A Voice from the Past - Ambrose

A man's disposition ought to be undefiled and sound, so that he may utter words without dissimulation and possess his vessel in sanctification; that he may not delude his brother with false words nor promise aught dishonourable. If he has made such a promise it is far better for him not to fulfill it, rather than to fulfill what is shameful.

Ambrose, 337-397 AD, Duties of the Clergy, Book III, Chapter X11, 76 (The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume X, Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, translated by H. De Romestin, T & T Clark and Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1997, p. 80)

How do we maintain honesty in a world full of deceit? What are the boundaries?

Accountability

One of today's watchwords is accountability. It is said we need more of it in Christian church. But is it always, as practiced, a good thing? Scripture does teach that we need to correct each other in love (Galatians 6:1; 2 Thessalonians 3:14,15; Matthew 18:15-20), and there is a place for confessing to and encouraging each other (James 5:16; Hebrews 12:12,13; 10:24,25). But there is also a place for approaching this with care and passing over minor sins (1 Peter 4:8; Proverbs 10:12; 25:8-10). This can prevent all manner of strife and contention (Galatians 5:14,15; Proverbs 25:28; 1 Corinthians 3:3). Now there is an important balance here. We do not want to be like the Corinthians and tolerate all kinds of sin (see 1 Corinthians 5). But we also do not want to be those who sit in judgment on others (James 4:11-12; Romans 14:4; Luke 6:37,38).

I have been an elder for a number of years in two different churches, and I know the difficultly involved in various types of correction. It is something that must be approached cautiously, asking the hard questions. Does this really need to be corrected? How do I approach it to best help the person and have them listen to what I have to say? I have seen it done right, and I have seen it done wrong, and I have failed myself to deal with it in the right way. But it is never something to be approached casually. I have also been involved in situations where I have needed the support of other Christians in dealing with my sins and struggles (Ecclesiastes 4:9-12; Romans 15:1-3; 1 Corinthians 12:25-27). But this requires a relationship of trust built up over time. However, I have known and read of cases where people have used the idea of accountability to criticize people for questionable issues in their life with little show of concern or gentleness, often on the basis of holding people accountable. This can lead to an atmosphere of constant criticism, where people are torn down rather then built up. Now it is clear from Scripture that we are all people in process (Philippians 3:12-16; Romans 7:7-25; 1 Corinthians 4:3-6) and that our sins are forgiven through Christ (Romans 8:31-34; Colossians 2:13,14; John 3:18). This does not mean we should avoid appropriate correction, but we should be careful of trying to force people into our artificial standard of perfection. Rather, we must trust God to work in their lives and change them (2 Corinthians 3:18; Philippians 1:6; Ephesians 2:10).

Unity and Uniformity

Re-Posted from "Meditations of a Charismatic Calvinist Who Does Not Speak in Tongues"

 Some would equate Christian unity to uniformity. That the ideal is that of a series of people exactly alike who are virtual clones of each other. But the Bible calls for a unity in diversity, different people with different abilities working together to accomplish God's purposes (1 Corinthians 12:12-27; Romans 12:3-8; 1 Peter 4:10,11). This does not mean that we are individualists each following what we think best but that we bring together our own individual contributions within a common principle and purpose (Philippians 2:1-11; Ephesians 4:11-16; Galatians 3:26-29). This careful balance is harder to produce then simply pressing everyone into a mold or encouraging them to follow their own inclinations. But it is what God has called us to.

Born That Way

A common argument used in defense of homosexual behavior is that people are born that way. It is not my purpose here to deal with the issue of homosexuality, but I think there are problems with this defense that go beyond the question involved. There is a problem when we start seeing our behavior as wholly determined by our genetics. It is one thing to say people have a tendency toward a certain type of behavior. But to have a tendency toward a certain behavior does not justify it. There can still be a moral principle superior to the tendency. We can, in spite of these tendencies, still be responsible moral agents who can choose not to follow our inclinations. But if any behavior is wholly determined by our heredity, we cease to be responsible moral agents. For it is difficult to see how anybody can be partly a moral agent and partly genetically determined. So if our behavior is genetically determined, we destroy all moral responsibility, making all moral principles meaningless. It has been claimed there is a genetic tendency for alcoholism or even violence. As long as these are tendencies that can be fought, this is not a problem. But once you accept the idea of absolute genetic determination, where do you stop? Also, what we think and what we know depends on our choices, on what we decide is true. If those choices are determined by our genetics rather than an intelligent assessment of the facts, we cannot know anything. Including the fact that our choices are genetically determined.

I understand that certain kinds of desires can be strong and compelling and difficult to overcome. I have battled the desire to view pornography since I was old enough to have such desires. I can bear witness that such desires can be strong and compelling. I can also bear witness to the fact that such desires can be successfully fought against through the power of God. But if we justify everything that has a strong and compelling desire, it is hard to avoid justifying pedophiles, serial rapists, and serial killers. Now some of the confusion here comes from misunderstanding what is meant when it is said homosexuality is a choice. For example, very few people sit down one day and decide to become alcoholics. They generally start off slow and drink more and more until, often without full awareness, they cross over the line. It is not so much one thought-out choice as an accumulative number of small choices, many times not consciously thought through. But it is still a choice. However, if there is no choice involved, we are merely preprogrammed machines, and there is no point in discussing the issue anyway. Or anything else for that matter.

A Touch of Humor - Technicality

How can we avoid making a subject overly complicated or technical? Where should we draw the line?

Old Erich Proverb - Interpretation

Interpret Scripture like a Galilean fisherman; ask how the ordinary person, reading it in the ordinary way, would understand it.

A Voice from the Past - Anselm

Truly, O Lord, this is the unapproachable light in which thou dwellest; for truly there is nothing else which can penetrate this light, that it may see thee there. Truly, I see it not, because it is too bright for me. And yet, whatsoever I see, I see through it, as the weak eye sees what it sees through the light of the sun, which in the sun itself it cannot look upon. My understanding cannot reach that light, for it shines too bright. It is dazzled by the brightness, it is overcome by the greatness, it is overwhelmed by the infinity, it is dazed by the largeness, of the light.

Anselm, 1033-1109, Proslogium, Chapter XVI (Proslogium: Monologium; An Appendix in Behalf of the Fool by Gaunlion; and Cur Deus Homo, translated by Sidney Norton Deane, The Open Court Publishing Company, 1926, p.31)

How far can we really comprehend God? What difference does this make in how we approach Him?