I never set out to study on or write about the writings of men. It all came about because of multiple encounters with others that kind of just kept pushing at my thoughts and heart.
My husband fueled it because several of the issues that came up were things that he couldn't get off his mind so he shared them with me which meant I couldn't get them off my mind.
I do not know how far this writings of men study will go. It really doesn't matter. The Lord will let it go as far as he wants it to go and no further. In the meantime I study what I am led to study and I sometimes write on it.
My latest post received a comment that I am choosing to turn part of my reply into a blog post because some readers do not read comments and this is a subject that has come up repeatedly in my accidental study on the writings of men.
You can find the post I am referring to here, https://journeyingtochrist.blogspot.com/2018/06/why-writings-of-menpart-three.html?showComment=1530015982070#c1866660888018418092, if you would like to read the original comment.
Here is my response to the original comment:
Darrel,
I am going to try hard to keep my response here short but the verses you brought up and the topic at hand are hard to keep short.
I appreciate you giving the verses to me and questioning me on them. As always, I appreciate the use of Scripture when one differs with me on something and I welcome the different opinion so that I might learn something new.
The verses you gave have been under great study in my home the last month or so. We have studied them so in depth as to have nearly picked them apart under a microscope.
They may possibly be the subject of a post in the not too distant future. But to give what I hope will be a brief coverage of our, my husbands and mine, take on them here...
We cannot look only at the verses you gave. To do so would be to pick the verses we want to use for our purposes and not to look at the entire context. We must, and my husband and I did so, even after reading your comment, get the entire context. We backed up and began to read at Ephesians 2.
Just a quick summary here, Paul is speaking to a group of people at a specific time. During that time there were still apostles, men appointed straight from God, a few prophets, also appointed by God, men that saw Christ alive, and the men that Paul and the other apostles were directly teaching.
The crowds to which Paul spoke were a mixed lot, made up of born again believers and unregenerate alike. They were also groups that were new to this 'calling', being the calling to regeneration and were new to the faith. It was a whole new idea to them and they had nothing with which to compare it. They also had no Bible, no Scripture, to turn to in order to learn anything about Christ or how a born again believer should act.
Paul tells them, "And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds[a] and teachers,[b] 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood,[c] to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. 15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love."
There was a certain task assigned to the 'apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds, and teachers' and that task was 'to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ'.
This was a time when the body of Christ was a brand new thing. It was something the likes of which it had never been before. Christ had come and basically turned the world upside down.
Who would know what to do?
Apostles were appointed by Christ's own hand. He called them to the ministry of spreading his Gospel in a way that no one has been called since then. He equipped them for the job he assigned them, delegating them tasks. They were getting direct insight from the Lord. All the others were appointed to their tasks but not in the same way.
1 Corinthians 12:4-11 says:
Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5 and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; 6 and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. 7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.
This speaks of all called out, born again, regenerate believers. We are all given gifts but they are not the kinds of gifts that Paul and the other Apostles or prophets had. We are not getting divine revelations or powers to carry out our gifts.
1 Corinthians 13:8-10 says:
As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.
The only gift that did not pass away is love (per the rest of 1 Corinthians 13). All the divinely appointed gifts are no more. They were here when Christ's kingdom was new and people, including us today, needed guidance and leading. Those gifts were shared far and wide by "the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds[a] and teachers".
These were the men appointed by God, appointed by Christ, and appointed by the prophets and apostles that had been appointed directly by the Lord. Scripture is not referring to other men through other times. It points us always to Scripture. Christ did not ask if people had read the writings of men, He asked if they had read the Scriptures. He said, 'it is written' and 'have you not read', referring to the Scriptures, or the Old Testament.
Paul did not speak of books written by Scribes or others. He referred to Scripture and to what he had been divinely taught.
Yes, believers in Paul's day needed the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds[a] and teachers just as we need them today but those apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers are the men of Scripture not fallen men that came at any other time in all of history.
You mentioned Hebrews 5:12-14:
For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, 13 for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. 14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.
Our understanding of this verse is that it refers first Scripture. The best teacher of all comes straight from God's own word and Paul is still a teacher even today. We truly need no teacher beyond those in the words of the Lord. However, our fallen minds and hearts often do better when told, 'look here' and 'see this', especially when we are new in the faith.
That is where those mature in the faith come in, not as leaders over others, not as preachers in 'Churches', but as brothers in Christ, much like an older brother teaches a younger brother. These older brothers in Christ can lead their younger brothers, or older sisters in Christ can lead younger sisters in Christ, to 'look here' and 'see this'.
When we are first born again the majority of us do not understand what is happening and it is an immense help if someone else takes us by the hand and leads us, not with their own words but to the pages of Scripture. 'Read here' and 'study this' are of untold value when one is newly regenerate.
Is Pink such a 'teacher'? I would have to say yes. I would have benefited greatly from having his writings in my hands when I was first born again. I was blessed enough to have an 'older brother' take me by the hand and lead me to Scripture and to certain writings of Pink in my early days of regeneration.
Can other men's writings be just as effective...maybe. I'd say it depends on the man and on what he's writing about. But the best teacher of all is Scripture and sooner or later a truly born again believer should no longer need 'training wheels' to be able to ride on their own. Sooner or later, if they are truly born again, they should be able to leave the teachings of men behind and depend only on Scripture and not on what other men, through writing or conversation
]\\, dead or alive, are teaching them.
And above all else they should learn to align themselves with Christ and only Christ.
Paul said it best...
I have decided to know nothing but Christ and Him crucified.
I hope this helps clarify my thoughts on these verses and on the writings of men. I never set out to study on this matter. I hadn't even given it much thought but as with so many things, the Lord brought it to my attention, time and again. And it became the focus of much Scripture study in my home and in my head and heart.
Tuesday, June 26, 2018
Sunday, June 24, 2018
Why the writings of men?...part three
What it is with Calvinists?
Today (6/13/18) I came across a statement on a Reformed site that said, "Calvinism is natively experiential. Before it is a theological system, Calvinism is deeply affectional, God-centered, cross-magnifying religion. A man may loudly trumpet his adherence to the distinctive tenets of Calvinism, but if his life is not marked by delight in God and His gospel, his professed Calvinism is a sham."
Do Calvinists not see something wrong with this? I know what the Calvinist belief is. I know they use Calvinist as code word for true Scripture believing. I know that but somewhere along the way their allegiance has gone awry. "...his professed Calvinism is a sham." Who are they aligning themselves with? To whom are they most loyal.
Christ?
Or Calvin?
I know what it means to be a Calvinist. By the standards set in place for that...belief system...I am a Calvinist. I do not, however, call myself a Calvinist. Ever. I also do not ever align myself with the teachings of men. Any man.
My husband often guides me in Scripture studies and discussions. I allow him to do so for two reasons, 1) he always holds to Scripture, and 2) he is my husband. I would not allow anyone else to guide me Scripurally the way my husband does. My allowing him to do so is the result of the nature of our relationship, Scripture even says husbands should lead their wives, washing her in the Word, but it is also a testament to his faith because if he did not see Scripture as I do I would not allow him to lead me the way I do, not with my faith as it is. I simply could not allow a nonbeliever, or a professing believer to lead me in Scripture when my faith is what it is.
Still, I do not align my faith with my husband but with Christ. I do not say I am a husbandist because he holds to the tenets of Scripture and leads me through them. I do not claim to believe in husbandism even though he clearly leads me straight from the pages of God's word.
What is the difference?
My husband is a fallen man in a fallen world. So was Calvin. My husband points out the Truth's in Scripture to me. Calvin pointed them out to others. Sure, my husband isn't going around writing papers and books to explain these things but he points them out to me just the same.
By the thought process of 'Calvinists', shouldn't I be a Husbandist? Let's see if I can make that statement stand out for the unScriptural and dare I say ridiculous statement that it is....
"Husbandism is natively experiential. Before it is a theological system, Husbandism is deeply affectional, God-centered, cross-magnifying religion. A man may loudly trumpet his adherence to the distinctive tenets of Husbandism, but if his life is not marked by delight in God and His gospel, his professed Husbandism is a sham."
Who would I be aligning myself with if I made such a ridiculous statement? Who is my faith placed in? Who is the one taking first importance in that statement and Who is a follow-up, a second fiddle?
Yes, my husband does lead me through theology. We do hold to a theological system, but that system is Scripture and only Scripture. It is Christ and only Christ. 'Husbandism is deeply affectional'...umm, what does that even mean? Even to say Calvinism is deeply affectional...what does it mean? Affection is a man felt emotion. Here is the definition for affectional:
affectional - characterized by emotion. affective, emotive. emotional - of more than usual emotion; "his behavior was highly emotional"
So according to the statement I saw this morning, the very first description of Calvinism is that it is emotional. Is that Scriptural? Do we believe from emotion or do we believe from faith?
Next it is a 'God-centered, cross-magnifying religion'. Okay. I can go with that one. Any Scripturally based religion should be God-centered (although I do need to question where Christ falls in there, are they calling Christ God, if so, fine. If not, there are many religions that believe in God and not in Christ.) and it should magnify the cross. But again, there begs the question, how does it magnify the cross? I know of no religion that magnifies the cross more than the Roman Catholic religion.
"A man may loudly trumpet his adherence to the distinctive tenets of Husbandism,", that is the changed version, but whether or not one 'loudly trumpet(s) his adherence' to the 'tenet's of Calvinism or Husbandism...who is he 'loudly' trumpeting his allegiance to? That statement clearly says one is loudly trumpeting, or yelling, or proclaiming, their adherence...let me stop here. What does adherence mean? The dictionary defines it as:
Adherence: 1. attachment or commitment to a person, cause, or belief
2. the quality or process of sticking fast to an object or surface
So adherence is 'an attachment to a person, cause, or belief'. It's an attachment to a person, in this case, Calvin, or a belief, Calvinism. Am I the only one seeing a problem here? I very much wish I knew who the original writer of that quote I read was.
That quote goes on to use the word distinctive so I looked up the definition for that one too:
Distinctive: characteristic of one person or thing, and so serving to distinguish it from others.
The next word is tenets, so back to the dictionary I went.
Tenets: a principal or belief, especially one of the main principals or a religion or philosophy.
Okay, now that I have clarified all the words for myself. Let me rewrite that bit of the original quote in basic english.
A man may loudly shout his attachment to the distinguishing characteristics of the beliefs of Calvin(ism).
I see a big problem with that and it's only a small part of the quote. That half a sentence is saying man is shouting an attachment to the teaching, or religion, of a man.
I don't shout my belief in anything but if I did I would only shout my attachment to Christ and His word. Yet at least two people thought this statement worthy of sharing and teaching to others, the original writer and the poster.
That same sentence that I just translated goes on to say, 'but if his life is not marked by delight in God and His gospel, his professed Calvinism is a sham.' Where to start, where to start? Can I even put this into words? That second part starts out good, 'if his life is not marked by delight in God and His gospel'. What a wonderful measure for anyone. I personally think that would be a great way to look at all of mankind...do they delight in God and His gospel...the real God, the true Gospel...or do they not.
As my husband and I both often say, someone has to be right and someone has to be wrong. We use that line when referring to anyone holding to beliefs in Scripture that differ from our own. We obviously can't both be right. One of us is in error. We believe we are right, the others usually believe they are, yet something that is opposite of each other cannot both be right.
This isn't a right or wrong issue, exactly. It's a case of me questioning who Calvinists identify with. I rarely have encounters with people claiming to be Calvinists and now I have had several in the last week and not all in the same place. I wasn't looking for these encounters, they just happened.
There is a line in the sand, so to speak. On one side are those that delight in the true God, the true gospel. On the other side are those that do not. I'm not going to hazard a guess where much of anyone is standing in accordance to that line. That is between them and Christ. We can pretty easily assume that anyone denying the Lord in any way is on the side of the line for those that do not delight in God and His gospel but that's about as far as I will go in saying who is on which side of that line.
But back to the original quote...the first part of that last little bit is good, really good, assuming we are delighting in the true God, the true Christ, and the real Gospel. The second part, however, isn't so good. With the next portion we are back to following man rather than Christ. 'His professed Calvinism is a sham.'
So if I am interpreting this correctly, that quote says that unless one delights in God and His gospel than his claim to being a Calvinist is a fake.
The original quote said, 'Calvinism is natively experiential. Before it is a theological system, Calvinism is deeply affectional, God-centered, cross-magnifying religion. A man may loudly trumpet his adherence to the distinctive tenets of Calvinism, but if his life is not marked by delight in God and His gospel, his professed Calvinism is a sham."
Today (6/13/18) I came across a statement on a Reformed site that said, "Calvinism is natively experiential. Before it is a theological system, Calvinism is deeply affectional, God-centered, cross-magnifying religion. A man may loudly trumpet his adherence to the distinctive tenets of Calvinism, but if his life is not marked by delight in God and His gospel, his professed Calvinism is a sham."
Do Calvinists not see something wrong with this? I know what the Calvinist belief is. I know they use Calvinist as code word for true Scripture believing. I know that but somewhere along the way their allegiance has gone awry. "...his professed Calvinism is a sham." Who are they aligning themselves with? To whom are they most loyal.
Christ?
Or Calvin?
I know what it means to be a Calvinist. By the standards set in place for that...belief system...I am a Calvinist. I do not, however, call myself a Calvinist. Ever. I also do not ever align myself with the teachings of men. Any man.
My husband often guides me in Scripture studies and discussions. I allow him to do so for two reasons, 1) he always holds to Scripture, and 2) he is my husband. I would not allow anyone else to guide me Scripurally the way my husband does. My allowing him to do so is the result of the nature of our relationship, Scripture even says husbands should lead their wives, washing her in the Word, but it is also a testament to his faith because if he did not see Scripture as I do I would not allow him to lead me the way I do, not with my faith as it is. I simply could not allow a nonbeliever, or a professing believer to lead me in Scripture when my faith is what it is.
Still, I do not align my faith with my husband but with Christ. I do not say I am a husbandist because he holds to the tenets of Scripture and leads me through them. I do not claim to believe in husbandism even though he clearly leads me straight from the pages of God's word.
What is the difference?
My husband is a fallen man in a fallen world. So was Calvin. My husband points out the Truth's in Scripture to me. Calvin pointed them out to others. Sure, my husband isn't going around writing papers and books to explain these things but he points them out to me just the same.
By the thought process of 'Calvinists', shouldn't I be a Husbandist? Let's see if I can make that statement stand out for the unScriptural and dare I say ridiculous statement that it is....
"Husbandism is natively experiential. Before it is a theological system, Husbandism is deeply affectional, God-centered, cross-magnifying religion. A man may loudly trumpet his adherence to the distinctive tenets of Husbandism, but if his life is not marked by delight in God and His gospel, his professed Husbandism is a sham."
Who would I be aligning myself with if I made such a ridiculous statement? Who is my faith placed in? Who is the one taking first importance in that statement and Who is a follow-up, a second fiddle?
Yes, my husband does lead me through theology. We do hold to a theological system, but that system is Scripture and only Scripture. It is Christ and only Christ. 'Husbandism is deeply affectional'...umm, what does that even mean? Even to say Calvinism is deeply affectional...what does it mean? Affection is a man felt emotion. Here is the definition for affectional:
affectional - characterized by emotion. affective, emotive. emotional - of more than usual emotion; "his behavior was highly emotional"
So according to the statement I saw this morning, the very first description of Calvinism is that it is emotional. Is that Scriptural? Do we believe from emotion or do we believe from faith?
Next it is a 'God-centered, cross-magnifying religion'. Okay. I can go with that one. Any Scripturally based religion should be God-centered (although I do need to question where Christ falls in there, are they calling Christ God, if so, fine. If not, there are many religions that believe in God and not in Christ.) and it should magnify the cross. But again, there begs the question, how does it magnify the cross? I know of no religion that magnifies the cross more than the Roman Catholic religion.
"A man may loudly trumpet his adherence to the distinctive tenets of Husbandism,", that is the changed version, but whether or not one 'loudly trumpet(s) his adherence' to the 'tenet's of Calvinism or Husbandism...who is he 'loudly' trumpeting his allegiance to? That statement clearly says one is loudly trumpeting, or yelling, or proclaiming, their adherence...let me stop here. What does adherence mean? The dictionary defines it as:
Adherence: 1. attachment or commitment to a person, cause, or belief
2. the quality or process of sticking fast to an object or surface
So adherence is 'an attachment to a person, cause, or belief'. It's an attachment to a person, in this case, Calvin, or a belief, Calvinism. Am I the only one seeing a problem here? I very much wish I knew who the original writer of that quote I read was.
That quote goes on to use the word distinctive so I looked up the definition for that one too:
Distinctive: characteristic of one person or thing, and so serving to distinguish it from others.
The next word is tenets, so back to the dictionary I went.
Tenets: a principal or belief, especially one of the main principals or a religion or philosophy.
Okay, now that I have clarified all the words for myself. Let me rewrite that bit of the original quote in basic english.
A man may loudly shout his attachment to the distinguishing characteristics of the beliefs of Calvin(ism).
I see a big problem with that and it's only a small part of the quote. That half a sentence is saying man is shouting an attachment to the teaching, or religion, of a man.
I don't shout my belief in anything but if I did I would only shout my attachment to Christ and His word. Yet at least two people thought this statement worthy of sharing and teaching to others, the original writer and the poster.
That same sentence that I just translated goes on to say, 'but if his life is not marked by delight in God and His gospel, his professed Calvinism is a sham.' Where to start, where to start? Can I even put this into words? That second part starts out good, 'if his life is not marked by delight in God and His gospel'. What a wonderful measure for anyone. I personally think that would be a great way to look at all of mankind...do they delight in God and His gospel...the real God, the true Gospel...or do they not.
As my husband and I both often say, someone has to be right and someone has to be wrong. We use that line when referring to anyone holding to beliefs in Scripture that differ from our own. We obviously can't both be right. One of us is in error. We believe we are right, the others usually believe they are, yet something that is opposite of each other cannot both be right.
This isn't a right or wrong issue, exactly. It's a case of me questioning who Calvinists identify with. I rarely have encounters with people claiming to be Calvinists and now I have had several in the last week and not all in the same place. I wasn't looking for these encounters, they just happened.
There is a line in the sand, so to speak. On one side are those that delight in the true God, the true gospel. On the other side are those that do not. I'm not going to hazard a guess where much of anyone is standing in accordance to that line. That is between them and Christ. We can pretty easily assume that anyone denying the Lord in any way is on the side of the line for those that do not delight in God and His gospel but that's about as far as I will go in saying who is on which side of that line.
But back to the original quote...the first part of that last little bit is good, really good, assuming we are delighting in the true God, the true Christ, and the real Gospel. The second part, however, isn't so good. With the next portion we are back to following man rather than Christ. 'His professed Calvinism is a sham.'
So if I am interpreting this correctly, that quote says that unless one delights in God and His gospel than his claim to being a Calvinist is a fake.
The original quote said, 'Calvinism is natively experiential. Before it is a theological system, Calvinism is deeply affectional, God-centered, cross-magnifying religion. A man may loudly trumpet his adherence to the distinctive tenets of Calvinism, but if his life is not marked by delight in God and His gospel, his professed Calvinism is a sham."
I had to look up 'natively experiential'. The only thing I got was links to some book, which I am now wondering if that might not be the source of the original quote. In any case the best explanation for natively experiential that I could find was by Tom Nettles who said, "an experiential theology, or experimental Calvinism, pursues the purposeful application of every doctrine to some area of life that needs further conformity to Christ's perfect humanity.'
I have no idea who Tom Nettles is (was?) but I can agree with that statement but the original 'natively experiential' sounds a lot like too much man and not enough simplicity of Christ. It's big words that boggle the mind to describe that we need to be more Christlike...at least that's what I think it means.
From there, Natively experiential, we move on to a 'theological system'. So studying Scripture and learning about our Lord is now a system. Shouldn't that be a way of life? Paul said it best, I have decided to know nothing among you but Christ and Him crucified. We don't need a system to study Christ. We need Christ. Period.
That does not appear to be the case for 'Calvinists'.
The quote then moves into it being deeply affectional, or emotional, and man may loudly shout his allegiance to Calvinism, a man made belief system, even if it is based off Scripture, but unless he delights in God and His gospel his profession of being a Calvinist is a fake.
Umm...yeah. I'm right back where I started from. This is a fancy statement that gives allegiance to one man and his theological system over allegiance to the Lord.
It's only been a few days since I had a couple of encounters with people in a supposed...I don't even know what to call it...reformed, Calvinist, Truth based, group that turned out to be a group of people that for the most part worshiped men more than Christ. They were just as Churchianitied as Arminians, if not more so. I do not want to call names but they almost seemed to be educated idiots, to use one of my Grandpa's terms. They knew so much that it impeded their ability to understand that which was simple. They grabbed onto the teachings of men rather than grabbing onto their Bibles and holding tight to the simplicity of Scripture.
They promoted the studying of men's writings to better understand Scripture. Not all that long ago I hesitated to write that I had gained an interest in reading the writings of A.W. Pink. His writings are Scriptural but they are still written by fallen man. I do not need his writings to teach me of our Lord. All I need is my Lord's own words. But I had gained an interest in Pink and therefore acquired a couple of his books. I happily started to read one of them. It's been a few weeks now. I am enjoying Pink's writings. They are very good and very Scriptural. And I have made it all the way through about four chapters in the first book I started.
The teachings of men are just that, teachings of men. As I have been reading Pink's book, which is edifying, I have also read straight from Scripture. Reading Scripture is like giving water to my parched soul. Every word is like drops of water on a long dried up ground. My soul soaks it up.
It would appear that these 'Calvinists' soak up the writings of men in the way my soul soaks up Scripture. I still can't grasp that. How can one love the writings of men so much that they grab onto them over Scripture?
For the time is coming when people will not endure sound[a] teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths 2 Timothy 4:3-4
I'm not going to hazard a guess at which of these people fall into that category but I'm going to step out on a limb here to say that as a whole, 'Calvinists' seem to be just as ingrained in those 'having itching ears' as arminians.
As I sit here, writing this, having every intention of running it past my husband before I let it post to this blog, I can't help but marvel at their ability to claim a belief system that is supposed to be the very essence of Scripture, it's supposed to be the same Gospel given by Christ, given by the apostles, and yet they not only allow it to be labeled by a fallen man's name but they almost glory in following a man's teachings of what the Gospel, what true Christianity, er...being a member of the called out ones...is.
I can't even figure out how to describe true regeneration and the people blessed to receive it anymore. Reformed Christian is not the answer. Not for me anyway. Not any more. There's too much of man in there and not enough of Christ and Scripture. Calvinist was never an option for me. Christian is too broad a term and has lost what little meaning it once had.
What's left?
If I say I am one of the called out ones...who will know what I am talking about? If I say I am reformed, I am putting myself into the category of the same people that prize men's teachings over Scripture. If I say I am a Calvinist, not an option, I am aligning myself with a man, almost worshiping him by the very fact that I put myself under his teachings, something I refuse to do.
Calvin is just another fallen man. He had a gift for writing and interpreting Scripture so that he was able to put what being a true regenerate believer meant. That is great. He was given the gift of writing out the Lord's words in a way that simplified things for many. The trouble is he is now given a status that very nearly turns him into a god by people that should know better.
Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God,[e] which he obtained with his own blood.[f] 29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears. 32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified. Acts 20:28-31
Paul even admonished those he thought to be believers in the gospel he was basically giving his life to spread, warning them of how wolves would rise up in their midst not even sparing the flock.
I am not saying Calvin was a wolf. What I am saying is that those claiming to be reformed or Calvinist are allowing others, men, to 'rise up' among them, leading them down paths written by fallen men on what Scripture says, rather than turning to Scripture itself.
And I am once again left mentally scratching my head and asking...
Why the teachings of men?
Sunday, June 17, 2018
Daddy's day
My husband and I aren't very big on celebrating holidays. Most holidays come and go at our house like any other day. We barely acknowledge 98% of them. Today is one of those days that, for the most part, gets little recognition at our house.
'Father's Day', like all other holidays in America have become more about commercialization and less about the purpose for the holiday. It seems like no matter what it is we are supposed to be celebrating, every store in America will happily sell us something to better that day. I have seen numerous adds over the last month, with the number escalating almost daily, for 'Father's Day', each one hoping to sell me a 'must have' item for my husband or 'Father'.
I have nothing against most holidays. They are a fun way to pass the day and can be the prompt, or kick in the pants, that some people need to take notice of someone else. But even though I don't necessarily object to them, we also don't feel the need to take part in most of them either.
Today is a day that is supposed to celebrate dad's. And it does to an extent, although I have to wonder who actually does more celebrating, dad's or the stores and companies selling all manner of things to people trying to show dad a bit of love today.
This past week I was at a major chain store and wanted to buy a card for my husband. I wanted something that basically told him I love him and how much I appreciate what he does for our family. I found a card that was almost perfect and, after checking the price, I stuck it in my shopping cart. I pushed that card all around the store while I shopped for groceries and other needed items. The card was unloaded onto the conveyor belt along with everything else. And during all that time I debated on whether or not to buy the card. I wanted it for my husband but that 6.00 price tag was more than a little ridiculous. When did greeting cards get so expensive? And why in the world are people crazy enough to spend so much on them?
In the end I put the card back. I just could not justify spending that much money on something that served such a small purpose. As I was making that final decision though, I stood there, card in hand, reading over the words written on thick paper and I thought to myself that I could better express my feelings in my own words and that it would probably mean more to my husband than a secular card. I felt a twinge of remorse as I set the card aside, seeing that pretty blue envelope. I even thought to myself that I wouldn't have such a pretty envelope to put whatever I make my husband in.
I don't have a pretty envelope and I don't have thick fancy paper but I have a heart full of love and gratitude.
I remember my growing up years, years in which I spent my days without a dad. I think I was about 12 when that fact started to bother me. I imagined what it might be like to have a dad. I never found out. Dad's day passed for me as nothing but a vague idea of something other people did.
Years later I used to imagine what it might be like to have a husband. I thought of what our family might be like. Daddy's day would come and go and still it was a vague notion for me. As an adult I better understood the purpose for it but still had never really had a reason to celebrate it, although I had learned at some point that 'Father's Day' doesn't only have to celebrate biological dads. I discovered that my grandpa deserved recognition too. I would get him a card, visit him, or call him on the phone but still the idea of celebrating dad's was foreign to me.
Then I married my husband. Holiday's have never gotten much notice in our home. Christmas is about the one exception and my husband does not like that holiday either. And so we pass our holidays with a short 'happy ______ day' and not much else.
As the years have passed though, I have seen countless reasons to celebrate my husband. He is a wonderful Dad. He sometimes makes my mother's heart leap in my chest as he tosses babies in the air or lets them play with things I don't think they should have but he is a wonderful dad. I smile when I watch him interact with our children. He has the uncanny ability to make babies love him and older kids too. He is playmate and daddy. He is friend and partner in crime.
One of the cards I looked at for my husband spoke of how good the Lord did when He put our family together. I loved how it worded that. The Lord did a marvelous job when he put our family together. We have had ups and downs. Trials and tribulations. There are things I wish we hadn't had to go through and things I would relive in a heartbeat.
I once had someone tell me I made a mistake in marrying my husband. This same person talked of how some marriages are God made and others are not. I don't believe that for a second. I firmly believe all marriages come about by the hand of God. I also certainly did not make a mistake in marrying my husband. He is a wonderful blessing.
He is my best friend. My confident. My...everything. He holds my heart in his hands. I am grateful that he is careful with my heart. He shares my faith. He studies Scripture with me. He guides me, leads me, provides for me. Protects me.
The Lord did good when He put our family together.
He gave me a husband that is as good as they come. There isn't another man out there more perfect for me. The Lord knew that when He brought us together.
My husband and I may not share all the same interests...for some reason he doesn't want to play dolls with me...but we share a good deal of interests. I can't find an interest in golf no matter how many times my husband shares the sport with me. None of that matters though because we both find joy in each other and in so many other things.
Sometimes we disagree on things. We don't always see things the same way. That's okay too. We never argue over the things we don't see eye to eye on and somehow it all works out.
The Lord did good when He put our family together.
The day I met my husband was the day the Lord gave me a gift like no other. It started out so mundane as to be normal. Nothing more than a smile shared between strangers. And now here we are, years later.
I watch my husband with our children and I know what a wonderful daddy and man he is. I watch him work endlessly, often exhausted, to provide for our family and I know what a wonderful man, husband, and daddy he is. He smiles at me when I walk up and I know he loves me. He cradles our child and I see the love of a wonderful daddy. He hands out hugs, advice, and money to our children and I see his care and love of them.
Today has become a day that is celebrated more by the businesses in America than it is by families. It's not about appreciating daddy anymore. Now it's about how much money you can spend to show dad you thought of him. Somehow America has begun to see love in the things that are bought and given as gifts. Covetousness fills our society to overflowing. Gone are the days when celebrating dad meant telling him you love him and spending the day with him. Now it's about better gifts, fancier cards, more expensive meals out.
It is no longer a holiday of love but a holiday of greed.
I can't say that I spent no money to celebrate this Daddy's day. I did. I didn't buy expensive cards or useless gifts. We won't be one of the families crowding into busy eating places to share a stressful meal among so many others but I did invest a bit of money into things my husband needed. I did it not because it's a holiday of consumerism but because my husband holds my heart.
I did it because all too often in the bustle of juggling a family I fail to say thank you or to make my husband know how much I appreciate him. He works hard to provide all the things we need and many of the things we want. He fills our lives and home with little things that bring joy to our days. He does laundry when I fail to get to it. He sweeps floors when they need it. He even cooks for me and washes baby diapers when there is a need to do so. He is the absolute best husband I could ever ask for and I want him to feel loved today and every day.
I thank the Lord for the husband He gave me, for the wonderful daddy He gave our children. I thank Him for my best friend, for my protector, my...husband.
And today I want to put all of that in words because if I shouted it from the rooftops daily I could never say it enough.
Thank you, husband, for all that you do for us. Thank you for being a wonderful daddy. Thank you for being a kind, caring man. Thank you for being my best friend. My Christian brother. My confidant. My soul mate. Thank you for loving me on good days and bad. Thank you...
for being you.
'Father's Day', like all other holidays in America have become more about commercialization and less about the purpose for the holiday. It seems like no matter what it is we are supposed to be celebrating, every store in America will happily sell us something to better that day. I have seen numerous adds over the last month, with the number escalating almost daily, for 'Father's Day', each one hoping to sell me a 'must have' item for my husband or 'Father'.
I have nothing against most holidays. They are a fun way to pass the day and can be the prompt, or kick in the pants, that some people need to take notice of someone else. But even though I don't necessarily object to them, we also don't feel the need to take part in most of them either.
Today is a day that is supposed to celebrate dad's. And it does to an extent, although I have to wonder who actually does more celebrating, dad's or the stores and companies selling all manner of things to people trying to show dad a bit of love today.
This past week I was at a major chain store and wanted to buy a card for my husband. I wanted something that basically told him I love him and how much I appreciate what he does for our family. I found a card that was almost perfect and, after checking the price, I stuck it in my shopping cart. I pushed that card all around the store while I shopped for groceries and other needed items. The card was unloaded onto the conveyor belt along with everything else. And during all that time I debated on whether or not to buy the card. I wanted it for my husband but that 6.00 price tag was more than a little ridiculous. When did greeting cards get so expensive? And why in the world are people crazy enough to spend so much on them?
In the end I put the card back. I just could not justify spending that much money on something that served such a small purpose. As I was making that final decision though, I stood there, card in hand, reading over the words written on thick paper and I thought to myself that I could better express my feelings in my own words and that it would probably mean more to my husband than a secular card. I felt a twinge of remorse as I set the card aside, seeing that pretty blue envelope. I even thought to myself that I wouldn't have such a pretty envelope to put whatever I make my husband in.
I don't have a pretty envelope and I don't have thick fancy paper but I have a heart full of love and gratitude.
I remember my growing up years, years in which I spent my days without a dad. I think I was about 12 when that fact started to bother me. I imagined what it might be like to have a dad. I never found out. Dad's day passed for me as nothing but a vague idea of something other people did.
Years later I used to imagine what it might be like to have a husband. I thought of what our family might be like. Daddy's day would come and go and still it was a vague notion for me. As an adult I better understood the purpose for it but still had never really had a reason to celebrate it, although I had learned at some point that 'Father's Day' doesn't only have to celebrate biological dads. I discovered that my grandpa deserved recognition too. I would get him a card, visit him, or call him on the phone but still the idea of celebrating dad's was foreign to me.
Then I married my husband. Holiday's have never gotten much notice in our home. Christmas is about the one exception and my husband does not like that holiday either. And so we pass our holidays with a short 'happy ______ day' and not much else.
As the years have passed though, I have seen countless reasons to celebrate my husband. He is a wonderful Dad. He sometimes makes my mother's heart leap in my chest as he tosses babies in the air or lets them play with things I don't think they should have but he is a wonderful dad. I smile when I watch him interact with our children. He has the uncanny ability to make babies love him and older kids too. He is playmate and daddy. He is friend and partner in crime.
One of the cards I looked at for my husband spoke of how good the Lord did when He put our family together. I loved how it worded that. The Lord did a marvelous job when he put our family together. We have had ups and downs. Trials and tribulations. There are things I wish we hadn't had to go through and things I would relive in a heartbeat.
I once had someone tell me I made a mistake in marrying my husband. This same person talked of how some marriages are God made and others are not. I don't believe that for a second. I firmly believe all marriages come about by the hand of God. I also certainly did not make a mistake in marrying my husband. He is a wonderful blessing.
He is my best friend. My confident. My...everything. He holds my heart in his hands. I am grateful that he is careful with my heart. He shares my faith. He studies Scripture with me. He guides me, leads me, provides for me. Protects me.
The Lord did good when He put our family together.
He gave me a husband that is as good as they come. There isn't another man out there more perfect for me. The Lord knew that when He brought us together.
My husband and I may not share all the same interests...for some reason he doesn't want to play dolls with me...but we share a good deal of interests. I can't find an interest in golf no matter how many times my husband shares the sport with me. None of that matters though because we both find joy in each other and in so many other things.
Sometimes we disagree on things. We don't always see things the same way. That's okay too. We never argue over the things we don't see eye to eye on and somehow it all works out.
The Lord did good when He put our family together.
The day I met my husband was the day the Lord gave me a gift like no other. It started out so mundane as to be normal. Nothing more than a smile shared between strangers. And now here we are, years later.
I watch my husband with our children and I know what a wonderful daddy and man he is. I watch him work endlessly, often exhausted, to provide for our family and I know what a wonderful man, husband, and daddy he is. He smiles at me when I walk up and I know he loves me. He cradles our child and I see the love of a wonderful daddy. He hands out hugs, advice, and money to our children and I see his care and love of them.
Today has become a day that is celebrated more by the businesses in America than it is by families. It's not about appreciating daddy anymore. Now it's about how much money you can spend to show dad you thought of him. Somehow America has begun to see love in the things that are bought and given as gifts. Covetousness fills our society to overflowing. Gone are the days when celebrating dad meant telling him you love him and spending the day with him. Now it's about better gifts, fancier cards, more expensive meals out.
It is no longer a holiday of love but a holiday of greed.
I can't say that I spent no money to celebrate this Daddy's day. I did. I didn't buy expensive cards or useless gifts. We won't be one of the families crowding into busy eating places to share a stressful meal among so many others but I did invest a bit of money into things my husband needed. I did it not because it's a holiday of consumerism but because my husband holds my heart.
I did it because all too often in the bustle of juggling a family I fail to say thank you or to make my husband know how much I appreciate him. He works hard to provide all the things we need and many of the things we want. He fills our lives and home with little things that bring joy to our days. He does laundry when I fail to get to it. He sweeps floors when they need it. He even cooks for me and washes baby diapers when there is a need to do so. He is the absolute best husband I could ever ask for and I want him to feel loved today and every day.
I thank the Lord for the husband He gave me, for the wonderful daddy He gave our children. I thank Him for my best friend, for my protector, my...husband.
And today I want to put all of that in words because if I shouted it from the rooftops daily I could never say it enough.
Thank you, husband, for all that you do for us. Thank you for being a wonderful daddy. Thank you for being a kind, caring man. Thank you for being my best friend. My Christian brother. My confidant. My soul mate. Thank you for loving me on good days and bad. Thank you...
for being you.
Saturday, June 16, 2018
What kind of love is this?
My husband just shared something with me that I was unaware of. A popular country/'Christian' singer was faced with discovering his daughter is a lesbian.
As a parent I can only guess at what he went through and the tough decisions he had to struggle with. As a called out child of Christ I know what my stance would be in that situation.
I do not know what went on behind closed doors for this singer, nor do I know how much of the statements made are for public relations purposes. Let's face it, anyone that makes their living off catering to other people, entertaining them, keeping them happy in order to keep their own status elevated, would take public relations into account when they gave their response. Whatever their private response was, they would always have the public to consider when responding publicly.
I knew nothing of any of this until my husband made me aware of it. He took the same stance I thought, I would love my child despite their sin but I could not be a part of, or condone the sin. I just couldn't.
I was faced with that very situation a few years ago. A young woman, not my daughter but a relative that I helped raise in her younger years, was caught up in the same sin. I still loved her, welcomed her in my home, but I could not embrace the sin she was caught up in and would not allow even the tiniest hint of that sin inside my home. I just couldn't do it. Thankfully she respected me enough to never even try to engage in any form of that sin in my home or when she was with me. One of these days I really should thank her for that.
So I can somewhat understand what this dad faced. It is a rough situation to be in, strictly speaking in human terms.
What do we do when those we love most do things that go against not only our own deeply held beliefs but our Lord's commandments?
There is no question in my mind. I have to stick to my Lord's commandments. I can look the other way and love my child despite their sin so long as they know never to parade that sin before me or bring it into my home. My husband says the same thing.
This morning he told me how he would warn them of their sin and love them anyway but never allow them to bring their sin into our home. He also said he would do, has done, the same thing to relatives whose sin is lying, covetousness, etc.
There is a line that has already been drawn in the sand. A line that does not have its roots in man but in God. The line cannot be erased. It cannot be moved. Sin is sin and it is an abomination before a holy God.
I'd like to be able to say this singer took the right stand, chose the right side. I'd like to be able to say that he admonished his daughter then told her he would love her despite her sin. I'd like to be able to say that but I can't.
The public stance he took was to move the line in the sand.
This morning my husband told me of this singers situation and the stance he took. We talked of it, of why the stance was wrong, of what we'd do in that situation.
Parenting is hard. Sometimes the deep love we hold for our children is our own worst enemy. My heart hurts just thinking about being presented with such a situation. But there is that line in the sand. Whose side does anyone claiming Christ take?
After my husband and I ended our conversation I did a bit of my own research. Sure enough, there was article after article about this singer and his daughter. And each one said the same thing. He had decided to love her. The rest was her choice.
I did find one article that said he had struggled with his deeply ingrained, long held, beliefs and changed his beliefs, coming to the conclusion that it was his daughters choice.
He moved the line in the sand. He shifted it around. He chose familial relationships over the Lord and His word.
One of the articles I looked at said he was the poster boy for 'Christian' music. Where then is his stand for the Christ he claims to worship?
Honestly, after reading over several different news articles I couldn't find that stance. He took the middle road. I can't see that he didn't take a stand against sin, he may have but if he did it was done behind closed doors and not released to the public. His statements are kind of...empty, for lack of a better word. To me anyway. He wound up saying his job was simply to love his daughter. The rest is her choice.
He's right. And he's wrong.
We are given the task to love others but we are also given the task to admonish them when they sin. I can't see that this man did that. He may have, but again, if he did, it was behind closed doors.
I tried hard to find articles giving more information. There appear to be none. I tried hard to find any 'Christian' news site, magazine, or anything else admonishing him on his stance. There appear to be none of those either.
What I didn't find was disturbing. Where are the 'Christians' admonishing him to stand for Christ and not for familial relationships. Yes, love your daughter. Yes, issue a statement that you will love her no matter what. BUT issue that statement in a way that shows you don't condone her sin. Let the world know you stand for what your God stands for.
I also found something else. Something that was the most alarming of all. Something that made me sit back and stare in shock, made me question my own thoughts of wanting to give this man any benefit of the doubt.
I found what appeared to be a homosexual news outlet that was applauding him for the stance he took. It even said, "But, thankfully, he overcame the intolerant teachings which he had previously accepted."
So Christianity and taking a stand for Christ is intolerant teachings. Not only that but this news outlet applauded the fact that this singer was able to "overcome" those teachings.
I may not have been able to get a clear understanding of how this man really felt. Maybe he was against his daughters sin, maybe he spoke to her about it, I don't know. What I do know was that his statements to the public were wishy-washy and when he could have taken a stand for Christ and against sin, he did not do so. In fact he failed to so to the point that a homosexual news outlet lauded him for his stance.
I have to ask...if the homosexual community is happy with his response...Is God?
If those living in the same sin he was faced with are happy with his response...did he take the 'Christian' stance? The Scriptural stance? Or the socially acceptable stance?
In one article I did see verses on love quoted, included the verse about Christ loving us so much he laid down his life for us, but I'm not certain if it was the article's author quoting them or the singer. Either way, the verses were taken out of context and Christ does not love those glorifying sin. He does not love those wallowing in it. And I'm pretty sure He isn't happy with any professing 'Christian' taking the wishy-washy road and downplaying the severity of the sin simply because the sinner is his daughter.
Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Matthew 10:37
Love your daughter, yes, please, show them all the love you can. Tell them many times a day that you love them, hug them, hold them...LOVE them with everything in your earthly heart but do so as the Christ following person you claim to be. When you align yourself with Christ...stand for him.
This man is held aloft for his 'Christian' faith. He and his wife were put on pedestals for their faith in super trying times. They were made paragons of the 'Christian's faith. They were turned into idols for what they stood for. And what they stood for is fine. They spread the name of Christ.
I am sure there are people out there that would have held Christ in total disdain had they not seen some 'star' as being a 'Christian'. But where is that testimony now? Where is this man in his alignment with Christ?
Nowhere.
He may have gotten far in the 'God loves everybody' circle of 'Christians'. He may have gained popularity, and I am sure he did gain popularity...I can't find a single 'Christian' site calling him out for his support of sin...but he did not stand for Christ. He did not call sin sin. He did not say this is an abomination to my Lord. He did not say, I am human, my human heart loves my daughter but what sayeth the Lord.
This award winning paragon of 'Christianity' is now a much heralded man of the homosexual community, at least according to one news site.
What kind of 'Christian' is he?
Please, don't get me wrong, I've heard his music and for the most part I liked it. I appreciate that he, and others, have released hymns and gospel music. Sometimes my believers heart wants to hear a song about my Lord. I don't listen to gospel music on a regular basis. I don't even listen to hymns on a regular basis but once in a while I want to hear a song and when I do I appreciate someone with better singing skills than I taking the time to share their ability with me. I appreciate it even more if the singers stance is at least deeply sincere.
I have heard this man's music. I enjoy listening to it once in a rare while. I appreciate his singing style and at least some of his song choices.
I'm not opposed to him in any way. And until now I would have said that I wasn't really for or against him but if pressed would have to fall on the 'for' side of things. He obviously loves money, makes his living peddling Christ just as much as any preacher ever did. I don't know if he gives his money to the poor, don't know if he has expensive belongings but I would assume he does.
That is neither here nor there. It simply is. If pressed I would have said I have nothing against him and support his public stance for Christ.
The trouble is that stance just fell. When his daughter and her sin pressed up against his faith in Christ...Christ lost. He chose to support and promote sin rather than take a stance against it.
He chose 'love' over Christ. Is love not the very definition of support, acceptance, and promotion the homosexual community flaunts before all? Is 'love' not the very thing they seek as affirmation for their sins? Is 'love' not the end all and be all of this heinous sexual sin that is now flaunted before us as if it is something to be proud of?
I understand that he chose to 'love' his daughter. And he should have. She is his daughter. No matter what sin consumes her heart, mind and soul, she is and will always be, his daughter. Love her. Please. But don't love her in the form of loving her sin. Call her out on her sin. Show her why you, as a self professing 'Christian' can't stand for that sin. Show the world that you can't condone or promote that sin.
Stand for the Christ you claim to follow.
He has built an empire on Christ. He has built his pedestal one brick at a time singing songs that cater to 'Christians'. He built his pedestal even further when he chose to make a very painful personal experience public, sharing the pain and the joy of one of the deepest hurts we can have in this earthly life. He shared it all before millions of adoring fans, fanning the flame of his 'Christianity' for all the world to see by leaning on his faith to see him through.
Again, I have nothing against any of that. It may not have been the best, or done in the best way, but it sure wasn't the worst.
It's his latest stance that he has chosen to share with all his adoring fans, earning him further applause by the world, gaining more fanfare, that I have a problem with.
And I have a problem with all the 'Christian' news outlets, magazines, blog sites, and any other outlet that has voice for Christian anything, for not calling him out on his wrongful 'Christian' response.
This man, this 'Christian', is in as much error as his daughter, maybe more so. She at least is not professing Christ before the entire world. She has not made an entire famous reputation on Christ's name. She has not proclaimed to all who will listen that she is a 'Christian' gaining awards and recognition for her deep faith, modeling that faith before others, parading it as what a 'Christian' should strive for.
Even if he never encouraged others to have his brand of faith, the fact that he has chosen to live it out in the lime light has ensured that he is proclaiming Christ before the world.
And when push came to shove and he was confronted with his daughters sin...
He did not stand for Christ.
As a parent I can only guess at what he went through and the tough decisions he had to struggle with. As a called out child of Christ I know what my stance would be in that situation.
I do not know what went on behind closed doors for this singer, nor do I know how much of the statements made are for public relations purposes. Let's face it, anyone that makes their living off catering to other people, entertaining them, keeping them happy in order to keep their own status elevated, would take public relations into account when they gave their response. Whatever their private response was, they would always have the public to consider when responding publicly.
I knew nothing of any of this until my husband made me aware of it. He took the same stance I thought, I would love my child despite their sin but I could not be a part of, or condone the sin. I just couldn't.
I was faced with that very situation a few years ago. A young woman, not my daughter but a relative that I helped raise in her younger years, was caught up in the same sin. I still loved her, welcomed her in my home, but I could not embrace the sin she was caught up in and would not allow even the tiniest hint of that sin inside my home. I just couldn't do it. Thankfully she respected me enough to never even try to engage in any form of that sin in my home or when she was with me. One of these days I really should thank her for that.
So I can somewhat understand what this dad faced. It is a rough situation to be in, strictly speaking in human terms.
What do we do when those we love most do things that go against not only our own deeply held beliefs but our Lord's commandments?
There is no question in my mind. I have to stick to my Lord's commandments. I can look the other way and love my child despite their sin so long as they know never to parade that sin before me or bring it into my home. My husband says the same thing.
This morning he told me how he would warn them of their sin and love them anyway but never allow them to bring their sin into our home. He also said he would do, has done, the same thing to relatives whose sin is lying, covetousness, etc.
There is a line that has already been drawn in the sand. A line that does not have its roots in man but in God. The line cannot be erased. It cannot be moved. Sin is sin and it is an abomination before a holy God.
I'd like to be able to say this singer took the right stand, chose the right side. I'd like to be able to say that he admonished his daughter then told her he would love her despite her sin. I'd like to be able to say that but I can't.
The public stance he took was to move the line in the sand.
This morning my husband told me of this singers situation and the stance he took. We talked of it, of why the stance was wrong, of what we'd do in that situation.
Parenting is hard. Sometimes the deep love we hold for our children is our own worst enemy. My heart hurts just thinking about being presented with such a situation. But there is that line in the sand. Whose side does anyone claiming Christ take?
After my husband and I ended our conversation I did a bit of my own research. Sure enough, there was article after article about this singer and his daughter. And each one said the same thing. He had decided to love her. The rest was her choice.
I did find one article that said he had struggled with his deeply ingrained, long held, beliefs and changed his beliefs, coming to the conclusion that it was his daughters choice.
He moved the line in the sand. He shifted it around. He chose familial relationships over the Lord and His word.
One of the articles I looked at said he was the poster boy for 'Christian' music. Where then is his stand for the Christ he claims to worship?
Honestly, after reading over several different news articles I couldn't find that stance. He took the middle road. I can't see that he didn't take a stand against sin, he may have but if he did it was done behind closed doors and not released to the public. His statements are kind of...empty, for lack of a better word. To me anyway. He wound up saying his job was simply to love his daughter. The rest is her choice.
He's right. And he's wrong.
We are given the task to love others but we are also given the task to admonish them when they sin. I can't see that this man did that. He may have, but again, if he did, it was behind closed doors.
I tried hard to find articles giving more information. There appear to be none. I tried hard to find any 'Christian' news site, magazine, or anything else admonishing him on his stance. There appear to be none of those either.
What I didn't find was disturbing. Where are the 'Christians' admonishing him to stand for Christ and not for familial relationships. Yes, love your daughter. Yes, issue a statement that you will love her no matter what. BUT issue that statement in a way that shows you don't condone her sin. Let the world know you stand for what your God stands for.
I also found something else. Something that was the most alarming of all. Something that made me sit back and stare in shock, made me question my own thoughts of wanting to give this man any benefit of the doubt.
I found what appeared to be a homosexual news outlet that was applauding him for the stance he took. It even said, "But, thankfully, he overcame the intolerant teachings which he had previously accepted."
So Christianity and taking a stand for Christ is intolerant teachings. Not only that but this news outlet applauded the fact that this singer was able to "overcome" those teachings.
I may not have been able to get a clear understanding of how this man really felt. Maybe he was against his daughters sin, maybe he spoke to her about it, I don't know. What I do know was that his statements to the public were wishy-washy and when he could have taken a stand for Christ and against sin, he did not do so. In fact he failed to so to the point that a homosexual news outlet lauded him for his stance.
I have to ask...if the homosexual community is happy with his response...Is God?
If those living in the same sin he was faced with are happy with his response...did he take the 'Christian' stance? The Scriptural stance? Or the socially acceptable stance?
In one article I did see verses on love quoted, included the verse about Christ loving us so much he laid down his life for us, but I'm not certain if it was the article's author quoting them or the singer. Either way, the verses were taken out of context and Christ does not love those glorifying sin. He does not love those wallowing in it. And I'm pretty sure He isn't happy with any professing 'Christian' taking the wishy-washy road and downplaying the severity of the sin simply because the sinner is his daughter.
Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Matthew 10:37
Love your daughter, yes, please, show them all the love you can. Tell them many times a day that you love them, hug them, hold them...LOVE them with everything in your earthly heart but do so as the Christ following person you claim to be. When you align yourself with Christ...stand for him.
This man is held aloft for his 'Christian' faith. He and his wife were put on pedestals for their faith in super trying times. They were made paragons of the 'Christian's faith. They were turned into idols for what they stood for. And what they stood for is fine. They spread the name of Christ.
I am sure there are people out there that would have held Christ in total disdain had they not seen some 'star' as being a 'Christian'. But where is that testimony now? Where is this man in his alignment with Christ?
Nowhere.
He may have gotten far in the 'God loves everybody' circle of 'Christians'. He may have gained popularity, and I am sure he did gain popularity...I can't find a single 'Christian' site calling him out for his support of sin...but he did not stand for Christ. He did not call sin sin. He did not say this is an abomination to my Lord. He did not say, I am human, my human heart loves my daughter but what sayeth the Lord.
This award winning paragon of 'Christianity' is now a much heralded man of the homosexual community, at least according to one news site.
What kind of 'Christian' is he?
Please, don't get me wrong, I've heard his music and for the most part I liked it. I appreciate that he, and others, have released hymns and gospel music. Sometimes my believers heart wants to hear a song about my Lord. I don't listen to gospel music on a regular basis. I don't even listen to hymns on a regular basis but once in a while I want to hear a song and when I do I appreciate someone with better singing skills than I taking the time to share their ability with me. I appreciate it even more if the singers stance is at least deeply sincere.
I have heard this man's music. I enjoy listening to it once in a rare while. I appreciate his singing style and at least some of his song choices.
I'm not opposed to him in any way. And until now I would have said that I wasn't really for or against him but if pressed would have to fall on the 'for' side of things. He obviously loves money, makes his living peddling Christ just as much as any preacher ever did. I don't know if he gives his money to the poor, don't know if he has expensive belongings but I would assume he does.
That is neither here nor there. It simply is. If pressed I would have said I have nothing against him and support his public stance for Christ.
The trouble is that stance just fell. When his daughter and her sin pressed up against his faith in Christ...Christ lost. He chose to support and promote sin rather than take a stance against it.
He chose 'love' over Christ. Is love not the very definition of support, acceptance, and promotion the homosexual community flaunts before all? Is 'love' not the very thing they seek as affirmation for their sins? Is 'love' not the end all and be all of this heinous sexual sin that is now flaunted before us as if it is something to be proud of?
I understand that he chose to 'love' his daughter. And he should have. She is his daughter. No matter what sin consumes her heart, mind and soul, she is and will always be, his daughter. Love her. Please. But don't love her in the form of loving her sin. Call her out on her sin. Show her why you, as a self professing 'Christian' can't stand for that sin. Show the world that you can't condone or promote that sin.
Stand for the Christ you claim to follow.
He has built an empire on Christ. He has built his pedestal one brick at a time singing songs that cater to 'Christians'. He built his pedestal even further when he chose to make a very painful personal experience public, sharing the pain and the joy of one of the deepest hurts we can have in this earthly life. He shared it all before millions of adoring fans, fanning the flame of his 'Christianity' for all the world to see by leaning on his faith to see him through.
Again, I have nothing against any of that. It may not have been the best, or done in the best way, but it sure wasn't the worst.
It's his latest stance that he has chosen to share with all his adoring fans, earning him further applause by the world, gaining more fanfare, that I have a problem with.
And I have a problem with all the 'Christian' news outlets, magazines, blog sites, and any other outlet that has voice for Christian anything, for not calling him out on his wrongful 'Christian' response.
This man, this 'Christian', is in as much error as his daughter, maybe more so. She at least is not professing Christ before the entire world. She has not made an entire famous reputation on Christ's name. She has not proclaimed to all who will listen that she is a 'Christian' gaining awards and recognition for her deep faith, modeling that faith before others, parading it as what a 'Christian' should strive for.
Even if he never encouraged others to have his brand of faith, the fact that he has chosen to live it out in the lime light has ensured that he is proclaiming Christ before the world.
And when push came to shove and he was confronted with his daughters sin...
He did not stand for Christ.
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ Matthew 7:21-23 esv
The verse above clearly states that not all who profess Christ are His. He says there will be 'many' that will profess 'Lord, Lord' and proclaim to have done works in his name, would not living a 'Christian' life in the lime light be considered a work? Is it now a way of doing mighty work in Christ's name?
Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning
from the beginning. 1 John 3:8 esv
If he does not stand for Christ, for Christ's definition of sin...where does he stand?
I'm glad he chose to love his daughter but shouldn't he have chosen to stand for Christ also? It wasn't an either or situation, unless his daughter made it so. He could love her while admonishing her and taking a public stance that homosexuality is sin and he cannot condone it or have it around him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)