping that all men will be saved come from St. Paul.  If it could be proved that St. Paul altered the teaching of his Master in any way, he altered it in exactly the opposite way to that which is popularly supposed. . . .

The ordinary popular conception has put everything upside down.  Nor is the cause far to seek.  In the earlier history of every rebellion there is a stage at which you do not yet attack the King in person.  You say, ‘The King is all right.  It is his Ministers who are wrong.  They misrepresent him and corrupt all his plans — which, I’m sure, are good plans if only the Ministers would let them take effect.’  And the first victory consists in beheading a few Ministers; only at a later stage do you go on and behead the King himself.  In the same way, the nineteenth-century attack on St. Paul was really only a stage in the revolt against Christ.  Men were not ready in large numbers to attack Christ himself.  They made the normal first move — that of attacking one of his principal ministers. . . . St. Paul was impeached and banished and the world went on to the next step — the attack on the King himself.”

C. S. Lewis, in J. B. Phillips, Letters to Young Churches (London, 1955), pages ix-x.

Solomon's Prayer of Dedication

Then Solomon stood before the altar of the LORD in the presence of all the assembly of Israel and spread out his hands toward heaven, and said, “O LORD, God of Israel, there is no God like you, in heaven above or on earth beneath, keeping covenant and showing steadfast love to your servants who walk before you with all their heart; you have kept with your servant David my father what you declared to him. You spoke with your mouth, and with your hand have fulfilled it this day. Now therefore, O LORD, God of Israel, keep for your servant David my father what you have promised him, saying, ‘You shall not lack a man to sit before me on the throne of Israel, if only your sons pay close attention to their way, to walk before me as you have walked before me.’ Now therefore, O God of Israel, let your word be confirmed, which you have spoken to your servant David my father.
“But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built! Yet have regard to the prayer of your servant and to his plea, O LORD my God, listening to the cry and to the prayer that your servant prays before you this day, that your eyes may be open night and day toward this house, the place of which you have said, ‘My name shall be there,’ that you may listen to the prayer that your servant offers toward this place. And listen to the plea of your servant and of your people Israel, when they pray toward this place. And listen in heaven your dwelling place, and when you hear, forgive.
“If a man sins against his neighbor and is made to take an oath and comes and swears his oath before your altar in this house, then hear in heaven and act and judge your servants, condemning the guilty by bringing his conduct on his own head, and vindicating the righteous by rewarding him according to his righteousness.
“When your people Israel are defeated before the enemy because they have sinned against you, and if they turn again to you and acknowledge your name and pray and plead with you in this house, then hear in heaven and forgive the sin of your people Israel and bring them again to the land that you gave to their fathers.
“When heaven is shut up and there is no rain because they have sinned against you, if they pray toward this place and acknowledge your name and turn from their sin, when you afflict them, then hear in heaven and forgive the sin of your servants, your people Israel, when you teach them the good way in which they should walk, and grant rain upon your land, which you have given to your people as an inheritance.
“If there is famine in the land, if there is pestilence or blight or mildew or locust or caterpillar, if their enemy besieges them in the land at their gates, whatever plague, whatever sickness there is, whatever prayer, whatever plea is made by any man or by all your people Israel, each knowing the affliction of his own heart and stretching out his hands toward this house, then hear in heaven your dwelling place and forgive and act and render to each whose heart you know, according to all his ways (for you, you only, know the hearts of all the children of mankind), that they may fear you all the days that they live in the land that you gave to our fathers.
“Likewise, when a foreigner, who is not of your people Israel, comes from a far country for your name's sake (for they shall hear of your great name and your mighty hand, and of your outstretched arm), when he comes and prays toward this house, hear in heaven your dwelling place and do according to all for which the foreigner calls to you, in order that all the peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you, as do your people Israel, and that they may know that this house that I have built is called by your name.
“If your people go out to battle against their enemy, by whatever way you shall send them, and they pray to the LORD toward the city that you have chosen and the house that I have built for your name, then hear in heaven their prayer and their plea, and maintain their cause.
“If they sin against you—for there is no one who does not sin—and you are angry with them and give them to an enemy, so that they are carried away captive to the land of the enemy, far off or near, yet if they turn their heart in the land to which they have been carried captive, and repent and plead with you in the land of their captors, saying, ‘We have sinned and have acted perversely and wickedly,’ if they repent with all their mind and with all their heart in the land of their enemies, who carried them captive, and pray to you toward their land, which you gave to their fathers, the city that you have chosen, and the house that I have built for your name, then hear in heaven your dwelling place their prayer and their plea, and maintain their cause and forgive your people who have sinned against you, and all their transgressions that they have committed against you, and grant them compassion in the sight of those who carried them captive, that they may have compassion on them (for they are your people, and your heritage, which you brought out of Egypt, from the midst of the iron furnace). Let your eyes be open to the plea of your servant and to the plea of your people Israel, giving ear to them whenever they call to you. For you separated them from among all the peoples of the earth to be your heritage, as you declared through Moses your servant, when you brought our fathers out of Egypt, O Lord GOD.”
Now as Solomon finished offering all this prayer and plea to the LORD, he arose from before the altar of the LORD, where he had knelt with hands outstretched toward heaven. And he stood and blessed all the assembly of Israel with a loud voice, saying, “Blessed be the LORD who has given rest to his people Israel, according to all that he promised. Not one word has failed of all his good promise, which he spoke by Moses his servant. The LORD our God be with us, as he was with our fathers. May he not leave us or forsake us, that he may incline our hearts to him, to walk in all his ways and to keep his commandments, his statutes, and his rules, which he commanded our fathers. Let these words of mine, with which I have pleaded before the LORD, be near to the LORD our God day and night, and may he maintain the cause of his servant and the cause of his people Israel, as each day requires, that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God; there is no other. Let your heart therefore be wholly true to the LORD our God, walking in his statutes and keeping his commandments, as at this day.”
Then the king, and all Israel with him, offered sacrifice before the LORD. Solomon offered as peace offerings to the LORD 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep. So the king and all the people of Israel dedicated the house of the LORD. The same day the king consecrated the middle of the court that was before the house of the LORD, for there he offered the burnt offering and the grain offering and the fat pieces of the peace offerings, because the bronze altar that was before the LORD was too small to receive the burnt offering and the grain offering and the fat pieces of the peace offerings.
So Solomon held the feast at that time, and all Israel with him, a great assembly, from Lebo-hamath to the Brook of Egypt, before the LORD our God, seven days. On the eighth day he sent the people away, and they blessed the king and went to their homes joyful and glad of heart for all the goodness that the LORD had shown to David his servant and to Israel his people.

(1 Kings 8:22-66 ESV)

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus...

"The point Paul is making, then, is that we have been called not only to enjoy the comforts of the gospel but also to pass them on. If you have received personal benefit from the gospel at the hands of other believers, then maintain the tradition: treat others in such a way that they too will receive benefit. After all, we profess to trust and follow one whose entire mission was characterized by self-denial: in obedience to his heavenly Father he gave and gave and gave. Your attitude, writes Paul, should be the same as his: give and give and give.

Do we not sometimes say as much to our young people? They go through self-conscious phases in which they think that everyone is staring at them and that no one likes them. They fall into a pattern of self-pity in this regard, sooner or later we say to them, "Look, stop your whining. To whom have you shown yourself a friend? Those who would have friends must show themselves friendly. Have you looked around your classroom and found the students who are loneliest, most commonly rejected, alone, and tried to befriend them? Why not? Why do you think everyone should be friendly to you when you make no effort to befriend others?"

Of course, all such arguments (as useful as they are) are narrowly pragmatic. Paul's argument is far stronger. We owe love and encouragement to others because we have received so much. Above all, we owe this kind of character and stance to others because we profess to follow Christ Jesus, and that, supremely,  is his character and stance. It is always deeply disturbing to find some professed Christians, members of the church, who think only of what they get. What a pathetically Christ-denying attitude! Give and give and give. We are called not only to enjoy the comforts of the gospel but also to pass them on."

D.A. Carson

Basics for Believers

p 60-61

"...But you and I must be clear. There is but one good; that is God. Everything else is good when it looks to Him and bad when it turns from Him. And the higher and mightier it is in the natural order, the more demoniac it will be if it rebels. It's not out of bad mice or bad fleas you make demons, but out of bad archangels. The false religion of lust is baser than the false religion of mother-love or patriotism or art: but lust is less likely to be made into a religion."

C.S. Lewis
The Great Divorce
Chapter 11 - a discussion on the "natural" holiness of some affections.

"...You cannot take all luggage on all journeys; on one journey even your right hand and your right eye may be among the things you have to leave behind."


C.S. Lewis
The Great Divorce

It should be noted that the exhortations on the New Testament call us to conformity with Christ, not with the law of Moses. It is striking that the Ten Commandments are not set forth as the standard of Christian conduct. This is a vexed topic, about which there is much difference of opinion. Perhaps there is a way to recognize a distinction between God's lawful rule of his kingdom and the law of Sinai. The latter was a temporary expression sited to that period of revelation. Since Christ has come, we are no longer under that expression kingdom rule because Christ is the perfect revelation of it (Rom 6:14; Gal 3:21-25). In the light of Christ we see that some aspects of the Sinai law have enduring validity yet we are free from the total rule of the law.

Graeme Goldworth
According to Plan, p. 222

Lewis on Compassion and Emotional Blackmail

'Son, son, it must be one way or the other. Either the day must come when joy prevails and all the makers of misery are no longer able to infect it: or else for ever and ever the makers of misery can destroy in others the happiness they reject for themselves. I know it has a grand sound to say ye'll accept no salvation which leaves even on creature in the dark outside. But watch that sophistry or ye'll make a Dog in a Manger the tyrant of the universe.'

'But dare one say--it is horrible to say--that Pity must ever die?'

'Ye must distinguish. The action of Pity will live for ever: but the passion of Pity will not. The passion of Pity, the Pity we merely suffer, the ache that draws men to concede what should not be conceded and to flatter when they should speak truth, the pity that has cheated many a woman out of her virginity and many a statesman out of his honesty--that will die. It was used as a weapon by bad men against good ones: their weapon will be broken.'

'And what is the other kind -- the action?'

'It's a weapon on the other side. It leaps quicker than light from the highest place to the lowest to bring healing and joy, whatever the cost to itself. It changes darkness into light and evil into good. But it will not, at the cunning tears of Hell, impose on good the tyranny of evil. Every disease that submits to a cure shall be cured:  but we will not call blue yellow to please those who insist on still having jaundice, nor make a midden of the world's garden for the sake of some who cannot abide the smell of roses.'

C.S. Lewis
The Great Divorce
Chapter 13

What does the Bible say about income inequality

http://blog.tifwe.org/what-does-the-bible-say-about-income-inequality/

Income inequality, as we have been discussing, is a fact of economic life. People are born with different gifts, they choose to pursue them differently, and they value those gifts differently. As such, our gifts carry unequal earthly rewards, one of which is in the form of income. The market is an earthly construct which can dole out only earthly rewards.

The looming question is whether this economic reality is necessarily unbiblical. To best understand this, we need to go to scripture on two fundamental points: the distribution of gifts and abilities; and examples of God’s earthly rewards for stewardship within the context of market exchange. We’ll discuss the first today.

...

All of this comes down to the fact that each individual is born with unique skills and abilities. Our work on earth, pursued with a true understanding of how God has called us to use those gifts—our purpose—can further His Kingdom

...

It’s not just what we are endowed with, it’s how we use what we have been given. What we are given refers to abilities, gifts and talents. As we are all created in God’s image, we are all given different degrees, types and combinations of talents.

Piper, Carson and Keller Discuss the Fight with Pornography

http://www.appletonalliance.org/blog/comments/beating_porn_part_3

A Happy Baptist, Happy to Welcome Others: Strengthening Church Membership Without Watering Down Immersion

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/03/06/a-happy-baptist-happy-to-welcome-others/

Original Sin and Parks and Recreation

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/03/07/original-sin-and-parks-and-recreation/

In a recent episode of Parks and Recreation, Tom Haverford (Aziz Ansari) offers to manage Leslie Knope's (Amy Poehler) meeting with local businessmen to help revitalize her fledgling campaign for city council. Tom rents out a warehouse and invites business leaders from Pawnee to attend the event. Rather than using the event to promote Leslie, however, Tom uses it to promote his business, Entertainment 7Twenty. Tom decorates his room with images of himself and his company logo and interrupts Leslie during her address to show a short promotional video and call in the 7Twenty girls to collect the names and addresses of each company's contacts. Despite telling Leslie before the event, "I want you on message and the message is Leslie Knope," Tom cannot help talking about himself. "I talk about myself constantly," he admits to Leslie earlier in the episode, "and people love me for it." Yes, well.

While Tom has a particular penchant for self-aggrandizement, all of the characters in Parks and Recreation exhibit flaws that lead to some form of self-destruction or harm of others. Leslie Knope possesses a self-centered drive for success that often disregards the feelings of others---particularly her best friend, Ann Perkins, and her boss, Ben Wyatt. Leslie's boss, Ron Swanson, is unmanned by his lust for his ex-wife Tammy. Chris Traeger, Pawnee's city manager, worships his body and good health, subtly dehumanizing both himself and others. All of them reflect, in other words, the goodness of humanity perverted by original sin.

In The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine notes that Adam's original sin was that of pride. He possessed, Augustine suggests, "a certain self-aggrandizement," an "unjustified" and "presumptuous opinion of himself." From Adam, Augustine argues in Answer to Julian, we inherit a natural inclination for evil. For Augustine, this inclination is located in our bodies, and it brings a division between our "souls," where the faculty of reason is housed, and our bodies. Calvin argues that Adam's original sin affects both our souls and bodies, both our reason and our natural desires for food and sex. In his Institutes, Calvin writes, "the whole man is in himself nothing but concupiscence."

Important but often misunderstood, the doctrine of original does not state that human beings are composed only of evil. It states, rather, that sins touches our entire nature, and self-centeredness regularly spoils the good we are capable of doing.

Totally Depraved, But Not Entirely Deplorable

The reality of our fallen goodness is captured wonderfully in Parks and Recreation. None of the characters is entirely deplorable. In fact, they are often likeable and variously exhibit moments of true charity, right reasoning, honorable perseverance, and self-sacrifice, though divorced from the only truly good end---the glorification of God. Ron Swanson, for example, takes a particular interest in the dim-witted but lovable Andy Dwyer. In "The Smallest Park," Andy wants to take a course at the local college but cannot afford the tuition. Ron offers to pay for the class, not because Andy wants to progress towards a degree but because he wants to learn for the sake of learning. Yet even this soft side of Ron is somewhat more complicated than it sometimes initially appears. In "Meet 'n Greet," Ron repairs an exposed wire in the shower of Andy and his wife, April, during the couple's Halloween party. He moves on to repair the sink, the wiring, and other problems in the house. Why? Not so much because it helps Andy and April but because such repairs produce, in his words, "a good feeling, a sense of accomplishment and pride."

Moreover, this "division" that Augustine discusses in The Literal Meaning of Genesis is evident in the various video "confessionals" used in the show and common in "mockumentaries." Having characters speak directly into the camera is an easy way, no doubt, to provide depth to characters and increase a sense of verisimilitude, but it is also used by the directors (like the chorus was used in ancient Greek tragedy) to reveal the motives, hopes, and rationalizations of the characters. Leslie Knope's inability to accept that she bulldozes others as she single-mindedly pursues a particular project is regularly revealed in her attempt to rationalize her actions in the video confessionals. In the confessional Ann Perkins shows her unexpected infatuation with Chris, and here, too, Tom regularly deludes himself.

One might ask whether sitcoms celebrate rather than simply identify the concupiscence we all share. Some no doubt do, but even with these, the laughter they produce is, at the very least, a recognition of the essential disorder---absurdity, even---of human sinfulness. Others, like Parks and Recreation, treat the consequences of the characters' foolishness with a measure of seriousness, often acknowledging the need to somehow deal with it.

In the episode, "The Comeback Kid," for example, Ben, depressed following his resignation from the parks department, spends his days making a claymation video. Chris recognizes his self-loathing and confronts him: "What you are feeling right now is regret and shame, but we are going to get through this." In fact, most of the episodes end with some acknowledgment of failure on behalf of one or more of the characters and a commitment (though sometimes half-hearted) to reform in some way.

A secular religiosity of willpower and hard work is not a very satisfying answer. Yet this tacit acknowledgement that something must be done in response to our sinful folly is no less true for its misguided answer.

Micah Mattix is an assistant professor of literature at Houston Baptist University.

Sexual Sin in the Ministry

http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/sexual-sin-in-the-ministry

For the last twenty years thousands of men from across America struggling with sexual sin have come to our intensive counseling workshop. Over half were pastors and missionaries.

I wish our experience was unique.

Several years ago a seminary professor told me: “We no longer ask our entering students if they are struggling with pornography, we assume every student is struggling. The question we ask: ‘How serious is the struggle?’”

One missions agency told me that 80% of their applicants voluntarily indicate a struggle with pornography, resulting in staff shortages on the field.

Pornography is just one level of sin, a form of visual sex, or heart adultery. Physical adultery includes an affair, multiple affairs, prostitution, and homosexuality. Other sexual behaviors within the ministry are such heinous “unfruitful works of darkness . . . it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret” (Ephesians 5:11–12). To face the crisis we must correctly understand the nature of the problem, ask God to search our own hearts, and be committed to restore each one caught in sexual sin “in a spirit of gentleness” (Galatians 6:1).

I have pondered long and hard two questions: Why do people repeatedly return to sexual sin and why do people turn away from sexual sin?

Lured Toward Sin

First, I would say that after two decades of helping set free those held captive by sexual sin, I’m convinced that the concept of sexual addiction as a disease does not fully identify the seriousness of the problem. If we are going to get serious about the problem in the church we can ill afford to be misled in our thinking. The real problem is hidden deep within. The least bit of lust is an indication of vast corruption in the human heart. It is an enslavement that cannot be broken through any form of behavior management, recovery program, or counseling. The inside is so ravaged by sin that we can do nothing to change it.

When one is held in the grip of sexual sin, there is no hope of self-reform or self-efforts, for those living according to the “passions of their flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and mind” (Ephesians 2:3). To put it bluntly, those living in habitual sexual sin are “dead in their trespasses and sin” (verse 1). Dead, in a loss of spiritual life. Dead to finding satisfaction with God. Dead to living for his purpose. Holiness is dead. Wisdom is dead. Purity is dead. Love is dead. Like David, the sexual sinner has sinned “against the Lord” (2 Samuel 12:13), and in so doing has “utterly scorned the Lord” (verse 14). The horrible fact is they are “by nature children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3).

I believe addictionology plays down the seriousness of sin and the necessity of the work of God when it encourages the sexual addict to accept the theory that recovery will only be successful when they begin to believe that they are a good person at the core and just have a disease.

Diagnoses always determine the method of treatment. So ‘good’ people only need to get serious, follow the steps of recovery, and remain in recovery. The opposite is true. When dealing with sexual sin we must hold fast to the teaching of Jesus Christ, “For from within, out of the heart, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, . . . adultery” (Mark 7:21).

By nature and by choice we satisfy ourselves, rebel against God, and have no accurate understanding of the depth of our problem. The heart is deceptive, and without supernatural change it will grow worse. The only hope is “the grace of God . . . training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age” (Titus 2:11–12).

Look closely and you will see that the sexual sinner is disappointed with pleasure in their pursuit of what is essentially false intimacy. As one pastor, who was living in two adulterous relationships, put it: “This was the insanity; I no sooner finished the sexual act and immediately broke into tears, devastated by what I had done, but I only returned again and again to the same sinful relationship.”

As sinners we are created with desires for intimacy and for delight. Therefore, “The way to fight lust is to feed faith with the precious and magnificent promise that the pure in heart will see, face to face, the all-satisfying God of glory” (Future Grace, 338).

Yet the sexual sinner, finding no pleasure in real intimacy with God, ultimately finds no pleasure in false intimacy. Real intimacy has both pain and pleasure; false intimacy offers the illusion of no pain, but in the end there is no real pleasure! A part of exchanging the “truth about God for a lie” (Romans 1:25) is that you end up with pleasure now, pain forever!

Descending Deception

Deception runs deeper than we think. Deception is inherent to the problem of sexual sin on two levels.

First, there is the double life with clandestine liaisons, endless hidden hours on a computer, or the misuse of unaccounted time away from the office or home. The behavior is carefully hidden from view, but there are lies, then more lies to cover the lies. Face the facts: the motive for secrecy is to keep doing it. But secrecy of sexual sin also indicates a person’s commitment to flee from the light. “And people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil” (John 3:19).

The second level of deception is self-deception. If the heart is deceitful, it impacts the way we want to see the secret things in our lives, particularly secret sexual sins. The missionary can justify going to nude beaches; a pastor sees the value of an affair because it makes him happy; going to a prostitute on Monday is just a reward for hard work on Sunday.

When you say, “I will keep this part of my life a secret,” what are you hiding?

Hidden from view is a scandalous behavior that would certainly horrify any congregation or spouse. It is also a calculated contradiction of one’s public image that if revealed would bring ruin. It also may be a relationship that you believe is so fulfilling you can’t imagine ending it.

Everyone thinks they are hiding their acts of sin: lust, cheating, porn, and adultery. Such thinking makes it easier to justify the secrecy for the greater good of one’s marriage, family, ministry, job, and future. Such rationalization is universal to all secret sexual sin. “After all, a lot of people would be hurt if they knew what I was doing.” As one pastor put it, “I was in a six month affair, at the same time preaching and counseling against adultery, and telling myself that God didn’t care because the church was growing.”

In reality, it is not the behavior alone that is hidden.

Secret sexual sin is an invasive poison to the soul, mind and the body. It is a poison deep within the recesses of the soul that keeps one from finding satisfaction in God and meaningful intimacy with others. This is a poison that will kill not only in this life, but also life eternal! “For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure . . . has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God” (Ephesians 5:5). Sexual behavior that is indistinguishable from the unbelieving world may indicate a person is not truly a child of God.

The Turn From Sin

Why do people turn away from sexual sin?

In thousands of cases that I have counseled, only about one-percent of the men have come to us voluntarily and preemptively. Ninety-nine percent of the men were caught.

Getting caught in sexual sin doesn’t change the heart.

I can’t prove it, but I believe that God will providentially expose the secret sexual sin of his children.

It staggers our finite imagination that God will allow his chosen ones to go deep into brazen sexual sin, live in it for many years, and have so many people badly hurt. And no matter how difficult it is for spouses and church members to see it in the moment, God is at work when a pastor’s sin is exposed. Exposure is a sovereign act of God. God’s ways are not our ways! In all the vileness and rebellion against God that is a big part of sexual sin, exposure is showing us the perfect patience of Christ.

Many times I’ve been asked, “How can you keep dealing with such sinful men?” There are two reasons: First, I have seen over and over again the power of God to change the darkest sinner. Second, restoration with God is more important than anything. It is more important than career or marriage. God cares more for you, your soul, and your wife than he does your gifts and calling. You are his child before you are a pastor or a husband.

Conviction

After secret sexual sin is exposed we can make the mistake of focusing on the actions and attempt to eliminate behavior. We may be inadvertently feeding a false conviction rather than aiding true conviction.

False conviction is a reflex reaction caused by self-disgust, a sorrow over the consequences of sin. True conviction is an abiding sorrow over the offence against God, and while not the natural response, it does demonstrate that God has begun a good work that he will complete. True conviction is followed by true repentance. False conviction is followed by counterfeit repentance that only sees the consequences of sexual sin and the pain it caused others. Often this leads to a temporary change in behavior without a heart change.

Heart change is critical, “For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexual immoral (Gk. porneia) or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater) has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God” (Ephesians 5:5). There is no room for error when it comes to dealing with sexual sin. There is a demand to either repent or perish (Luke 13:3, 5). So there must be inner transformation of the heart because it is “deceitful above all things and desperately sick” (Jeremiah 17:9).

Christians must take severe measures in killing this sin. This is the real danger: “Every unclean thought would be adultery if it could” (John Owen). “Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality . . .” (Colossians 3:5).

The cross isn’t a recovery program, the place to improve on what good is already there. It is a place to die. It is not a question of giving up sexual sin, but of giving up one’s rights!

“But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness” (Romans 6:17–18). As dead sinners we lived “in the passion of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind” (Ephesians 2:3). Deceived, we foolishly think we can use our bodies as we choose when we are in love, when it brings us pleasure, when it makes us a whole person or feeds our spiritual well being. The truly repentant sexual sinner begins to grasp, “You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body” (1 Corinthians 6:19, 20).

True repentance is radical change from the inside out. “The basic meaning of repent is to experience a change of the mind’s perceptions and dispositions and purposes” (What Jesus Demands, 41). Repentance is not just becoming sexually pure, but an inward change, “so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God” (Colossians 1:10). Inward change leads to sexual purity. Repentance happens on the inside where heart change includes the development of an ingrained attitude to flee sexual immorality.

Don't Wait To Get Caught

Some time ago I met a pastor who told me that he had two or three affairs in each of the several churches he had pastored. He said, “My reputation in my denomination is to take a small struggling church and see it grow, only to again take another small church and see it grow. I’ve made that move three times, but in fact, I was only moving to a new church before I got caught in those affairs.” That man has no reason to expose his sexual sin or leave the ministry. Why should anyone know?

Why should anyone turn from sexual sin before being caught?

First, don’t let yourself be deceived. “Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil . . . No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God” (1 John 3:8, 9). While not completely free from sin, the heart of the true believer has been transformed, and they cannot live in a pattern of continual sexual sin.

Second, the exhortation is to “confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed” (James 5:16).

Third, fear is not a virtue. Yes, exposure will be costly, but right now you are dying on the inside. It may not feel like dying right now, but you are, you are slowly killing yourself, your spouse, your family, and your congregation.

Fourth, if secret sexual sin has severe consequences, it is worth dealing with before the devastation occurs. Obvious examples come to mind to get help before: your Internet browsing history is discovered and shared; the prostitute turns into an uncover police women and you are arrested for soliciting; you contract an STD; or you are publicly exposed, humiliating yourself, your spouse, your family, and your congregation.

Fifth, it will come out. God is never mocked. “Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness” (Romans 11:22).

Sixth, getting caught shatters trust and honesty in marriage, embarrasses your spouse, and makes reconciliation more difficult.

Seventh, there is hope. It begins with facing the truth. It is never just a struggle with your thought life; like all sexual sin, it is evil. If there is an old self to put off, there must be a new self to put on; that is the gospel.

Hear the Better Word

Christ bears the wrath that will come for all sexual sin. If you are a true believer and real change has occurred, you are called to put off the old and put on the new. Killing sexual sin starts with exposure; it ends with no longer being enslaved (Romans 6:6). Exposure is painful, but it is better to hear, “Well done, good and faithful servant,” than to hear, "I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.”

If you are a pastor stuck in sexual sin, no matter how well you have attempted to cover those sins with layers and layers of lies, I plead with you, step out from the darkness of those sins. Step into the light. Get help. You will never find life in the shadows.

Theological Method

http://www.theology.edu/apologetics/ap07.htm

D. Theological Method

At the outset of Bible study, three questions need to be asked, and they need to be kept firmly distinguished from each other. Confusing these three questions has resulted in many errors:

1. What does the Bible really say?

First off, we must determine what the text is actually reporting. What, precisely, is written on the page? The second question is related, but it is the second step, and must be kept separate from this first question.

2. What does the Bible mean?

Too often people skip the first question and dive headfirst into the second, not realizing the difference. It's no wonder they get into trouble. Only after we have clearly articulated what the Bible says, can we go on and ask about the meaning - the interpretation - of a given passage.

3. How does the Bible apply to me?

Finally, and only after the first two steps have been taken, can the final, third step be made to personal application, where the text takes on relevance to an individual in a particular place and time. A common fallacy in modern Christianity, and a source of considerable confusion, derives from the tendency to skip the first two steps, leap on the third, and then trumpet the application as the eternal and universal truth, ignoring fully the actual context and meaning of the text - and sometimes even denying that it matters.
Of course, the contrary mistake can be made, of ignoring this third step altogether, resulting in Bible reading that is as dead and useless as perusing the yellow pages for entertainment.
Let's look at how these steps can be put to use with a silly example. We are presented with the following text: "This dog is white." That is all it says, no more, no less. Any step beyond this bare statement, any questions we ask about it, begin the process of interpretation. Does the text mean that all dogs are white? Does the text tell us that this dog is all white, without a spot of other color on him? How white is white? What kind of dog is it? Are there any types of dogs we can exclude because of this statement? Does this statement about a white dog mean the dog is an albino? Where is the dog from? Is it a live dog or a dead dog? Such questions are endless, and at this point, random. To help organize our search for meaning, we may categorize the sorts of questions that must be asked:

1. What is the definition/connotation of the words?
2. Are these words universal or specific in their application?
3. What is the context?
4. The newspaper questions: Who, What, When, Where, Why and How?

Practically speaking, in thinking about the Bible, we can say without hesitation that the Bible is the absolute, inerrant word of God, and that anything it says is absolutely correct. The Bible describes reality for us: not simply A reality, but the reality.
But, and this is vital: WE MUST BE CAREFUL NOT TO CONFUSE OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE WITH THE ACTUAL STATEMENTS OF THE BIBLE. The distinction must be kept clearly in mind. Our interpretation may accurately reflect the true meaning of the Bible. Our interpretation may indeed be what the Bible "says". But again, our interpretation may not be what the Bible "says."
We must work at knowing what the Bible says. We must explicitly label - at least in our own minds - that which is stated, and that which is left unsaid.
So how does this three step approach work with an actual passage of scripture? Let's look at Genesis 3:21:

Yahweh God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.

What does Genesis 3:21 say? It says that God made clothes for Adam and Eve. No more and no less is indicated by the words of this sentence.
But what is the popular interpretation of these words in Genesis? That here is a sacrifice by God for the sin of Adam and Eve. To make skins, an animal had to be killed; therefore its blood was shed, and thereby atonement was made for their sins. This was the example God made, so that Adam and Eve would know how to sacrifice.
Question: is this what the text actually says?
Of course not.
The popular interpretation may be valid; however, there is no textual support for it. No other passage in the Bible refers to this incident or gives it the popular interpretation of "sacrifice". It would be best to take Genesis 3:21 at face value and leave it at that; it is more consistent with the grammatico-historical method of interpretation. The popular interpretation is subjective, and appears to represent a more allegorical approach to biblical interpretation.
Uh-oh, I just slipped a big hyphenated word into the last paragraph: "grammatico-historical" interpretation. What in the world does that mean? Walter E. Kaiser, Jr. wrote:

The grand object of grammatical and historical interpretation is to ascertain...the specific usage of words as employed by an individual writer and/or as prevalent in a particular age. And the most fundamental principle in grammatico-historical exposition is that words and sentences can have only one signification in one and the same connection.

In studying the Bible, the attempt is made to figure out the explicit meaning of a given text, to understand it fully in its historical and cultural context, and to fully understand the idiom of the author. This is sometimes called the "literal" approach; this does not mean a failure to recognize idioms, though. For instance, if a given passage says "the king was sitting on his right hand", unless the text gives us a particular reason to think so, the clear meaning of the text is that the king was sitting to the right of the other individual; it is very unlikely to mean that the king had his butt on the other guy's palm - or his own palm. That would be an abnormal understanding of the language. Still, all possibilities, however bizarre, should be explored as hypotheses in attempting to arrive at the true meaning of a given passage.
One other thing should be noted: what we derive from the text of scripture alone may not be enough to properly understand what is going on. In the Baptist Bulletin, the official organ of the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, an article was published in April 1986, in which Gerardus D. Bouw argued that Copernicus was wrong. Instead, Bouw insisted that the sun, and everything else, goes around the Earth, which is stationary at the center of the universe. He bases his contention on such statements as Joshua 10:12-14 which states:

The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

Bouw argues that there are hundreds - even thousands - of verses which support his contention that the sun goes around the Earth and not the other way around. We have all been hoodwinked. The Bible speaks about the "sun setting" and the "sun rising", and he insists that such statements must be accepted literally. To speak of phenomenological language is to miss the point, he argues.
From a strictly literal perspective, Bouw is right about what the Bible states. But what does the Bible mean?
This author has forgotten that there are two revelations from God: the special revelation we call the Bible, and the general revelation of the universe around us. The Bible is absolutely correct in everything it states, but the problem remains that we don't always correctly understand it. Until the time of Copernicus, many people had misinterpreted both the words of the Bible, and the phenomena of nature. Recognizing that the sun is indeed the center of the solar system does not mean that we are forcing the Bible to say something it doesn't; it simply means that we gain the proper understanding of what it intended. To say that the sun goes around the Earth is as silly as insisting that two and two are five. It is not a matter open to question. There are no doubts at all about a heliocentric system. It is not a theory or a hypothesis. It is reality.

E. What Are Some Standards for Responsible Interpretation?

1. The meaning of a biblical statement is going to be the ordinary, normal meaning of the words: a meaning in keeping with the context, idiom, and purpose of the given author. Therefore, it is important for us to remember that listing a reference "does not necessarily mean that one's interpretation of it is faithful to the biblical meaning." Cults are commonly guilty of messing up at this point. Let's be careful not to be like them.
2. The meaning of the biblical statements should fit the historical and cultural setting of the writer and readers. That's why archaeology and the study of history are valuable. The frame of reference can't be ignored. We must be very careful not to interpret the Bible through our own culture.
3. The meaning of a sentence is the one that best fits the writer's context. The usage an author makes of a word is what is important. The definition of a word is contextually determined. The etymology is of hardly any importance in truly gaining an understanding of a word. The sentence is the basic unit of a writer's thought. "Then the sentence should be understood in relation to the other books in its Testament. And the two Testaments need to be related to each other."
4. The Bible doesn't contradict itself.
5. The intended meaning of the text is going to be the literal historical-grammatical one. There is not a "deeper" or "secret" meaning. Avoid allegorization and spiritualization of the Bible. Such techniques come from the Middle Ages, and are the province of such modern groups as Theosophy, Christian Science, and the New Age Movement. There is no place for such things in a truly rational approach to Scripture.
6. Scriptural passages are comprehensible as they are related to, and informed by others. For instance in 1 Corinthians 15:10 Paul writes:

But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them - yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me.

A passage like this informs our understanding of passages that refer to the "works" that Christians do. Rather than imagining that "works" passages contradict the gospel, a passage like this clarifies the intent. Salvation by grace has inevitable outward manifestations. Any work we do, the effort we make, is actually God working through us. God does the work, not us.

Thus, Paul's intention in Ephesians 5:1-15 is clear:

Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live alife of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or course joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person - such a man is an idolater - has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them.
For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) and find out what pleases the Lord. Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said:

"Wake up, O sleeper,
rise from the dead,
and Christ will shine on you."

Be very careful, then, how you live - not as unwise but as wise.

It is impossible for a person to take a passage like Ephesians 5:1-15 and try to make that inform our understanding or comprehension of Ephesians 2:8-10, because to do so creates a contradiction. Likewise, our understanding of the book of James is informed by our comprehension of Ephesians 2:8-10, Galatians 3:1-6, and the rest. Ephesians and Galatians inform our understanding of Peter's comment on Lot in 2 Peter 2:7-8, or how Jephthah as described in Judges 11:24-40, who sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering, can still wind up listed with David and Samuel in Hebrews 11:32.
Which of a given possible interpretations is correct can be demonstrated by determining which passages inform other passages. How? Through recognizing the proper cause and effect. For instance, wringing a nose produces blood (Proverbs 30:33). However, blood does not produce the wringing of a nose.
Thus, grace produces good works, but good works do not produce grace. Besides the logical problem of imagining otherwise, Paul is explicit:

And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. (Romans 11:6)

I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing! (Galatians 2:21)

You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen from grace. (Galatians 5:4)

Certainly there are occasions when informing will work both ways; however, in the case of grace versus works, the concept expressed by "salvation by grace through faith" informs the concept "good works;" the reverse, in this case, simply is not possible, both by logic and by the text of Scripture.
Therefore, questions such as "is baptism necessary" are like the question Paul dealt with in his letter to the Galatians: "is cirumcision necessary?" Since salvation is not a matter of outward action, the answer must be no. Outward action is a consequence of grace.

Letter to a friend on the Health Care Debate

Hey, Xxxx. I’ve been meaning to get back to you for a couple of days now, but this is the first opportunity I’ve had.

I appreciate that you took the time to discuss these issues. Can’t say I see eye to eye with you on all of them, but that’s ok. I like the chance to exchange views.

Our system of government was created to protect certain liberties. It’s not always convenient, but it protects your liberties as well as mine. Among those liberties are religion and free association. We are allowed to enter into contracts as private citizens and institutions, setting the terms of those contracts as we see fit. There are some restrictions, for instance, we cannot take out a contract on another person’s life. However, in general, we are free to associate as we see fit. This extends to employment contracts. An individual or a corporation or any other kind of party is free to employ another party according to terms that they both agree to. This has been the strength of our economy since our nation’s inception and in other economies where it has been practiced.

So, when a church, parachurch ministry, religious education institution, etc. seeks to employ an individual, they should be able to enter into a contract on mutually agreeable terms. If the terms are not mutually agreeable then neither party need enter into the contract.

Now, the government will undoubtedly intervene at some level, imposing restraints to protect the interests of weaker parties. However, if it does this too much, the value of entering into these agreements decreases. It becomes more cost effective not to enter into as many contracts. Furthermore, the need for some minimalist intervention is not absolute authority to ignore the rights of either party in the contract. The government was constructed as it was to protect the maximum number of liberties for the maximum number of people. This may mean that not everyone does what we think they ought to, but we must recognize that it also protects us from many obligations to do things that offend our conscience. Were you a small business owner, would it be just to force you to purchase a product that directly profited Lockheed Martin or Boeing (major defense contractors)?

It’s easy enough to say that if it’s against our conscience that we need not participate (though I won’t be surprised at the day when even that liberty is threatened. It’s happened before), but to enable an action is still participation in that action. If that impinges on the religious liberty of an employer, there is no competing right, according to our highest law (the Constitution), that that can force that obligation on them. What’s more, it is still debatable as to whether the government can compel individuals to have health insurance and they haven’t even tried to say that employers must provide it. It remains a benefit that employers offer to entice people to work for them, not an obligation for employers to pay such as social security tax. To regulate the distribution of it runs contrary to our rights of free association and, in this case, freedom of conscience in observing religion.

Let’s be frank though. This is not principally an issue about simple contraceptives. Though that alone would be enough to offend against the consciences of both Catholics and some Protestants, this mandate includes pharmacological abortifacients, more commonly called ‘morning after’ pills. An honest discussion on all sides would admit to the greater gravity of that issue and whether it is wise to impel people to participate in that.

Finally, the core of my original comment is not the debate itself. It is my disappointment with those unwilling to engage the debate honestly. This debate and others are essential to have. It lessens the chance that the debate will be constructive when either side refuses to represent their opponent’s position honestly.

Now to your arguments: you have made the statement that contraceptives are increasingly vital. That is not an assertion that I can accept at face value. Things I have read recently cite our country’s present population replacement rate as around .7. I if understood this correctly, it means that if present birth rates are maintained, our population will decline in size to seven tenths of its current size over some span of time (I can’t remember if they said ‘generation’ or a hundred years or what). In what sense do we need to further slow birth rates? From an economic perspective, we’re in trouble as it is. Our social welfare system is dependent on having larger numbers in generations that are working than in generations that have retired from the work force. As things are going, this will not always be true. From an individual perspective, there are no restraints on anyone’s decisions concerning “reproductive rights.” The need for greater access to contraceptives is not self-evident.

I’m not sure what to make of your statement about doctor’s being more concerned with your wife’s health than political/religious ideology. On the surface it makes sense: your wife’s health is a concrete reality that is easy to gauge, obviously of greater import than abstractions tied to debates in the public arena. However, I think it fails to take into account that most of those ideologies are expressions of a collection of convictions, convictions that have real world examples and are worked out through principled decisions in day to day life. So, when I say that the conservative position is as concerned with women’s health as anyone, I mean that people who hold conservative ideals are as concerned with women’s health as anyone who holds political ideals of a different stripe. Appeals to concerns about “reproductive health” is what set me thinking about this. The term is often a bludgeon used by some to claim the moral high ground in some arenas of the health care debate. I do not think this is fair. It is, at the very least, incorrect. While some drugs used for birth control can and should be used to address health issues apart from preventing pregnancy and these drugs remain available for legal use in preventing pregnancy, it is not reasonable to ask anyone to believe that maximizing access to them is the single most important component in ensuring women’s continued ability to reproduce (what the term “reproductive health” would self-evidently mean) or in helping to increase their lifespans or improve their quality of life.

Now, having said all this, I have close to zero expectation of swaying you one iota. Email is not an effective medium for changing hearts. Rather, I believe that courtesy demanded that I take your comments seriously and respond seriously. I welcome your return comments, especially on any points where I have failed to be courteous. I hope you and your wife and your whole extended family are doing well. Say hello to them for me when you see them.

Regards,

Jim Slice

What to Remember When Fighting Temptation

http://dogmadoxa.blogspot.com/2011/10/what-to-remember-when-fighting.html

What to Remember When Fighting Temptation

On September 12, 1933, 35-year-old Clive Staples Lewis wrote a letter to his dear friend Arthur Greeves. The letter is located in the Wade Center at Wheaton College--just down the street from where I am typing right now.

Greeves had written to Lewis asking about the degree to which we can speak, if at all, of God understanding evil in any kind of experiential way--as Greeves had put it, 'sharing' in our evil actions.

Lewis begins with an analogy (all emphases original)--

Supposing you are taking a dog on a lead past a post. You know what happens. . . . He tries to go the wrong side and gets his head looped round the post. You see that he can't do it, and therefore pull him back. You pull him back because you want to enable him to go forward. He wants exactly the same thing--namely to go forward: for that very reason he resists your pull back, or, if he is an obedient dog, yields to it reluctantly as a matter of duty which seems to him to be quite in opposition to his own will: tho' in fact it is only by yielding to you that he will ever succeed in getting where he wants.

Now if the dog were a theologian he would regard his own will as a sin to which he was tempted, and therefore an evil: and he might go on to ask whether you understand and 'contained' his evil. If he did you could only reply 'My dear dog, if by your will you mean what you really want to do, namely, to get forward along this road, I not only understand this desire but share it. Forward is exactly where I want you to go. If by your will, on the other hand, you mean your will to pull against the collar and try to force yourself in a direction which is no use--why I understand it of course: but just because I understand it (and the whole situation, which you don't understand) I cannot possibly share it. In fact the more I sympathise with your real wish--that is, the wish to get on--the less can I sympathise (in the sense of 'share' or 'agree with') your resistance to the collar: for I see that this is actually rendering the attainment of your real wish impossible.'

Lewis then goes back to the original question to bring his analogy home:

I don't know if you will agree at once that this is a parallel to the situation between God and man: but I will work it out on the assumption that you do. Let us go back to the original question--whether and, if so in what sense God contains, say, my evil will--or 'understands' it. The answer is God not only understands but shares the desire which is at the root of all my evil--the desire for complete and ecstatic happiness. He made me for no other purpose than to enjoy it. But He knows, and I do not, how it can be really and permanently attained. He knows that most of my personal attempts to reach it are actually putting it further and further out of my reach. With these therefore He cannot sympathise or 'agree.'

Lewis then relates his point to how we think about past sins, and then how we think about future sins (temptation).

I may always feel looking back on any past sin that in the very heart of my evil passion there was something that God approves and wants me to feel not less but more. Take a sin of Lust. The overwhelming thirst for rapture was good and even divine: it has not got to be unsaid (so to speak) and recanted. But it will never be quenched as I tried to quench it. If I refrain--if I submit to the collar and come round the right side of the lamp-post--God will be guiding me as quickly as He can to where I shall get what I really wanted all the time. It will not be very like what I now think I want: but it will be more like it than some suppose. In any case it will be the real thing, not a consolation prize or substitute. If I had it I should not need to fight against sensuality as something impure: rather I should spontaneously turn away from it as something cold, abstract, and artificial. This, I think, is how the doctrine applies to past sins.

On the other hand, when we are thinking of a sin in the future, i.e. when we are tempted, we must remember that just because God wants for us what we really want and knows the only way to get it, therefore He must, in a sense, be quite ruthless towards sin. He is not like a human authority who can be begged off or caught in an indulgent mood. The more He loves you the more determined He must be to pull you back from your way which leads nowhere into His way which leads where you want to go. Hence MacDonald's words 'The all-punishing, all-pardoning Father.' You may go the wrong way again, and again He may forgive you: as the dog's master may extricate the dog after he has tied the whole leash around the lamp-post. But there is no hope in the end of getting where you want to go except by going God's way. . . .

And in a final, powerful, delightful reminder--

I think one may be quite rid of the old haunting suspicion--it raises its head in every temptation--that there is something else than God--some other country into which He forbids us to trespass--some kind of delight which He 'doesn't appreciate' or just chooses to forbid, but which would be real delight if only we were allowed to get it. The thing just isn't there. Whatever we desire is either what God is trying to give us as quickly as He can, or else a false picture of what He is trying to give us--a false picture which would not attract us for a moment if we saw the real thing.

--Walter Hooper, ed., The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, Volume 2: Books, Broadcasts, and the War, 1931-1949 (Cambridge University Press, 2004), 122-24