Considering Maturity

In 1980, Sinclair Ferguson published Add to Your Faith. In 1981 this was republished in the U.S. under the title Taking Your Faith Seriously. In his introduction to Maturity: Growing Up and Going On in the Christian Life, he calls it a “young man’s book.” As a result, Maturity is not simply an old book with a new title, but a re-working of the old book to reflect his greater understanding and wisdom 40 years later. Having not read the original version of this book, I am not qualified to compare the two volumes. I will, however, say this is a much-needed and excellent book.

Similar to Devoted to God, Ferguson notes that he prefers passages to proof-texts as his method. In Devotion, he used a passage that illustrates one of the illustrates an aspect of sanctification. This book is not structured that way, but as he approaches aspects of Christian maturity he looks a themes in books, focusing on a few passages instead of exegeting one passage. The 12 chapters are organized into 5 sections: Growing Up, Standing Firm, Facing Difficulties, Pressing On and Maturity.

In the first section, Growing Up, Ferguson tackles the topics of the Importance of Maturity, the Symptoms of Decay and Abiding in Christ. As indicated by the final chapter in this section, there is a strong emphasis on union & fellowship with Christ as essential to growing up in Christ. We are getting a bit ahead of ourselves in this matter. Maturity does take time and effort (an effort born of that mystical union with Christ, not an effort of the flesh). He begins with some of the hindrances of maturity including contemporary society, our personal history, “Christian” influences that don’t value maturity or communicate the process. Discipleship is not about quick returns, but delayed gratification. We are setting our hopes on God’s promises relating to the future which are often fulfilled when we see the Lord either thru death or His return. They are not all about the present or immediate future.

Ferguson points us to Jesus who also grew into maturity (Luke 2:42). He’s not simply our example, but the source of the resources necessary through the aforementioned union. As man, he was a real man who grew in wisdom and stature. He was a boy as a child, not a man in a boy’s body. Ferguson then surveys a number of epistles to show the importance and need of maturity. We see the great importance of love, and our need to hear the Word preached if we are to become mature.

“The disease diagnosed here is a failure in concentration, an inability to fix the heart and mind on Christ and to make him the chief object of devotion and attention.”

Decay is indicated by attention deficit, the inability to concentrate on spiritual matters. We become governed by our desires instead of the will of God. He also notes a poor appetite as a symptom of decay. This of course is about whether we are feasting on the Word or the world and its delights. One of these will shaping our thinking, desires/values and will/choices. When we are not chewing on Scripture, we begin to be conformed to the world instead of transformed by the renewing of our minds.

“Secret failure cannot remain hidden. If we do not deal with our indwelling sin, it will eventually catch up with us. We may disguise it for a while, but we will lack the perseverance to do so permanently; one day our spiritual failure will become clear.”

Another symptom is a lack of discernment, the inability to spot the problems in a teacher’s doctrine or practice. This doesn’t mean we should all be discernment bloggers, but that we do practice discernment: affirming what is good while rejecting what is bad. It is a rejection of man-made rules, and a dependence upon the grace of God. Weakness of worship is another sign of decay. We look for the pep rally instead of worshiping the exalted Christ who suffered for us, and calls us to suffering.

The third chapter in this section focuses on John 15 and the parable of the vine. We are branches that are grafted in, and this provides a picture of life-giving union with Jesus. The Father prunes us for greater fruitfulness thru providences and interventions. He begins to remove that which is unhelpful for our spiritual life and maturity, as well as shaping and molding us. Abiding with Christ is connected to having His Word dwell in you richly. He returns to the subject of feasting and chewing on the Scripture to gain nurturing truth.

“We need to learn to see our lives within his purposes and plans, not to think of him as fitting into ours!”

Standing Firm focuses on assurance and guidance. Moving toward maturity requires that we are assured of our salvation, and receive proper guidance from God. Otherwise we flounder wondering if we are saved and what we should do with our selves. He develops the idea, as he did in The Whole Christ, of faith as a direct activity and assurance as a reflex activity of faith. To we saved we must be sure that He saves those who believe, and believe. Assurance as a reflex activity has to do with whether or not Jesus has saved us because we believed, not simply whether there is salvation in Christ. Calvin focused on the objective assurance of faith as necessary. The reflex activity, which is reflected in the Westminster Confession of Faith, not necessary, nor infallible (some sure they are saved are not because their certainty is based on something other than Jesus’ person and works). Ferguson spends time exploring Romans 8 to see the foundations of our assurance through the series of questions that Paul asks. If we are in Christ, no one can accuse us, condemn us or separate us from Christ. Opposition while seemingly great, is unable to thwart God and his purposes for us.

He then looks to some obstacles to assurance of salvation, also focusing on Romans 8 (Kevin DeYoung, for instance, goes to 1 John). He reflects the Westminster Confession, again. One is an inconsistent life as a Christian. He’s not talking about the presence of temptation, but the practice of unholiness. Forgetfulness of the indwelling Spirit is another obstacle for assurance. We can also be confused by suffering which often makes us think God does not love us.

Ferguson then looks at marks of assurance. They are laid out as:

1. Satisfaction with God’s way of salvation.
2. A new sense of security in Christ stimulates a new desire to serve him.
3. Assurance fills our hearts with love for Christ.
4. Boldness to live our lives for Christ.

“God does guide his people.” The question for the chapter is how God guides his people. We have to recognize that we won’t and can’t always understand what God is doing or up to in our lives. We can have guidance, but we won’t have comprehension. To illustrate the general views of guidance, Dr. Ferguson points us to the differences between Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield. The point of using them is that neither was an extremist and is esteemed within the Reformed community most likely to read Ferguson’s book. Whitefield was prone to rely on “impressions”. Edwards focused on “the application of the precepts and principles of his word.” During an overnight stay in Northampton by Whitefield, the two talked about this. Edwards was concerned about the dependence on this sudden impulses. How do we know they are from God unless they are consistent with biblical commands or principles. The Spirit may bring these things to mind when we need them, but we should still stop to consider whether that impression or impulse is consistent with Scripture properly understood. But this reliance on impulses is highly subjective, and God doesn’t speak to which legitimate job I should take, which single Christian woman I should marry, which house I should buy, etc. God reveals those not by impressions but largely through circumstances (which offer is better for me and my family overall, which woman actually wants to marry me, or which house can my spouse and I agree upon).

The difficulties we face, which God works for our maturity, are largely things we have little to no control over. These are realities that can often dismay and discourage Christians. We need to begin to see them from a different angle as under the providence of God who uses them for our good, even if they themselves are not good. Those difficulties he covers are sin, temptation, spiritual warfare and suffering.

“Sin is the internal enemy of spiritual growth.”

The sin in question is our original corruption, the sinful nature, the remaining presence of sin as a power in our hearts. This corruption which produces temptations and transgressions is one of God’s means to keep us humble, and amazed at the glory of the gospel. This is something that gets lost in the SSA discussion for some. Some seem to grossly minimize the problem of pride, and the great means God uses to root it out of our hearts.

“There is a profound correlation in the Christian life between the consciousness of sin and the realization of the wonder and power of the gospel. … Until we realize how great the weight of sin is, we will not make much progress in pursuing holiness without which we will never see the Lord (Heb. 12:14).” … He sets up an ongoing cycle in our lives, convicting us of sin in order to deepen his work of sanctification in us.”

In this chapter, Ferguson keeps returning to Psalm 119. It is the Word that exposes sin and its power, the Word that holds out gospel promises, and the Word that the Spirit uses for our sanctification thru these means.

His chapter, Overcoming Temptation, is probably the best in the book. I read this just after reading the PCA Report’s section on temptation, and thought they would have benefited from talking with Dr. Ferguson. This, while only one chapter, is great stuff. As one friend would say, he puts the cookies on the counter when the kids can reach them. The cookies being John Owen’s penetrating but heady work on this topic. He defines temptation, and notes that as such it is not sin (by this I believe he means transgression based on the larger context of the chapter). He speaks of indwelling sin remaining and producing an inclination and disposition to sin (verb, to transgress, or actual sin). In temptation, however, the enemy speaks as if we are already condemned. Maturity begins to tune this out, not in a way that minimizes the real danger we are in, but in a way that we don’t fall into the trap that means we might as well go ahead and sin anyway, or that we are so vile we are beyond hope because we experience such temptations.

“So the distinction between temptation and sin is vital theologically and also pastorally.”

He then explores Owen’s distinction between temptation and “entering into temptation.” In that process he explores the process of temptation.

Internal desires ==> stimulated further by the world ==> weakness exposed & opportunity for the devil to stimulate further

But the key to “entering into temptation” is a sentence I missed somehow in Owen that ties it together well.

“Whilst it knocks at the door we are at liberty; but when any temptation comes in and parleys with the heart, reasons with the mind, entices and allures the affections, be it a longer or shorter time, do it thus insensibly and imperceptibly, or do the soul take notice of it, we ‘enter into temptation’.” John Owen, Works, VI, 97

We enter into temptation, or transgress (I think he uses them interchangeably if we recall that transgressions include thoughts). There is a parley or dialogue instead of immediately saying “no” to temptation. We begin to argue with our temptation, or entertain that temptation. At this point the temptation becomes transgression.

In this context, Ferguson goes to David’s temptations regarding Bathsheba and Uriah for illustration and explanation. Then he shifts to the complementary accounts of the census to discuss the doctrine of concurrence in the context of temptation.

“Here, taking the statements together, God, Satan, and David are all involved in one and the same action. We should not try to resolve the tension here…”

In terms of overcoming temptation, he advocates watchfulness, prayer and being armed against the enemy. He then writes about spiritual warfare. Spiritual conflict is another difficulty we must face. He brings us to Ephesians 6, like so many other books I’ve read recently. Our ordinary life is the context, the setting, for our spiritual conflict. Here the Enemy seeks to disrupt and discourage. The conflict reminds us that we are intended, and only successful as a result, to depend upon the Lord’s provision to us in Christ for this warfare. As in other chapters, we see references to Pilgrim’s Progress. There is also the influence of William Still, his pastor while a student. The following sounds like a paragraph in Still’s book Towards Spiritual Maturity:

“… sudden sinful and distasteful thoughts and temptations; moments of feeling overwhelmed by a sense of darkness; doubts that appear in our minds from nowhere.”

Suffering can, sadly, define us. I’ve seen men crippled by suffering. By this I mean all roads lead to their particular and personal suffering. They seemed unable to really move beyond it. Their fixation stunts their growth. Forgetting our suffering can also stunt growth. Ferguson brings us back to Psalm 119 to show us that God intends us to learn from our suffering but not be ensnared by that suffering. He breaks it down this way:

1. Affliction brings our spiritual needs to the surface.
2. Affliction teaches us the ways of God.
3. Affliction shows us the faithfulness of God.

Ferguson then brings us to Paul and his thorn to help us understand these realities in the flesh. It was a sharp pain in his life. He was “‘cuffed’ by it, beaten black and blue as it were.” Our usefulness for the future necessitates our prior suffering. We need to be changed, and shaped by that suffering.

“Satan desperately tries to drive the holy man insane.” John Calvin

Ferguson then moves into the areas we have more control over in the section Pressing On: service and endurance. Serving moves us beyond ourselves and our needs to the needs of others. He interacts with 1 Corinthians and Hebrews. God gives us grace to serve just like He gives us pardoning and purifying grace. He covers some of the pitfalls and dangers if we don’t deal with our selfishness when seeking to serve.

Crossing the finish line at the London Marathon (Image: Reuters)

The reality is that Christians must keep going to become mature. They keep running that race, by grace. Ferguson again provides some hindrances like indwelling sin, sluggishness, discouragement and more. He then provides some encouragements focusing on Christ who has run the race before us.

The book concludes with a short chapter on living maturely. In many ways he reiterates much of what he has already said. Maturity doesn’t mean “retirement” but continuing the life you’ve been living to the glory of God by the grace of God. As a result, the repetition makes sense.

This is a book drenched in Scripture that continually encourages the reader to dig into and chew on Scripture as one of the primary means of grace for maturity. This book also bleeds Bunyan and John Owen. Ferguson loves the Puritans, but his loves are not narrow. There is plenty of Calvin, as well as Augustine and other church fathers. He also refers to some recent books which means that Ferguson is reading in “community” past and present as Richard Pratt encouraged us as students.

Sinclair Ferguson provides us with another great book in his “retirement”. This book could well serve as Sinclair Ferguson on the Christian Life, thinking of the Crossway series. It makes the theological practical and pastoral as Ferguson usually does. It’s a keeper.

Read Full Post »

Considering the PCA Report on Human Sexuality: Pastoral Care

We as an assembly wanted not simply theological clarity, but also pastoral wisdom as we engage with a massive cultural shift. At least that is what I wanted. I felt like I was ill-prepared to lovingly engage people who struggle with same-sex attraction. I’ve had friends who suffered secretly, until they left their spouses. Some of them I suspected, and some I didn’t. I’ve only had one congregant “come out” to me as bisexual. I should have engaged this person more on how it impacted marriage for them. I didn’t want to open a can of worms I felt ill-prepared to handle.

The Report notes that such pastoral care requires special consideration. We do need to communicate that all people are made in the image of God, and all Christians are being renewed in that image. Our various struggles are not a denial of this, but part of the process. Faithful discipleship is possible, even if people struggle with same-sex attraction. Life is about more than sexual attraction, though the world seemingly wants to reduce us to our sexual desires. The Spirit produces the fruit of character in our lives which impact how one experiences and expresses sexual attraction.

The Report addresses two common errors as we consider sanctification. These two errors reflect the “Already-Not Yet” tension that we live in as Christians. There are elements of our salvation that we have already received and experience. There are other elements that our salvation that we have not yet received and experience. When we push too much of the “not yet” into the “already” we have an over-realized eschatology (expectations set too high). When we deny too much of the “already” and delay it for the “not yet” we have an under-realized eschatology (expectations set too low).

The error of some Christian approaches to same-sex sexual desire has been to tie faithfulness to the elimination of homosexual temptation (or even the development of heterosexual desire) as though if Christians really did enough therapy, had enough faith, or repented sufficiently, God would deliver them in some final and complete way, changing their orientation. This perspective reflects a sort of over-realized eschatology—a view that what we will be finally and fully in the new creation will be realized in that way in the present life. Against such a view, our Confession reminds us that even in the regenerate, the corruption of sin remains in this life (WCF6.5). The task for believers is to pursue faithfulness and obedience in this life, holding in view our new creation selves into which we are progressively, though often with many fits and starts, being conformed.

Some expect same-sex attraction to end or at least become so rare as to be seemingly insignificant. This is often stated with the other side of the coin, the development of heterosexual desire. God can and does do this. But He doesn’t do it for every person who repents and believes. Have all your temptations been removed? I doubt it.

This is a push back on the Exodus International model of ministering to homosexuals. Revoice was also a push back, but not as tempered as this one. They seem to have gone to the other extreme (an under-realized eschatology that expects little/no change). Whether or not a person continues to experience same-sex attraction is largely under the providence of God. What a person does with those desires is a matter of their personal sanctification. Corruption of all kinds remains in us, and we are to pursue faithfulness in the midst of that.

The Report then pushes back on Revoice’s pessimism regarding change. It really is hard to maintain balance, and that only through the gospel. We are not to lapse into legalism to fight pessimism. Nor are we to lapse into antinomianism to fight the unrealistic expectations of an over-realized eschatology.

The error of other Christian approaches to same-sex sexual desire is to treat it as a sort of fixed reality that has no malleability or capacity for change whatsoever. In its most extreme forms, this reflects our broader culture’s notions of one’s sexual orientation being a completely fixed reality—contending that there is no sense in which sexual desires can meaningfully change over time. The problem with this under-realized eschatology is that in its attempts to push back against views of change that overstate the Christian’s sense of having “arrived,”it suggests that there is no journey to take at all and no progress to be expected. However, the Biblical perspective is that the Holy Spirit uses repentance with the ordinary means of grace to advance Christian understanding, godly desires, and Biblical obedience. If a believer struggles with habitual sexual sin, we should expect to see real meaningful change in their behaviors as they repent and mortify their sin, and pursue holiness in aggressive, practical ways. If believers are routinely tempted along similar lines over the course of life, they should expect that the less they give in to that temptation and establish deep habits of holiness, over time the pull of their hearts toward that sin should lessen, or even be drowned out by the expulsive power of a greater affection for Christ.

We are to repent of on-going sin. Making use of the ordinary means of grace we should expect to see some measure of growth. A lack of growth (not perfection) MAY be a sign of a lack of godly disciplines. But the flesh is stubborn and does oppose all attempts at godliness.

Pastors should regularly communicate the Already-Not Yet tension clearly. It is not just for people struggling with same-sex attraction. While there is generally no immediate deliverance, such sinful desires need to be mortified, starved. The goal, unlike that expressed by some I’ve talked with, is not heterosexuality, but Christlikeness. We will become like Christ, when He appears. Until then we purify ourselves. We have not arrived, and will not in this earthly life.

While all this seems obvious, it would not seem so based on the conversations PCA pastors were having on this issue with regards to sanctification. The Report gives us good counsel.

Biblical Identity

We all have a sense of who we are, who we believe ourselves to be. The Report points us to the redemptive-historical narrative to understand our identity. We have an ontological identity as being made in the image of God by God as dependent upon Him. We are made male or female, which means these are not simply cultural constructions (we can, and do, socially/culturally construct what being a man or woman means). In footnote 53, referencing Ryan Peterson they say “we have both created identities which are indelible, central, and come from God, and constructed identities, which are our more malleable attempts to interpret our particular experiences and relationships in the world.”

We also have a phenomenological identity, how we experience ourselves as sinners in a sinful world. We should be honest about our sin and misery, the ways in which the Fall is part of us. This is our identity as sinner (alcoholic, glutton etc.) and sinned against (sexual abuse survivor/victim, oppressed minority …). These are real, but not our primary identity.

Our primary identity as Christians is our teleological identity received through our union with Christ. Who we are “in Christ” is the most important part of our identity. This doesn’t over-ride our phenomenological identity, as if we were no longer sinners but is of greater importance and therefore should be our emphasis.

The Report notes its limitations in scope in unpacking what it means to be in Christ. It makes some summary statements. We are justified in Christ, receiving His perfect righteousness as our very own. We also receive the other half of the double grace, sanctification. We don’t get one without the other but receive the whole Christ and the wholeness of salvation despite the reality of the already-not yet tension.

Sexual Identity

The Report asks how we are to think of our sexual identity in light of the redemptive-historical identities. Regardless of our sexual identities, we are ontologically made in the image of God and under His authority. All people have dignity and should be shown respect as image bearers. The Report rightly declares there should be no second-class citizens based on particular struggles. While acknowledging the reality of intersex, they affirm that we should not otherwise deny the reality of gender as rooted in creation.

However, we must also acknowledge the ways in which our sexual identities are shaped by the sins of others against us as well as the ways in which the Fall has shaped our biological and social development. Some experiences of sexual desire may come unbidden as a result of sins committed against a person, and while sinful, should be treated with great pastoral care for the person who has been victimized and sinned against. The origins and development of sexual desire remain complex and, in many ways, mysterious. It is possible to conceive of the experience of same-sex attraction as simultaneously a part of the remaining corruption of original sin as well as the misery of living in a fallen world, one of the ways our bodies themselves groan for redemption (Rom. 8:22-23; WCF6.6; WLC17-19). For many of these Christians, the burden of shame is already great and what is especially needed from pastors and mature believers is our preaching and living out of the grace of the gospel that frees us all from guilt and shame.

The sins of others against us can shape us profoundly, including our sexual identity. They are not saying that everyone who is homosexual has been sexually abused, or neglect. They are saying that how such experiences interact with our original corruption is not uniform and therefore mysterious. These can form and distort our sexual identities. Our original corruption also forms and distorts our sexual identities. There is, therefore, no one cause fits all understanding of homosexuality and same-sex desire in all its permutations.

Pastors need to keep this in mind in their preaching as well as in their pastoral counseling. Dealing with these issues touch on issues of great shame. We need to interact in a way that is shaped by the grace of God for sinners in Christ.

Terminology

They move from identity into a discussion of terminology and articulate four principles:

1. “The language we use to describe reality matters. Our language and terminology should seek to faithfully and helpfully articulate the truths of our doctrine.”
2. “Language itself is a secondary issue relative to the doctrine it expresses. We can disagree about particular language.”
3. “We must recognize that the meaning of terms changes over time and that definitions may not be shared across different groups of people.”
4. “Issues surrounding sexual identity… cannot be reduced to language alone.”

The Report is pushing us to make sure we understand one another instead of relying on the use, or avoidance, of key words and phrases. We should seek to understand how they are using the words or phrases instead of importing our understanding on them, typically with judgment involved. We should remember “how persons express themselves is not finally determinative of their identity.”

Moving into particular terms they apply these principles. “Gay” and “gay Christian” can be used with different meanings, and may be appropriate in some settings. The Report notes that “same-sex attraction” is usually associated with the “ex-gay” movement and puts up unnecessary barriers in evangelism to homosexuals. The Report doesn’t see the term “gay” as neutral, however, and ordinarily cautions against its use. We need to be aware of our audience if/when we use it.

As a result, the term “gay Christian” is open to a number of interpretations. In terms of identity, this would not be clear or precise in expressing our understanding as Reformed people. But a mission-minded person may identify as gay even as they affirm the Lordship of Christ over their sexuality. The risk of syncretism is noted. Here is the wise conclusion:

Given this conclusion, how should we respond to fellow believers in our churches who may use such language? First, we ought not start from the assumption that they are being unfaithful or living in active rebellion to God. Rather, in the context of established relationships, pastors and leaders in the church ought to ask questions and seek to understand each individual’s story. Why do they use that language? Have they thought through the relative benefits and dangers? Noting the range of possible meanings of terms like gay and gay Christian, we would do well to seek understanding before imparting advice. In practical and plain terms, the issue of terminology is more likely a matter for shepherding in wisdom, and not in and of itself grounds for discipline.

This paragraph has the strong echo of John Newton, and others who seek to preserve the unity of the Church. It is hard not to see Keller’s influence here.

The Report moves to the language of orientation. It notes that “insofar as the term orientation carries with it a set of assumptions about the nature of that experience that is unbiblical, then the terminology may require qualification or even rejection in some circumstances.” Use of the term seems to be a capitulation to those who seek to normalize sin.

Singleness, Friendship, and Community

Many who experience same-sex attraction have not found churches to be particularly hospitable places. The words may not be directed at them specifically, but how we preach about it can make a person feel unsafe in revealing their temptations. Sometimes we chase them into a more welcoming community that begins to affirm their sin instead of proclaiming the gospel to them.

Those who stay in our churches can feel incredibly lonely, and this can crush them further. There is a challenge here for us to be clear on sin, but also compassionate to sinners; to be communities that welcome sinners of all kinds. This means not simply welcoming them to sit and watch, but to be active and important participants in our communities. Here we hit a statement many will find controversial.

“Insofar as such persons display the requisite Christian maturity, we do not consider this sin struggle automatically to disqualify someone for leadership in the church.”

This does not sit well with those who think that homosexuality automatically disqualifies one from office. This can take two forms. One that I’ve seen in a number of forums is that if they were truly repentant they wouldn’t experience same sex attraction anymore. As The Report noted earlier, this is distorted and anti-gospel view of repentance. The other form I’ve seen is that to be “a one woman man” rules out one without heterosexual attraction.

This sentence has been brought up as evidence that the PCA is sliding down the slope. This sentence is met with angst on the part of those who want to see pastors and elders (and deacons) who experience same-sex attraction removed from office.

We must note that the persons in question “display the requisite Christian maturity.” They evidence genuine faith as far as we can tell. Due to self-control, they are not controlled by their same-sex attraction but live a faithful, chaste life before the face of God. Leading a gay lifestyle would in fact disqualify one from office. Experiencing same-sex attraction should not. Sin actual, not original, is the proper subject of church discipline. Transgressions, not corruption, is the proper subject of church discipline. This is not 1984 and we are not the “thought police”. To deny the sinfulness of homosexuality would be a proper subject of church discipline since that is false teaching. This is not Minority Report, and there are no precogs letting us know you’d sin (transgress), if you could.

This subject, however, is dynamite that could create not simply discussion but dissension. I don’t want to underestimate that potential. I’ve seen people within and outside of the PCA quote this sentence. If anything is going to prove controversial in The Report, this is it.

So, in light of the fact that people with same-sex attraction who are maturing should contribute to the life of the church we should expect them to cultivate healthy relationships. Unfortunately, some connected with Revoice are proposing “celibate partnerships” in an attempt to affirm the biblical sexual ethic and also experience exclusive, romantic relationships. This is most unwise. You cannot scoop fire into your lap and expect to not be burned. The Report notes these proposed relationships to “be unwise and inconsistent with the depictions of deep same-sex relationships in Scripture, which are instead case in the context of familial or philial relations.” Jonathan and David were like brothers, not lovers. Let us not think it was some Brokeback Mountain kind of thing. The Report notes they make a category mistake: “it seeks to have aspects of romance or marriage without its fullness, instead of rightly rooting this type of deeply caring, same-sex relationship in its proper category of family or friendship.”

We should be providing family to people who are single, and people who are same-sex attracted. We shouldn’t see them as people to be fixed but as people who need to love and be loved in healthy, biblically appropriate ways.

The Report than addresses vows of celibacy. WLC 139 warns against such things. Such vows are entangling and limiting for future options. No one knows what the future holds, and a person may develop sufficient attraction to marry a person of the opposite sex. In this way it pushes back against the “vows of celibacy” some have made and some churches encouraged for membership.

WLC 138 informs us that people who pursue chastity may be considered continent. They certainly have an indefinite, and possibly lifelong call to singleness. This pushes back against the opposite notion that the “cure” for same-sex attraction is heterosexual marriage (or biblical marriage). This seems to not “give proper regard to the rights and dignity of both parties in the marriage relationship.” No one wants to be a beard, and wonder why their spouse displays so little sexual interest in them. I’ve had friends live this, and wish it on no one. As Christians, we have a higher view of marriage than that.

So we find that in terms of pastoral care, this Report continues to pull both sides toward the middle. It offers counter-balance to both sides recognizing that controversy tends to move us farther from truth and toward extremes.

Addendum: Here is a Christopher Yuan lecture on temptation, sanctification & identity.

 

Read Full Post »

Considering the Report: Temptation, Sin, and Repentance

Before I begin, I want to commend the use of the Oxford Comma in the PCA Report on Human Sexuality.

As I noted in discussion about the Twelve Statements, I wasn’t exceedingly pleased with the order. I understand some want to just get to the point. My wife reads the end of a novel, and then the rest. If I know the ending I think, “What’s the point?”. I wanted to see the work they went through, at times, to better understand their conclusion.

Some of the issues being discussed in our churches today have to do with understandings of sin and gospel expectations.

They were to examine the differences with Roman Catholic theology on the issue of concupiscence with regard to same-sex attraction. This is the overflow of the Revoice issue. Some of the speakers at Revoice were Catholic. Additionally, some of the debates among pastors centered on the question of when temptation becomes sin. As I noted previously, in those discussion I was thinking of sin as an act or transgression, not as corruption or original sin. But some were speaking of corruption. I suspect there was plenty of talking past one another, and accusing people of having a Roman Catholic view of concupiscence.

What is surprisingly missing here is interaction with Thomas Boston and his Human Nature and its Four-Fold State. Just saying, since he’s not only a personal favorite but also this is a standard work. But this is a personal thing. He notes that both our corruption and regeneration are total in that they affect the whole of us. They do not mean each has been affected completely.

The Report notes the Confessional distinction between the corruption and the active fruit of that corruption. This is part of why I try to maintain this distinction. However, those who speak of our corruption with regard to same-sex attraction seemed not to affirm it with regard to heterosexual lust.

I wish their distinction between original and actual had been more explicit in the Statements.

As a technical theological term, “actual”sin refers not to the reality or non-reality of sin, but to its being an act of the soul as opposed to a disposition or inclination only.

The summer of the original “debates” I preached on a number of these issues in a special series, taking an overtly redemptive historical approach. Internal temptation flows from our corruption. Internal temptation is sin in the sense of corruption. It is a desire, in this case, for something sinful in itself. It becomes an act when we entertain said temptation, not simply when we act on it.

Luther is noted for saying that you can’t stop a bird from landing on your head, but you can stop him from building a nest there. We can’t control that we experience temptation, but we are responsible for what we do with it. That was my point. This is what they are getting at in the Report.

After regeneration we do continue to be corrupt. This is part of the already/not yet. We are already renewed but not yet perfectly renewed. We still have that original sin or corruption from which our sins actual continue to flow. “The fact that the corruption remains highlights that justification is imputed, not infused.” We are simul justus et peccator as Luther also said. The change in regeneration is total, in that affects our whole person, but it is imperfect. They pull a number of chapters in the Confession in this: Of the Fall of Man, Sin and the Punishment Thereof, Of Sanctification, and Of Free Will. We continue to have disordered desires. At times we will and act good things, but not perfectly and exclusively. Our good works are truly good, yet mixed with our corruption. They bring us to Calvin.

“If the true standard of righteousness is to love God with the whole heart, and mind, and strength, it is clear that the heart cannot incline otherwise without declining from righteousness… The law, I say requires perfect love: we do no yield it. Our duty was to run, and we go on slowly limping.”

Those imperfect stumblings in the way are purified by the work of Christ. He accepts our sincere efforts despite their many weaknesses and imperfections.

They lay plenty of groundwork for our view before getting to the Roman Catholic view and the application to the current issues. They bring us to the Council of Trent. This affirmed there was an incentive to sin, concupiscence, but it was not properly considered sin unless you consented to it. The Report summarizes “the Council says that concupiscence is a result of sin and inclines to sin, but is not sin itself.” They anathemtize us and the Reformers. There seems to be an acknowledgment that the Bible calls it sin, but the Church doesn’t. So we return to one of the main emphases of the Reformation: the nature of authority. Their tradition was not in accordance with the Scriptures and they were okay with that. The Reformers weren’t, and should not have been. When our “tradition” departs from the Scriptures we should submit to the Scriptures. Sin, in Reformed Theology, is always connected to the Law of God.

Rome has a fundamentally flawed view of sin, and as a result salvation. Baptismal regeneration essentially removes corruption in their view. It accomplishes what Pelagius did with original sin. Sin becomes limited to transgression, act/actual in their view. Some of the main speakers at Revoice expressed this and similar views.

There is a danger shift in this away from the imputed righteousness of Christ toward a confidence in our own righteousness. This is why justification follows sanctification in their views. Christ only justifies the sanctified rather than sanctifying the justified. But if sin has been ontologically removed via baptism, then temptation itself has no connection to sin.

“The Reformers, however, stressed the importance of recognizing the ongoing presence of sinful concupiscence in the Christian precisely because it highlighted that the righteousness given is only and completely an imputation of that which is Christ’s.”

The Reformed view rests on the authority of Scripture, not the (ever-changing) authority of the Church. The Reformed view recognizes are on-going need for pardoning, purifying and empowering grace.

The Report than brings us to the “Common Dynamic of Concupiscence.” This is not just about same-sex attraction. It “is not unique to those who experience homosexual desire. All people experience it.” This cannot be downplayed. We all have spontaneous thoughts, of all kinds, that flow out of our corrupt nature. They are sin original and lack conformity to the law of God. The Report rightly warns us about thinking homosexual desire as qualitatively different from our disordered desires. “Or worse, some may be willing to assert the sinfulness of one category of spontaneous desire but minimize or remain largely ignorant of the sinful concupiscence that is common to all.” This doesn’t make homosexuality “less sinful” but reminds us of the actual sinfulness of our own disordered desires. “Good Reformed teaching on sin places us all on equal footing in our need of Christ’s imputed righteousness.” It seemed to me that some forgot that very important point.

Because of continued corruption we should not be surprised if homosexual attraction continues after conversion. Yet, some seem to think it should cease. Careful study of our continuing corruption should lead us to not promise removal such desires even as we encourage on-going sanctification. In this context they address “reparative therapy”. If there is a promise of such freedom, and a corresponding demand for such freedom then “that demand is an anti-gospel that only crushes and condemns- especially if the admonitions are applied selectively to this form of concupiscence but not to other common varieties, both sexual and other.”

I’ve interacted with people who have such a view of repentance that the Report warns against. If only people truly repented they would not experience homosexual desire, it is said. I guess many of us haven’t truly repented of all our sins if we commit them again. This is truly a perversion of the doctrine of repentance. As a result, all such claims or demands must be rejected and resisted. Not by a liberal or anti-confessional basis but precisely on a Confessional and Scriptural basis.

Does this mean we are being soft on same-sex attraction? Are we pandering to their sin? No. The Report then addresses real change. Regeneration is total, affecting the whole person, Boston notes. Sanctification is total as well. There should be progress as the Spirit sanctified the “whole man.” The person experiencing homosexual attraction needs to put it to death. They should seek real change “even if that change is incomplete and mixed.” Strides made are real even if imperfect.

This means we should “Celebrate Sincere Efforts.” While all gospel-change is “incomplete and mixed with corruption” it is still gospel-change. Christ is transforming them even if it is the putting to death of temptation one time this week. We celebrate, not the attraction, but our baby steps in sanctification.

This continues in establishing a moral difference between corruption and transgression. The initial desire/temptation is different morally than the desire or temptation that is turned over in our mind, and then to act on it. In this they use the language of WLC 151.

“The point here is not to encourage those with homosexual attraction to become comfortable with or accepting of it. Rather, it is to counter the undue heaping of shame upon them as if the presence of homosexual attraction itself makes them the most heinous of sinners.”

This has been one of my concerns, the reality of shame. They way some of us speak about homosexuality we just heap shame on people. No wonder they don’t want to talk to some of us about their same-sex attractions. This was my concern when focusing on their corruption but ignoring our own. The idea of repent of their orientation isn’t applied to other people’s sinful inclinations in the same way. We place improper shame on them: not the shame of being a sinner but of being a different & worse sinner than the rest of us.

Despite the fact they didn’t bring Boston into the discussion, there are a number of excellent points made in application of the doctrine we have in common. There are good correctives and clarifications so perhaps we can have more fruitful discourse in the future.

Addendum:

Of course after writing this, I read the chapter in Maturity by Sinclair Ferguson on Overcoming Temptation.

“In biblical teaching temptation as such is not sin.”

He also notes that “the distinction between temptation and sin is vital theologically and also pastorally.” He’s getting at that moral difference between them. As a “student” of John Owen’s, he’s not ignoring our corruption (he addresses that on the very next page) but focusing on sin as transgression in those statements. There is plenty here to apply pastorally. And Ferguson does just that. “We are conflicted. Christ dwells in us, yet sin remains.”

He’s writing for the tender-hearted, like I can be, who can be filled with guilt and shame over the existence of temptation in our lives. He offers a general rule of thumb to help such people.

“A rule of thumb that will be helpful if we are prone to confuse being tempted with actually sinning is this: Ask yourself: ‘Do I want this temptation? Do I want what it solicits me to do or have? Or is it distasteful to me?‘”

This is helpful, I believe, for those Christians tempted by homosexual attraction. Many don’t want those temptations that they experience. They wish it were different. They don’t yield to it, but due to indwelling sin still experience it.

“… sensitive Christians must learn not to listen to Satan’s sinister suggestions that by being tempted they have already sinned and are thereby condemned.”

He develops the doctrine of concurrence in this chapter looking at David’s sins in the affair with Bathsheba, as well as Job. This is not simply external temptation, but how Satan piles on when these desires arise from indwelling sin.

Ferguson also quotes the main passage from Owen that defines what he means by “entering into temptation.” This is a sentenced I missed while re-reading Owen for my sermon on the subject in 2018.

” Whilst it knocks at the door we are at liberty; but when any temptation comes in and parleys with the heart, reasons with the mind, entices and allures the affections, be it a longer or shorter time, do it thus insensibly and imperceptibly, or do the soul take notice of it, we ‘enter into temptation’.” (Owen, Works, VI, 97)

Ferguson develops this process from temptation to sin in the life of David, and applies it to us in what I find a helpful way. All in all, it is a very helpful chapter in his book regardless of the nature of our temptations. I heartily recommend it. I heartily recommend Ferguson’s books because I find him to have a pastor’s heart, not simply a theologian’s mind. I continually praise God for his ministry to my life and the model of doing theology in his writings.

 

Read Full Post »

Considering the Twelve Statements on Human Sexuality

After the Preamble, the PCA Report on Human Sexuality makes 12 summary statements. Before I address the actual statements, I’d like to say that the order of the Report is a bit frustrating to me at times. The Report makes these summary statements before it spends any time defining and explaining terms used in the summary statements. At times I’m not sure they define the terms sufficiently, or at least in terms to the tensions in my mind. But in the Twelve Statements there are times I ask myself “what do they mean by that, in which sense?”.

As I noted from the Preamble, each of these Statements address each of the two fears: compromise & cruelty. They defend the Biblical doctrine first, and then address the pastoral nuances necessary so we aren’t correct but cruel. We don’t want to break bruised reeds or snuff out smoldering wicks. We want to be clear about sin (a want of conformity unto or transgression of the Law of God) and compassionate to justified believers struggling with same sex attraction.

Marriage

We affirm that marriage is to be between one man and one woman (Gen. 2:18-25; Matt. 19:4-6; WCF24.1). Sexual intimacy is a gift from God to be cherished and is reserved for the marriage relationship between one man and one woman (Prov. 5:18-19). Marriage was instituted by God for the mutual help and blessing of husband and wife, for procreation and the raising together of godly children, and to prevent sexual immorality (Gen. 1:28; 2:18; Mal. 2:14-15; 1 Cor. 7:2, 9; WCF24.2). Marriage is also a God-ordained picture of the differentiated relationship between Christ and the Church (Eph. 5:22-33; Rev. 19:6-10). All other forms of sexual intimacy, including all forms of lust and same-sex sexual activity of any kind, are sinful (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:18-32; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10; Jude 7; WLC139).

Marriage is heterosexual and monogamous. This is obviously counter-cultural today, but it was generally understood until just over a decade ago. We are not compromising on this issue. While our culture practices same-sex marriage we don’t recognize or bless it. The statement also affirms that sexual intimacy is reserved for marriage, and only limited to those two people. Polygamy and polyamory are necessarily excluded. It also affirms marriage as an analogy of the relationship between Christ and the Church, a differentiated rather than inter-changeable relationship.

There is a helpful footnote on the two terms used in 1 Cor. 6. These terms reflect Leviticus 18 and 20, pointing, in part, to the active and passive roles. In Roman culture, it was okay to take the male role, seen as dominating another as a “good Roman”. Those who took the female role were seen as weak, inferior. Paul does not agree with this distinction but finds both roles in same-sex activity to be contrary to the law of God.

Nevertheless, we do not believe that sexual intimacy in marriage automatically eliminates unwanted sexual desires, nor that all sex within marriage is sinless (WCF6.5). We all stand in need of God’s grace for sexual sin and temptation, whether married or not. Moreover, sexual immorality is not an unpardonable sin. There is no sin so small it does not deserve damnation, and no sin so big it cannot be forgiven (WCF15.4). There is hope and forgiveness for all who repent of their sin and put their trust in Christ (Matt. 11:28-30; John 6:35, 37; Acts 2:37-38; 16:30-31).

We also need to recognize that marriage doesn’t fix people, as far too many people discovered. They still experience unwanted sexual desire, heterosexual and homosexual. Sex is also not sinless because one is married to the partner. Some sexual activity is sinful in marriage, and some attitudes in marital sex are sinful. For instance, your sexual intimacy should not degrade your partner. A marriage license doesn’t make sinful activity righteous.

This means, as they note, that all of us are sexual sinners of some sort in need of God’s grace. All sexual sins deserve condemnation, not just same-sex activity, incest, bestiality and adultery. On the other hand, none of these sexual sins is beyond God’s mercy and grace. The gospel is for all manner of sexual sinners. There are no unpardonable sexual sins. No sinner, including homosexuals, need fear they are beyond grace if desired.

Image of God

We affirm that God created human beings in his image as male and female (Gen. 1:26-27). Likewise, we recognize the goodness of the human body (Gen. 1:31; John 1:14) and the call to glorify God with our bodies (1 Cor. 6:12-20). As a God of order and design, God opposes the confusion of man as woman and woman as man (1 Cor. 11:14-15). While situations involving such confusion can be heartbreaking and complex, men and women should be helped to live in accordance with their biological sex.

God’s design in creation was two genders: male and female. They also affirm the goodness of the human body. This is a rejection of Gnosticism. If affirms that men should live as men, and women as women. They are stressing the normative in this affirmation. They are also affirming that all those who struggle with same sex desire and gender dysphoria do so as people made in the image of God. They have dignity. But the Report also recognizes that gender confusion is both heartbreaking and complex. The goal should not be to help them live out of accordance with their biological sex (transvestism, transgenderism, and gender reassignment). Thankfully it doesn’t stop there.

Nevertheless, we ought to minister compassionately to those who are sincerely confused and disturbed by their internal sense of gender identity (Gal. 3:1; 2 Tim. 2:24-26). We recognize that the effects of the Fall extend to the corruption of our whole nature (WSC18), which may include how we think of our own gender and sexuality. Moreover, some persons, in rare instances, may possess an objective medical condition in which their anatomical development may be ambiguous or does not match their genetic chromosomal sex. Such persons are also made in the image of God and should live out their biological sex, insofar as it can be known.

Here they add a key element that was missing from the Nashville Statement as far as I was concerned. We need to offer compassion to those “who  are sincerely confused and disturbed” by gender dysphoria and who suffer from objective medical conditions. They affirm the reality of the Fall’s effect on our bodies, including sexual development and genetics. Such people are also made in the image of God. There is a recognition that doctors don’t always have the answers regarding what biological sex such a person may be. But we should help them live faithful Christian lives in light of their medical conditions.

Original Sin

We affirm that from the sin of our first parents we have received an inherited guilt and an inherited depravity (Rom. 5:12-19; Eph. 2:1-3). From this original corruption—which is itself sinful and for which we are culpable—proceed all actual transgressions. All the outworkings of our corrupted nature (a corruption which remains, in part, even after regeneration) are truly and properly called sin (WCF6.1-5). Every sin, original and actual, deserves death and renders us liable to the wrath of God (Rom. 3:23; James 2:10; WCF6.6). We must repent of our sin in general and our particular sins, particularly (WCF15.5). That is, we ought to grieve for our sin, hate our sin, turn from our sin unto God, and endeavor to walk with God in obedience to his commandments (WCF15.2).

The intention of this statement is to affirm the effects of the fall on the whole person which includes inherited guilt and depravity. The original corruption is sinful. From the context I’d say “a want of conformity to the law of God” rather than transgression. From this corruption our “actual transgressions” proceed. This will be examined more thoroughly in other sections. However, I wish they were more clear regarding which part(s) of the definition of sin they were referring to at a given point. Their distinction is “original and actual”, or corruption and transgression. I’ve generally processed this in light of the WSC instead. So, they are affirming that we are to repent from our corruption, not just our transgressions.

Nevertheless, God does not wish for believers to live in perpetual misery for their sins, each of which are pardoned and mortified in Christ (WCF6.5). By the Spirit of Christ, we are able to make spiritual progress and to do good works, not perfectly, but truly (WCF16.3). Even our imperfect works are made acceptable through Christ, and God is pleased to accept and reward them as pleasing in his sight (WCF16.6).

This addresses one objection I had in earlier discussions over this controversy. We are to rejoice in our salvation, not wallow in our sin thru self-flagellation. We remain corrupt, and therefore sinful. This is not true only for those with SSA, but every Christian. Our on-going sinfulness is discouraging in itself. We need to affirm the balancing truth of justification: all our sins (corruption and actual) have been pardoned. They have been crucified with Christ as well (Gal. 5). All believers, whether they experience SSA or not, need to live in light of this. They are also to remember that we are able to make spiritual progress. This is balance: real hope, realistic expectations. There is progress, not perfection. We and our works are acceptable due to Christ’s work for us. God rejoices in the progress we make, however slight. He is pleased when we resist temptation- sexual or otherwise.

Desire

We affirm not only that our inclination toward sin is a result of the Fall, but that our fallen desires are in themselves sinful (Rom 6:11-12; 1 Peter 1:14; 2:11). The desire for an illicit end—whether in sexual desire for a person of the same sex or in sexual desire disconnected from the context of Biblical marriage—is itself an illicit desire. Therefore, the experience of same-sex attraction is not morally neutral; the attraction is an expression of original or indwelling sin that must be repented of and put to death (Rom. 8:13).

We affirm that due to the Fall we are inclined toward sin. It recognizes that our fallen desires are sinful, and we are back to the lack of distinction that drives me a bit crazy. In counseling I want to be able to say enough but not too much. It is inaccurate and defeating to claim that unbidden desires are transgressions. Those desires flow from our corruption, and if entertained become transgressions in thought and possibly in act. The unbidden desires lack conformity to the law of God, and are sin in that respect.

Illicit desires are just that, illicit. They don’t limit that to SSA but all sexual desires “disconnected from the context of Biblical marriage”. Such desires aren’t neutral precisely because they flow from our inherited corruption. In some discussions along these lines, I’ve interpreted/misinterpreted sin in this context as transgression/actual. In some discussions, others appeared to deny the sinfulness of our illicit heterosexual desires. This statement affirms they are, in fact, illicit.

Nevertheless, we must celebrate that, despite the continuing presence of sinful desires (and even, at times, egregious sinful behavior), repentant, justified, and adopted believers are free from condemnation through the imputed righteousness of Christ (Rom. 8:1; 2 Cor. 5:21) and are able to please God by walking in the Spirit (Rom. 8:3-6).

This balancing statement is in line with the WCF when speaking about sanctification and assurance of salvation. Real Christians experience real temptation, and commit real sins. Real Christians can experience SSA, and at times may not only transgress by lust but also by sexual activity. We are free from condemnation, but not temptation and transgression. Praise God for the active obedience of Christ imputed to us by faith.

Concupiscence

We affirm that impure thoughts and desires arising in us prior to and apart from a conscious act of the will are still sin. We reject the Roman Catholic understanding of concupiscence whereby disordered desires that afflict us due to the Fall do not become sin without a consenting act of the will. These desires within us are not mere weaknesses or inclinations to sin but are themselves idolatrous and sinful.

Since this is a summary statement, they don’t really define the Roman Catholic view of concupiscence. That comes later. They do offer a brief explanation whereby our disordered desires aren’t sinful unless we also consent to them with our will. Later they will note that in Catholic theology our corruption is removed by baptism. Baptized people are “innocent”.

We reject that notion known as baptismal regeneration. We affirm the fact that those desires are corrupt, not mere weakness.

Nevertheless, we recognize that many persons who experience same-sex attraction describe their desires as arising in them unbidden and unwanted. We also recognize that the presence of same-sex attraction is often owing to many factors, which always include our own sin nature and may include being sinned against in the past. As with any sinful pattern or propensity—which may include disordered desires, extramarital lust, pornographic addictions, and all abusive sexual behavior—the actions of others, though never finally determinative, can be significant and influential. This should move us to compassion and understanding. Moreover, it is true for all of us that sin can be both unchosen bondage and idolatrous rebellion at the same time. We all experience sin, at times, as a kind of voluntary servitude (Rom. 7:13-20).

The balancing statement is that we recognize that particular desires are not chosen, though they are corrupt. We affirm the complexity of causality for SSA. One of those causes is our sinful nature, but can also include being sinned against. This is true for many other sinful desires like lust, pornography and more. The actions of others, and our experiences, interact with the ever-present corrupt nature. We should not only be clear about sin, but also express compassion and understanding, particularly when there has been abuse and trauma.

Temptation

We affirm that Scripture speaks of temptation in different ways. There are some temptations God gives us in the form of morally neutral trials, and other temptations God never gives us because they arise from within as morally illicit desires (James 1:2, 13-14). When temptations come from without, the temptation itself is not sin, unless we enter into the temptation. But when the temptation arises from within, it is our own act and is rightly called sin.

This affirms that there is temptation from inside and outside. The first arises from our inner corruption, and the other from trials or situations or persons. For example, my lustful temptation can arise from my sinful nature. This is in itself “sin” in terms of corruption and possibly transgression as well. Temptation can arise as a person offers me drugs or sex. I’m not guilty for that temptation unless it hooks me. These are important distinctions to make.

Nevertheless, there is an important degree of moral difference between temptation to sin and giving in to sin, even when the temptation is itself an expressing of indwelling sin. While our goal is the weakening and lessening of internal temptations to sin, Christians should feel their greatest responsibility not for the fact that such temptations occur but for thoroughly and immediately fleeing and resisting the temptations when they arise. We can avoid “entering into”temptation by refusing to internally ponder and entertain the proposal and desire to actual sin. Without some distinction between (1) the illicit temptations that arise in us due to original sin and (2) the willful giving over to actual sin, Christians will be too discouraged to “make every effort”at growth in godliness and will feel like failures in their necessary efforts to be holy as God is holy (2 Peter 1:5-7; 1 Peter 1:14-16). God is pleased with our sincere obedience, even though it may be accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections (WCF16.6).

While temptation from within is corrupt (sin in that regard) we don’t want to think, well I might as well transgress. To transgress is morally different than to be tempted. While both fall into the category of sin, they are not morally equal. We shouldn’t be surprised when we experience temptation. Our goal is to weaken our temptations, to mortify them. We are to flee from them when possible. They build on Owen’s “entering into temptation” which happens when we entertain the temptation, moving along the short road to transgression. The experience of temptation should rightly drive us to grow in godliness. It should not drive us to despair, unless we have an unrealistic expectation of perfection in this life.

When I’ve talked to people who’ve left the Church to follow their same sex desires one thing that has popped up is that the temptation never went away. Often they didn’t seek help from others as well, but they had an unrealistic expectation that temptation would disappear. Especially if they got married. Some people experience a freedom from such temptations, but most have persistent temptations for years. We need to keep how we speak in mind lest we create unrealistic expectations.

I’ll save the rest for part two since this is a good stopping point for today.

 

 

Read Full Post »

Considering the Brady Appeal

Yes, we’ve been inundated with information and reports about Deflategate since the day after the AFC Championship game. Many or most people jumped to rapid conclusions, often in accordance with their team loyalties. Patriots’ fans have by and large defended Tom Brady. The rest of the universe seemed to pile on because obviously every Patriot is a cheater. And only Patriots it would seem.

¹⁷ The one who states his case first seems right,
    until the other comes and examines him. Proverbs 18

I’ve talked with some people and what is clear is that people’s presuppositions control how they view the evidence.

What is also clear to me is that the NFL has largely controlled the PR/media war on this issue. This is because they had and controlled information (thankfully there is a growing number of sports and legal writers around the country beginning to question the NFL and its narrative). Sadly this has included leaking false information, and knowingly giving the Patriots false information that prejudiced the public and was intended to intimidate the Patriots and Tom Brady. The Commish seems to have forgotten that the Code of Conduct applies to all NFL personnel, including his office. As the recently released e-mails reveal, the General Counsel of the NFL refused to correct information that unduly tarnished the reputation of a member club. As a result this has the feel of Kafka’s existential novel The Trial with Brady cast as the clueless accused man who dies but never knows the charges against him.

This “scandal” never should have gotten to this point. It should have been treated as an equipment violation and a fine in keeping with the rules. Done. It also should have prompted the NFL to improve their procedures (or more truthfully to actually have policies and procedures).  One thing the released testimony reveals is that they, like Brady, really didn’t care much about PSI, and they only selectively care about it now (they didn’t ask any questions of Adrian Rogers).

¹⁰ Unequal weights and unequal measures
    are both alike an abomination to the Lord. Proverbs 20

Let’s looks at the testimony.

Brady

I think generally Brady comes off well. He is consistent in denying any knowledge or intent. The one thing that really doesn’t look good is the phone. Not so much that he had it “destroyed” (which is never really defined). The timing looks bad. The fact that he was able to produce an earlier phone looks bad. BUT, they have the logs of texts and emails from that phone. We don’t have the content, but we would have the corresponding side of the pertinent conversations from Jasremski (a fact seemingly overlooked by just about everyone wanting to string Brady up). Brady was genuinely surprised when he learned of the matter during his weekly interview with WEEI. Yes, he subsequently was in contact with Jastremski. This is for two reasons, as Brady related, which are not as nefarious as the haters want to make them. First, they were going to the Super Bowl! This was the first time that Jastremski had this position when the Patriots have gone to the Super Bowl (he has worked for them for about 12 years in other positions). The Super Bowl is a whole different enchilada. You have to prepare about 100 new balls (because the league wants to auction them off). Additionally, Brady wants to see if he is distracted by the news as they head into the biggest game in years. There is no need to import evil intentions here, unless you are already biased.

Brady did not seem to care about PSI until the Jets game when they were over-inflated by the refs (this is not the scandal you are looking for…). The NFL simply refuses to accept his repeated assertion that after that game he insisted they be at 12.5 in accordance with the rules. They aren’t the only ones as I’ve interacted with people who ignore this in the Wells’ Report as assume this means he REALLY wants them lower (biased much?).

By the way, now some of what Brady feared by giving them the phone and/or records has happened, as it did in the case of Jastremski and McNally. Irrelevant emails have been released that make him look bad. That is the kind of stuff ordinary people have to hide on their phones- snarky comments about others. In this case some comments about Peyton Manning.

Edward Snyder

He is a statistician, not a scientist. He purpose was not to question the science of Exponent, but the process of Exponent. They did have a flawed process in their experiments to attempt to replicate the events to see if the ideal gas law fully explains the deflation of the ball. They did not include time, particularly time back in the officials room. The longer they would be there, the less deflation would be registered (which explains why the Colts’ balls lost less). Since their process was flawed, their findings are not reliable. I think he’s right. This case assumes tampering with the balls, but the deflation seems to be within expectations (depending on the gauge used- more on that in a moment). The NFL has disregarded the truly independent reports that state this and seems to double down on Exponent unwisely and unfairly.

Troy Vincent

Troy’s testimony makes him, and the league office, look utterly incompetent and corrupt. What becomes clear is there was no process in place, period. No pregame recordings and notice of the the gauge used. There was not process for recording the results at halftime, and confusion about gauges. Vincent has NO explanation for why Gardi used incorrect information when contacting the Patriots about the investigation. Not one ball registered at the exceedingly low level mentioned. Kessler had him but didn’t press about whether he saw it and sought to correct it. However, it would seem like such a notice would be given to superiors and Vincent should have gotten a copy. If not, how incompetent are these people? This could explain the Ray Rice tape fiasco (cover-up? Goodell handed in his league owned phone, but not his personal phone in that investigation. Hmmmm.)

In discussing the information conveyed to the Patriots about the Colts’ balls, it is clear that the NFL is quite comfortable with using the results of one gauge to put the Colts in a good light, and the other to put the Patriots in a bad light. That is corruption, people. That is using two different standards. Additionally, they did not take weather conditions into consideration (to be fair the rules as stated make no mention of this reality either).

¹⁶ “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Exodus 20

Vincent also looks bad for basing his recommendations on the Wells’ Report which had been edited by Pash. It was not based on the full testimony of all parties involved. Once again, an improper process on the part of the league officials.

Kessler also brought to light that in the past “integrity of the game” issues were not concerning players but team employees. This would be a change in policy without notice to players. Once again, unfair procedure.

I will give Vincent the benefit of the doubt, that he misunderstood the question about when he became aware of the situation. What many people are thinking about is the memo from the Colts. The Ravens denied any responsibility in warning the Colts about “deflated balls”. Technically they are right. However, their kicking consultant Randy Brown did contact Colts coach Pagano (who used to work for the Ravens) about kicking balls being rotated in properly. They did contact them and about balls. But the Colts’ memo alleges that the Patriots have been known to deflate balls. There is question about how they realized the ball was allegedly deflated. The player who intercepted the pass denies noticing or saying anything. Which means the Colts equipment guy had a gauge and tested it. All questionable, but not addressed. Unfortunately.

The Allegedly Independent Ted Wells

Nash invoked client-attorney privilege when Wells was asked about Pash’s role in the final product. So, was he independent or an attorney hired by the league? Wells then testified he was hired as an attorney with the NFL as his client. Reisner, who represented the league in cross examining Brady, wrote the first draft of the Wells’ Report. Wells and the NFL have therefore consistently misrepresented this.

Kessler gets him to admit that he interprets comments regarding the Jets game and over-inflated balls to refer to deflating. Just how does that work? This is the whole problem- Wells (and those biased people) take these comments in the worst light which is actually contrary to what they actually mean. How can we have reasonable discussions when we do this?

⁵ A faithful witness does not lie,
    but a false witness breathes out lies. Proverbs 14

He also takes an email from McNally to Panda where McNally says the balls should have been 13 psi instead of 16 (referring to the Jets game) and then Jastremski and gets Wells to admit they were being truthful. So, where is the scheme? He admits they wanted them within the league-mandated range.

He also admitted there was no data regarding time and temperature. How then, can there be any actual evidence that someone deflated the balls. It is a supposition based on total conjecture that cost the Patriots $1 million and a 1st round pick, and may cost Brady 4 games but certainly cost him his reputation. Nice….

He presents Anderson as utterly trustworthy and reliable. Anderson says he used the logo gauge, but could be mistaken. Okay. That means we can’t be sure which gauge was used. But Wells decides Anderson was mistaken, and goes with the gauge that produced the lower readings. Reasonable, right? No, it isn’t. Perhaps I’m an idiot but I can’t understand the rationale he, and Exponent, used to claim with certainty that the non-Logo gauge was used.

He also admitted that he didn’t find Brady credible because of the phone, a phone he legally didn’t have to provide. (Reminder, Goodell never provided HIS personal phone in the Ray Rice investigation but didn’t consider that refusal to cooperate and actions detrimental to the league.) A phone his counsel advised him not to provide. A phone his union advised him not to provide. A phone which if provided would most likely have meant the release of lots of irrelevant and damaging information. Failing to exercise rights means a lack of credibility. So much for the presumption of innocence. Wells basically rejected everyone’s testimony, even the security guard who said that McNally brought the balls to the field, alone, about half the time (contrary to Mr. Anderson’s claim).

Despite there being leaks, and statements made by league officials that may indicate prejudice, Wells did not investigate anyone but Brady and Patriots’ personnel. No one else’s texts or emails. This despite the request of the Patriots’ organization. A truly independent investigator would have investigated league involvement and missteps in this process. Nothing about what happened after the league received the pre-game report from the Colts complaining about balls.

⁹ For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” ¹⁰ Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. Romans 13

Wells admits that the league didn’t measure the Patriots’ balls after the game to see if there were any changes. This may have shown the deflation was naturally occurring and not “man-made.”

He admits that Gostkowski refused to provide his phone. But that was no big deal since they decided he wasn’t central to the investigation. No accusation of lack of cooperation.

The NFL called 3 different people from Exponent for some highly technical testimony in which they basically say they are the only ones that got the testing right, and it proves natural causes alone are not responsible. They did admit that there were too many variables to replicate in tests. Therefore the results are questionable and there is sufficient doubt, or should be . Goodell focuses, in his judgment on the phone.and suddenly seems to ignore the “science.” The bottom line is that just like global warming or any other scientific question, there are legitimate differences of opinion instead of rock solid veracity.

Jastremski & McNally

Didn’t testify. Not sure why, meaning I can’t recall who didn’t want them testifying. Since their testimony was not present in the Wells’ Report it probably is the league, not the NFLPA.

Mr. Anderson

The full-time dentist and part-time official didn’t testify. As a result there was no opportunity to discover more about normal policies and practices. For instance, do they listen to the ball guy about QB requests within the legal boundaries or not. If I’m the NFLPA I’m calling them. Did the league block this too?

Roger “the Dodger” Goodell

He didn’t testify. But he asked some questions. Some of them sound like he wasn’t really paying attention. The reality is that this makes the Commish look BAD. We get to see how he statements (and other NFL statements) have manipulated and withheld testimony to support judgments. In other words- they lied. Repeatedly. These transcripts reveal that. And they manipulated testimony to make Brady look bad, to look guilty.

If you look at the transcripts you will see that after break Kessler wants transparency. He wants them released. The NFL did NOT want them released in any way, shape or form. Why? Because they can no longer control the flow of information and therefore manipulate the outcome and cover up the pattern of deceit and corruption.

¹⁶ There are six things that the Lord hates,
    seven that are an abomination to him:
¹⁷ haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
    and hands that shed innocent blood,
¹⁸ a heart that devises wicked plans,
    feet that make haste to run to evil,
¹⁹ a false witness who breathes out lies,
    and one who sows discord among brothers. Proverbs 6

It may not matter. Many people’s minds were won by the fallacious and malicious PR campaign by the NFL. No one looks good in this mess: Brady, the league, Goodell, the Colts and Ravens, Chris Mortensen … Nobody.

I’m not saying this proves Brady didn’t do anything, or that McNally did nothing (he may have acted on the demand of Brady to circumvent officials who ignore the request). But the supposedly “circumstantial” evidence begins to evaporate. There is evidence of wrong-doing on the part of the NFL. Will people ignore that? Will they shift their outrage to the people who we know who did wrong? Probably not. And the sad part is this destroyed a man’s reputation over what may have simply just an act of nature.

Read Full Post »

Considering a Quick Trip Home

The deal is the deal.

Sometimes.

Because sometimes the deal changes.

My parents were supposed to visit us in NY for a few days. My father has some things he wanted to talk about. But when your mother has Alzheimer’s things can change. She wasn’t up for a long ride to New York, and she really wasn’t sure who she was going to visit.

My father called an audible, which was okay. I’m not really sure how to handle this development with my kids. I’m not sure how they will respond if they realize my mother has no idea who they are.

So I agreed to travel to them and spend a night at a friend’s house. My plan was to leave around 7 am. Man plans, and God laughs. No, nothing dramatic. I just wanted to do a few things before I left. I packed light, except for books.  I needed my caffeine fix so I made tea. I needed a travel much to keep it in so I borrowed one from my in-laws. By the time I wrote down the routes I wanted it was nearly 8 am. I was off. I could still make it to NH around lunchtime.

Just before I reached the end of Route 8, about 10 minutes away, I realized I forgot the book I was going to give to my father. I’d picked up an extra copy of Keller’s Walking with God through Pain and Suffering. I’m not sure he’d read it, but you never know what the Spirit might do. I knew that I should have taken it out the night before. Well, heading back wouldn’t cost too much head back and I really didn’t want to mail it. So I turned around. When I left, for real, it was 8:30. I didn’t see a cup holder, so I had to pull over to secure the travel mug because things were sliding around. Things just weren’t starting off well.

The radio in the Subee ( the nickname for  the Subaru) doesn’t have an aux jack, so I had to settle for the few stations. These were not good options. Mostly they were NPR. I learned quite a bit about Albany’s politics, including the stat that since 2000 10% of the state legislators have left due to corruption of one kind or another. I actually made pretty good time into Vermont. At times I got stuck behind the scenic drivers, the ones who drive 10-15 miles below the speed limit for unknown reasons. I recently read the Heidelberg Catechism on providence (actually I’m reading Kevin DeYoung’s book on it). I was neither patient, not thankful. I have a ways to go yet in this thing called sanctification.

When I finally took a sip of my tea, I made a shocking discovery. Teaffee! The coffee taste from the mug overpowered the taste of my tea. Not good, not good at all I say.

I had to change the station a few times to another NPR station, usually, as I made my way across Vermont. I often stop at a restaurant near the Quechee gorge. This time I was a little early for lunch when I arrived in Quechee. I tried to call my father to see if they had lunch plans but I had no service. That is another common problem alone Route 4 in Vermont. Shortly after getting on 89 I called my father and talked to him. We would be getting together for lunch. No more than 2 minutes after hanging up with him the highway became a parking lot. I had just passed an exit and was drawing near to a turn around. I quickly used my map app (thankfully I actually had service) and discovered a road that ran parallel to the highway to get me to the next exit. I turned around and got off the highway at the exit.

Read Full Post »

Considering the Knowledge of God

In Book I, chapter III of The Institutes of the Christian Religion Calvin begins to discuss the knowledge of God.  In this chapter he says that knowledge of God was naturally implanted in the minds of people.  This would be a result of our being made in the image of God.  Since we are made to reflect Him, we know He exists and something of His glory.  God put it there when He made us.

On an interesting note, Calvin uses many ancient philosphers to make some of his points- both positively and negatively.  He uses the philosophers, like Cicero, to show how people think.  This is no different from what Tim Keller does in The Reason for God.  No group of people is documented to be a society of atheists.  Is this because all cultures got a memo to socially construct a ‘god’, or because God has made us religious by nature and we must worship something?  Though some seek to flee from the notion of a God, they still show signs of His existence like guilt, shame, ethics etc.

In chapter IV Calvin asserts that this knowledge is smothered or corrupted.  This is essentially Romans 1, people choose the lie over the truth just as Adam and Eve did.  We suppress the true knowledge of God through our own unrighteousness whether we are trying to do that or not.

Some people consciously turn away from God.  Others inadvertintly do this because they fashion a god according to their own imagination.  They create idols according to their own whimsy instead of submitting their minds and hearts to God’s revelation of Himself in Jesus and Scripture.

Scripture does point us someplace beside itself to gain knowledge of God.  In chapter V Calvin discusses how knowledge of God is found in creation and providence.  Psalm 19 is one of the places pointing us to the heavens, which declare the glories of God.  Romans 1 tells us that creation reveals His invisible qualities.  The process, Calvin is in favor of scientific inquiry to understand God’s creation.  Christians should not be afraid of science or not engage in science.  Rather we should engage in science, though with different presuppositions than non-Christian scientists.  As we gain true knowledge of creation, we gain true knowledge of the Creator.

Read Full Post »