over at crosstalk they are offering this commentary:

Evangelical Church Tattoos Woman on Altar

In the you-just-can’t-make-this-up department, a Seattle church decided to tattoo volunteers during the “live tattoo final” to a sermon series. I predicted tattoo parlors in church some time ago and was jeered at for doing so. I was wrong. They aren’t building parlors to tattoo anyone in church. They’re doing it on the altar. Read more from the Seattle Times.

i particularly like the angst of “They’re doing it on the altar” – complete with shock value and double entendre.

our church has had artists creating works as a form of worship while a pastor delivers a sermon, but we have never had a human as the canvas.  and i’m not sure we would – but that is not the point. the point is the interesting use of the term altar, the use of a sexual double entendre, and the appeal to the slippery slope of sin.

i am not sure why crosstalk uses the term “altar” – particularly since evangelical churches usually do not have them – they do not need them.  and crosstalk ignores a great opportunity for a jab since the linked article uses the term “stage.”   i have a hunch it is used for shock value, and to make an illusion to paganism.

this latter reference, of pagan altars, plays into the use of the sexual double entendre, which i find mildly hypocritical from folks that find this abhorrent when used by others.  remember, christians should not talk about sex in public.  this is a deliberate sexual reference, i believe, because of the popularity of the  “so and so’s do it…” jokes/bumper stickers/etc….  clearly this has not eluded the editors.

the inuendo was clearly seen by truthinator who posted the follow-up comment:

First coffee shops and now tattoo parlors… can the temple prostitutes be far behind…?

i find this appeal to a slippery slope interesting for its sheer grade of the slope; from coffee to church sanctioned prostitution in three simple steps (emphasis on simple).  it seems to slip the mind of truthinator that coffee and tattoos are neither illegal, immoral, nor biblically prohibited (and only quote leviticus 19:28 if you also obey 19:13a, 16-18, 19c, and 27.)

finally, what really mystifies me is why crosstalk (and truthinato) even cares what this church in seattle does – since what they did violated no biblical injunction.  i have a hunch that it is just another objection against folks doing things different – it’s probably not coffee that is objectionable… it’s that it’s not served the way we do it.

[UPDATE: it was pointed out that the newspaper article opened with the use of "altar" - this explains crosswalk's use of the term. i should have seen this in my reading.]

Needless to say, I am swimming upstream on this one. All day long they are taught in school to “act like Christians.” That is the problem, I tell them. Stop ACTING like a Christian and start BEING one.

But we don’t even know what that means. WWJL…What Was Jesus Like? I promise you this. He was all MAN. He confronted evil, challenged the status quo, upset some apple-carts, and spoke what was on His mind. He was the original “Braveheart.”

Come on now. Look around at the Christian role models our young men have to look up to. Most don’t even look like men. What is the word that pop culture has given us…metrosexuals…? Modern Christian men are the ultimate metrosexuals.

So, what say you? Are Christian men too metro?  Too sensitive? Big weenies?  More importantly, what does it actually mean to be a Christian man?  How important is our masculinity as it relates to our identity in Christ?  Of course, I have my opinion, but I’d be interested in hearing what others have to say (which probably makes me a sissy for asking, of course… )

Because I know there are a lot of lazy people out there like me who can’t even click a link, here’s a snippet:

If the theology of the cross doesn’t affect every aspect of life, it isn’t properly applied.

*Sorry for the rabbit hole, but when something is said well, why change it? Click the link already.

Do you ask people for solutions to your voyeurism? Do you ask people for solutions to your alcoholism? Do you ask people for solutions to your pride? Do you ask people for solutions to your lust? Do you ask people for solutions to your anger? Your hatred? Your racism? Your greed? Your gluttony? And when you get answers, do you take offense at the happy, Sunday-School, answers that sound something like: “Oh, just look to Jesus and it will all go away. Then you will be all better.” If you don’t, I think you should. The struggle goes much deeper and oftentimes we are ‘out in the wilderness’ facing the devil. The nights are long; the food scarce; the temptations great. Jesus is the right direction, but sometimes we cry, “Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachtani.” Sometimes we are frightfully alone.

_______________________________

Imagine what it’s like to be both racist and a Christian before offering a fix to a racist. Imagine what it’s like to be both greedy and a Christian before offering a fix to a greedy person. Imagine what it’s like to be both egomaniac and Christian before offering a fix to an arrogant person. Imagine, if you dare, replacing the word ‘homosexual’ with ‘adulterer’ or ‘drug addict’ or ‘compulsive gambler.’ However, this may not do. Misty Irons writes:

But the downside of “homosexuality is just like any other sin” is that this naturally leads people to say to someone like Wesley, “Well then, why can’t you deal with your sin the way I do? Pray for victory, seek God’s face, put off the old man and put on the new. And why do you ‘need’ love from the church body over this? Isn’t the love of God in Christ sufficient for you? And aren’t you being defeatist by calling yourself a Homosexual Christian? I don’t identify with my sin by calling myself an Angry Christian or a Lying Christian.”

For this reason, I have never completely agreed with the “homosexuality is like any other sin” approach. Among those desires and compusions [sic.] that we call sin, I believe homosexuality belongs in a unique category of its own. And while it often helps to understand the involuntary nature of homosexual attraction by comparing it with lust, anger, covetousness, and so forth, at the same time it is critical to understand homosexuality as more a condition than merely a desire or compulsion. “Condition” as in: we are all born into this world in a fallen condition in Adam, which no human effort is going to alter prior to the bodily resurrection [sic.] (Misty Irons)

Do the patented, thoroughly biblical answers work? Is it enough to pray? Is it enough to seek God’s face? Is it enough to be caught up in worship? Does this make all the cares, worries, struggles, and fears go away? Does it end your loneliness? You know as well as I do that it ends them for a day or two or less and then you are right back at it again: lusting, drinking, watching; sinning. Tell me, how do we live in victory when we know we are habitual failures? Her solution?

If every straight person were to stop for five minutes and truly consider the extent to which their own heterosexual orientation has permeated every aspect of the way they have been thinking, feeling and relating to the world since the second grade, and then imagine what it would be like to struggle to suppress every aspect of their heterosexuality all day, every day for years on end, no one would be asking homosexuals questions like, “Why can’t you get a grip on your loneliness?” “Can’t you ever get over labeling yourself ‘gay’ or ‘homosexual’?” “Why can’t you just turn to God for love?”

Instead more people would be saying, “Tell me what it’s like to be you.” “What can I do to help you make it through today?” “Do you have a free evening to go grab a burger with me?” (Misty Irons)

Yes, I wonder. As a heterosexual man, I find it terribly difficult to do the very thing she is saying we should do–the very thing ‘we’ ask homosexuals to do. (Confessional: Turn back now if you are into judgment.) I work-out at the gym and let me say that it is terribly difficult to suppress heterosexual feelings sometimes when certain women walk through or work-out. I love my wife passionately. We have a great sex life. Sometimes the eyes wander and the mind slips into neutral. And I am not living a celibate life; and I do not engage in extra-marital relationships (I don’t even talk to other women unless there are people around to participate and witness it). Nevertheless, I fail. Not physically, but I fail. Imagine the struggle, then, of the homosexual who is trying to do that very thing, that is, live celibate. Imagine that constant struggle, the constant temptation; and not the comfort of knowing the blessedness of marriage. I can’t imagine it. I have no solution.**

Irons wrote her piece either in response to a piece by Wesley Hill which was posted at Ransom Fellowship. Hill,* an admitted homosexual-Christian frankly tells of his ongoing struggle with homosexuality. He wrote:

I am drawn to these haunting confessions of Auden’s because I, too, am a homosexual Christian. Since puberty, I’ve been conscious of an exclusive attraction to persons of my own sex. Though I have never been in a gay relationship as Auden was, I have also never experienced the “healing” or transformation of my sexual orientation that some formerly gay Christians profess to have received. But I remain a Christian, a follower of Jesus. And, like Auden, I accept the Christian teaching that homosexuality is a tragic sign that things are “not the way they’re supposed to be.” Reading New Testament texts like Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 through the lens of time-honored Christian reflection on the meaning and purpose of marriage between a man and a woman, I find myself—much as I might wish things to be otherwise—compelled to abstain from homosexual practice.

As a result, I feel, more often than not, desperately lonely.

Imagine living in that tension. Imagine that struggle. Imagine it. Imagine that sort of loneliness. I can’t. I struggle with loneliness and I am married to the best girl on the planet. I cannot imagine it. In a rather poignant paragraph in his post, Hill wrote:

When I graduated from college, I had talked with no one else my age about my sexuality. One night shortly after graduation, sitting on the dirty carpeted floor of the bedroom of a dingy bachelor pad in a circle of guy friends, I came so close to breaking down and asking them for help and for prayer. A black light was glowing, incense was burning on a shelf, one of the guys was strumming a guitar, and we were shooting the breeze after a spaghetti dinner. Knees tucked under my chin, I listened as someone brought up the topic of homosexuality. I felt my heart start to pound and my palms grow sweaty. “Have any of you ever had a gay or lesbian friend?” he asked. Another one of the guys, Charlie, said yes, he had had a close friend in college who had wrestled with homosexuality. “He and I would go climbing together and talk about it,” Charlie said. “Mainly I listened. We would get excited when he hadn’t looked at porn for a day or two—or even just for several hours. And we would talk about the grace that God always held out to us because of Jesus.”

Imagine two things. One, imagine you belong to a church where there is enough love, compassion, and humility that such frank and honest discussions about one’s sins can be discussed (Paul said something about that in Galatians 6 and ‘bearing one another’s burdens.’) Two, imagine that you belonged to such a place where even the smallest victory was a reason to rejoice together in the Lord and the greatest failure was not enough to bring about judgment and condemnation (but did perhaps bring about more love and compassion and grace). OK, add a third, imagine you belonged to a church strong enough to delight in nothing more than the grace of God over all this. The church has forgotten that we rejoice together, we fail together, we are one Body. We have a long way to go as the church. Hill concludes:

In a recent reflection on contemporary society, novelist Marilynne Robinson posed the simple question: “will people shelter and nourish and humanize one another?” Read in light of the Christian Church’s relationship to its gay members, her question takes on an added poignancy. Will the Church shelter and nourish and humanize those who are deeply lonely and struggling desperately to remain faithful? (Wesley Hill)

Yes, will we?

______________________________

I’d like to offer a couple of concluding questions that will hopefully stimulate some healthy conversation about this particular topic.

First, what are we supposed to do as Christians? Can we change people? Is it our job to change people? Can the blind lead the blind? Can the sinner cure the sin? Or can we, or shouldn’t we, love people and let Jesus do the curing and healing? Isn’t it better to recognize that we are all sinners, all in the same boat, all helpless without Jesus? What becomes of me when I think that I can solve the sins of others with the same tactics that were used to solve mine (as if they are solved!)? Do we not all take different paths in Jesus before we are fully healed? Truth of the matter is this: We won’t be like him, no matter how healed we are in this life, until we see him (1 John 3:2).

Second, yes, the Bible says ‘repent’ and ‘leave your life of sin.’ (The Bible even says that ‘that is what some of you were’ with the meaning that ‘that is not what you are now.’) But ironically, or not, these commands are never rescinded. We are called to them over and over again every day. We are called to abandon the flesh every day: take up your cross, deny yourself, follow me. We win. We lose. We succeed. We fail.  Jesus is not so naive to think we will not fail. If he was, I suppose there would be no need for grace, would there? If Jesus commands me and you, people who are incapable of forgiving once, to forgive 70*7, do we think he does any less for the person who struggles to live in the paradox that is Romans 7:14-25? We are not Christian perfectionists if we believe in the Bible’s teachings about grace. I don’t believe Jesus expects us to be.

Third, can a person be a homosexual-Christian? Well, ask yourself: Can a person be a (___)-Christian? It’s not a matter of practice, but a matter of identifying our weakness and living by faith that God’s grace is sufficient even when we fail, and continue to fail over and over again, and precisely because we fail. The question is not ‘How much can I sin before I am no longer considered by God to be a Christian?’ The question is, ‘Will I continue to trust in Jesus, put my faith in Jesus, trust that His grace is sufficient even when I fail? Will I trust God to forgive me? Will I continue to seek His face?’ Frankly, I think it takes a great deal of courage to confess our sins and live by faith. It takes a great deal of honesty to come before the Lord day in and day out confessing sins. But you see, this is what Jesus said too, isn’t it? It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick (Mark 2:17). It was the man who hid his face and beat his breast that went home justified before God when he prayed (Luke 18:9-14). It was the blind man who had his eyes opened (John 9:41). I think if we are not hyphenated Christians then perhaps we are not Christians at all.

I don’t happen to believe we will ever escape the duel identity of sinner/saint until the day when Christ comes and renews all things. We will always be hyphenated Christians until we see Christ in his fullness and He changes us. So I don’t think the point is that we need to try to imagine what the other person is like before we try to offer up solutions or ‘fix’ them because I don’t happen to think we have the necessary skill set required (i.e. miraculous powers) to fix anyone in the first place. What we have is love. (Only love?) What we have is grace. So we don’t need to imagine anything at all; we shouldn’t offer up any short or long term fixes. What we must do is consider Christ crucified and what we, each one of us, struggles with on our own sin before the hyphen. Piper’s isn’t the worst idea, but I don’t think it is the best idea. Then again, he only had 22 words.

Self-examination goes a long way towards not only being able to love others, but also towards practicing continuously loving others. Jesus didn’t tell us to fix people. He told us to love people. We can point in the right direction, but it seems awfully presumptuous to think that we have the solution to anyone’s problems. Living with a hyphen is the Christian’s way of visibly living in and trusting in God’s all sufficient grace.

“Mainly I listened. We would get excited when he hadn’t looked at porn for a day or two—or even just for several hours. And we would talk about the grace that God always held out to us because of Jesus.”

jerry

lusting-christian

Between Two Worlds conversation thread. (I have not read this thread, so I have not referred to it in the post.)

HT: 22 Words

*I appreciate Wesley’s post very much. He has given me much to think about. Perhaps I have treated people in such a way that has been less than helpful. He has helped me realize how much I have yet to learn about how terribly difficult the world of following Jesus can be. It’s not as easy as some would have us think.

**Let’s not try to imagine how terrible jerry is for confessing this sin. I’m only using myself as an example. I have many other sins I could have included before the hyphen. You can imagine why I chose this one.

Well, that should be enough fire up this thread. Look, I think the problem is that Mark Driscoll’s church is called Mars Hill. That’s probably it. GBA. (Sex.)

What amuses me about this and this and this is the word ‘demand’ in the first link. Here’s the quote:

Because Driscoll is causing harm, I and Cathy Mickels and Deborah Dombrowski and any other women who would like to join us, are speaking out. I am demanding a response from men like Dr. Erwin Lutzer who has refused to come out against this and who will be speaking with Driscoll at an upcoming conference. You can reach Dr. Lutzer through his assistant named Lori at Moody Church. The number is [removed] or [removed]. Here is a list of speakers who will be further legitimizing instead of rebuking Mr. Driscoll. [My edits & emphasis]

Ladies, ladies, ladies. You ‘demand‘ a response? Seriously. On what grounds? (Hint, you don’t have to go to the ‘conference’.) At what point has Dr Erwin Lutzer suggested that he is accountable to you? Demand?

I’m sorry, I’m choking on the word ‘demand.’ My goodness these ADM’s like to demand. Here’s a demand of my own: I demand that Ken Silva post his picture online for everyone to see and unless he does I will continue to believe he is a fictional character. Demand! Bwwaaahhahahahaha! Demand. (Sex!)

I’m also amused by this quote:

Mark Driscoll should be shunned by decent people everywhere. There are Mormons and certainly Muslims who have more of a sense of decency and propriety in sexual matters than he does. There is a filthiness about this man that evokes a strong desire for a disinfecting bath after watching him. This is not the spirit of Christ. It is the spirit of the age.

So now, as it was pointed out by someone wiser than I: “Anyone else find it hilarious that she looks to Mormons and Muslims to show us the proper way to go, and then says that its the “spirit of the age”.” (Sex) “Shunned”? What are we now, pilgrims? Are we living in Jamestown? Demand! I demand you ladies out there start wearing really long and thick dresses again; and stay quiet at church. (Sex.)

Yes, I do. Demand? (Sex)

**ALERT** With all due respect to the sexually uninformed: If you don’t like Mark Driscoll, and you don’t like the words he uses, here is a very simple exercise for you: Turn it off. Don’t click the link. Close your ears. Turn the channel. I mean, it’s not that difficult. Seriously. It is not that difficult. No one is forcing you to pay attention to Mark Driscoll. (Sex) **END ALERT**

And, concerning the last link, the letter from ‘Derek’, I have a question: Derek, if you think Driscoll is embarrassing the name of Christ because he talks about sex, do you think the author of SOL is doing any better for the name of Christ by continually tearing apart pastors over whom she has absolutely no authority whatsoever? Seriously, ‘Derek’, from the ‘Braidwood Bible Chapel’, can you show me where in the Bible it says that the author of Slice has a right to say what she is saying about pastors whose churches she does not belong to? Can you show me where she has a theological or moral obligation to make demands of anyone?? Did you read the rest of Ephesians 4-5 where it says we are to be kind to one another and forgiving, and compassionate? And what about that crazy part where it says we are to ‘get rid of all bitterness, rage, and anger, and brawling, and slander, and every form of malice.’ Do the Bibles at Braidwood Bible Chapel have those verses too? (Sex.)

Oooh, oooh, ‘Derek’, don’t forget that one that says this: “…walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant sacrifice to God.” Yes, brother ‘Derek’, those verses are in there too. Do you think that the author of Slice needs another letter from you today? (Sex.)

Time to grow up kids.

PS, I happen also to think that Driscoll’s sex sermons are pathetic and embarrassing. But I do the manly thing: I don’t listen to them.

Sex. Sex. Sex. Sex. Sex. Sex. (Just want to make sure we get picked up by a whole mess of porn sites.)

Here’s a link to a series of 5 sermons hosted by Driscoll at Mars Hill featuring Dr DA Carson. I wonder if perhaps the author of Slice should demand Dr Carson no longer speak at Mars Hill in Seattle? Maybe we should start suspecting Dr Carson too…

***Just having a little fun.****

(sort of: see: He said: Love One Another)

cf., Luke 23:22-24

I am currently engaged in a through-the-bible-in-90-days reading ‘program.’ It is a fast-paced, exhilarating, whirl-wind adventure! This week I finished Leviticus and Numbers and started Deuteronomy. Anyhow, as you know, those books are filled with plenty of sermon stuff and, interestingly enough, one of the topics is that nasty three letter word ’sex.’

Now we have discussed much around here about whether or not sex is an appropriate topic for sermons on Sunday. It’s a good conversation to have. (Ironically, whenever the subject of ’sex’ comes up we always rush to Song of Solomon and never to the book of Numbers or Leviticus, but I digress.) So, since everyone is contributing humor this week, I thought perhaps to add my own bit of humor to the posting with this piece from Abigail Van Buren (Dear Abby) that I clipped about 14 years ago.

When I went to City Hall to renew my dog’s license, I told the clerk I wanted a license for Sex. He said, ‘I’d like one, too!’

I said, ‘But this is a dog.’

He said he didn’t care what she looked like. Then I said, you don’t understand. I’ve had Sex since I was 9 years old.’ He winked at me and said, ‘You must have been quite a kid.’

When I got married and went on my honeymoon, I took my dog with me. I told the hotel clerk I wanted a room for my wife and me, and a special room for Sex. He said, ‘You don’t need a special room for Sex. As long as you pay your bill, we don’t care what you do.’

I said, ‘Look, you don’t seem to understand. Sex keeps me awake at night.’

The clerk said, ‘Funny, I have the same problem.’

Well, one day, I entered Sex in a contest, but before the competition began, the dog got loose and ran away. Another contestant asked me why I was just standing there, looking disappointed. I told him I had planned to have Sex in the contest. He said, ‘Wonderful! If you sell tickets, you’ll clean up!’

‘But you don’t understand,’ I said. ‘I want to have Sex on TV.’

He said, ‘They already have that on cable. It’s not big deal anymore.’

Well, my wife and I decided to separate, so we went to court to fight for custody of the dog.

I said to the judge, ‘Your honor, I had Sex before I was married.’ The judge said, ‘The court is not a confessional. Please stick to the facts.’ Then I told him that after I was married, Sex left me. He said, “Me, too.”

Well, last night Sex ran away again, and I spent hours looking all over town for him. A cop came over to me and asked, “What are you doing in this alley at 4 o’clock in the morning?’

I said, “I’m looking for Sex.’

My case comes up on Friday.

Have a good weekend everyone.

HT: Levticus 18

jerry

For those of you unfamiliar with Mark, he’s the senior pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, a church which has thrived – despite its unwillingness to alter the beliefs of the church to fit its culture – in a twenty-something, pagan culture in this ultra-liberal city. While I don’t necessarily agree with parts of Driscoll’s theology (**cough** Calvinist **cough**), I have often found his teaching, his energy, his bluntness, his steadfastness and his depth something to be admired.

But now he’s walked off the map, if parts of the Armchair Discernment Media are to be believed. (Granted, they like him from time-to-time when he makes statements about their favorite targets, but those times are few and far between.) One rabid critic of Driscoll is Steve Camp (yeah, the warmed-over Christian musician from the 80’s who jumped the shark on a Christian cruise ship years ago), and Mark has him hopping mad now.

Why?

Because Driscoll has started a series on The Song of Songs. More importantly, Mark decided NOT to teach SoS as allegory, but instead as it has been treated for eons by the Jewish church and by the early Christian church, prior to Origen. Mark decided to teach a series (to a church full of twenty- and thirty-somethings) about the Biblical view of sex and sexuality, and to use the book of the Bible that explicitly addresses this topic as something non-Puritanical.

So, just to get this straight – The same folks who will declare you a heretic if you view the opening poem of Genesis as allegorical or semi-allegorical will also go into fits of apoplexy if you exegete another Biblical book literally instead of allegorically. Then, just to complete the smackdown, they’ll give you a hundred-plus-year-old Victorian exegesis from Chuck Spurgeon. OOOoooohhh, that’ll show him!

In reality, the Song of Songs is a poem, attributed to Solomon, which describes the relationship between a man and a woman. In some ways, the SoS can be treated allegorically, as love between God and Israel and as love between Jesus and the church. However, parts of it cannot really be viewed as allegory. In reality, though, these were used by Jewish families, particularly the newly married, as a way to view their own new relationship (since many were in arranged marriages, and may or may not have known their spouses before marriage).

Historically, Jewish boys were forbidden to read from the SoS until after the age of accountability, age 13, because of some of the imagery there, so I don’t see any problem in Youth Pastors in avoiding this text for lessons. However, with all of the unhealthy views of sex in society today, is this really something that our adult Christians should be ignoring – or allegorizing away?

What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

Is there anything of which one can say,
“Look! This is something new”?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.

There is no remembrance of men of old,
and even those who are yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow.

How true. One of the other writers here noted the innate sadness of this particular news story, in which a young college coed has decided to sell her virginity (”legally” through a Nevada brothel) in order to fund her schooling. In reading this, I’m reminded of a story I’ve heard several times:

A man approaches a young woman and asks “If I paid you a million dollars, would you sleep with me?” The woman thinks about it and says “A million dollars? Sure, I suppose so.” The man replies “OK, how about $20?” The woman, indignant, says “What do you think I am?” to which the man replies “We’ve already established your profession, now we’re just haggling on the price.”

In the aforementioned news story, we learn that the woman isn’t just going to go for the highest bidder:

Dylan is a bright, beautiful young woman who’s going to consider a number of factors in her decision because she wants her first time to be a positive experience. “Natalie is a very smart girl. All she wants to do is get her master’s degree in family and marriage counseling and be a psychologist. She’s selling her virginity to accomplish that, [...] She’s smart enough to sell it. This is empowering her.”

So far, hundreds of offers have already come in including some from male virgins. Natalie says she won’t give up her virginity to the highest bidder. She’s also seeking other qualities from her first lover. “I’m looking for intelligence and an overall nice person,” said Dylan.

Somehow, I think that she’s “looking for intelligence and an overall nice person” with the same likelihood of success as the fellow who is looking for a low-interest, no-strings-attached loan from the Corleone family.

But this really isn’t anything new – we’ve had movies on similar subjects and this isn’t the first student to go high-tech in selling a gift she can only give once. I also suspect that, if she is “successful”, it will only create more copy-cats. In a way, to me, it feels like watching an unfolding drama that simply re-illustrates the same book of the Bible, quoted above.

Extremes

Rich Mullins used to sign many of his autographs “Be good, but not too good…” in paraphrase of Ecclesiastes 7:

Do not be overrighteous,
neither be overwise—
why destroy yourself?

Do not be overwicked,
and do not be a fool—
why die before your time?

It is good to grasp the one
and not let go of the other.
The man who fears God will avoid all extremes

None of the systems of this world will bring about happiness, and none are part and parcel of the kingdom because, by they are all part of what Jesus intended when he spoke of “the world” – kosmos. Some Christians long for a theocracy, but in the end they end up advocating facism. Others desire a nanny state which will care for and protect everyone from themselves.

Others still, desire a bare framework, allowing for personal freedom except where it infringes upon other people – but this too, as we see daily, leads to ruin in its extremes.

In the case of the young coed, she is just a symptom of the larger problem. We see it in many other realms – in science that only asks “can it be done?” but never “should it be done?”, in law enforcement that vacillates between the poles of vigilantism and arrogant authoritarianism, and in the church, as well, especially when we systematize it. I cannot help but believe that Christians have aided and abetted in the ongoing collapse of the U.S. financial market, because we are unwilling to “break the system” by living within our means.

But in the end, the kingdom of God is not built in the systems of this world – it transcends them. As Jesus notes, we are to live within the world’s systems, but not to accept them as truth. We are to be in the systems, but not a product of them.

There is nothing new under the sun, but that doesn’t mean we should fall to despair – even when we are personally despairing. Instead, it means that we need to pray and walk, with fear and trembling, and learn how to break from the system

My honest hope for this deluded girl is that whoever “wins” the contest is someone who has no desire to cash in the prize. Maybe someone who will help her out with her schooling – no strings attached. Someone who will share with her that she is not an object to be bought or sold, but that she has already been bought at a steep price, and cared for at the deepest level. Someone who was created in the image of God, not just a walking clod of dirt. Someone who will meet her like Jesus at the Samarian well.

Someone who will break from the system…

“Be merciful to those who doubt; snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh” (Jude 1:22-23).

“My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins.” (James 5:19-20)

I feel the need to break my own self-imposed rule of minimal blogging here at CRN.info designed to give someone else the chance to get a word in edgewise. But everyone seems to be busy today and I just happen to have the majority of my work for the week finished and I don’t think I can let this post by A Little Leaven to go by without a comment or two. With all the noise surrounding the RA/KS scandal it seems perhaps it might do us some good to consider a question of with serious theological and practical implications. For the protection of CRN.info and the writers here, I will say up front that this is a serious inquiry into a post made at A Little Leaven by blogger Chris Rosebrough and in no way an accusation or slanderous statement about his faith, character or person. Here I am interacting solely with the contents of his blog post.

I want to begin by pointing out that I like Chris Rosebrough and that this post is in no way a personal attack (that seems to be a popular word these days) on his person. Here I am interacting only with the contents of the blog post linked above where he is critical of xxx.church and their new ‘Don’t Spank‘ campaign. Furthermore, while most of this blog post is of a serious nature, I have used a mild form of sarcasm in order to illustrate my point and highlight the absurdity of Chris’ commentary on said campaign by xxxchurch.

Chris asks a very important question at his blog, one that should be addressed, concerning this new campaign (it may be old, I don’t know; Chris just posted it yesterday, 25th). He writes: “What exactly does XXXChurch hope to accomplish through this particular campaign (other than offending just about everyone)?” Well, I think I’d like to take a stab at answering this question: Chris, what they hope to accomplish is that people will stop flogging their dolphin, beating their bishop, choking their chicken, spanking their monkey, and/or otherwise sexually abusing themselves while they look at porn, fantasize about porn, or surf the web searching for porn or think of creative ways to sneak porn into their minds. This really doesn’t seem to be a terribly difficult conclusion to come to given the nature of the ministry of xxx.church. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think a great deal of perception is required to understand this. I’m not sure why anyone would be offended by this at all. All they are hoping to accomplish, it seems to me, is to encourage some self-control (a fruit of the Spirit kata Paul) among Christians in particular and perhaps the population at large in general.

Second, Chris puts forth a hypothetical scenario and asks another very important question. He writes: “Let’s pretend that through the magic of this marketing piece that everyone who sees this decides to stop ‘flogging their dolphins’. Does that mean that they’ve become Christians and are now saved?” Well, again, this doesn’t seem to require a great deal of thought. Chris, the answer is no. What it means is that, through the magic of this marketing piece or self-control or the Holy Spirit or accountability to friends, those who listen will have stopped masturbating. I really think that is the whole point here. There doesn’t seem to be anything about this campaign to suggest, to me anyhow, that it is necessarily evangelistic in nature. I don’t see anything on the two-sided stickers that says ‘Jesus’ or ‘Romans Road’ or ‘Visit Paul Washer Online At…’ On the contrary, I have always been under the impression that xxx.church was a ministry designed to hold Christian brothers and sisters accountable to one another on the internet where there has been a proliferation of porn since its inception or to help those who are addicted to porn escape its clutches. I don’t see how anyone could possibly be offended by such a thing, but then again, I am not Chris R now am I? If you read this, Chris, please help me understand why this should be considered offensive.

No Chris you silly man. People don’t ‘automatically’ become Christians because they give up auto-erotic behaviors. They become Christians when loving Christians teach them about Jesus, the Gospel, and about how God will hold them accountable for their lives–you know, when we ‘talk about all the things that really matter most, like life and love and happiness and too the Holy Ghost’ (Bob Herdman)–and when God gets a hold of them and raises them up to new life in Christ (See Ephesians 2:1-10) at their baptism. This is all in the Bible and you can readily access it by turning to just about any page. Now all of this leads me to two very important questions for Chris.

First, I guess, following your logic, that Christians should do nothing to discourage any sin at all. This means, if I am understanding this properly, then Christians ought to give up any and all action against abortion, we ought to give up any and all action against homosexual nuptials, we ought to give up any and all action against serial killing, we ought to give any and all action against rape. We should never work to alleviate poverty and injustice. And so the list could go on and on and on ad infinitum. I mean, following this logic, if we work to prevent an abortion but no one becomes a Christian because of those efforts, then it was rather pointless to work against the abortion in the first place. I suppose we may as well not do anything to eradicate sin and injustice and unrighteousness in the world. We may as well just sit back and be happy that we are saved and hope that somehow God magically does something to save the rest.

Second, and here’s where it gets just a bit risky…but in opposing this new campaign by xxx.church…this new campaign designed to make people think before they, uh, flog or get them to stop flogging altogether…in opposing this campaign or at least mocking it, are you in some way advocating the behavior they wish to stop? Let’s suppose through the magic of this marketing that people do stop ‘flogging’ does this automatically mean they are Christians? No. You are right! But, it might mean there are a few less people looking at and buying porn and the ramifications of that are astronomical.

Now, to be sure, I know you are not advocating the continuation of such practice. What Christian would advocate self-abuse and lusting eyes? I know you don’t and you wouldn’t. So what are you opposed to it for? What exactly will you gain by opposing what the Lord has placed on the hearts of others? What will the pain be for the church if this campaign is a success? Why are you embarrassed that a para-church organization has taken it upon themselves to help people break these bad habits, some would say destructive sinful habits, and lead them to do something more constructive with their hands and eyes?

The problem is that for drive-by readers of your blog your post might be perceived in just such a way. There may be people who think you are advocating flogging behavior since you are opposed to a campaign to stop flogging behavior unless the only readers you have in the first place are those who implicitly agree with you already. Perhaps for just a moment you could step back and see the bigger picture of the cost and sacrifice involved in rescuing people from the sin that has so gripped their lives. In other words, let’s see if there is a way we can discuss the issue and bring or offer some grace and mercy to those who suffer the shame of such activity instead of so quickly dismissing it is as ‘offensive’.

If you have ever been saved because Chris Rosebrough posted a warning about xxx.church at his blog, please email us.

sincerely,

jerry

**UPDATE**

Turns out xxxchurch is wasting their time after all and that bro. Rosebrough was right to call them out. Link.

You can listen here (sorry for the streaming link – I don’t have a downloadable one, though you can get it through iTunes here).