Over several weeks one could say I’ve been neglecting my “job,” or part of it anyway. But why? No one, to my face anyway, has been chiding me for not writing weekly blogs over the holidays (and longer). I’m not beholden to write YeHaveHeard columns for an outside employer. And I haven’t Gone to Seminary to do this as an official Ministry.

These are all pathetic excuses. And they show how even the man who’s writing a series on Top seven risks for young restless Reformeds can fall into risk no. 5.

5. Neglecting the doctrine of Christian vocation.

Several times this subject has arisen on YeHaveHeard, mostly because I’ve been looking into it myself. Such thoughts do not come naturally, that God is just as glorified by “menial” and even “secular” jobs as He is when we do overt ministries.

But does all — yes, I do believe that should be our standard — young-restless-and-Reformed rhetoric reflect this truth? Are more Gospel-driven folks believing and speaking against the opposite view? I hope that’s not itself just a calling for some Christians, for we’re all meant to preach all of what Christ has commanded (Matt. 28: 18-20). That includes the full counsel of God in the Word. Yet I keep seeing examples of books, sermons, etc., that either assume people already get this, or else say or imply (our of ignorance, I hope?) the exact opposite:

• A Christian pastor and radio program host, in the name of preventing compromise with the truth that Scripture is sufficient, spends half an hour disparaging anyone who would want to allow liturgical dance or other creative expressions of worship in a church service. “If the Bible’s not enough, nothing is enough,” he says, and speaks not all wrongly against those who want to add special effects and other stunts to worship services. (But then, after a comical slip of the tongue, he laughs and says he didn’t mean to say we don’t need Christian radio programs like his. Why the double standard?)
• Radical, a popular book released last year by David Platt, a pastor, rightly challenges many American Christians’ blending of some favorite Christian ideas with “American dream” prosperity-style beliefs. But in proclaiming the Gospel and asking readers to apply it to their lives, Platt was quite selective in his examples: all of them related to Professional Ministry, overt church work. For examples about Christians who stay in their “secular” jobs, he only mentioned the time they might take for mission trips.
• Two Christian parents are adamant that their children must go to Bible college and learn courses specific to some kind of overt Ministry. This is the family’s default direction, it seems, without recognition for the fact that God may have gifted the children as they grow with other ways to serve in His Kingdom: engineering? artistry? full-time stay-at-home-motherhood? political activism? education? music? movie-making?

For myself, I didn’t inherit the impression that some jobs are more spiritual from any Christian teacher. Instead the “meme” is implicit, and left unopposed, in too many Christian books and slogans: If you’re doing any work besides overt Ministry, you may not be in the right place.

Or the quiet thought which surely many of us sometimes have (I’m sure it’s not just me) that says, Someday I want to quit this job and Go Into the Ministry.

Implicit in both of these suspicions: Your job is not as important as the professional Minister’s.

For Christmas my wife bought me Job-Shadowing Daniel, and when I am finished I hope to review this book by former “bi-vocational” minister Larry Peabody. His Biblical basis and experience with both “secular” and church work lends to his excellent overview of vocation truths and the life of Daniel. (See, appropriate “advertising” on this site has advantages!).

Throughout the book Peabody focuses on Daniel’s ascent in King Nebuchadnezzar’s court, every bit a bureaucrat as any legal office intern who outshines his peers — and gives Godward advice and witness at the same time. Peabody shows how Daniel was just as much a minister of God in his calling as any of the more-overtly-spiritual prophets were in theirs. Though others may have had more amazing methods of being called — such as Isaiah and Ezekiel with their visions — Daniel’s call was just as important and the plan of the sovereign God just as active in his life.

At first for me this meant purging the mental shrapnel of this-is-work-and-that-is-Ministry — sorting through and rejecting the wrong beliefs I’d picked up intellectually. Pieces of that false dichotomy are still there, but reading this book has really helped, after I’d listened to a Discover the Word radio series, read God at Work by Gene Veith and even analyzing Radical by David Platt (who gives an I’m-sure-unintentional negative example).

But more recently I believe these truths have begun sinking deeper. For me it’s begun going beyond the more-overt Ministry of showing how regular, even drudging work is part of God’s plan for His people — even in “secular” jobs, even when one isn’t actively sharing the Gospel. Instead I must apply this even more personally. Doing these dishes is glorifying God through work. Trying to get along with your family of origin: also glorifying God through work. Going to this city council meeting, interviewing this person, even covering anti-Gospel rhetoric honestly and with as much objectivity as I can muster — this glorifies God, even apart from witnessing.

One can overdo corrections for this, for sure. Already I’ve seen a few of those examples, such as in another book I’m reading. It overemphasizes “the priesthood of believers” truth almost to the point of disparaging those who are called to be an overseer or a teacher, which is certainly a legitimate and honorable calling for some Christians (example: 1 Timothy 3).

But Reformed folks could stand to start swinging back the other direction on the truth of varying vocations apart from what is popularly construed “full-time ministry.” We’re all part of “a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9). Thus I hope more Gospel-driven types will ensure they’re recognizing the special role of more-overt Biblical ministers of the Gospel, such as pastors and missionaries, but also challenging “lay” ministers to fulfill their unique callings. Yes, all of us are “ministers,” as Peabody points out, and we should even stop using the term as if it denotes our ranking among a lower Christian caste!

• The Christian pastor and radio program host might recognize that his calling is to preach the Gospel directly to his congregation, and combat “compromise” with those truths on his radio program. However, he ought to be more careful about slamming any other methods of ministry as if they’re automatically equivalent with attacks on the Sufficiency of Scripture. If one of his callings is radio, why should another Christian not also worship and share the Gospel through dance or even a “program”? We should have serious conversations about whether these things can glorify God during church services, but let us not assume anything not worthy of overt-ministry service isn’t worthy at all.
• As I’ve said before, I’d love to see extended thoughts to Radical and other books, which champion proving in our lives that we’re really sold out for the Biblical Jesus out of gratitude for His lordship and salvation. My guess is that Platt, quite naturally, could only think of his particular calling while typing anecdotes for his chapters. He and other leaders might not even think of the connotations, or the fact that these reinforce the subtle idea that God is given the most glory through overt missions. Shall we share this with Platt and others, honestly, and even hope for Radical at Work, Radical at Home?
• And for Christian parents: sharing with them books such as Job-Shadowing Daniel, or perhaps a similar work about high-school age Christians trying to find their careers in Christ, may help. Gnostic ideas affect us all. All redeemed parents want to see their children succeed and be kept safe; but they simply may not have considered that the way God kept Daniel in His will was to send him into exile and assign him “pagan” jobs such as learning Babylonian mythology and “magic” (Daniel 1) and carry out often-seemingly useless bureaucratic tasks (Daniel 2, 4-6). Broader beliefs about “separation” from the world come into play here, and some Christians need to have those challenged as well. But all of this, I’m sure, must be done in the contexts of loving relationship.

Next: do YRRs feel guilty if they’re not being persecuted?

An excerpt from last year — read the complete column here.

Time for a seasonal issue. Ho, ho, ho! Does the Bible say it’s wrong to have Christmas trees?

Ye have heard that it was said …

It’s wrong to have and decorate a Christmas tree (Jeremiah 10: 1-5).

AKA: Having a Christmas tree could be like having an idol.

What’s the Word?

But who was Jeremiah’s audience? What was their situation and motivation? Are their trees-as-idols really the same as Christmas trees today, and are all Christians who enjoy Christmas trees thus automatically guilty of the same sin? Some solutions …

Apparently another risk for young restless Reformeds: highly inconsistent blogging. (Yes, I’m addressing that. With all of these real-life relationships and community, with family and friends to consider, I just don’t have the zone-out-on-internet time that’s so much more important.)

A recap: I’m Reformed myself, and by that I mean not just books, dry theology and asking John Calvin into my heart¹ but a perspective of trying to see everything in a God-centered way. God is large and in charge, perfectly holy, true and loving (and He defines holiness, truth and love) and His sovereignty is not only over salvation. It’s over everything: heaven, Earth, spiritual things, material things, all “menial” things.

So how come more Reformed folks aren’t thinking this way about our physical eternal destiny?

4. Missing the New Earth and its implications.

Perhaps it’s because we’re all still Reforming. None of us is Reformed, past tense, as if we already came to some zenith of knowledge and applying God’s truth and love. That won’t come until the Resurrection. But even now we do know enough about the coming Resurrection to apply its truths better in our lives — and I see some Reformed folks quite stunted in this area.

Am I all “there” yet myself? Not at all. But perhaps it helped that I didn’t just read Desiring God by John Piper and then immediately go read Jonathan Edwards and R.C. Sproul; my Desiring God reading was alongside my reading of Randy Alcorn’s fantastic book Heaven.

Piper’s book stressed that God exists primarily to exalt Himself, and thus the highest good He can give His people is not faith, not gifts, not even salvation, but all of those things for a greater goal: giving people Himself. Otherwise He would be both mean and an idolater. And Alcorn’s book stressed some very similar themes: for those who love God and are redeemed, their ultimate purpose is not some unearthly spiritoid existence in a “heaven” unlike Earth, but in a revamped and physical New Heavens and New Earth, with Christ reigning personally.

Many YRRs are indeed talking about that. For example, just today Collin Hansen, the very guy who coined the “young restless Reformed” phrase, Tweeted: “There will be no car repair in the new heavens and the new earth.” I think he must be having vehicle trouble.

But in response I asked: “How do you know? Car mechanics could glorify God!” And that is likely unnecessary to nitpick. Other issues, though, seem to be causing Reformed Christians more difficulty, and perhaps it would help if we not only acknowledged the physical nature of the coming New Earth, but considered more actively how that truth affects us now. Examples:

Do we act or speak as if God gives no blessings at all, even before the New Earth, such as rest, fellowship and even Stuff? After Francis Chan quit his California church, sure he was meant to do something even more “radical” than that, YRR-dom has been abuzz. That’s a debate we need to have, and optimally centered on questions like these: does the Bible really call all Christians to be ascetics like Chan implies? Is that kind of lifestyle really more “spiritual”?

Are we sure that in all our “Gospel-centered” emphases that we aren’t defining the Gospel’s effects too narrowly? Some, for example, imply that Christians just need to preach the Gospel, and minimize fields such as politics. Yet the Gospel also includes Scripture passages such as Romans 13, and examples of good and bad rulers in the Old Testament, and other passages that apply to human governments — and rulers will certainly be present in the New Earth. So how should Christians rightfully, honoring Christ, engage in civil government?

Might Christians accidentally get into such a “wartime mindset” (borrowing Piper’s phrase) that we forget God’s peace? Last night I was talking with a friend about this, and I had to high-five him after he said that some YRRs are too enamored with the ideas of suffering and persecution. That’s partly because previous Christians have minimized the fact that God may want us to suffer. But He might also not want that. We’re to have God’s peace either way, my friend said. And that rest that we’ll have is not only in the afterlife — the New Earth — but seeps in advance into this life as well. Let’s make sure we’re not treating the battle as more important than the victory. After all, in New Earth there won’t be any more villains to fight!

Christians who emphasize ministry as teaching, evangelism, church work — are we forgetting how God works in different vocations? More on this in my next column, but in summary, this oversight comes through not as much from pastors or authors saying, “Church work is more spiritual than your work,” but not saying all God-honoring callings are important.

For example, David Platt’s book Radical was all about asking yourself how much Jesus really means to you, and if He means everything, you will want to give everything. Platt, however — likely just because of incidental myopia — only cited examples of how Christians give up their Stuff or secular jobs in order to do more specifically Church-related work. Yet if the New Earth is our future, then we know that Christians there will be doing more than just teaching and discipleship (oh, but imagine how great that will be). And even now, I seem to recall Paul encouraging people to be “radical” in even the not-very-spiritual-sounding ways, such as being a good employee at work (Colossians 3) or loving your wife and family (Ephesians 5).

How we see our lifestyles, our worldview, our battle plans and vocations ought to be more clear when we consider our future physical existence in a physical world. There we’ll have no issues with thinking of spiritual things versus “earthly” things because “now the dwelling of God is with man” (Rev. 21:3). There we’ll not just have bad guys to fight, but God’s perfect peace, at rest and at Home forever. Implications from that truth, not just the truth itself, are things that “young restless Reformeds” ought to consider — and even daydream about! — more often.

Next: Among young-restless-Reformed types, radical church work is in, glorifying-God-just-as-much- in-work-and-motherhood-and-business not so much. Why?

This post should do exactly as it says in the title: no more, no less. Yet I hope it’s also deep.

With my break this week in writing the still-to-complete Top seven risks for young restless Reformeds series¹, I have been busy over at Speculative Faith.

That site, for readers and authors exploring Christian visionary fiction, has been busy this week with several fascinating columns and discussions: God’s possible views on the fantasy genre, how stories’ victories emerge from defeat, preaching the Gospel through fiction out of love for one’s readers, and why Christian fiction authors should also read nonfiction.

My column contribution, as of yesterday, focused on a certain oft-controversial fantasy series, especially given the recent film’s release: How do we love a fiction legalist? — part one.

And that brings me to this column’s title, which believe it or not does relate to Harry Potter.

This is the picture. It came up during a random online image search (one must be very careful with those). Further research didn’t confirm any artist who combined the two elements, but there is a Facebook group oriented around the artwork itself. Most of that group’s participants spend their time mocking creationists — a strangely popular pastime nowadays.

From what I have read, the artist who made this image might have been trying to mock Jesus.

Now, how one reacts to this image may also be the same reaction some Christians have, understandably, to something like the Harry Potter series. Two assumptions may be:

1. Obviously the artist is trying to mock Biblical truth. It could even be dangerous.

   But why should I buy into the artist’s intentions? Does Scripture say his sin is contagious?

2. Such a piece of work seems, maybe not dangerous or sinful, but useless. What’s the point?

   Pardon a moment of potential immaturity, but … it’s Jesus with a dinosaur! Dinosaurs are cool — God created them (Genesis 1, Job 40!). And Jesus is even cooler! So it’s the Creator holding one of His most incredible creations. That’s all I see there. It could even glorify Him.

Sure, whoever put together the photo — or the Harry Potter series — might not have meant to glorify God. Yet can Christians not see whatever truth is reflected in these creations?

Romans 1, describing man’s depravity, nonetheless argues that even a sin-cursed world, which is not God’s ultimate revelation (as His Word is), gives enough evidence of His existence and goodness that men can’t claim they weren’t told about Him.

And Romans 8: 19-22 makes clear: even a corrupt, sinful world reflects a longing for its rebirth:

I see that longing for a better world, to glorify God forever, even in a silly, perhaps-intended-for-mockery Photoshop combination of a Jesus painting and dinosaur picture.

And sometimes I even see it in the Harry Potter series. For more on that, just read here.

Any criticisms, questions, rebuttals, or reactions are most welcome.

Al Mohler has caught up to a controversy that’s been talked about for years in Christendom. In a post last week at his website ¹, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president — I’m sorry to say this — breathed new life into the issue.

Without outlining my own position just yet, here’s an overview of three Christian views on yoga.

1. Pagans came up with yoga for false-religious reasons. Its belief basis, meditations, ideas about the human body, poses and breathing methods do not honor God. Therefore Christians should shun everything about the practice, not wanting to worship idols.
2. While pagans may have come up with yoga for wrong reasons, I as a Christian should be able to do it, even the meditating and whatever, and I’m okay. What’s wrong with it?
3. Yoga began as a system of exercise based on anti-Christian beliefs. Wise Christians will employ Biblically based discernment to weed out the junk, not wanting to dishonor God (and waste their time!) with false religious beliefs. However, although almost any Thing in the world (such as food) may be invented or sold with anti-God motivations (definition: any motivation not sanctified by the Spirit!), a Christian may stretch or exercise in a way that yoga practitioners just happened to popularize first, and not dishonor God.

Mohler takes a stance

This past spring I joined an anti-yoga Facebook group and participated, not because I believed in the group-starter’s beliefs (ahem), but because I wanted to stretch my mind (ahem) and take part in an intellectual exercise and learn (ahem!). That didn’t go over too well with other group “members,” most of whom were anti-Christian activists, polite and otherwise, who had more-crucial issues to complain about. But I did get a column out of it (plus a short sequel).

Still I stand by my conclusions then, that yoga poses, stretches and even breathing techniques and the like are almost direct equivalents to the “meat offered to idols” the Apostle Paul talks about in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8-10.

It seems Mohler doesn’t bring up that issue. To him, perhaps, not discerning yoga as a false religion is the main Problem in Christendom.

Do I agree this is likely Christians’ biggest problem? Yes.

Will I also ask rhetorically whether Mohler may be skipping over potential lesser problems? Yes.

He won’t know anyway, that I’m about to first, quote from his column:

[A] significant number of American Christians either experiment with yoga or become adherents of some yoga discipline. Most seem unaware that yoga cannot be neatly separated into physical and spiritual dimensions. The physical is the spiritual in yoga, and the exercises and disciplines of yoga are meant to connect with the divine.

… then rework it just a bit, like so:

[A] significant number of Corinthian Christians either taste-test meat offered to idols or become adherents of some pagan temple worship service. Most seem unaware that eating these meats cannot be neatly separated into physical and spiritual dimensions. The physical is the spiritual in idol-worship, and the exercises and disciplines of eating such meats are meant to connect with the divine.

This changes things somewhat — especially if we also remember that Paul did not say this or anything similar. Rather, the apostle said that while evil is real and we should not participate in actually worshiping demons, nothing is intrinsically wrong with the meats.

What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?

“All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. For “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.” If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience—I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?

1 Corinthians 10: 19-30

Spiritual freedom restrictions

A Christian’s only restrictions on doing something that could look evil but is not actually evil, are not based on the possibility that they’ll actually honor a demon by accident. Instead a Christian should avoid eating because another brother, with a conscientious objection, might be hurt.

That’s the catch. Freedom is what we have in Christ, Paul says. But as he himself gave up his freedom for His sake, we should take into account a Christian brother’s honest difficulties.

As I disclaimed in my first column on the issue:

[L]et us assume you are a newer Christian, or truly a more-sensitive sister. Such a person could have experience with an actual pagan-saturated practice of yoga, and want to avoid it. Why? For the same reason that a new Christian with an alcoholic past might avoid any restaurant with a bar: He might be tempted to fall back into that sinful habit that dishonors the Lord he loves.

So if you had a background in New Age practices, paganism or religion-saturated yoga, I would not be telling you like this that certain parts of yoga might be okay. Instead, I would encourage you to think about where the real sin comes from — as I’m doing now. But then I would back off and let God and you make your own decisions and whether it would be sinful for you.

Will the real compromise stand up?

Yet what about Mohler, and other Christians — such as a pastor friend of mine — who either merely bypass another potential problem of the yoga issue (blaming a neutral Thing for sin), or else directly state that you simply can’t have yoga’s physical part without its spiritual part?

For example, Mohler seems to acknowledge an inherent neutrality of yoga-esque positions:

There is nothing wrong with physical exercise, and yoga positions in themselves are not the main issue.

… yet then immediately adds:

But these positions are teaching postures with a spiritual purpose. Consider this — if you have to meditate intensely in order to achieve or to maintain a physical posture, it is no longer merely a physical posture.

Agreed with the meditation part: any connotation, in or outside of Christendom, of meditation without a preposition (we meditate on Christ, on His Word!) comes not from Scripture but from false religion, and has no place for a Christian. It’s also a tremendous waste of time.

But how can a position of the human body teach anything, especially if it is undertaken by a Christian who can and does separate it from its pagan origins?

Isn’t this equivalent to saying “even if you don’t eat meat in a temple as part of a false religious ceremony, the meat itself would teach you to worship idols”?

Furthering Mohler’s point, a pastor acquaintance of mine — whom I much respect — asked this:

There is a difference between accidentally striking a pose and deliberately learning and imitating yoga techniques. To think that we can separate the physical from the spiritual in this matter is to not understand eastern religion.

In response I asked: “But why should we assume that what Eastern religion believes is right?”

Put another way, let’s consider only two of the yoga positions, ruling out the second, which both no. 1 and no. 3 believe is wrong (i.e., Why can’t I practice everything about yoga, it’s okay, right? and I can meditate — without a preposition — and still love Jesus!).

1. We can’t separate the physical and spiritual components of yoga, so we need to avoid it all. Eastern religion says the physical and spiritual components of yoga can’t be divided.
2. We can indeed separate the physical and spiritual components of yoga, and perhaps assume a yoga-esque position, intentionally, for exercise, rejecting false beliefs.

Now I ask: which view here has actually bought into Eastern religious beliefs?

As for me, I say the Eastern-religious can’t-divide claim is hokum, just like the notion that meat offered to idols automatically gives credit to idols wherever it goes. And while I don’t believe Christians who take the Eastern-religious concepts at their word do so intentionally, I have also begun to wonder whether they’re not avoiding Things not out of concern for weaker brothers, but because the Bad Guys say they’ve “claimed” them and the Christians just go along with it.

What testimony are Christians giving to others about where we believe sin actually originates?

By the way, quasi-sabbatical over. Back to work, now writing three entries three times a week.

Today I’m making my first-ever cross-post. That’s partly because I’m still preparing for that conference, and partly because today my topic on Speculative Faith relates to nonfiction Christian doctrines (including vocation) just as much as the fiction field.

So go and read Learning from bad books, part 2, which begins like so:

When I grow up, get old, and very likely die, and go to Heaven, I anticipate at least three things:

1. Finally getting to see the face of Jesus.
2. Reunions with Biblical saints, other faith heroes, perhaps household pets, etc.
3. Novels will surely be published based on their inherent virtue, not Big Christian Names.

No. 3 is an issue of what Christian theologians (and writers who want to use theology terms) call adiaphora. Unlike, say, plagiarism or claiming to write a book you haven’t, it’s not sinful for a Big-Name Christian to try his hand at writing novels, and have an advantage over others because he has a Big Name.

Yet I wonder if it’s wise. And perhaps it’s even a violation of the Bible’s direct and implied teachings on spiritual gifts and God-glorifying vocations.

Paul wrote that the hand shouldn’t say to the eye, “I have no need of you” (1 Cor. 12). But what happens when the eye (say, a famous pastor or nonfiction author) says back to the hand (in this case, a novelist), “Hey — I want your job”? And what does Scripture tell us about Christians who have different gifts and callings — are some of these more “spiritual” than others? Read more …

Christmas is coming early this year for those who enjoy knowing and applying Biblical doctrine, and engaging in the day’s political issues from a Christian perspective.

That’s because Politics According to the Bible, 600 pages of Scripture-and-modern-issues magic, has recently released. Perhaps it comes just in time, just when some had begun wondering: okay, we know there are issues with Christians partnering with false-religion types like Glenn Beck, but how can we ally with other people for political and not religious reasons?

Politics According to the Bible may help answer this question. And especially for those on the young-restless-Reformed side who might be tempted to overcorrect for evangelical political excesses — “let’s just preach the Gospel!” — this is the perfect author for them.

Why? Because it’s written by Wayne “Systematic Theology” Grudem.

I’ve already added this book to my Amazon cart, and it is very rare I do that so fast — or that I do little more in a blog post besides shell for something new. Currently the book, listed at retail for $39.99, is on sale for $26.39. Get it while it’s hot (and with this Beck stuff ongoing, it is).

Here’s how I found out about this: from Justin Taylor, just Wednesday after the book released. Taylor summarizes Grudem’s chapter titles, and offer a free download (PDF) of chapter 1:

Part 1: Basic Principles

Chapter 1: Five Wrong Views about Christians and Government

Chapter 2: A Better Solution: Significant Christian Influence on Government

Chapter 3: Biblical Principles Concerning Government

Chapter 4: A Biblical Worldview

Chapter 5: The Courts and the Question of Ultimate Power in a Nation

No, that’s not the entire book. Those titles encompass its first 157 pages. Chapter 1 critiques “Five Wrong Views about Christians and Government.” So far I’ve focused on C and D:

A. Government should compel religion 23

B. Government should exclude religion 29

C. All government is evil and demonic 36

D. Do evangelism, not politics 44

E. Do politics, not evangelism 53

Under “Do evangelism, not politics,” Grudem actually critiques someone close to his own side, John McArthur, whom I hadn’t known took such a just-preach-the-Gospel approach to political involvement. (This seems to downplay the nature of our role as dual citizens, of the After-world and the current Old Earth, and our multiple vocations, primarily as God’s adopted sons but also as workers in different fields — including Ministry, business, art, motherhood, and/or politics.)

In response, Grudem does not offer a gospel of Better-Christianity-through-Politics, but shows that the Gospel, though based vitally in the message of God saving sinners, brings more results:

1. Too narrow an understanding of “the Gospel” and the kingdom of God

While I agree with Thomas and MacArthur on many other things, I cannot agree with their disparagement of the value of Christian political involvement for God’s purposes on this earth. I think it represents too narrow an understanding of the work of God’s kingdom and of the nature of the Christian gospel message.

“The Gospel” in the New Testament is not just “trust Jesus and be forgiven of your sins and grow in holiness and go to heaven” (though that is certainly true, and that is the heart of the Gospel and its foundational message). No, the Gospel is God’s good news about all of life! Jesus said,

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19–20).

The phrase “all that I have commanded you” means more than John 3:16, as wonderful as that verse is. All that Jesus commanded includes everything that he taught as recorded in the four Gospels. This is because Jesus promised his disciples not only that the Holy Spirit would “bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you” (John 14:26), but also that the Holy Spirit “will teach you all things” (v. 26) and will “guide you into all the truth” (16:13).

Grudem goes on to question McArthur’s belief that modern governments’ natures don’t matter:

The ideal human government can ultimately do nothing to advance God’s kingdom, and the worst, most despotic worldly government in the end cannot halt the power of the Holy Spirit or the spread of God’s Word.

I think of the difference between North Korea and South Korea. Even if the dictatorial, oppressive government of North Korea has not completely halted the spread of God’s Word, its severe persecution has hindered it so much that millions of North Koreans are born, live, and die without ever hearing of Jesus Christ, and North Korea sends out zero missionaries. By contrast, the church in South Korea, where the government has allowed freedom, is growing, thriving, and sending missionaries around the world. Or compare the relatively small, repressed church in Cuba, which is unable to send out any missionaries anywhere, with the growing, thriving churches throughout many Latin American countries that have more freedom. Governments do make a difference to the work of God’s kingdom. This is why Paul urged that prayers be made “for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way” (1 Tim. 2:2). That is, good governments help people to live a “peaceful” and “godly” life, and bad governments hinder that.

Can a theologian and Kingdom citizen be a patriot in an Old-Earth nation? Grudem seems to think so, and offers to prove his case from Scripture — along with secondary appeals to less-overt Biblical implications, and also references to facts.

So I highly anticipate reading his work, and catching up on something Christians may too easily miss: the Gospel is not a social gospel, and not a political gospel, but it does have implications for society and politics. Moreover, God’s people are indeed called, while they wait for the Kingdom, to be good citizens and teach His commandments on Old Earth.

I am well aware that the Bible is not an American book, for it was finished nearly 1,700 years before the United States existed! The principles and teachings in the Bible contain wisdom that is helpful for all nations and all governments. Therefore I have tried to keep in mind that people in other nations might read this book and find it useful for formulating their own positions on the political issues that they face in their own nations. Yet in my examples and my choice of political issues, I focus primarily on the United States, because that is the country I know best, the country I am proud to be a citizen of, and the country I deeply love.

By Monte E. Wilson ^{1 2}

(Continued from part 1 and part 2.)

The Spiritual Elite

One of the driving forces behind pietistic evangelical fundamentalism is its desire to be on the cutting edge of true spirituality. We will have none of that two-tiered Roman Catholic brand of Christianity where the priests are required to live holy lives on behalf of a people who get to be normal! No way! Every believer is a priest who is required to talk like an epistle and live like an apostle.

Do you go to church only on Sundays? You are clearly in need of some sort of Damascus Road experience. Have you failed to read all of Sproul’s or Swindoll’s or Tozer’s books? Slacker! You don’t pray for an hour every day and read your Bible through at least twice a year? And you really think you’re saved?

For the average serious evangelical, a church is not really a church unless it is filled with Green Berets for Jesus. We hold to the notion that the true church is the home of the Spirit-filled elite and the apostolic meat-eaters. And if not? Look out. Ministers will be brought into such ordinary congregations to exhort the people to be like a missionary society or a para-church organization. How can they prove their commitment? They must give more than a tithe. They must daily get up at 5 a.m. and pray for an hour. They must evangelize every unbeliever in their office before the next service where they will be expected to give their testimony of success. They must dress like Ozzie and Harriet, talk like Charlton Heston doing Moses, and eat like St. Francis of Assisi.

In the early days of the church, one of the major battles to be waged was against the infiltration of Gnosticism. Usually, these people believed that the truly spiritual were those who had received special knowledge, special revelation. Gnostics did not believe that created matter (e.g., the flesh, the earth, time) could ever attain to something like holiness. Matter was evil, spirit was holy. People who lived normal lives—who did things like get married, have children, work with their hands—were worse than dogs. Only those who sought to escape this world of matter and ordinariness to the perfect world from where they originated were holy.

So what happened when those who wished to be uncommon came into contact with the blacksmith who claimed to have been born-again—and remained a common blacksmith with a common wife and common children, who lived common lives and died commonly? “This cannot be! How can this laborer claim to have had the same spiritual experience that we have enjoyed?” This would not do. If the masses could accept the faith, then something more must be required. There had to be a higher plane, a deeper life: one where the meat-eater would not have to rub shoulders with milk-drinkers.

It was simply not acceptable to these Gnostic elite to be lumped together with such earthy people. What was the solution to their dilemma? Create another tier of spirituality—The Deeper Life Club, which alone could claim to be the truly, authentic, spiritual, holy, New Testament church!

(Tomorrow: What happens when Christians grow more enamored with spiritual elitism and Movements, rather than Christ and the Gospel?)

It is something we all spend almost all our days doing. When pastors, teachers or friends issue the challenge to avoid living like a “Sunday only Christian — any answer should include it. And it’s something the whole Bible often addresses.

But it’s something that many Christian books, teachers, leaders and sermons don’t often touch.

I think that [a] great heresy of the Christian faith in the 21st century is that here, people spend their time and life at work … [and] it’s a whole area of life that we have not addressed in theological seminaries, in churches. I think people don’t think about it because they’ve never been challenged to do it. And yet as you go through the Bible you find that the Bible has a lot to say about work. But we somehow just go right over it.

That’s according to Dr. Haddon Robinson, theologian, preacher and teacher, and cohost of RBC Ministries’ “Discover the Word” daily radio broadcast.

Don’t let the program’s 15-minute length (or RBC’s famousness for the pithy devotionalette Our Daily Bread!) fool you. Well, it fooled me at least. Somehow I thought this program might not have a lot of doctrinal depth. Last year, when they spent months going over commonly misread and misunderstood Bible verses, I found I was so wrong.[And in fact, their grace-based and truth-imbued exploration of such verses formed an idea that would later become this site.]

Discover the Word began its series on Godly vocation in early January. Their first week, they began discussing the practical side of what people who’ve lost their jobs go through, how they recover and how others can help. On Jan. 11, they began focusing on Biblical doctrine of work.

Here most doctrine issues, Robinson noted, are from a lack of Christian teaching on the subject. Thus wrong ideas — including false divisions of “secular” and “sacred” — can infest our minds.

And if Christians do talk about our daily work, Robinson continued, it’s often limited to certain contexts. For example, if a theme is following God’s will in normal ways, we might mention the need to avoid stealing from the workplace. Much more common is the encouragement for people to witness and share the Gospel with others, including at work, he said. But in addition to those truths, do Christians spend equal time talking about God’s approval of work itself?

The following day they played a clip of a simulated sermon. It’s something that Christians might hear at a church whose pastor may not intend to further false ideas, but falls into this practice anyway because of ignorance or a perception of the false sacred/secular dichotomy.

“God wants you to give yourself to Him. He wants you think seriously about how you spend your time and where you spend your money.

“As you know, we desperately need people to teach our junior-high boys. But many of you are too busy with your job, your work, that you don’t have time for God’s work. The roof of our church building is in need of repair, and many of you are busy making money. But you can’t find money to invest in the house of God.

“Now I’m not scolding you. But I’m just asking: are you so busy working and making money that you’ve pushed God and the church out of your lives?”

My initial reaction: maybe few people have heard someone say that so directly. But do we have such assumptions deep down in our minds? Do we hear Biblically based, Gospel-driven truth against these notions? If not, the lies may keep growing. And so will the false belief that what we’re doing in our workplaces, or our tasks at home, are less important than “official” ministry.

Cohost Alice Matthews wondered if such guilt trips are more common than we might think.

It completely ignores everything that goes into the work week of the person in the pew. This person who is having to make money in order to pay the rent, or pay the mortgage, buy groceries for the family — the whole life of that person, Monday through Saturday, is being put aside in favor of only dealing with what is going on in the church.

And that, Robinson added, does nothing to aid the “don’t just be a Sunday Christian” truth.

That’s one of the [problems]. The other [problem] is: “the real work that you do for God is what you do on Sunday at the church. And what you’re doing out there in the workplace is somewhat questionable.” … I’ve had businesspeople say that when their work is addressed [at church], it’s always addressed in a way to make them feel guilty. Now you’re out there making money, and that’s somehow a terrible thing to be doing.

“Necessary, but terrible,” Matthews quipped. And she and cohost Mart De Haan went on to acknowledge the truth that the Bible does views some things as “set apart” for God. That includes Old Testament prophets’ references to the Jews building their own houses instead of working on the Temple, and Jesus’ encouragement that we must lay up treasures in Heaven.

Yet we can also lay up treasures in Heaven, and glorify God well, even in “secular” jobs. And Christians should honor that truth as much as they honor more-direct Kingdom work.

That’s what I draw from Robinson’s finish to that broadcast.

You don’t hear it the other way. You don’t hear, “Some of you are spending too much time working with the junior boys. And you’re not out there in the workplace doing the kind of work you ought to be doing, that’s quality work.”

… Pastors and Christian leaders do preach this kind of thing: that the really important work in life has to do with what you do with the church. Obviously it’s another sermon to say — you got to have balance. But we don’t talk about the balance of doing good work in the workplace. … There are inadequate ways of bridging the gap between worship and work. And I think serious Christians need to think about that in an honest way.”

Time for a seasonal issue. Ho, ho, ho! Does the Bible say it’s wrong to have Christmas trees?

Some of you are now squinting and maybe laughing at the thought. Others are nodding, having heard this belief from someone or somewhere. Maybe other readers are agreeing soberly and very seriously that yes, the Bible does have a verse that forbids dressing up a tree indoors.

My hope is not to offend anyone, especially those in the third group. Also, God forbid I should actually tempt you to do something that truly would violate your conscience. Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 keep me from doing that.¹

What this piece won’t address is two things:

• Whether Christians or the Romans truly started Christmas.
• Whether a Christmas tree or other traditions are pagan in origin.

Perhaps a future column could address these issues, from historical and personal perspectives. Rather, the specific question is: does the Bible actually condemn decorating a Christmas tree?

Ye have heard that it was said …

It’s wrong to have and decorate a Christmas tree (Jeremiah 10: 1-5).

AKA: Having a Christmas tree could be like having an idol.

Figure A:

A Christian family, citing concerns about acting or appearing like the world, decides not to have a Christmas tree with their annual December tradition. They may give gifts, sing carols, or even have an Advent wreath or Nativity scene, but the Christmas tree is out. We don’t want to base things around an object that is like an idol, they explain. Jesus is the reason for the season.

Figure B:

One wonders what Jeremiah, if he were alive today, would say about all the Christmas trees that now decorate our Christian homes and Christian churches? Would he sound a similar alarm like he did among the ancient Jewish population in Jerusalem? He probably would.²

What’s the truth in this?

Materialism, stress, shoppers rushing home with their treasures, silver bells, etc., are definitely not the reason for the season. Jesus is. It would be wrong to assure people that holiday traditions are fine and good without also saying they can be corrupted. Surely for some people, a Christmas tree can be something that distracts from His incarnation as a human baby.

What’s the lie in this?

But is Jesus only the reason for the season? Isn’t He also the reason for everything? Could everything include an evergreen tree decorated with bright lights, bows, ornaments? Is such a thing a “creation” of the devil or the world? Or can they only twist good things God has made?

Many people in effect “worships” things like cars, food, a job, a marriage, family members and friends, even a church. Should Christians give up on all such good things, created by God? Yes, they can be twisted. But we know humans themselves are twisted — though created as good, human nature is corrupted by sin (Romans 2-3) and even Christians still struggle with remnants of their sinful nature (Romans 6, 1 John 1:8). Christians aren’t told to avoid all other humans.

But all that may not matter if Jeremiah really and specifically condemned Christmas trees. . . .

What’s the Word?

The writer: Jeremiah, a specially appointed prophet of God to Israel.

His audience: people of God’s original covenant who, true to form, had wandered away again, tempted by idolatry and other rejections of God’s law. In short, “They have turned back to the iniquities of their forefathers, who refused to hear my [God’s] words” (Jeremiah 11:10).

“Silver and gold”? Yes, it sounds like part of a Christmas song. But was Jeremiah really addressing Christians of about 2,500 years later who, as part of celebrating Christ’s birth, might bring an evergreen tree indoors to decorate? Rather, who was Jeremiah’s audience? They were citizens of Israel, who were wandering blindly after dumb customs of other nations.

Without reading further, we might even see he doesn’t even say this is part of an idol-worship tradition. God only proclaims such customs as “vanity.” One could say that’s a sin too, but this is more the sort of “vanity” that means useless.³ God is describing their custom as just dumb.

Real idols are next. His thought continues: these objects are worthless. They can’t even do evil.

The “they cannot do evil” part is key here. Items used for idol worship are not themselves evil. They may be stupid, vain and useless.⁴ But what is evil is how the people treat them.

If I really tried, I could treat a Christmas tree as my idol, even worshiping it likeunto a god, and claim that passage doesn’t apply to me. Why? I could say I haven’t cut down my tree with an axe (it’s artificial!) and I didn’t use silver and gold decorations (I used green and red) and didn’t need nails to fasten it (a Christmas tree stand works just as well). But still it would be an idol.

Remember part of what Jesus told His hearers, after more debates over true and false moral laws with the Pharisees, “There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him” (Mark 7: 14-23).

Further in

Heart check: do you treat your Christmas tree like an idol? Does cutting it down — or putting it together from a box — and putting up lights, ornaments and more draw you away from God? Do you value a tree too highly? For you, would it even be a worthless practice?

If so, then yes, you may have something in common with the pagan practitioners whom Jeremiah (speaking for the Lord) condemned. You shouldn’t have a Christmas tree.⁵

But such sin isn’t a tree’s fault — any more that it’s the Bible’s fault when, ahem, its verses like this are wrongly thought to be specifically about modern practices, which ignores the (human) author, his (and His) audience, and the reason for the writing.

Again, it would Biblically be wrong to insist someone must have a Christmas tree for whatever reason, or even celebrate Christmas at all, to be a truly spiritual person.

Yet people who are worried about acting worldly should consider questions like these:

• Would it really violate your conscience to have a Christmas tree? Or would it only seem to resemble a compromise with the world?
• Perhaps some parents believe a tree (or giving gifts, etc.) is something they must avoid for the sake of their children, so they will remember that Christians must have different standards. Yet should that truth be balanced also with the truth that objects are not evil, but how they are treated can be evil?
• What message does this show non-Christians about where we believe sin comes from?
• Depending on your motivations, could not having a Christmas tree be a kind of idol?
• Would you personally be sinning against God in your heart by having a Christmas tree?

Even if a Christmas tree, or another tradition, does have pagan origins (which itself is disputable anyway, according to Gene Veith and many others⁶), maybe the children of some Christians need to learn in this way that God can take “pagan” things and redeem them from sin for His glory.

A Christmas tree can be an example of this. Jesus is the reason for the season, but He is also the reason for everything. And Christmas trees, gift-giving, even stories of Santa Claus, can be included, in context, serving as teaching moments, with both showing and telling, as ways to glorify God to Christian children and their parents. That works even better than acting (in deed, even if not saying so openly), that it is a tree with lights, and not human nature, that brings sin.

After all, a prime example of a dirty pagan thing redeemed for the service of the Savior: you.