As I noted in part 1, I started this because a number of Christians seem to be responding to the recent shootings with questioning the 2nd Amendment and the place of guns among Christians.

In part 1 I focused on the inappropriate uses and purposes of guns in light of Scripture. This time I want to focus on the appropriate uses of guns in light of Scripture.

The gospel of Jesus presupposes the fallen character of the world and sinfulness of humanity. That has not changed since the Flood (see Genesis 6 in which humanity was prone toward increasing violence). We see this in John 3, which in addition to teaching about the love of God which resulted in sending the Son to save His people also teaches us that “the world” already stands condemned and rejects the Light because it loves darkness to cover its evil deeds.

This means we live surrounded by evil people. This has many applications that require wisdom for godly men and women. Let’s look at a few things.

In Genesis we see that Abraham’s nephew Lot was captured when some kings put down a rebellion that included the city in which Lot lived, Sodom (see Genesis 14). Did Abram (his name had not been changed yet) say “This must be the will of God, I hope Lot does well in his new life.”? Did Abram go and ask kindly for the kings to let him go?

No, Abram gathered his servants, and friends, and went to rescue Lot from the kings. This required weapons. Weapons can be used to defend the defenseless and rescue those victimized by evil men. This was righteous Abram who believed God, and tithed to God from the plunder he gained. Abram was acting in faith, not in unbelief in so doing. Abram was not a magistrate (ruler), policeman, soldier etc.

In Judges we see a pattern of Apostasy, Battering, Confession and Deliverance in the life of Israel after entering the Promised Land. The problems were caused by everyone “doing what was right in their own eyes”. And yet God delivered them by raising up men (and a woman) to deliver them.

Ehud and Eglon

Enter Ehud, for instance. Portions of Israel were under the control of Moab. They paid tribute to the king of Moab. Ehud assassinated Eglon when he delivered the tribute. Weapons may be used to overthrow an oppressive ruler (which is why oppressive governments have historically prohibited citizens to own weapons). This was the justification used (in light of Calvin’s doctrine of the lower magistrate) in the American Revolution. It was not simply citizens, but the Continental Congress as the lesser magistrate had a right to rebel against a corrupt king. It required an armed populace to do so. This is why the 2nd Amendment was added, precisely because the founding father’s feared that one day the government they found could become oppressive. They were rooted in their Judeo-Christian heritage, expressed by the actions of Ehud and Calvin’s doctrine, in formulating it. Guns can be used to overthrow an unjust government, not simply by crazed independent militia, but by a lesser magistrate (state, county or city government) that has the right and responsibilities to protect its citizens from the unjust ruler. Those citizens would need to participate in that process since that magistrate has fewer citizens than the whole country.

This may be why David did not actively work to overthrow Saul. David was not a lower magistrate and had no right to overthrow Saul. He waited for God to fulfill His promise that David would be king. David and his men did defend themselves, which required weapons. Surely Saul was frustrated that David and his men had weapons.

Samson Defeating the Philistines

Samson Defeating the Philistines

Later in Judges, we see Samson whom God used to provoke the Philistines and eventually bring judgment upon them. Samson did not lead an army, but was endowed with supernatural strength. On one occasion he used the jaw bone of an ass as a weapon to slay 1,000 men. That sounds like a mass shooting, but it was against wicked men. He had the right to defend himself against wicked men. And so do we. This would mean, I believe, that Christians can own guns for self-defense. This would be implied in Jesus’ instruction to his disciples in Luke 22 to buy a sword. This would be akin to Jesus telling his disciples today to buy a gun. There is no non-violent use of a sword. This is also behind the rationale of the 2nd Amendment which makes it consistent with Scripture.

In fact, in Exodus 22 we see that if someone enters your home by night he or she may be slain without guilt and consequence. By day as another matter. At night there is no one to help you. If caught during the day, the thief is required to pay restitution. By night, the use of a weapon would be permissible. People should be able to defend their families from intruders, particularly at night, with guns.

If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. Exodus 22

These are historical accounts from which I am drawing inferences. Some may question those inferences. To support my inferences, let’s talk about sanctification. The gospel includes the reality that we are being conformed to the likeness (morally) of Christ. He wants to make us more like He is. He is restoring His image in us.

28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. Romans 8

20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. Ephesians 4

On account of these the wrath of God is coming. In these you too once walked, when you were living in them. But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices 10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. Colossians 3

Sanctification, a work of God’s free grace, involves a putting off and a putting on. This is called mortification and vivification. We turn away from worldly attitudes and sin such as malice, rage, bitterness etc. which result in the sinful use of guns I mentioned in part 1.

We are also to put on godly mindsets, and actions. If we study the character of God we see that He is the defender of the defenseless. For instance, He cares for widows and orphans. He also delivers the oppressed and exploited. We are also are supposed to care for widows and orphans. In fact, we are often His means to care for them rather than dropping money from the sky. Similarly we are to deliver the oppressed and exploited. There are times when we can use the legal process to do so. But there are other times when we may need to act immediately.

For instance, imagine you are near a gun-free zone and hear gunshots. Yes, you should call 911. But until the police arrive the gunman may be able to shoot dozens of people. Should a godly person just shrug their shoulders (and pray), or could one act to defend those at the mercy of an evil person brandishing a weapon? It is not contrary to the gospel to use a weapon to stop such an evil person. Godliness is not to sit idly by while your wife is raped, or children threatened. The use of force, including guns, would be permitted. As we see in Scripture, God often defended His helpless people through the use of force (see the Exodus, the slaughter of the Assyrian army and more). It is not ungodly, but rather godly, to use force to protect those under your care, and innocent bystanders, from wicked people seeking to commit “death-sentence” sins like murder and rape. The exception I would mention is persecution- when people are trying to kill you for being a Christian. That opens another can of worms I will not address here.

So, I think we find that “turn the other cheek” is only part of the answer to the question of guns and the gospel. There are other biblical ideas we need to incorporate to get a fuller answer to the question. Christians are free to decide for themselves if they want to own a gun or not. If they do own a gun they are bound by the limitations we’ve discussed. It can not be used for sinful reasons, or to further our own sin. It can be used to defend yourself, and your loved ones, and the defenseless from evil doers. Guns can also be used in a legitimate revolution or to stop an oppressive and evil magistrate in certain situations.

As a result of a biblical theology and historical theology, I would say that the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is consistent with the rights of godly people in the Scriptures. It is, in no way, contrary to the gospel. It would be sinful uses of weapons that would be contrary to the gospel.

Just for fun read about the Harvard Study that shows are negative correlation between guns and violence.

The recent tragedies, or perhaps seemingly endless series of gun tragedies, have caused many to re-consider their own view on guns. I ran across a statement that the Bible has no “theology of guns” and therefore we should be willing to view the 2nd Amendment as contrary to Scripture.

I think it bears some examination. Obviously guns aren’t in the Scriptures, but weapons certainly are. This country has a long history of gun ownership, and responsible gun ownership. These kinds of shootings, not associated with mob wars, are new.

Before we get to weapons themselves, let us consider some of the cultural shifts that may be at work in this horrible trend. The most fundamental is a shift away from a Judeo-Christian worldview. While American has never been a Christian nation, it has been dominated by the Judeo-Christian (monotheistic and moralistic) worldview as a form of civil religion. As the gospel has departed from the cultural consciousness we see the wrath of God revealed as we see in Romans 1. Often we focus on the sexual immorality, but there is also a great increase in violence as the culture, and its members begin to devalue life. We see this in abortion, domestic violence, school violence, gang life, euthanasia and more.  This leads to the breakdown of the family, and studies indicate that sons without fathers are far more likely to struggle in many ways, including a tendency toward violence.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Romans 1

Cain and Abel

Cain and Abel

This only makes sense when we think of life after Eden. We see that the world in rebellion to God was full of violence beginning with Cain killing his brother Abel. Abel’s great “sin” against Cain? It was actually about God because God accepted Abel’s sacrifice but not Cain’s. Pride and envy gave birth to bitterness and then hatred which resulted in Cain picking up a rock to kill his brother.

Notice God’s response. Before he did it, God confronted Cain and called him to rule over sin before sin ruled over him. Cain was mastered by sin instead. God had a measure of mercy on Cain by not having him put to death. A mark was placed on him so others wouldn’t kill him either. (As we will see in part 2, this changes after the flood.) God did not blame the rock, institute rock-free zones or rock (or whatever he used) control. The issue was not rocks but the human heart.

This cycle of violence continued with Lamech. He is the forefather of the gang mentality we often see among our disillusioned, despairing youth even if they are not in gangs.

23 Lamech said to his wives:

“Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;
    you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say:
I have killed a man for wounding me,
    a young man for striking me.
24 If Cain’s revenge is sevenfold,
    then Lamech’s is seventy-sevenfold.”Genesis 4

We notice here a corruption of sex and marriage as well in that he spoke to his wives. A polygamist, he perverted justice. His wounding lead him to kill another man. He then boasted about it. His “punishment” exceeded the sin committed against him (giving Lamech the benefit of the doubt).

We see here, and in the OT law, that punishments are not to exceed the crime. The “eye for an eye” code puts limits on justice. We are not to kill people for insulting us, stealing from us (except in one instance I will mention in part 2) etc.

To make an epochal adjustment, we see that we should not use guns (or any other weapon or tool used as a weapon) to commit crimes, or to retaliate against those who harm us. The problem is not the tool we use, but rather the wicked design of the person who wields it.

In the NT we see this taught in a few places. Most famously in the Sermon on the Mount.

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. Matthew 5

We see that Jesus refers to the law of talonic justice. For a personal insult (the slap) we are not to retaliate in like kind and especially not in an excessive manner (like shooting or stabbing them). The gospel helps us to forgive them instead of seeking retribution. We should rather be wronged than wrong the other person in response.

This doesn’t mean we don’t care about or want justice. It means we entrust justice into God’s hands instead of our own.

17 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” Romans 12

We remember that God is just, and He has promised to make all things right. That may be in the death of His Son, or in judgment on the Last Day. But God will deal with it. It may also be through the state as Paul noted in Romans 13.

 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Romans 13

Death Wish 3

If you are a person prone to anger, or seeking retaliation, you should not own a weapon because you will be particularly tempted to use it for unjust and wicked purposes. It is not intended to be used to right the wrongs perpetrated against you.

Does this mean that a Christian shouldn’t own a weapon (unless he or she is in the military or law enforcement)? No.

We have this statement by Jesus as he prepares the send the disciples out. Previously they were to go with nothing. Now they were to bring particular items.

36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. Luke 22

He wanted the disciples to buy a sword! Surely, therefore, it is not sinful to own and therefore use one. The issue is for what reason. We have seen the wrong reasons to use one: murder, retaliation and would include to rob others or otherwise sin against them.

Last again.

That is one way of looking at it. But not necessarily the best way.

Unfortunately they played too well at the end and no longer have a protected 1st pick (which last year netted them Andrew Benintendi, an outfielder with power who adjusted to the minors very quickly and was promoted). Hopefully they can get another building block for the future, unless they sign a free agent who got a qualifying offer.


2015 was really a tale of two seasons. The first season got them into last place and cost their pitching coach his job. The hitters struggled in the first month or so. Hanley was HOT in the first month (he and Dustin were the only ones), but then got hurt and pretty much stunk offensively the rest of his shortened year. While Betts, Bogaerts and Ortiz started to hit, Nava, Napoli, Panda etc. did not. Victorino was barely in there as he struggled with injuries again.

And there was the pitching which was horrendous. Short outings, big innings, overworked bullpen. Dumpster fire was it, Yoda would say. There was a reason the coach lost his job. The only bright spots were Clay and Koji.

The outfield defense was hit or miss. Betts did an excellent job. Hanley was horrendous- the worst left fielder they Red Sox have ever had. Epic kind of bad. This did not help the pitchers, at all. It also cost them a few games with costly errors.

Lots of people were wondering how long Farrell would have his job.

Then a few things changed.

  1. They cleared space for young players to come up by trading Napoli, Nava and Victorino.
  2. Turnover in the front office. Dombrowski was hired to head up baseball operations, Ben decided to leave too. This gave a fresh set of eyes and no loyalties to the situation
  3. Farrell had surgery during which they discovered cancer which meant he was done for the season.
  4. Hanley was essentially benched which allowed them to establish 3 guys in the line up just about every day.

A Feel-Good Second Half

This meant that JBJ and Castillo were able to establish some continuity which helped JBJ have a scorching hot August providing a glimmer of hope that he has turned that corner offensively. Castillo got his defense sorted out and hit better than in his yo-yo stints earlier in the year. Even more importantly, they got incredible defense in the outfield for the rest of the season.

Travis Shaw did his best Mike Napoli from earlier seasons impression hitting over .270 and launching 13 over the wall. Finally offense from the first baseman.

The rest of the offense also came together and Chili Davis kept his job. They were the 3rd best offense. Not quite what we’d hoped but after such a slow start they showed what we hope happens in the future. Xander, who also improved his defense, upped his average significantly to hit over .320. Now, he just needs to hit for power. Betts’ average continued to climb through the second half of the season and is becoming the player we thought he would. Swihart made steady improvement as well.

The pitching got better despite Clay’s latest injury. Porcello and Kelly had their “come to Jesus” moments and pitched significantly better after trips to the minor to fix “injuries”. FA returnee Rich Hill was amazing in 4 starts. Before a concussion ended his season Wright was doing very well with his knuckleball.

They were one of the better teams in the last 2+ months of the season, nearly getting out of the basement of the AL East.

The Damage

Fans want the big FA signings G-O-N-E. Panda ballooned up and struggled with conditioning and heat. Hitting under .250 didn’t help his cause. He wasn’t signed for the regular season, but first you have to make the playoffs so Panda power can happen. I don’t know if they can trade him at this point. But he needs to drop lots of weight, and keep it off.

They told Hanley to drop 15-20 pounds too. He needs to move a little quicker if he’s going to play first base. But is he a cancer in the clubhouse? He can hit but will it be worth it?

He Took the Money and Stayed

Arnie Beyler was the only coaching staff casualty when they did not renew his contract. There doesn’t seem to be a clear reason. He helped Mookie and Brock adjust to the outfield. He helped Castillo learn the wall in left. He seemed to be doing good work, overall. What he couldn’t do in 2014 was get Cespedes to prepare to play in right. That would be Cespedes fault for being inflexible. What he couldn’t do in 2015 was motivate Hanley to learn how to play left field. Once again the onus is on the player. It is hard for a coach making a few hundred thousand to make a millionaire do anything. It has to come from within.

Luvollo was encouraged to stay on as bench coach instead of looking for a manager position with another team following his successful time as interim in Farrell’s place. Perhaps he is their insurance policy should Farrell not recuperate, or the team falter out of the gate yet again.

Moving Forward

The Red Sox have a solid young core in Xander, Mookie and Blake to complement Ortiz and Pedroia. Swihart may pick up his first baseman’s mitt again just in case Christian Vasquez is ready to return. He is the better catcher and Blake’s bat is a welcome addition to the line up.

The Sox can probably afford to play JBJ in center even if August was the aberration. If he can hit .250 or better all should be good in light of the fact that he is probably the best defensive centerfielder in baseball. Therefore the outfield is set moving into 2016. Betts and Castillo should provide sufficient offense, particularly when compared to the debacle of 2014 in that regard.

The real question, offensively, is the corner positions: first and third. The questions are many. Can Panda actually lose weight? Can he stop his late night snacking? Can he return to switch hitting? All he has to give us is about .270 and solid defense. Is that too much to ask?

Who will play first, Ramirez or Shaw? If they don’t trade Hanley, they will probably keep Shaw on speed dial for when Hanley’s inevitable injury or injuries occur. But is Shaw for real or is this Will MIddlebrooks Part 2? Shaw can play both first and third so perhaps he stays in Boston as the utility infielder with Holt who can play everything but catcher.

The other great, big question is the pitching. It looks like the Sox will pick up Clay’s option. With him there is the inevitable injury. There is also the uncertain as to which Clay will show up: Cy Young contender if he stays healthy Clay or boy are we glad he got hurt because he was killing us Clay? Which Kelly and Porcello will show up? Will they get a top of the line starter (tough if they hang on to Panda and Hanley)? Dombrowski is a good talent evaluator and has shown a knack for trading guys you think may be tough to trade (Prince Fielder) and get guys who become great (Cabrera and Scherzer). It will be interesting to see what Dombrowski will do. But it is unlikely he brings back Rich Hill. I’d only do that on an incentive-laden contract. But Rich wants guaranteed money.

Will this be the first time Dombrowski builds a bullpen? Or will he let Hazen or Wren do that heavy lifting because a man’s got to know his limitations? They have a few good pieces in Tazawa (who was great until they overworked him due to a lousy rotation and Farrell’s habit of warming him up and not putting him in) and Koji. Both had short seasons and should be ready to play next year. Maybe Matt Barnes puts it together and finds a home there. Lots of questions here

This will be an offseason filled with questions. I have no answers, but will have to sit back like everyone else and see what happens.

Thursday and Friday was our stated Presbytery meeting in Flagstaff, AZ. This was the 3rd “short” week in a row thanks to a holiday, my son’s surgery and now Presbytery. Usually this means compressing the sermon preparation, but this week I have a friend from out of town preaching for us on Sunday. He was coming back to Tucson, in part to attend the presbytery meeting.

So he spent two nights at our house and was going to drive up with me. This also meant that I didn’t get my usual exercise. I was planning on leaving between 6-6:30, but the night before decided that 6:30-7 might work better for us, so we could get a little extra sleep in the morning.

I tried. We left shortly after 7 and were on the road for the approximately 3 1/2 hour trip to Flagstaff. I had kidded him about loading up my iPod with Deep Purple since he thinks Smoke on the Water is the only song they are known for. We ended up not even using my iPod as we talked most of the way up. We talked about the issues to be discussed in our meeting, the shooting accident that resulted in his hearing loss, church opportunities he is pursuing, the morality of football, and the Pope’s visit. Before getting on the highway we stopped so he could get a Coke to drink with his medicine. With no parking in front I dropped him off and then, without his realizing it, drove into the connector between the lots for Circle K and Wendy’s. It was a long line, and I was waiting thinking about having to make up time. When I saw him come to the door I pulled into the lot and toward the door. He missed me, and thought I’d parked around the corner. Though he knew I wouldn’t abandon him, he was still confused. So I honked at him, he got in and off we went.

We made one stop, on the north end of Phoenix. It is a new to me car and I wasn’t sure if I could make it to Flagstaff on one tank of gas. While I pumped gas, he went in. For another Coke. When he had come out, I had moved the car to a parking space. I kind of enjoyed messing with his mind. This resulted in a story of how they used to do this to one of their friends who was always the last one out of the store.

We actually made great time, and arrived into Flagstaff on time. (One oddity of the new congressional districts in AZ is that I drove 3 1/2 hours and ended up in the same district I live in.) When we had been looking at maps online it looked like I needed to get off 17 onto 40 and get of the first exit. Since Siri does not like me (to put it mildly), I asked him to use his phone to get the directions. Siri responded quickly to him. Unfortunately we were brought through the NAU area which gets clogged due to low speeds, pedestrians and buses. So much for being on time. We then discovered that Siri brought us to the old address, from like 2 years ago. We quickly pulled up their website to get the address and now were on our way again. We finally got to the church, and arrived about 20-25 minutes late for the committee meeting. The new building was pretty much at the intersection of 17 & 40. We wasted that whole trip thru town. I don’t like Siri- it is a mutual thing.

The big news for the balance of the meeting was simply the time frame for re-starting an RUF ministry at the UofA. We, the churches in Tucson,  have until 2017 to get the initial money together and hire a campus director.

We didn’t eat here.

After the meeting, we went cruising for a restaurant without any assistance from Siri. We settled, rather quickly, on Freddy’s Steak Burgers. Ed had eaten Italian food for lunch and dinner the day before. Olive Garden was out It was the first time either of us had been to Freddy’s even though there is one near my house in Tucson. The burger was good- mine was the double with bacon and cheese. I prefer Five Guys, and I had known there was a Smash Burger not too far away I would have wanted to eat there.

We began with a time of prayer. We focused on our marriages, and the physical, emotional and spiritual health of our members. We heard a report from our RUF campus minister in Las Cruces. The part of the committee meeting I’d missed. He told three stories of people impacted by the ministry since last we met. Their large group meeting has been running at about 75 students. Things are going well there.

Much of the afternoon was spent examining a candidate for ministry. He had received a call to one of the churches in Tucson, but was coming from a non-PCA and non-Reformed context. So we wanted to be thorough. And fair. His English Bible exam was very good (though I prefer more than one reference when possible), as was his history exam (though I mentioned that he never mentioned the ARP in his history of Presbyterianism). There were some small blips in theology w/regard to the 3-fold division of the law and the 3rd use of the law but nothing that appeared significant. He would preach later during our worship service that evening.

The rest of the afternoon was spent in executive session. So I can’t tell you about it. Those sessions are often very personal and painful, or they wouldn’t be in private. They are draining periods of time. We didn’t finish that work when the time for dinner arrived. It had been a busy 5 hours.

Dinner was Italian. I thought it might be Olive Garden since it was cheese tortellini, a Caesar salad, rolls and tiramisu, but it was catered by NAU food services (good to build that connection). I spent some time talking with one of the assistant pastors from Tucson and getting to know the new director of youth and family ministry at the host church. Since the latter will eventually come before us for ordination, he had a few questions.

Theirs is a new building, two stories built into a hill. The sanctuary seats about 150, has the high ceilings (like an A-frame) with a library above the foyer overlooking the sanctuary. The furnishings often looked like they came from the Adirondack’s: knotty limbs and blocks of wood for horizontal surfaces. Downstairs was the kitchen, nursery and classroom space. This is where we ate dinner.

In the week before the meeting I’d developed a boil on the underside of my arm in the pit. I’d soaked it the night before to try and get whatever was causing the swelling out. It was tender in the morning, and had grown increasingly uncomfortable as the day wore on. I checked on it in the men’s room after dinner and saw that my work had been successful and hoped to attend to it when I finally got to my hotel later that night.

One of things I usually like about presbytery is worshiping in other churches. You get to see how they worship. Often I am able to borrow confessions of sins, additional verses from songs etc. They had the lyrics up on a large flat screen above the pulpit area. Most of them were also in the Order of Worship, except the one we sing which had an additional verse I wanted to bring home. Sometimes a worship service will be a bit outside of your comfort zone. That’s okay, generally speaking. This was a bit outside of mine in some ways. The sermon by the candidate was generally good, but it hit me as focused a bit too much on the imperative at the expense of the indicative. As it turned out, I was not alone in that impression.

As we prepared for communion I noticed that my sleeve seemed to keep sticking to my arm. Wondering what was up, I looked and saw it was covered in blood. After partaking of the body and blood, I slipped into the men’s room to tend to my now-exploded boil. I’ll spare you more of the gory details. But it sure felt better.

After the worship service we tied up a few loose ends, including a task for me, in the executive session. Then it was time for fellowship. Of course we got turned around a few times trying to read those road signs. Finally we asked Siri for directions to the Beaver Street Brewery. She-who-hates-me was useless. Back to Google and we were soon there. Thankfully we passed my hotel, so I now knew how to get there.

We had a great turnout, and only a few other people were in the restaurant. The music was too loud, and sadly they had just run out of the steamed mussels in a thai curry sauce. But I had a glass of their stout (which was good) and what they call Bowl of Goodness, fries sprinkled with cheese and herbs with a dip. It was very good and a few guys “helped” me eat it. It is good being able to get to know guys you don’t ordinarily spend time with because they work hours away. Josh, who organizes these events and I’ve decided to call “the Party Starter” decided we should play a pool game. Everyone threw a dollar into the kitty and the one who took the fewest attempts to get all three balls in a pocket won. I managed to get one in, semi-acquitting myself, before exceeding the best thus far.

Soon 11:30 was creeping up, and I still needed to check-in to my hotel. Ed was staying with other friends, so I was on my own. I’d picked the Econo Lodge University. The price differences between hotels were fairly large. I paid only $50 since I was basically only going to sleep and shower there. The room was clean, so I was content. I was delighted to see that the shower head 1. was not for Hobbit-sized people, and 2. of the rain fall variety.

I cleaned up my armpit, again. Resisting the urge to watch TV I went to bed about 11:45. I woke up around 3:30 in the morning. I’m not sure why. But I had a hard time falling back asleep. The pillow wasn’t very comfortable being overly fat and fluffy, and there were unusual noises (the refrigerator?), and the room was a bit stuff. So eventually I turned up the fan and read. I finished 1 Chronicles, and then a chapter in a book on missions I’ve been reading. At 5 I tried to sleep again, and slept until about 7 when CavWife called.

From my trip there in 2010

I showered and dressed. The continental breakfast, and the lobby, didn’t look appealing so I went next door to Chick-Fil-A. I noticed 2 other guys from presbytery and ate with them talking about various aspects of the meeting and ministry in our respective cities. Afterwards, having finished my sweet tea, I went next door to Dunkin’ Donuts for a vanilla chai.

The air pressure warning had gone off the night before, and was still on when I started the car. I figured that if I filled up with gas, and had the air checked, I’d be ready to go once the meeting was over. I knew, due to the ideal gas law, that the pressure would drop due to those refreshing cooler temps at 7,000 feet. But I’d been having some trouble with air pressure and didn’t want a tire to go flat on the long ride home. I didn’t have my new digital gauge with me so I wasn’t sure which one was low. I spotted a Discount Tire and took advantage of their free air pressure check. Only a pound light, but I guess the sensors don’t work well at such elevations and read as if about 3 pounds light. They put a little extra in and I was good.

The rest of the meeting was mostly reports and prayer. We didn’t handle the proposed changes to the Standing Rules of Presbytery. This was good because the proposed “radical” changes had been replaced with some minimal changes. I’m not excited about the status quo which seems mostly maintenance not pressing the kingdom forward. We will talk about them at our next meeting.

There were lots of opportunities for congregations and individuals to be involved in missions connected with our presbytery, like:

  • Helping with church planting in Hondoras w/the Pettingills.
  • Teaching local pastors in Uganda.
  • Helping Barrio Nuevo, a mercy ministry in Phoenix
  • Helping Crossroads Ministry, a mercy ministry in Las Cruces
  • Supporting interns with the Hispanic Leadership Initiative
  • 2 Church Plants in Albuquerque.
  • Possible prison ministry in Phoenix/Tucson
  • Native American ministry east of Flagstaff
  • Ministry across the border in Juarez

The best line of the meeting was when one presbyter was disagreeing with the Parlimentarian about a particular section of the Book of Church order, to whom he replied “I wrote it” and therefore knows what it means.

After some good-byes, Ed and I were off for another largely uneventful ride home. I did spot 2 elk along the side of the highway that had been hit. They were actually quite huge so I wondered what the vehicles looked like. My ears popped repeatedly as we went from 7,000 feet to under 2,000 feet. We stopped for a late lunch in Phoenix at Pappadeaux which I’ve wanted to do for 5 years. It was excellent, though a bit more expensive than I was hoping. I was also surprised to see so many people with grey hair because it was a loud restaurant with lots of background noise that can make hearing difficult. We continued to talk family stuff, transitions in ministry and how my book is coming since he works for the publisher.

Still Deep Purple and iPod-less we arrived at my house at 4 pm. I think I will sleep well tonight.

[I meant to take some pictures of the building and sanctuary, but forgot.]

Considering Severance Packages

I was walking through Pet Smart this morning when something came to mind with regard to all the controversy regarding Tullian Tchividjian in recent days. I want to focus on one aspect.

Interacting with another PCA pastor he mentioned that Tullian should be able to provide for his family. He also said he should have a church shepherd and love him through this process. Willow Creek, as Rev. Labby mentioned in his Patheos interview, was a good place for this since he worshiped there while in seminary.

First, we certain do need to shepherd who are under discipline or have been removed from ministry. I am not among those who think such a man can never be restored. While no longer a member of a presbytery, he needs to be a member of a congregation (unless a particular pastor recants the faith as my predecessor in Florida did). That session should look out for him, counsel him (or oversee counseling) whether or not this man is seeking to be restored to ministry. He needs to be restored to the Body, so to speak. These men deal with shame and stigma. A church needs to love them.

This gets me to the question of Tullian needing to take care of his family. The staff position seems to be justified by, in part, this need. This morning I went “hmmmm”.

There is no reason, apart from negligence on the part of the presbytery or retribution on the part of the congregation, that Tullian should need to provide for his family so soon. This does not take into account his book royalties. I’m thinking, not simply of Tullian, but any pastor in his position. Congregations and presbyteries, while they may be experiencing many negative emotions for being in this position, need to love these men and their families.

If a man has been in ministry for more than a few years, it is incredibly difficult to find a new vocation with which you can support your family. I was in a transition for over two years. Since I was not under discipline I was able to do pulpit supply. Finding a full-time job, on the other hand, was very difficult. Including pulpit supply, I worked full-time in a hardware store (thanks to former members) and part-time at the local hospital (thanks to a friend) and still didn’t make ends meet. In the case of discipline, the man has serious family issues to work through in the aftermath. Money should not be an immediate concern.

This means that presbyteries should make sure there is an adequate severance package that provides this man time to work through the aftermath and find a new vocation.

If we consider that the average pastoral search takes 18 months, the severance probably ought to be at least a year. The church would not be paying for another pastor yet (unless they hire an intern) so this should not place a financial burden on the congregation (unless lots of people leave as a result). Presbyteries should probably have a fund to fund a severance package just in case.

Our love toward our members should not end because of grievous sin that disqualifies a man for ministry. We must not let anger and pain blind us to our need to love him and his family. Our responsibility to them does not end with their resignation or removal from ministry. If we do this, we remove the temptation to engage in ministry before the discipline accomplishes it purpose (which is not payback but sanctification). This will reduce unnecessary controversy that further damages the Body of Christ. As we consider the new command that Jesus gave to us, to love one another as He has loved us, it all starts to make sense. If we actually love one another, including disgraced pastors, we will care for them in a way that honors Christ and helps them transition without controversy.

If you love Christ you have most likely discouraged by the recent spat of news regarding Christian leaders, and laypeople, and sexual sin. It is disheartening to hear of yet another person who has fallen to this type of sin. I’ve lost track of the number of guys I knew in seminary that were disqualified from ministry due to sexual sin.

I’ve read something just as disheartening from the “pen” of a prominent blogger’s wife. I appreciate his ministry. I guess I just don’t get his wife’s perspective. It sounds to me like the old Bob Newhart skit.

What strikes me is how naive it sounds. It seems to minimize the power of indwelling sin and the wiles of our Enemy who wants to destroy the Church, marriage and family. I don’t say this to minimize the power of the Spirit nor the sufficiency of Christ’s work. I often push back against the worm theology that thinks we can never obey. We can grow in obedience, which means we can obey as we mature. The grace of God did appear to teach us to “no” to unrighteousness in this present age (Titus 2).

This does not mean it is easy, as we see in Romans 7 as Paul, who was a more mature Christian than me, cried out to be delivered from “this body of sin.” He shifted immediately into the gospel balm of there being “no condemnation for those who are Christ Jesus” which is so important because we continue to sin. He builds on this later in Romans 8.

Paul, in Romans 7 and Galatians 5, talked about sin and the sinful nature: indwelling sin. We talk too little about this fact. Indwelling sin means that we are still attracted to sin in various forms. If this woman was honest with us, she’d admit that there are sins she has seemingly made little to no progress in fighting. Her’s may be far less destructive to marriage and ministry than sexual sin, but that doesn’t mean she faces her own helplessness against sin. Were it not for indwelling sin, there would be nothing in me for temptation to hook.

Indwelling sin also hinders movement toward obedience. It is like trying to swim while wearing a few layers of clothing. At every turn, my flesh comes up with reasons not to obey. I need to talk to myself in gospel terms to goad myself on toward greater faithfulness to Him who died for me.

This is only the third of the great enemies of holiness. The others, of course, being the world and the devil. The former is under the control of the latter to some degree. The world promotes sexual sin, as we see with the existence of the Ashley Madison website, Tinder and pornography in more forms than you can shake a stick at. But lest we think sin is only “out there”, I remind you of indwelling sin which produced the visions of naked women experienced by Jerome as he hid from the world in a cave.

There is also that prowling lion looking to see whom he may devour who tempts us and places crazy and sinful thoughts in us. Satan hates God, but he can’t destroy God. He is aiming at the next best thing: God’s image. Sexual sin is one that strikes at the core of who we are since we were made male and female. Additionally, God gave us the creation mandate which includes “be fruitful and multiply”. Sex within marriage is essential for procreation that we might fill the world with God’s image. Satan does not want the world filled with God’s image, but he’ll settle for that tarnished image resulting from the fall. He wants to destroy the marriages of God’s people precisely because they are seeking to raise up godly seed. Satan wants to destroy the marriages of Christians, and one really good way to do that is sexual sin.

He also hates the Church and the Great Commission (an application of the Creation Mandate to the fallen world). He seeks to stop its growth and progress. One of the many schemes he has is sexual sin. He can destroy marriages, ministries and churches at the same time.

Impalement of PhinehasThink of how Balaam got God to curse the Israelites. If they sinned, turning away from God. So he told Balak to send in the Moabite “hoochie mamas” to seduce the sons of Israel with fornication leading to worshiping their Gods (Numbers 22-25). In discussing this in 1 Corinthians 10 Paul says their temptation was common to all.

This means that sexual sin is, in many ways, not like any other sin. While a particular person may not feel temptation to sexual sin, most Christians will. This also means that most pastors will too.

I don’t say this to excuse any sin, or anyone’s sin. I say to this to remind us of the danger there is to people. If you know you are particularly tempted, you need to take steps to be vigilant in fighting temptation. Spouses need to pray for one another (women commit these sins too!). People need to pray for their church leaders. Assume they at least occasionally face such temptation. The recent revelations should move us to pray for people to live upright lives in this present age. They should remind us that the Nancy Reagan “Just Say ‘No’!” approach is not as easy as it sounds when dealing with a sin that promises so much (that it cannot deliver).

“So far as moral failings are concerned, we need to show much more patience. It is easy to trip up here, and the devil is amazingly ingenious in leading us astray.” John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (1541)

2. This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man; yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part; whence arises a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.

3. In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail; yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome; and so, the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. WCF, XIII

114. Q. But can those converted to God keep these commandments perfectly?

A. No. In this life even the holiest have only a small beginning of this obedience. Nevertheless, with earnest purpose they do begin to live not only according to some but to all the commandments of God. Heidelberg Catechism

RedemptionI’m beginning to work on my upcoming Sunday School series on Hosea. So it is time to let you, my faithful 3 readers, know the books and commentaries I will be using as I prepare to teach on the first of the minor prophets.

Love Divine and Unfailing: The Gospel According to Hosea by Michael Barrett

The Book of Hosea (NICOT) by J. Andrew Dearman

The Message of Hosea:Love to the Loveless (BST) by Derek Kidner

Hosea-Jonah (WBC) by Douglas Stuart


Sometimes we forget the great books that already sit on our shelves whether read or not.

God’s Unfaithful Wife: a Biblical Theology of Spiritual Adultery (formerly entitled Whoredom) by Ray Ortlund Jr. This book does has a large section that works through Hosea.

We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry by Gregory Beale. There is not as much on Hosea.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 312 other followers