A Mixed Bag

by Frank Turk

What I should be doing this week is publishing a "Best-Of" post so I can dedicate my time and energy to finalizing my talk for the Tulsa conference that is scheduled for next weekend (register here; donate for the support of that conference here).  I have about 120 minutes of "stuff" to say, but 55 minutes to fit it in, so pray about that for me.

What I am actually going to do today this week (thanks, DJP) is talk about a topic which, unfortunately, isn't going to go away any time soon.  The topic is Abortion.  Specifically, I want to talk about one approach to the problem of abortion which I have unfortunately been subjected to over the last 7 days.

About a year ago, at the self-same conference in Tulsa, I was introduced to the group Abolish Human Abortion.  At that time, as I understood them, they were a young and new-ish group, and they had the vim and vigor of young fellows excited about getting into full-time ministry.  For my part, I am in favor of the end of abortion.  I am in favor of saving every human life from murder whenever possible, and this most certainly falls under that conviction.  All murder is wrong.

Let me make sure I say this as clearly as possible:

All murder is wrong

That's the moral premise which under-girds any work to limit or abolish abortion.  Anyone commenting or responding after this series of posts goes live who ignores this essential fact of Christian ethics in my position is selling something unsavory.

Insofar as murder is wrong, the epidemic of murder in our nation is not from firearm use: it's from abortion.  Only one bullet in a million ever kills a human being in the United States -- but one baby in 4 is aborted every year in the United States.  Comparatively speaking, there are 130 abortions for every murder committed by firearm in the United States.  For every one child murdered outside the womb by all others means, there are 1,000 children murdered in the womb via abortion.  As a percentage of all murders, abortion outstrips every other mode of murder in the world, and in our nation.

All murder is wrong; abortion is the most-prevalent type of murder in our nation; it is wrong.  However, the unfortunate fact of abortion is that, unlike shooting someone in the face or strangling them, it is not illegal.  And therein, as they say, lies the rub.

Here's the first bit of information from the AHA website which, I think, we need to consider:

Pro-life is the expression of a moral opinion. Abolition is the expression of a moral action. When you call yourself “pro-life” you are letting people know what you think about abortion. When you call yourself an abolitionist, you are telling them what you aim to do about it.

It's sounds very rational, right?  Everything, on first blush from these guys, sounds rational.  The problem, of course, is that this statement is a story they are telling themselves to justify something else they want to say or do.

Historically, since 1973, the Pro-Life movement has been the singularly most-vocal and most-active anti-abortion lobby and on-the-ground activist movement in this cultural debate in the US, and frankly it has been strongly populated by Catholics motivated by the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae.  To say it has done nothing in the last 40 years would be fudging at best.  (for a great commentary of what they have, in fact, failed to do, listen to this episode of the Mortification of Spin) For example, since 1982, the number of abortion providers has fallen by 37%.  That didn't happen because the pro-life movement is merely a statement of opinion -- and for anyone to say otherwise is, frankly, sly at best.  The advance of partial-birth abortion laws in this country is a function of pro-life activism; the advance of limiting abortion to prior to the 20th week is a function of pro-life activism.

The problem, of course, is that none of these actions are seen by the folks at AHA as advances: they are seen as some kind of ethical syncretism is which some losses are acceptable for minor gains.  Let's see how they would say it, just to make sure:

The history of the pro-life movement has been one of gradualistic means and measures, incremental legislation, ameliorative programs, and the inclusion of exceptions to abortion along the way to its eventual total abolition. Abolitionists reject the idea that you can effectively fight evil by allowing it in some cases or doing away with it by planned incremental steps. Abolitionists reject the notion that you can ever commit a little evil in order that good may come. 

Closing 37% of all abortion clinics is not an improvement in this view: it's evil.  It's evil because it doesn't save everyone.  I have covered this reasoning elsewhere, and it hasn't improved through fermentation over time or through this current revised statement.  The idea that if all cannot be saved then saving any is cooperation with evil is illogical at best, and unbiblical at worst.

"Unbiblical?" comes a voice from the moderated peanut galley. "By Jove, man - you may have a lot of flack for AHA on other grounds, but there is no way it can be unbiblical!  They quote quite a bit of the Bible on their websites!"

Well, they should read the Bible more closely.  The problem that the Bible tosses on this question is the problem of who God saves.  See: in a world where everyone is justly condemned for their sins -- where EVERYONE is going to hell -- God does not save every person nor does God intend to save every person, in the final account.  God saves some and allows some to be damned by their own sin -- and God is not therefore unjust.  God is rather therefore Holy and Merciful in spite of allowing some to be damned.  So in the worst case, there is perhaps one example of divine holiness which does not adhere to the legalistic absolutism of the AHA website.

But I think there is a more-human, more-analogous example in the Bible which the AHA statements overlook: the body of the church.  The church is a holy thing for God (for the sake of the purists, see Eph 5:27), but it is also a mixture of wheats and weeds until the end of the final judgment (purists: Mat 13).  In God's view of it, something salvifically-necessary can be, from a human perspective, a mixed bag and still achieve what it is meant to do in this world.

Because this is true, we should be able to see that we are not bound to absolutism every time we set out to accomplish a good and useful moral end. For example, it's not wrong to invent a medicine which cures some of the victims of a disease.  More to the point, it's not wrong to pass a law to stop immoral acts even though it cannot be enforced 100% and some will still be victims of crime.  Murder is already illegal in our nation - yet people are murdered every day. That doesn't make us immoral people for supporting the laws we already have.

So my first complaint against AHA is this: it is utterly unfair toward those who, frankly, share their ultimate goals but see the social  and political methods to achieving the goals as a longer process which takes back the law in steps.  It is unfair to their past accomplishments, and unwise in assessing the moral victories of the pro-life movement.

More tomorrow.  Comments will be closed until Thursday's post, at which time you are welcome to do as you will.

UPDATED:  Oh brother.

So the objection from concerned citizens in and around AHA is this: The parable in Mat 13 is not about the church, but about the world -- so I am off the reservation.  My objection is nullified.  "WORLD!"

OK - first of all, the standard reading of that passage is that Jesus is talking about the church in the world.  If my reading is flawed, so is the reading of a boat-load of reliable and faithful men from almost every age in church history.

"But," comes the rejoinder, "Jesus says, 'world'! You wouldn't deny Jesus for the ideas of men, would you?"

Well, if that's how we're reasoning, I'm not going to listen to your "ideas of men"  because I have already heard from Jesus, and you don't sound anything like him.  How far is this discussion going to go then?  Prolly no place you will enjoy or benefit from -- so unclench from the worry over the doctrines of men.

But: I'll go you one better -- maybe 2 better: I'll utterly concede that the parable of the wheats and tares is a parable about the whole WORLD!  If the whole WORLD is a mixed bag of wheats and tares until the end of the world, and the point of the parable is that God is doing what he's doing and allows there to be a mixed bag, how can God be doing what he means to do in this WORLD! except by some kind of incremental change?

The point is that God is not afraid of the mixed bag.  In fact, the mixed bag is in some way instrumental to the plan.  There are many examples of this in Scripture: Abraham bargaining with God for Sodom; Joseph in the household of Potiphar, and then as the servant of Pharaoh; Esther marrying the pagan King; Paul's explanation of the use of the Law in Rom 7; Rahab the Harlot as an example of true faith.  Failing to see this, and to demand only absolutism as the standard of engagement, is utter nonsense.

Next.

---

No.

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from the lifetime of works from the Prince of Preachers, Charles Haddon Spurgeon.  The following excerpt is from the sermon "Grace all sufficient," pages 216-17, Forgotten prayer meeting addresses, Day One Publications. 

"Some apparent good may be withheld, but no real good, no, not one."

From the interesting narrative which the apostle Paul gives of the remarkable revelation which was made to him, of his special trial afterwards, and of his thrice-repeated prayer, we learn, among other lessons, that God does not always hear his people’s prayers as they would desire them to be heard.

Here was an apostle as the suppliant; God did not therefore refuse the petition on account of any unworthiness in the person presenting it. Here was a prayer most suitable; that the Lord would withdraw from him ‘a thorn in the flesh.’ Here was a prayer doubtless offered in faith; and, certainly, it was a prayer pleaded with importunity: ‘For this thing I besought the Lord thrice.’

After the example of the Saviour, who thrice, and only thrice, said, ‘O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt;’ the apostle may have prayed thrice in almost identical terms, and said, ‘O my Father, if it be possible, let this thorn depart from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.’

It was not the Father’s will that the prayer of the apostle should be answered according to the letter of it, though he answered it in a far better way in spirit.

Brethren, it is well for us that it is not an unconditional doctrine of Scripture that God will always answer our prayers in the form in which we present them. That God will hear his people’s supplications, and when they are rightly offered, that he will answer them, is most certainly true.

But it is not certain that God will always answer our prayers as we offer them, and as we expect him to answer them; if it were, we should rather depend upon our own wisdom in prayer than on God’s wisdom in providence; we should be tempted to take the throne ourselves, to think of the Lord almost as our subject, and to consider our own will supreme above the will of our Father in Heaven.

Our folly would ask for that which would destroy us were it granted; our pride would often request that which would be to God’s dishonour were it bestowed: and our petulance and impatience would often crave to have that removed which is essentially necessary to our growth in grace, and to the confirmation of our faith.

We thank thee, O Lord, for the mercy-seat, but we also thank thee that thou hast not left us to ask and to have just what we will; thou hast not made the gift of thy mercies a dangerous weapon in the hand of our infirmity!

---

Humility and Certainty aren't mutually exclusive

Every Friday, to commemorate the stellar contributions to internet apologetics and punditry made by our founder and benefactor, Phil Johnson, the unpaid and overworked staff at TeamPyro presents a "Best of Phil" post to give your weekend that necessary kick.

This excerpt is from the blog back in February 2010. Phil offers some thoughts about certainty and genuine humility in relation to the purpose of the blog.

As usual, the comments are closed.

This blog is not a place where we just think out loud. The stuff we write about tends to focus on a few (mostly important) issues we have thought a lot about and studied with some degree of care—mostly things we're pretty passionate about. Our opinions on such matters do tend to be fixed enough that it would take a lot more to change our minds than the musings of some fresh-faced high-school graduate who is just reacting in the comments section of our blog to an issue he has never before devoted 20 seconds thought to untangling.

But we're not dogmatic about everything. On many theological questions, you could barely even get me to offer an opinion. For example, if you asked me for a thorough account of how the Holy Spirit's ministry in the New Covenant differs from His role under the Old Covenant, I'd let someone else answer the question. Although it's a question that interests me, I haven't really studied it in careful detail, and I'm not going to be dogmatic...

If you're looking for a blog where ambivalence, uncertainty, backpeddling, and indecision are valued more highly than clarity and firm beliefs, there are plenty of blogs like that out there. It's a very popular thing to be wobbly nowadays. But that's not authentic humility. Search the Scriptures and see for yourself. I can't think of a single verse in the Bible that equates humility with vacillations of the heart and mind. In fact, before you can be truly humble you must at least be certain of your own fallenness and guilt.

I know people who undergo seismic paradigm-shifts in their thinking every three years or so, like clockwork. When their friends don't follow every wind of change, they tend to get really upset. In fact, the blogosphere sometimes seems dominated by people like that. They celebrate their own doubts and then blog nonstop about the recalcitrance of Reformed opinion. It's not that they have different convictions; they simply hate all conviction. They are cocksure in their own uncertainty.

[...]

The issues of uncertainty-as-humility and pathological paradigm-shifting have come up at our blog (and in the comments) many times over the years. I could name several fairly well-known quasi-evangelical pundits who think constantly renouncing whatever they themselves said just last year is the very essence of "humility." There are even whole blogs devoted to this notion, suggesting that everyone's "spiritual journey" ought to be filled with hairpin twists and turns (contra Colossians 1:23; Ephesians 4:14, and a host of other passages that urge us to be steadfast in the faith).

[...]

Once more: Scripture never commends people for the "humility" of claiming they're not sure what's true and what's false, or that it's impossible to clearly understand what God's Word actually means. The Bible never encourages us to remain unanchored about what we believe and celebrate our doubts—especially while we're functioning as teachers of others. Jesus referred to that as the blind leading the blind, and He indicated that it's a Really Bad Thing.

Is God always "gentle"?

by Dan Phillips

Thought-provoker question: who was required to instruct the Israelite kids about what to do once they entered the Land (Num. 15)?

Thought-provoker answer: their parents. Their parents who had lamented that God had brought them into the desert to kill them and those very children (Num. 14:1-3). Their parents who had refused to trust and obey God by entering the Land (Num. 14:4-11). Their parents who, as discipline, had been doomed to die in the desert (Num. 14:22-23, 28-35). Parents who would have to answer the question, "But why won't you be there with me?" over and over again.

Those parents.

Thought-provoking thoughts: God really, really doesn't "get" unbelief; and He really, really doesn't always mollycoddle those who have every reason to know better.

So:

"Gentle"? Relatively, always. Extraordinarily, often.

In mollycoddling unbelief?

Don't count on it.

---

Bigger on the Inside

by Frank Turk

First things first today -- you may have noticed that your comments don't automatically plaster the basement of our posts anymore.  All comments now go into moderation when you post them, so the crack-like rush of getting your comment into the conversation is now delayed by what I am choosing to call, "a moment to think it over a bit."  Now, I grant you: it means Dan and I get to think it over a bit more than you do, but in the interest of everyone's peace of mind we will still have comments -- they just won't explode onto the internet like a pumpkin falling off a truck at 85 MPH anymore.

As you all may recall, Phil Johnson has helped write a lot of books, and Dan Phillips has written a couple of books.  In fact, most of the bloggers you have probably read, and a few you haven't, have all written books.

I have not written a book.  I wrote a Graduate Thesis on Wallace Stevens back at the end of the 1980's, but in spite of receiving a 4.0 grade and concluding my career as a professional student, that was only just under 100 pages.  I have written something like the equivalent of 1500 pages blogging, but so what? Am I to repackage that like some sort of Mad Magazine annual?  I would think less of you if you bought such a thing.

So while I have my complaints about what is able to be published these days, and my own regrets about what a useless peanut-roaster of a blogger I am, I have to admit that anyone who can sit down and gin up (more-or-less) 200 pages in one attempt for publication has to earn from me something which is a mix of bitter-and-sweet, respect-and-envy.

I work with a fellow named Michael Belote -- I talk to him almost every day.  He blogs at Reboot Christianity, and he has published a book called Rise of the Time Lords: A Geek's Guide to Christianity.  It's available on Kindle and as a Paperback, and as you will expect from me, I'm not going to write you a book report about it.  That sort of review can be found here or here.  What I am going to do is to recommend you read this book for your own good just to get you out of the Reformed ghetto for a couple of hours one Saturday.

There are plenty of shortcomings to Michael's book.  From my desk, while I enjoyed the analogy of Flatland to help us understand the great-than-nature-ness of God, I always worry how we try to make those sorts of analogies work with the Trinity.  Will we gravitate to modalism rather than Trinitarianism as we discuss how God, infinite above creation, can be and is three persons and one essence.  Michael's attempt to explain Free Will through Quantum Mechanics left me, um, blinded with science.  But: in spite of the things I think a few readings of the WCF and the longer and shorter catechisms might have helped Michael avoid, there is something legitimately-gripping about this book which most books published about theology these days simply don't have.

Michael's book has a gigantic heart.  There is an earnestness in his approach and his prose which is surprising.  It's almost like Michael wasn't trying to sell anybody anything -- not a book contract, not a page of text, not a single copy of his book.  But instead, he was trying to invite the reader into something -- to use the conceit of his title, something that turns out to be bigger on the inside.  That is: when Michael fails at analogy to systematics, he is failing because he's trying to express something that is just true.  He's aiming at Truth.

What I like about Michael's book, in spite of its flaws, is that somehow in his exorbitantly-geeky delivery he demonstrates something bigger than his analogies.  He speaks to something greater than creation -- and he does it in a way that works on people and what they already know.  This book isn't any kind of poetry, and it isn't written to be more than the simple prose that it is.  But it does something that good poetry usually does: it speaks past the metaphor and out of the truth which the author is trying to demonstrate.

If you read this book you will certainly see its theological flaws, and frankly its literary flaws.  But you will find something that 99% of our reformed books can't seem to muster: a sense of real wonder and real curiosity about the God who saves us.

That's worth reading.  When you're done, you can hold a study group to uncover all the anti-confessional statements Michael makes if that's what it takes to make you feel smart again -- but maybe what you need is not to feel so smart.  Maybe you need to feel like you have no idea how this faith can actually be bigger on the inside, and to ponder that for a little while as if you just discovered it for the first time.

---

The hypocrite's anti-hypocrisy dodge (NEXT! #34)

by Dan Phillips

Challenge: Sure, I believe in Jesus. But I don't go to church because, you know, there's hypocrites there.

Response: "Hypocrites"? You mean, people who say they believe in Jesus, but don't obey Him? Yeah, epic; I can definitely see how you wouldn't want to have any part of that...

NEXT!

(Proverbs 21:22)

---

"You won't meet anything uglier than yourself"

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from the lifetime of works from the Prince of Preachers, Charles Haddon Spurgeon.  The following excerpt is from The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, volume 22, sermon number 1,289, "The Heart Full and the Mouth Closed."

"It ought to encourage every one here who has not found peace with God to hear us tell of what we feel of our own sinfulness, because, sinner, where one sinner gets through there is room for another." 

If there is a prison door, and that door is broken down, and one gets out, another man who is in the same prison may safely say, “Why should not I escape too?”

Supposing we were all beasts in Noah’s ark, and we could not get down from the ark to the ground except by going down that slanting stage which most of the painters have sketched when they have tried to depict the scene. Well, we must go down that stage.

Are you afraid? Are you, sheep and hares, afraid that the staging will not bear you up? Listen, then. I am an elephant, and I have come down out of the ark over that bridge, and therefore it is clear that all of you who are smaller than I am can come over too.

There is strength enough to bear up the hare and the coney, the ox and the sheep, for it carried the elephant. The way down has been trodden by that heavy, lumping creature, it will do for you, whoever you may be.

Ever since the Lord Jesus Christ saved me, I made up my mind to one thing, namely, that I should never meet another person who was harder to save than I. Somebody said to me once when I was a child, when it was very dark, and I was afraid to go out, “What are you afraid of? You won’t meet anything uglier than yourself.”

Surely as to my spiritual condition that is true, I never did meet anything uglier than myself, and I never shall. And if there is a great, big, black, ugly sinner here, I say, sinner, you are not uglier than I was by nature, and yet the Lord Jesus Christ loved me. Why should he not love you too?

I tell you that though Jesus Christ is omniscient, and it is saying a great thing to say what he could not see, yet I do venture to say that Jesus Christ could not see anything in me to love. What if he cannot see anything good in you? Then we are on a par, and yet I know he loves me, why not you?

That he loves me I know. Bless his name, I know he loves me now, and I love him, too. If he loved me when there was nothing in me to love, why should he not love you when there is nothing in you to love? Oh, turn that ugly face towards the lovely Saviour, and trust in him.

I put it in a pleasant way, and you smile, but I want to get it into your hearts: I want some poor, trembling sinner to say, “I shall recollect that. I did think myself an ugly sinner, but I will come to Christ, and trust him.”

If you do so, you will never regret it, but you will bless God for ever and ever, and so shall I: and when we get to heaven we will talk about it, and we will say, “Here we are, a pair of huge, horrible sinners, we came to Jesus Christ, and he took us in, and, blessed be his name, we will praise him as long as ever we live.”

---

"Be Strong!"

Every Friday, to commemorate the stellar contributions to internet apologetics and punditry made by our founder and benefactor, Phil Johnson, the unpaid and overworked staff at TeamPyro presents a "Best of Phil" post to give your weekend that necessary kick.

This excerpt is from the blog back in April 2010. It's the final installment in a series of posts based on one of Phil's talks at the 2010 Shepherd's Conference. Phil uses 1 Corinthians 16:13 as a launching point for exhortation and encouragement.

As usual, the comments are closed.

It's not enough just to be bold; Christian soldiers need to be strong in order to withstand both opposition and persecution. If you are going to enter the battle in earnest, you will need to be able to endure antagonism, derision, controversy, contempt, and abuse of every kind. It will come from the intelligentsia and the dregs of society alike. Worldly governments, the common people, and the academic elite of this world will conspire together to oppose us, just as they did our Lord.

Jesus himself said (John 15:18-20), "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you."

First Timothy 3:12-13: "Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived."

If you're faithful, you will be persecuted, and in this worldly realm, you can pretty much count on one thing: those who persecute you will go from bad to worse. Things are not getting better in the world. That's why we have to stay on guard.

You need strength to stand in the battle. Paul is not talking about physical strength. Again, "the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh." This is still talking about character, so this is a command to cultivate strength of character—integrity combined with unflagging persistence. You have must that in order to triumph in the battle Christ calls us to fight.

Christ Himself supplies that strength through His Holy Spirit to those who obey Him faithfully. In the words of Colossians 1:11, We are "strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy." Philippians 4:13: "I can do all things through [Christ] who strengthens me." Therefore "Be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might." That is a command; not an option. It is what God demands of all believers, and especially the shepherds of His flock.

Now let me quickly in closing call your attention to verse 14, because this is the vital closing punctuation to everything we have been talking about: Verse 14: "Let all that you do be done in love." That's an echo and a summary of 1 Corinthians 13, where Paul gave them an extended discourse on the qualities of love.

Now lots of people are tempted to read verse 14 as if it nullified everything we have just said about verse 13. It doesn't. Jesus fulfilled every quality outlined in verse 13 to the uttermost (and if you don't believe me, read John MacArthur's exposition of Jesus' dealings with the Pharisees in The Jesus You Can't Ignore.) Love doesn't nullify any of the commands of verse 13; but it does define what should be in our hearts—and what our motive should be—as we wage this relentless fight against the ideological strongholds of Satan.

[...]

We need to remember that the whole point of tearing down those strongholds is the liberation of people who are held in bondage by them, and therefore everything we do—watching, standing firm, showing manly courage and determination, and drawing on the Lord's strength—all of it should be done in love. It is, after all, the love of Christ that sought us and called us and compelled us to enter the battle alongside Him in the first place. The love of Christ constrains us—to "Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong."

Unfathomable unbelief (re-post)

by Dan Phillips

Of course, Phil's Po-Motivator makes this post from December of 2007 a "win" all by itself. But I thought it timely as well.

---

And he said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?" (Luke 24:38)

Is this really a rhetorical question?

Our unbelief has to be unfathomable to God, as was the disciples' to Christ. It is as if He were saying,

"What basis have I ever given you for doubting Me? I told you that I would be rejected, handed over to the chief priests and scribes, beaten, condemned, crucified, killed (Luke 9:22, 44; 18:31-33). You didn't believe that would happen, but it did. I also said I'd rise again from the dead (Luke 18:33). Did you disbelieve? Again? Why?"

To say that God knows and understands all things is not to say that God finds everything understandable, if you take my meaning.

It is clear that the Lord does not see doubt as a virtue. But beyond even that, He seems to find unbelief unbelievable.

---

This Just In

What does TeamPyro think about the SCOTUS decisions today regarding DOMA and the Hollingsworth case?

No word today.  Come back later.  Read the other post we already made today.  And stop being so demanding and reactionary.

---

Missional

by Frank Turk

Back on May 7, Tony Miano posted this essay entitled "Ten Practical Reasons Why Every Pastor Should Support Open-Air Preaching," and he was kind enough to ask me to review/link to it.  I think I linked to it via Twitter without even reading it because I'm that big a fan of Tony.  However, even as a fan, I have some brief comments about the essay which, I think, will improve both me and Tony -- and if we are blessed, you the readers also.

It's a great essay.  It speaks to the multifaceted ways actual, real-life ministry results in actual, real-life discipleship.  It is entirely worth your time to read it rather than read my book report of it.

I have one brief objection -- in fact, I have only one thing to say about one word in the whole essay which, I think, we should ponder: the word "should."

courtesy of m-w.com

As you can see, "should" means that it's part of the expected package -- it's like Sunday worship, or administering baptism.  It doesn't quite mean "must," but it indicates obligation.

Personally, I don't think that Tony meant to say that it's every pastor's obligation to support open-air preaching.  I think he actually meant that if a pastor is looking for a biblical, sound, spiritually-fruitful avenue of ministry to lead his church in, one good option is open-air preaching.  Perhaps the title should read, "Ten Practical Reasons Why Every Pastor Can Support Open-Air Preaching," and we could all nod in a manly way to each other and move on.

I agree with everything else Tony says in that essay -- I agree with all the benefits he lists, and I'm especially pleased that he listed "Missional" as one of them.  I think if there were more Biblical, Missional, Long-Suffering, Loving open-air preaching ministries directly associated with Loving, Discipling, Unified, Prepared local churches, we'd be living in a different sort of world.

Think about it.  Discuss in the comments.  See you next week.

---

"Compassion"? A parable (re-post)

by Dan Phillips

First posted in January of 2011, this little item seems all the more timely today.

---

A Visitor's Center one day was manned by twin brothers Nick and Knack. A car pulled into the parking lot, disgorging a breathlessly eager visitor.

"May we help you?" offered Nick genially.

"Yes, thank you!" bubbled the newcomer. "All my life I've been longing to travel Route 49! Can you show me the most direct way?"

Nick paled.

"Oh, I'm very sorry, but you don't want to go Route 49."

"But I do!" insisted the visitor.

"Let me rephrase myself," amended Nick. "You may want to, but you really mustn't.  The road goes along nicely at first, but then you'll see a bunch of roadblocks and obstacles laid across it, slowing you down and warning you off. These impediments aren't really a problem; they're actually a good thing...."

"How can they be a good thing," the visitor cuts in angrily. "This is my dream! I want to zoom, not be slowed down."

"I was going to say," continued Nick, "they're a good thing because otherwise you'll shoot straight off the stub of a broken bridge and plummet 800 feet to your death on the rocky rapids below."

"Oh," said the visitor, turning a bit white himself.

"He says," observed Knack, leaning forward, putting down his latte and stroking his soul-patch.

"The map says," countered Nick.

"Map?" asked the visitor.

"Yep, right here," replied Nick, spreading out the item itself on the counter. "See that red X there? It means bridge out."

"You say it means that," snarked Knack. "I say it means 'X marks the spot.'"

"Oh, come on," retorted Nick. "There's a legend at the bottom of the map, for crying out loud! See? 'Bridge out!' It isn't rocket science."

"Scholars now realize that 'X' means many different things in different cultures. Besides, you're talking as if that's the only map," drawled Knack. "This one shows a clear, delightful road right where our visitor wants to go. See?"

"That's in crayon!" exploded Nick.

"You got something against crayon?" inquired Knack.

"No," Nick shot back. "I have something against people destroying themselves."

"Psh," Knack sneered. "You just want safety in rules. The visitor's a daring seeker. He should seek. The journey is what matters, not the destination."

"Seek death?" Nick replied. "I think he'll care plenty about the destination when his car shoots off into space."

There was an angry silence, broken by a sob. It was the visitor, who has tears running down his cheeks.

"All I know is I've yearned to go down Route 49 as long as I remember. Some kids mocked me, others ridiculed me and were mean to me, but the desire has always been there. I can't conceive of not wanting to go down Route 49. It's what my heart tells me to do, and I have to be true to my heart, don't I? I can't lie. It defines me. You can't separate this desire from me. I can't imagine not wanting to go that way. It fills my dreams. I even have a T-shirt. See?" He pulled open his blazer and displayed the garment.

"I understand," crooned Knack. "There is nothing wrong with you or with what you want. And there's nothing wrong with going that way. For you, it is the only way. And in fact, I want to help you. I will personally go ahead of you and remove all the blocks, chains, signs, speed bumps, and ropes that have been stretched across the road. I will mount a parade for you — a Route 49 Pride parade. I will lobby to prohibit people from speaking against traveling Route 49. I will side with you against all the harsh, rule-happy Route 49 nay-sayers. In fact, I will get my brother here fired, because he made you feel bad about wanting to go Route 49. He doesn't care about your feelings, as I do. He doesn't have any love or compassion for you, and I've got buckets of both. Nick's all about rules and maps and shutting you out and playing it safe; I'm all about love and compassion and justice and being bold and daring. Nick is shallow, reactionary and not helpful. I'm deep and thoughtful and helpful. So you just get in your car, and you go go go!"

As the visitor beamed, Nick sprang to block the door. "Whoa whoa whoa, not so fast! Look, friend — how you feel about Route 49 doesn't change the facts: the bridge is out! My feelings aren't the map, your feelings aren't the map. Go that way, and you will die! I don't want you to die. I don't think it's loving or compassionate to give you bad information that means your death. The people who put up those signs and those obstacles knew what they were doing, and they did it because they care about people like you. It shouldn't be easy an comfortable to go down that road. It wouldn't be compassionate of me to focus on giving you a smooth ride to your own destruction, and it isn't "bold" and "daring" to head off to certain doom. Enabling you isn't really helping you. And look, I can show you other ways to go, or I can try to find other ways to help — but don't go that way! It'd be the end of you."

Silence fell again for a moment, then:

"We could call a five-year moratorium on this," offered Knack.

"But I want to go that way now," countered the visitor.

"The map says what it says now, and it isn't unclear," said Nick. "It's said that for a long time, and nothing's changed. Nothing's going to change in five years."

The visitor looked back and forth between the brothers, confused. He knew which brother's advice he liked best, which brother told him what he wanted to hear, but... was that the wisest way to decide?

PREMISE: the bridge was indeed out, and the map was indeed accurate.

QUESTION: which brother actually showed love and compassion?

---

A tonic for the weary

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from the lifetime of works from the Prince of Preachers, Charles Haddon Spurgeon.  The following excerpt is from The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, volume 15, sermon number 876, "The unwearied runner."

"Scores of timid believers creep towards heaven as the snail crept into the ark, and yet, being chosen of God in Christ Jesus, they are safe."

I heard a gentleman say yesterday, that he could walk any number of miles when the scenery was good; but, he added, “When it is flat and uninteresting, how one tires!”

What scenery it is through which the Christian man walks—the towering mountains of predestination, the great sea of providence, the mighty cliffs of divine promise, the green fields of divine grace, the river that makes glad the city of God—oh, what scenery surrounds the Christian, and what fresh discoveries he makes at every step!

The Bible is always a new book. If you want a novel, read your Bible; it is always new; there is not a stale page in the word of God; it is just as fresh as though the ink were not yet dry, but had flowed to-day from the pen of inspiration.

There have been poets whose sayings startled all England when first their verses were thrown broadcast over the land, but nobody reads their writings now; yet the pages that were written by David and by Paul are glowing with the radiant glory which was upon them when long ago the Holy Spirit spake by them.

As we advance in the King’s highway of righteousness, there are such fresh things in the Christian’s experience, and in Christian truth, that we run and are not weary. Above all, there is one fact that keeps the Christian from weariness, namely, that he looks to the end, to the recompense of the reward. He longs for the resurrection, and he hears the voice that crieth, “Therefore, be ye steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.”

When travelers sail near to certain spice-islands, they tell their nearness to the gardens of perfume by the odours wafted to them on the winds; even so: as the Christian runner advances nearer to heaven, he enjoys new delights such as celestial spirits rejoice to experience.

In proportion as he draws nearer and nearer, the perfume from the many mansions, from the garments of Christ who dwelleth there, and whose garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia—that perfume, I say, comes to him, and it quickens his pace.

The body may be waxing feeble, but the soul is growing strong. The tabernacle may be falling, but the sacred priestly soul within carries on its devotion with greater zest; so, when you would think that the pilgrim’s soul must faint, he grows vigorous; when he sinks to the earth, he stretches out his hand and grasps his crown.

---

Charity vs Charitableness

Every Friday, to commemorate the stellar contributions to internet apologetics and punditry made by our founder and benefactor, Phil Johnson, the unpaid and overworked staff at TeamPyro presents a "Best of Phil" post to give your weekend that necessary kick.

This excerpt is from the blog back in April 2008. Phil shows that there is all the difference in the world between Biblical charity and charitableness--both in meaning and practical consequences.

As usual, the comments are closed.

Charity is defined in 1 Corinthians 13. Among other things, it "does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth" (v. 6).

"Charitableness" (the postmodern substitute for charity) is something altogether different. It's a broad-minded, insouciantly tolerant, unrelenting goodwill toward practically every conceivable opinion. Its twin virtue—often labeled "epistemic humility"—is a cool refusal to hold any firm and settled convictions. These cardinal postmodern moral values are both seasoned with blithe indifference to the dangers of heresy.

In other words, if you want to be "charitable" by the postmodern definition, you must always leave open the possibility that someone else's truth is equal to if not better than yours. You must never write off other people's beliefs completely. Above all, you must seek to be conciliatory, not confrontive. Bottom line: you pretty much take the position that nothing we believe is ultimately anything more than a personal opinion.

Naturally, then, building bridges to non-Christian worldviews is deemed a better tactic than challenging error head on. Winning the admiration of unbelievers becomes vastly more important than demolishing the false ideologies that bind them. As a matter of fact, one of the best ways to gain non-Christians' respect and appreciation is by looking for common ground and then stressing those areas of agreement, rather than pointing out differences between what the non-Christian believes and what the Bible teaches. The more compliments and congratulations you can give to other points of view, the better. And the more your ideological adversaries like you at the end of the dialogue, the more gratified you are entitled to feel.

That obviously means that candidly telling someone he or she is in error is unacceptable. To the postmodern mind, direct contradiction like that is the polemical equivalent of dropping a nuke; it's an extreme last-resort tactic—rarely used at all in dialogues with unbelievers, but reserved mainly for other Christians whose views are too rigid or too conservative for your tastes.

Did Paul use the tactic of postmodern-style charitableness in Athens?

It sounds pretty silly even to raise that question, doesn't it? You know he didn't. He simply proclaimed the message Christ had given him to preach—"not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power" (1 Corinthians 2:4). Just as Paul had always done, he headed straight for the one truth he knew very well would sound most like utter foolishness to them: the resurrection of the dead.

[...]

That's what faithful evangelistic ministry looks like. It doesn't cower before opposition. It isn't intimidated by human wisdom. It isn't shaken by rejection. It doesn't waver from the truth. It doesn't shift and change content to suit the preferences or felt needs of an audience. It has one theme, and that is Christ in His death and resurrection. It has one strategy—to unpack the meaning of Christ's death and resurrection and proclaim it with clarity. It confronts every worldview, every false religion, every superstitious belief, every human philosophy, and every skeptical opinion. It rises above all those things and speaks with unshakable authority, because the gospel is the truth of God, and the power of God for salvation.

Words mean specific things — especially God's words

by Dan Phillips

The baleful effects of postmodernism are not confined to the classroom nor lecture-hall. They can be heard and felt in home Bible studies, frequently run by someone unqualified to lead and unconnected to a local church. They are seen in the oft-heard inquiry, "What does that passage mean to you?"

Now, I don't want to be a Pharisee who pronounces the death-penalty for word-choice. That question can simply mean something like: "God's Spirit uses His unchanging word to touch each of us in individual ways, so that a text with one meaning can apply personally in a thousand manners. What personal application do you take from the one meaning of this text?" Sola-est Sola-ist couldn't object to a question like that... or shouldn't.

However the question sometimes is framed expressly to claim that nobody can really say what a text means. Its meaning is out of our grasp. In fact, its meaning isn't even our goal. If we ask ten people what a verse means, and we get ten irreconcilably different answers, that's a good thing, and all the answers are equally valid.

Yeah, see...that's a problem. And I do mean it.

Paul Henebury makes a great point at the start of his lectures on Biblical covenantalism, focusing on the first chapter of Genesis: God is the inventor of language, and Himself illustrates that words have distinct referents; they are adequate to convey meaning.

He is the first speaker: "Let there be light," He commands (Gen. 1:3). What happens next? Does a pyramid pop into existence? Or a quahog? Or the smell of fried chicken, the law of gravity, a Pyromaniacs T-shirt, Chicago's first album, or the concept of "boredom"?

No. Light happens. God said "light," God meant "light," light is what God created.

And so for each creative verbal act of the original Speaker:

• He said "expanse," and an expanse is what He got (vv. 6-7)
• He said "waters," and waters is what He got (v. 9)
• What He called "earth" was earth, and what He "seas" was seas (v. 10 — seeing a pattern, yet?)
• He called for vegetation, and (hel-lo?) vegetation is what He got (vv. 11-12)
• He said "lights," and lights is what He got (vv. 14-18)
• He called for land animals, and land animals is what He got (vv. 24-25)
• He said "Let us create man," and man is what He created (vv. 26-27)

Nor was there any utter bafflement when God addressed the first human. Adam understood perfectly well what ""You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die" meant (Gen. 2:16-17), apparently well
enough to tell someone else what it meant (Gen. 3:2-3). There is no record of Adam blinking in hopeless befuddlement. God chose words that conveyed meaning; and that's what they did.

Scripture is a collection of God's words. They convey meaning clearly enough and adequately enough. I don't say say "always simply," but I do say clearly and adequately.

My observation from 40+ years is that the real problem is seldom the clarity of God's word. Or perhaps I should say, it is the clarity of God's word... coupled with human unwillingness to bow the knee.

But that isn't a word-problem. It's a heart-problem.

---

Full-Contact Rugby

by Frank Turk

Last week, I made a point to say that nobody wants to be, by analogy, this little fellow:



That is, nobody wants to always be the one with the voice that can peel paint off the walls when it comes to being the bringer of bad news.  And in some sense, that's what Keller and Powlison were on about 5 years ago when they published their paper to the internet about how to respond to bad reports.  It seems to me that yes, indeed, we should season our words with love and compassion and good will in that we do not want to be people who, frankly, thrive on gossip and slander.

But:

Of course to say that there's never a time or place to publicly discuss such things seems, at least, a little bit priggish or weak.  For example, as we considered last week (thanks to the anonymous internet reader's objections), Tim Challies has been on quite a tear into the use of pornography.  For him to do that, at the very least, requires the assumption that there's a bad report out there about someone's use of the internet -- someone on the internet, apparently, is wrong.  All the posts thereafter finally don't follow any of the advice of Keller and Powlison.  Tim does not suspend judgment.  Tim does not bother to think about whether he knows the heart of the people he's on about.  He certainly didn't speak to anybody personally.  Yet as even marginally-objective readers, Tim did the right thing by making every effort to recriminate the use of porn.

I think it turns out that we can be serious, sober, and kind -- and not have to face the world with a blank expression and a sphinx-like silence -- when we are faced with a bad report.  But if we find this to be true -- and I can list examples for you if you're interested -- then what do we do with the original essay which I said I agreed with?  What about the idea that we need to approach bad reports in such a way that we do not become the equivalent of the Hound of the Baskervilles trapped in the body of a fluffy lap dog?

Well, I think the first word missing from the Keller/Powlison essay is "pastoral."  You know: last year I spoke at two conferences and a church anniversary, and the greatest compliment I received from those events came from a single person who came to me and said, "you come across much more pastoral in person than you do at the blog."  Whether that's true or not, I think, is utterly subjective because I didn't write anything for those talks I hadn't written previously at one of the menagerie of blogs I keep from getting deleted by blogger.  But that point simply cannot be made too keenly: there is something pastoral necessary in dealing with bad reports.

The thing we should observe about being pastoral is that not everyone is called to be a pastor, but every Christian is called to somehow demonstrate the truth in love.  Every other internet christian cogitator thinks he is a Berean or follows the Berean methodology, but what's the sense of being a Berean rather than a Thessalonian?  Luke says that the Bereans were "more noble" than the Thessalonians.  Everyone gets very exercised about being as "biblical" as the Bereans, but the word which distinguishes them from those who attacked Paul in the previous city is that they were "εὐγενέστεροι."  What if we expressed our "εὐγενής" in Christ when we encountered a bad report as the first step -- because that's a pastoral thing to do.  It expresses the real care for the souls of those watching and care for the souls doing the things being reported as bad because it has the highest regard for truth, and that's the heart of pastoral virtue.

There also ought to be something brotherly or fraternal in our response to bad reports.  The problem with saying it that way, of course, is that it offends the egalitarians.  However, anyone with a brother knows for a fact that getting correction from him rather than from Mom or Dad or a Sister is not the same as from another source.  It's a combination of full-hearted love and full-contact rugby.  And because it is both loving and rough, it is unmistakable as meant for permanent change.  While it's nice that Keller and Powlison mentioned all the loving parts of responding to bad reports, somehow they omitted stuff like Prov 27:6, or Prov 27:5, or Prov 27:17.

Our reaction to a bad report also ought to be holy.  This is the one all of us fumble from time to time because for something to be "holy," it has to be, by definition, exactly what God would do -- not merely what we imagine God would do.  The quest for our reaction to be "holy" creates both permissiveness and legalistic condemnation, but we have to strive against that so that our reaction is both inside the Law and outpouring the Gospel.  It should not just name what it wrong, but also plead for what's right through the means of Jesus Christ.

And that brings us to the final point: our reaction has to be redemptive.  It has to show the other person that there is a path home in Christ for them.  The ultimate purpose in the Christian life is not to show others how poor, wretched and stupid they are: it is to show them that their poor, wretched, stupid problems are resolved by Christ, and that they can repent and be reconciled to God and to other people.

If you are doing that, you can be Tim Challies without any blushing.  You can be PyroManiacs without wincing.  You can receive and consider bad reports without disgracing yourself.

---

Proverbs inspired by the author of Proverbs

by Dan Phillips


Having done an introduction to the introduction to Proverbs, last Sunday I began an actual introduction to Proverbs.

I skipped over the first Hebrew word of the book ("Proverbs-of"), to focus on "Solomon son of David king of Israel." Titled The Pithy Penmen of Proverbs, my focus was the central author and overall editor, King Solomon.

As I'm sure I've remarked somewhere before, I find Solomon one of the most frightening, sobering men in all of history, in the company of men like King Saul, fallen pastors, and the head of the pack, Judas Iscariot.

In Solomon's case, was there ever a man who was more advantaged and fell further — apart from Judas? In the sermon, I traced his lineage, his beginnings, his encounters with God, his accomplishments... and his disgraceful fall.

The sermon concluded with a series of (artless) proverbs based on the instruction one should receive from the life of Solomon. In the sermon, they're offered pretty quickly, so I reproduce them here for your reflection:

A.       Three Do’s

1.        Do love God with everything you’ve got today, now.

2.        Do cling to God as if all the demons of hell are trying to pull you away.

3.        Do learn God’s word like there’s going to be a test. Because there will be.

B.       Four  Don’ts:

1.        Don’t live on yesterday’s devotion

a.         Yesterday’s spirituality and devotional is a wonderful thing – if you’re building on it today!

b.         But if not, all it is is a towering, damning monument to our declension, a sad comment on how far we’ve fallen, like the religious buildings of Europe.

2.        Don’t relax your guard until the General says the war’s over.

3.        Don’t think you’re home until you’re actually at Jesus’ feet.

4.    Don’t stop studying, learning and doing until the Master says to put your pencil down...which will probably never happen.

To coin a phrase: you (and I) think about that. Amen

---

Holy fire

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from the lifetime of works from the Prince of Preachers, Charles Haddon Spurgeon.  The following excerpt is from Forgotten Prayer Meeting Addresses, page117, Day One Publications.

“In the things of God it seems to me that fire is absolutely necessary, but then it must be fire of a particular sort. It must be a holy fire. There is a great deal of false fire in the world.”

I am afraid that in many revivals there has been much earth-born fire, namely, excitement, that which every orator knows how to excite. It is possible almost by a stamp of the foot or by the glance of one’s eye, to waken the soul, and make a man feel excited till he scarce knows what he is about. But God’s servants should disdain so to excite men’s souls.

It is not the clap, nor the stamp, nor talking fine words, nor piling up sentences into a glowing climax, that has power in it. This in God’s sight is weakness, and we must have done with it. There is a better fire than ever came from mere oratory, a power from on high, and not the mere sparks of man’s kindling.

I think we ought to be very careful in preaching the Word where we get our excitement from, lest, like Nadab and Abihu, we offer strange fire before the Lord. I have sometimes heard of brethren reading certain doubtful works with a view to kindling enthusiasm, and I have even heard of persons taking stimulating drinks for this purpose.

Accursed be the habit! and let no Christian ever for a single second be guilty of it. Fire we must have, but it must not be this earth-born fire, or else God will cast a blight over our ministry and our service.

Now, I do not find that it is so very difficult to get holy and heavenly fire, but I do find that it is extremely difficult to keep it. My soul craves to get some of the fire which was always burning on the altar, and never went out; to be as earnest about sinners in the drawing-room as in the pulpit; to be as fond of winning souls when I am only with half-a-dozen as though I had the assembled throng which crowds this house.

Oh! to pant for souls by day, and to long for them by night; to go to bed with the tear in the eye because they are not saved, and to wake up with some new purpose, half wrought out in one’s dreams, concerning some one whose soul one would fain bring to the feet of the Saviour.

We shall not see great works done by spasmodic efforts. These may be well enough where we cannot get anything better, but, oh! for a fire that burns on, and on, and on, like the sun’s own flame, and grows not dim, though many a candle has gone out and many a star’s light has been quenched in everlasting darkness. May ours be the ‘shining light, which shineth more and more unto the perfect day.’

---

How Your Life Matters (Weekend Extra)

by Frank Turk

I have a friend who lives in a mostly-secularized state that is heavily populated by Catholics.  Like me, this person grew up nominally Catholic and became mostly non-religious by the time they were a young adult.  However, also like me, this person was found by the Gospel later in life and today clings to Christ -- sometimes by the barest thread.  Apply the "like me" to every clause in that sentence.

Anyway, I was having a conversation with this friend after a long period of really-devastating trial and bad turns for them.  I won't go into the details of the matter as they haven't really released me to make a spectacle of them for the internet, but let me say this: you haven't been through more than they have in the last 3 years.  It doesn't matter who you are or what you lost: only the martyrs globally have been through more than my friend.  So they said to me that, today, they were questioning what it is, exactly, that Jesus saved them for?  That is: doesn't God want them to do something Great for God's sake and the sake of the Kingdom?

Now, look: after this coming Wednesday's piece as part two of last Wednesday's piece, I'm going to review this essay by exceptional the Tony Miano, and this book by my friend Michael Belote, and I'll likely publish the text of my talk for the July Tulsa conference after that.  That is: I'm going to be blogging to an audience of about 5000 people on every continent of the world.  Some people would count that as somehow being "important."

That's complete twaddle.

If you have faith in God, this is the most important thing that has ever happened to you:

though [Jesus] was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

And further still:

And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

And since that is the most important thing that has ever happened to you, this is the most important thing you can do -- the thing with the most-serious and most-sensational purpose and objective of any of the things you can choose from:

Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. 

... Lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed. Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no “root of bitterness” springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled; that no one is sexually immoral or unholy like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears.

If you are doing that, let this world -- this fallen place with its fallen goals and its tawdry charms and rewards -- do its worst.  The reason Christ saved you is the very reason He created the world, and the reason He died to save it.  Live for that; rejoice for that; and most importantly: suffer for that.

---