Letters Are Back!

Regarding 1 Corinthians 6 and “Whose Ox is Being sued” The text of 1 Corinthians 6 is straightforward enough in its prohibition of Christians taking one another to an unbelieving court to settle civil matters. That said, does Jesus not implicitly turn at least some civil matters over to the courts in Luke 12:13-14? By my reading, his words explicitly reject jurisdiction over the matter the brother brings to him, and implicitly turns it over to a court.

I realize the bigger point Jesus is making is about greed, as made clear by verse 15. But how do you read the Luke and 1 Corinthians passages next to each other?

Thanks

Nathan

Re: Hardly the Charge of the Light Brigade Curious why you cede the word “sexist” to the other side in the battle over who controls the dictionary. Given its negative connotation, shouldn’t Christians pick another term to describe themselves? It seems traditionalist or even complementarian would be preferable alternatives.

Reed

I live in South Carolina and am planning to vote for President Trump in the general election. If I vote for Bernie Sanders in the Democrat primary, would that be the moral equivalent of deceiving an enemy in battle?

Amanda

I would like to recommend the addition of “What in Tarnation?” to the categories or tags for your blogs. Several items would fit the bill, but this one might take the cake.

The title, “Sex Robots May Cause Psychological Damage”, might be more accurate if changed to “Sex Robots Will Worsen Spiritual Damage.” Of course, there might be a few who think all is kosher given the fact that St Paul neglected to mention robots in the last half of Romans 1.

On second thought, “What in Tarnation?” might not be strong enough language.

John

What are your thoughts on a just-turned 15 year old girl at our church who also happens to live with her family across the street from us, who frequently invites our 22-year-old son to do social activities with her and her two older brothers? She might suggest a hike or board games at their house. It is obvious the two like each other, although the girl’s father has said she is too young to court. My question is, “do you think her initiation of these activities is appropriate?”

Susan

I appreciate the sharp observation and commentary, and the optimism, but I have a question about the optimism. What is the source of your estimate of “three to five years” more of progressive madness before the corrective “lurch”? Seems pretty quick-like; I hope it’s true. Thanks for the work.

Jason

I recently read Bone of My Bones and Flesh of My Flesh and benefited from them a great deal and have taken to rereading them with my wife. I was wondering if you have ever considered gathering and publishing your funeral homilies — Dust Unto Dust, perhaps.

Todd

130: Pete Buttigieg

Please will you pronounce it “Butt – I – Gig”

That seems appropriate, and may inform certain Iowa voters.

Also, it was great to see a President with many wives give a high honor to R. Limbuagh, who is currently on wife #4. This is the impotence of our options in 2020

Ron

You should check out a novel by Scott Johnston, Campusland. It’s a satire about the craziness occurring on campuses. Funny and very entertaining. I think you would like it.

Brent

Just a personal note to appreciate and support you. That you even have to explain the “why and how” of it to fellow Christians illustrates just HOW sad the way is.

Reaching over to your original post on topic, while “totalitantrum” is good, I vote we keep looking for the new word but use that word in the meantime. “Totali…” is the right beginning.

Press on, brother! And thank you

John

I’m a big fan of your blog and have recently been quite inspired by your content (and that of others) to grow a backbone. I have just started a one year course in the philosophy of the humanities, and I hope to bring theology into the game. Would you be willing to point me in the direction of some resources pertinent to this?

Would be much appreciated!

Best regards,

Simeon

You and your family have been a source of encouragement to my wife and me for almost two years. Not uncommonly we find your blog to be a source of humour, insight, and wisdom; my wife reads Rachael’s books, my kids watch Hello Ninja. We want to send them to NSA if we can someday. We trust your perspective because you continually ground it in Scripture and its end is never for self-glorification. But (yes, here comes the challenge) I’m usually at odds with you on Trump. It’s a stumbling block between you and me though you don’t know it. I’m Canadian and so it might be said at the outset that my perspective isn’t valid because I don’t have to vote in 2020. We are, however, both believers and that will provide some common ground between us. I would also wager that you have readers just like me who are perhaps puzzled by your positions on politics (though I know you have thoroughly explained how you arrive where you do) but keep coming back because we know that this webpage yields good and not evil.

For an as-short-as-possible background (to give you some perspective where I’m coming from) I, for a long time, tried to reconcile ‘progressive’ beliefs with Christian ones. I knew some American Republicans at my Canadian university and at the time I found their devotion to the Party repugnant. It didn’t seem to matter what was said or done — if it was done by a Republican, it was OK’d; if it was done by a Democrat, it was heinous. The reverse never happened. It seemed so obvious that policy didn’t matter; it was just a sports arena, a battle of the bands. This particular feeling was only intensified by the pagan artists I followed and by the Liberals I knew who construed Republicans as racist Christian homophobes who were trying to ensure that hatred and poverty thrived throughout the land. I know that’s not true, I also know there are likely Democrats, Christian or not, who have fallen in line with awful policy in order to avoid being lumped in with the ‘Christian fascists’. Because I’m typically a genial and well-meaning guy I was able to associate with either ‘side’ without being cast into a mold.

A more faithful reading of Scripture helped me realize the glaring idiosyncrasies between my political beliefs and my Christian ones. That however, once resolved, presented further problems. In Canada, there is no major party where a Christian can faithfully cast a vote. We have 2-3 different iterations of liberal and 1 major conservative party that, for lack of a better term, could be described as Conservative nihilism. They foist some conservative fiscal policies but keep social policy as far away as possible. They appeal to the religious vote but have absolutely no intentions of seeking policy for them. What I’m trying to demonstrate is that the political situation in Canada presents some sticky issues to the conscientious Christian voter. And yet they are not nearly as difficult (I would think) as whether or not to cast a vote for Donald Trump. I question how you can, by voting for Trump, have “the sensation of doing something [you] believe to be righteous, in the first instance, and in the second, [that you feel will also be] very, very naughty.” Is this not the same man who said he said he could stand on New York’s Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and still not lose voters? Who was recorded as saying:

“I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.”

Who promised to build a Mexican-financed wall along your southern border? Who said he would tear up NAFTA and instead re-negotiated it? Who has advocated for the torture of military prisoners?

I get it. You have said his character issues are not in question by anyone. And that we need to have grace for the faults of others. That we need to look not at what he has said but what he has done (were the high places torn down?). But are you ever worried that the well has been poisoned? That you drink because the West has become a political desert and we’ve just arrived at the first well in a long while? That you ran a battery of tests on that well and they showed no concerns but you ignored the fat chunk of lead at the very bottom?

If you had said something to the effect of “this is hard for me, but it’s a strategic vote,” I probably would sympathize but your tone in the last six months has changed from cautious to cautiously optimistic. I’m not advocating for a democratic candidate; I’m not a republican either: God Save the Queen. I’m wondering if my observation from years ago remains – Republican = good, Democrat = bad. You compared Trump to Ahab, I’ll compare him to Nebuchadnezzar in that I hope he is humbled the same way. That’s how it looks from up here (straight north from Moscow actually).

Jordan

I want to begin by saying that I have been greatly blessed by your ministry over the past several years since I started listening to your sermons and your podcasts, as well a reading your blog and several of your books. I consider you to be one of the most competent and faithful ministers of the gospel currently active and I thank God for you.

That said, it seems to me that you did not deal with the foundational reason ante-bellum slavery was so offensive to God and, thus, incurred His wrath the way it did. To take a human being, made in the image of the living God, and turn that human being and his or her progeny into chattels, in perpetuity, is according to Scripture, not only a sin, but also capital crime. And, this is true no matter how well, or poorly you treat your slaves once you have robbed them of their freedom and the fruits of their labor.

While it is possible to compound the sin of man stealing by treating slaves harshly, it is not possible to justify that sin by treating slaves kindly. To illustrate: if I decided to grab you off the street and lock you in my basement, it wouldn’t matter how well I treated you, I simply don’t get to do that. You, as an image bearer of the living God, belong to Him, not me, and it would be the height of presumption for me to think I have the right to turn you into a piece of my property.

I would submit to you that the reason God visited the most destructive war in US history on the nation was not because many slaves were treated harshly, but because they were made slaves at all.

Paul

Hardly the Charge of the Light Brigade The strategic method you refer to in this post is something I have recognized in the life of Jesus and his Apostles, and it’s interesting. Jesus did not have a publicity manager and the primary media outlets in that age were live public displays and word of mouth, yet a major component of the mission is to get wide spread distribution of the message. The method for this distribution seems to be that the controversial nature of the message is its own publicity. Take the message to the most public places where ideas are shared and preach and defend it, particularly when you know it’s going to cause a public outrage. The outrage over the message will carry the message. The Apostles were coached on the fact that they would follow the same method of publicity as Jesus (Matthew 10:18-28) (John 21:19) (Acts 9:15) and as the reformer said, “It’s a feature, not a flaw.”

Who God is and His economics are an offense to all flesh. A God centered worldview is going to obliterate the senses of those who are of the seed of the serpent (Luke 4:22-30) and their offended senses are going to stir the pot and thus draw the attention of the public and thus more hearers, and among these hearers are the elect. The hype of haters only further serves the purposes of God, most notably seen in the providence of the crucifixion of the Son of God. The more they stir, the more they thicken the cream. The purposes of God cannot be thwarted, even by the most disobedient of men (Psalm 2:1-5). Their disobedience obeys Him.

God and his Apostles seem to support a Trump-esque “all publicity is good publicity” type approach when it comes to the truth of God (Philippians 1:15-18). I also think this method is why, at least in part, Jesus during His short ministry intentionally unqualified some hard statements. He knew some, without warrant, would not be charitable in their interpretation of what was said and the controversy of these malicious misinterpretations would only serve to spread the word about Himself. “Did you hear about this cannibalistic religion that’s going around? You have to eat the leader’s flesh and drink his blood to gain eternal life? You’re also required to hate your father and mother and brothers and sisters?” Good news spreads fast, but bad news travels even faster. I think your ministry and your No Quarter November campaigns are built in this vain and I think it is a good thing. “Did you hear about the pastor who told all Christians to burn down all the schools? I also heard he said that Sexism is Good. I’ll send you the link.” Even though the other team has to force the declaration into the worst possible interpretation, this only further serves the purposes of God in spreading the message (Ecclesiastes 2:26).

Many pastors and evangellyfish need to get over the fact that if we just phrase it rightly enough and qualify it enough, then the world will come around to be able to appreciate it. The truth is always going to be unappreciated in a fallen world no matter how much you try to sweeten it (as if it the sweetest possible news could be made any sweeter). I think I heard you provide the following advice to pastors facing challenges in trying to change culture both in and out of the church, “Don’t try to solve the problem. Be the problem.” Just say what the Bible says and show how it says it (2 Timothy 4:2) and welcome all the resistance that comes with open arms. 1. State the positions of God. 2. both the positions and you will be hated. 3. The hatred will draw attention through intrigue so be prepared with the defense from scripture. 4. The soundness of the defense will be appreciated by those who have ears to hear (Mathew 13:12-14). 5. Those who appreciate it will serve the cause. Don’t necessarily get hung up on everyone who doesn’t have ears.

I thank God for all the pastors who do not shrink back from teaching the whole counsel of God. I wouldn’t have the relationship with God and freedom from sin that I have today without them.

Rope

As you have a vested interest in this topic (as evidenced by your frequent addressing of topics similar), I would very much like to see your take on this friendly discussion involving Sam Storms, John Piper, and Denny Burk.

Smith