Springboards: The Orphan, Michael

May 22, 2016 / William F. Leonhart III / 1 Comment

In the land of Sorie Ayah was a village with no name.
They were a very simple folk who did not aspire to fame.
Men like Farmers, Bakers, Bankers, Barbers and the like,
With names like Joe and Josh and Sarah. Perhaps, even a Mike.

On the outskirts of this town there lived a farmer, name of Smith.
He had so many children that he had to hire Tiff.
Tiff was a young lady who would help Smith and his wife,
With chores like looking after children who were prone to flight.

One day, as the farmer Smith had gone off into town,
He stopped in at the feed store just to take a look around.
No one else was in the store, but a little ragged boy.
But he seemed like he’d cause no fuss, all taken with a toy.

“Hello there!” came a greeting from the clerk. His name was Bob.
“A perfect day for getting out.” The farmer gave a nod.
“So, what’s your pleasure this fine day? Come in to get some feed?
I have some worms for fishin’ and whatever else you need.”

“No thanks,” the farmer said, politely, wondering ‘bout the boy.
“I haven’t any needs, myself, but how much is that toy?”
With this, the boy looked up and then he gave a curious smile.
“Oh, that boy don’t belong here,” said Bob, charging down the aisle.

Stopping Bob right in his tracks, Smith said, “I don’t mind him.
Just tell me, how’d he get here?” asked the farmer with a grin.

“His mother left him on the step, about two hours ago.
I didn’t bother kicking him out, ‘cause business has been slow.
She said she didn’t care just what I did with him, today.
She said she won’t be coming back. He’s gotten in her way.”

“How terrible,” the farmer said. “He hasn’t got a home?”
“As far as I know,” now, Bob replied, “He’s left here all alone.”
So then they stood and talked about what should be done with him.
They spoke so softly that the boy could hardly listen in.

“Dear farmer, don’t you think you’ve taken enough upon yourself?
You have two dozen kids already. Leave him for someone else.”

“No one can raise him good as me. Of this you can attest.
So, if I raise him as my own, you know that will be best.”

Finally, the farmer said, “Son, grab your stuff. Let’s go.”
The little boy then dropped his toy and hopped up on his toes.
Walking to the door, the boy was haulted by old Smith.
“Come get this toy. I paid for it. Consider it a gift.”

The boy got in the pick-up truck, and so the farmer did.
Turning to the little tike, he asked, “What’s your name, kid?”
“Mike,” replied the little boy, still fumbling with the belt.
“Is it okay if I call you Michael. Do you think that would be swell?”

Michael shrugged his shoulders as he kicked his little feet.
The truck was nicer than his mom’s, and it certainly was clean.
The farmer drove a little ways and came upon a house.
He turned to Michael, said, “We’re here,” and then they both got out.

This was Sheriff Johnson’s house, and he was just ‘round back.
They heard him clanging tools around and saying this and that.
Following the noises, they found he was fast at work.
He was under his patrol car and all covered up with dirt.

“Need some help, there, Sheriff,” called the farmer from the hood.
Rolling out from under the car, the Sheriff slowly stood.
“Smith! What brings you ‘round these parts? It has been quite a while.”
“I was just down at the feed store, and I came upon this child.”

The sheriff took his glasses from the pocket on his shirt.
He wiped them with an old white cloth to remove all the dirt.
Pushing them snug to his nose, he gave the boy a look.
“Why, I’ve never seen this boy before, but I’ll look through my books.”

“Well, Sheriff Johnson, I’m impressed to keep him at my house.
And Tiff can look upon him till you figure all this out.
You know there’s always room at my house for these little ones.
And if you cannot find the mother, I’ll make him my own son.”

“Dear farmer, don’t you think you’ve taken enough upon yourself?
You have two dozen kids already. Leave him for someone else.”

“No one can raise him good as me. Of this you can attest.
So, if I raise him as my own, you know that will be best.”

Once again they hopped up in the farmer’s pick-up truck.
They drove out to his farm and gathered everybody up.
“Dear wife, and Tiff, and kids, this here is Michael. Please say, ‘Hi.’”
The group all greeted Michael, who so quickly became shy.

The farmer had two dozen kids, from babes to older teens.
They stood ‘round looking cheerful. Michael thought he might turn green.
They came and introduced themselves, one by one by one.
From oldest to the youngest. Twelve were daughters. Twelve were sons.

Last were Mrs. Smith and Tiff, both carrying young babes.
They welcomed him with kisses, and his worries did then fade.
In no time he felt right at home and fell in with the kids.
They played their games, told stories and spent time with Mrs. Smith.

While talking with the others, he found out they were just like him.
They all had been abandoned and the Smiths took them all in.
They all had special stories, though their stories were alike.
And though there were so many, the farmer gave each one his time.

The farm whipped up in conversations. Michael was all the buzz.
The farmer had another son, and the story’s moral was…

Though we had been forsaken from the fall of Adam and Eve,
We have a loving Father who steps down and intercedes.
He takes us off the streets of life where we would die alone.
He makes us all His children and prepares for us a home.

Springboards: The Pig, Rhubarb

May 18, 2016May 18, 2016 / William F. Leonhart III / 1 Comment

Springboards for Christian Parents is a two-part series I began back in 2008 for the purpose of providing stories for parents to help them illustrate biblical truths. The Pig, Rhubarb is a story written for the purpose of illustrating the doctrine of regeneration.

________________________

In the land of Sorie Ayah was a village with no name.

They were a very simple folk who did not aspire to fame.

Men like Farmers, Bakers, Bankers, Barbers and the like,

With names like Joe and Josh and Sarah. Perhaps, even a Mike.

On the outskirts of this town there lived a farmer, name of Jones.

He had a sty of piglets with a couple that were grown.

The most stubborn one was Rhubarb. He was never looking up.

With much determination, his nose was always in the mud.

He’d root and root for hours, hoping that he’d find a gem.

A corn cob or a brussel sprout. It didn’t concern him.

He didn’t even care that all the children standing by

Had scowls on their faces when he ate a moldy pie.

He snorted with delight. With joy, he’d wag his little tail.

He ate and ate for hours, and his stomach never failed.

Now, one day, as the farmer was out tending to the pigs,

A thought happened upon him, and it happened on his lips,

“I wonder if this pig could be a money-making prize.

I bet I’d get more bounty for his stomach than his hide.”

He threw some cobs and celery in the back of his old truck,

And with a pulley system that he’d built, Rhubarb went up.

He darted down the highway to the fair outside of town.

While in the back, old Rhubarb was still steadily chowing down.

Arriving at the fair, that day, the farmer bought a booth.

He stood out front and shouted to the people walking through,

“O Baker, Banker, Barber, all you business men alike.

Please listen to my wager, for your treasure lies inside.”

“A dollar wager gets you in, and you can be approved,

To feed this pig whatever you please. He’s certainly no prude.

He’ll eat just what you feed to him, and it doesn’t matter what,

But if you find what he won’t eat, we’ll split the pot twixt us.”

The baker was the first to pay his dollar at the door.

He had an old and moldy loaf with gravy all abhorred.

He’d whipped it up a week before, and tossed it in the bin,

His shop was just a block away, so his son fetched it in.

“We’ll see if Rhubarb eats this bread. It’s stale and from the trash.

It’s been in there for four days all mixed up with corned beef hash.

All the people can attest that it’s rotten from its smell.

I doubt your pig can stomach it, as time will surely tell.”

The farmer took the bin of trash and heaped it in the booth.

It only took a moment for the pig to start to root.

He sifted through the garbage like it were a birthday cake.

Within ‘bout seven minutes it was like he’d licked his plate

Now nothing lay before the pig, as the baker walked away.

The farmer lifted up his chin and carried on this way,

“O Banker, Barber, gents, and all you business men alike.

Please listen to my wager, for your treasure lies inside.”

“A dollar wager gets you in, and you can be approved,

To feed this pig whatever you please. He’s certainly no prude.

He’ll eat just what you feed to him, it doesn’t matter what,

But if you find what he won’t eat, we’ll split the pot twixt us.”

The Banker was a greedy man, and never backing down,

He answered to the challenge with some worms he’d fetched from town.

He laid them down before the pig, and soon they were not there.

He gobbled up the last of them with time enough to spare.

Now nothing lay before the pig, as the banker walked away.

The farmer lifted up his chin and carried on this way,

“O Barber, ladies, gents, and all you business men alike.

Please listen to my wager, for your treasure lies inside.”

“A dollar wager gets you in, and you can be approved,

To feed this pig whatever you please. He’s certainly no prude.

He’ll eat just what you feed to him, it doesn’t matter what,

But if you find what he won’t eat, we’ll split the pot twixt us.”

The barber, not a betting man, just watched as people came.

They brought their garbage, brought their waste and all that was profane.

The pig was eating it all up, much to the farmer’s glee.

But then the barber had a thought, and so away he sneaked.

He went a ways back to his home, and met up with his wife.

“O dearest, sweet, melodious woman. Have you food inside?”

His wife enraptured by his words took out of the stove,

A baked lasagna she had made just for his return home.

He kissed her on the forehead, saying, “Tonight, I will explain.”

He rushed off in his carriage, and back to the fair again.

The pot was up to ninety dollars. Hordes were bringing food.

He shot up to the front of the crowd and offered up his, too.

The farmer, overcome with joy, welcomed the barber’s pan.

The barber offered up his dollar, then addressed the man,

“O farmer would you eat the rubbish this pig has swallowed down?

Would you sift through garbage with your snout and eat off the ground?”

The farmer gave a chuckle, “Well, of course not. I’m a man.”

The barber gave a gentle nod and laid down his wife’s pan.

Rhubarb moved his nose along the ground searching for slop.

He paid no mind to the lasagna still so piping hot.

The crowd whipped up in conversations. Rhubarb was all the buzz.

The barber was the victor, and the story’s moral was…

A man should not consume the things befitting filthy swine.

A pig does not have appetites that mirror yours or mine.

Just One can change the appetites of sinful girls and boys.

Jesus Christ transforms our appetites and turns our griefs to joys.

A Reformed Baptist Perspective on Public Theology – The Incarnate Lord (Part II)

May 10, 2016May 10, 2016 / William F. Leonhart III / 26 Comments

You can read earlier posts in this series by clicking on the links below:

Continuity

As we consider the life and teaching of our incarnate Lord, let us keep at the forefront of our minds the fact that Christ’s primary mission was not that of social change. Rather, His primary goal was that of redeeming His bride (the church). However, given the fact that His relationship with His bride is a covenant relationship, this work of redemption came with some very real implications for Covenant Theology.

Whether referring to the saints of the Old or of the New Testament, 17th century Particular Baptists designated them the Church. The radical divide presented in Dispensationalism between ethnic, national Israel and the Church would not only have been absolutely foreign to our Particular Baptist forefathers. It would have been downright abhorrent. Insofar as the saints of the Old Testament period believed on Yahweh alone for their righteous standing before God, they were truly circumcised of the heart.

Continuity through General Equity

There was no sense, in the Old Testament, in which man was saved by the Law or in which he could merit his own salvation. There were consequences built into the civil law that provided for the regulation of proper conduct within God’s covenant community then just as there are consequences built into the New Testament policy of church discipline for the regulation of proper conduct within God’s covenant community today. Whether it was a matter of corporal punishment in the nation of Israel or excommunication from the ranks of the New Covenant church, the requirement of three or more witnesses is the same.

As such, our incarnate Lord made clear that the Civil Law of national Israel was given as a shadow of the greater reality of church discipline in Christ. In this sense, Christ did not abolish the Civil and Ceremonial Law so much as make application from them to local congregations. In so doing, Christ did not use the greater reality of national Jewish law to point to shadows in the New Covenant church. Rather, the Civil and Ceremonial Laws were given as shadows in order that they might highlight the greater reality of church discipline in Christ. This is the Reformation principle known as “general equity.” The letter of the Old Covenant law is no longer binding on the Christian church, but the eternal, moral principles behind them are.

“To them also he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution; their general equity only being of moral use,” (The Baptist Confession, 19.4).

Why, though, does church discipline exist? Church discipline exists in order that Christ may present His bride to His Father as pure, spotless, and without blemish. This is not to say that we will be sinlessly perfect in this life. We will not obtain perfection until glory. However, it does mean that we will be distinguished from the world.

God’s Set Apart People

One of the reasons Israel was given the Civil and Ceremonial Laws was to distinguish her from the surrounding nations. They were told that they were to be different from the nations around them who sacrificed their children to their false gods (Lev. 20:2-5). In giving them this instruction, Moses did not assume that Israel would automatically be enticed to go and sacrifice their babies to Molech. Rather, it would be over time, as they allowed for more and more syncretism over the years, they would eventually find little difference between them and their pagan neighbors, even sacrificing their babies on the altar (1Kgs. 11:7; 2Kgs. 23:10; Jer. 32:35).

In the same way, one of the reasons church discipline has been given to the church is to distinguish her from the world. “Therefore ‘Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you,’” (2Cor. 6:17; NKJV). Our Lord told His disciples that the world would hate them just as they hated Him (John 15:18). An essential mark of Christ’s disciples is that they will be set apart (sanctified) from the world. Christ’s true disciples will be distinguished by a Bible-centered worldview (John 17:17).

As such, the social ills that plague our society (e.g. racism, chauvinism, divorce, etc.) ought all to be issues addressed in church discipline. We are not here calling for the knee-jerk excommunication of such as commit these sins. Rather, we are calling for the biblical practice of church discipline to be applied in these cases.

Biblical Church Discipline

The biblical practice of church discipline is four-fold. It starts with what has come to be known as formative church discipline. That is the discipline of the Spirit applied to the hearts and minds of church members as they sit under the regular preaching of God’s word. Of course, if the Spirit is to discipline His people through the preached word on these matters, pastors have a duty to preach the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). This means that, where opportunity arises in the text to address racism, chauvinism, abortion, homosexuality, divorce, etc., pastors must seize these opportunities and emphasize the biblical standard in their preaching of the word.

Where sins of this nature persist within the body in spite of the preached word, they must be addressed in a much more personal space. The Bible regularly exhorts the body toward personal admonition (Rom. 15:14; Col. 3:16; 2Thess. 3:15; Tit. 2:4; 3:10). According to our Lord, there are three phases to personal admonition: (1) go to your brother in private and, if he listens to you, you have won your brother; (2) if he does not listen to you, take another brother with you so that, by the word of two or more witnesses, every matter may be established; and (3) if he still does not listen to you, take the matter before the church (see Mt. 18:15-20).

We must remember, anytime we discuss church discipline, that it was given for the purity of the church. Again, the church is to be pure; the church is to be set apart from the world. As such, as we have already stated, the world will hate us.

God’s Hated People

Of course, God’s people have always been hated by the world. We have always been hated, because we have always been set apart by His word (John 17:14, 17). We have also been hated because of the work of the devil. Our Lord told the Jewish leaders of His day that they were of their father: the devil (John 8:44). It was because the Jewish leaders were sons of Satan, the brood of vipers (Mt. 3:7), that they murdered the prophets (Mt. 23:29-36). In the same way, our Lord told His disciples that they would be dragged before rulers by the Jewish leaders of their day (Mt. 5:11-12; 23:34).

Does this mean that we are to shun the Jews and the world at large? Should we retreat into monasteries never to be heard from again? No. Rather, our Lord gave us a commission to be His witnesses “both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth,” (Acts 1:8b; NASB). Through the book of Acts and the epistles we will see, both in practice and in teaching, that the apostles had a heart for both the Jews and the Gentiles. They both taught and practiced taking the gospel “to the Jew first and also to the Greek,” (Rom. 1:16b; NASB). It was through the incremental expansion of God’s covenant people into every tribe, tongue, and nation, as seen in Acts, that God broke down the dividing wall of hostility that once existed between God’s Israelite covenant people and the nations around them (Eph. 2:11-22). In the same way, the world will hate us as long as their hearts remain unchanged by the gospel.

We will conclude in our next post by examining the discontinuities between the two epochs divided by our Lord’s incarnation.

A Reformed Baptist Perspective on Public Theology – The Incarnate Lord (Part I)

May 8, 2016May 10, 2016 / William F. Leonhart III / 29 Comments

I realize it’s been a while since our last post on Public Theology. That’s because it was agreed ahead of time that I’d do this next series and, with two full-time jobs and a young family, anything from me will be slow coming. Enough about me, though. You can read the last post in this series here, or just pick up in your reading below. Enjoy.

Introduction

In the last two posts in our series on public theology, we examined the approaches to public theology employed by two notable prophets: John the Baptist and Amos. There are many approaches to the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Some argue for more radical discontinuity between the two epochs than others. Regardless of what approach we take to entering this discussion, Reformed Baptists must not deny the the existence of discontinuity between them.

For instance, Reformed Baptists overwhelmingly affirm the cessation of the theocratic relationship between God and the ethnic, geographically-identified nation of Israel (see The Baptist Confession, 19.4). With the cessation of this relationship, Gentiles were grafted into the covenant community of God and men ceased worshipping God “on this mountain or that mountain,” worshipping Him instead in truth and in spirit (John 4:19-24). This was certainly a massive shift. God’s people went from a covenant nation comprised of both believers and unbelievers primarily of one particular ethnicity and nationality to covenant communities (churches) comprised only of believers (a credocovenant relationship) from all ethnic groups and nations. The question is whether this shift simultaneously represented a shift in approach to public theology. Certainly, it must have.

In the remainder of our posts, we will attempt to determine the nature and extent of the shift in public theology that occurred between the Old Testament and the New Testament. In the next two posts, we will look to our incarnate Lord and His approach to public theology while on this earth. Particularly, we will examine His approach to public theology during the period known as His incarnation.

First, we must recognize the fact that Christ, in the New Testament, is distinguished from His forerunners. He was different from the prophets who preceded Him.

“God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world” (Hebrews 1:1-2; NASB).

Though Christ was different from the prophets that preceded Him, we also recognize that Christ came as the antitypical Prophet, Priest, and King. By this, we mean that the prophets, priests, and kings of Israel were types of the Christ to come. They foreshadowed Him in the roles they filled within the nation of Israel. As such, the roles to which they were called, and the laws governing those roles, point to the role Christ was to play. Hence, the author of Hebrews writes, “God. . . in these last days has spoken to us in His Son.”

This assertion is of paramount importance. The God of Israel, the immutable God of the Holy Scriptures, the God who spoke through the prophets of old, is the same God who spoke to us through His Son Jesus Christ. We must assume, then, that there must be some great continuity between the prophets and the Prophet. In the next two posts, we will examine both: the continuity and the discontinuity.

A Working Definition of Evangelism (Second Revision)

January 8, 2016January 6, 2016 / William F. Leonhart III / 1 Comment

You can see the original Definition here, and the first revision here.

__________________________

With a view toward making disciples of all nations and entering them into covenant membership with a local church, through baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in order that they may be taught all that Christ commanded, evangelism is the endeavor of the church to explain to the unregenerate—both in their midst and in the world—God’s holiness, man’s sin and its wages, Christ’s accomplishment of redemption through His obedience in life, death, and resurrection, and the proper response of sinners: repentance from sin toward God and faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation.

Repost: Why Publicly Contend for Christian Morality?

January 6, 2016 / William F. Leonhart III / Leave a comment

I found this article, today, that I originally posted all the way back in 2011. It’s the earliest original article I posted on CredoCovenant, and it pretty much summarizes the reason for my participation in the current Public Theology series. As such, I thought it was worth a repost. Enjoy.

____________________________

In the subculture of evangelicalism I inhabit, the issue of publicly contending for Christian morality (i.e. abortion, the definition of marriage, “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” etc.) surfaces from time to time. There seems to be basically two camps: those for it and those against it. On the surface, I tend to agree with many of the arguments made by those who are against making a public defense of the moral claims of the Bible. They say it detracts from our focus on the gospel. They say that it can often stem from post-millennial idealism. They say that it makes us look silly to a world that already hates us for the gospel. On the surface, I can agree with all of these arguments. However, allow me to offer some arguments for the other side in response:

The gospel does not make sense apart from conviction of sin, and there is no conviction of sin in a society where the church is by-and-large silent on moral issues in the public sector.
To want a better society for one’s children, and to want to see people live according to the precepts of Scripture, does not automatically make that one a post-millennialist.
The authors of Scripture spent more time defending the moral assertions of the Bible than they did defending the epistemological assertions of the Bible. Think about it.
The law and the gospel are not diametrically opposed to one another, but rather God uses both to bring people to repentance and faith. The problem comes when one is shared without the other.
Throughout church history, church leaders have contended for biblical morality in their cultural settings.
Someone’s worldview will be the current that drives the culture. Why not Christianity’s?

Gospel Issues: An Open Letter to Western Evangelicals

January 5, 2016January 6, 2016 / William F. Leonhart III / 1 Comment

With a small amount of interest, I have occasionally turned my gaze on the provocative happenings in the world of Evangelicalism. Just to be fair, by a very loose definition, I would be considered an Evangelical, though I prefer the term Protestant or, even better, Reformed Baptist. Read me right, though. I’m not bashing the movement. As one whose hope is set intently on the inheritance being kept for me, which works to embolden my faith in Christ Jesus, I have a love and fervent concern for all the saints (Col. 1:3-5). However, I grow weary when exposed too long to the internet sensationalism surrounding much of Western Evangelicalism. I trust that many of our readers can relate.

Gospel Minimalism

Evangelicals, at the very least, are marked by a central concern for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. By this definition of Evangelicalism, I consider myself among the fold. However, many in recent days have taken to a minimalistic practice of Evangelicalism in which Christians are encouraged to focus almost exclusively on the Gospel, with very little emphasis on other very important doctrines in the Christian faith. Within this same fold are those who, wanting to minimize all non-Gospel issues as far secondary, have taken to labeling every issue under the sun a “Gospel issue.” So, they minimize all Christian doctrine that is not the Gospel while, at the same time, broadening the Gospel so that it encompasses far more than what the Bible teaches.

This is an understandable position to take if you are a Gospel-minimalist. If all issues are unimportant, or of minimal significance, unless they touch the Gospel in some way, you must demonstrate how any issue that is important to you touches the Gospel. As a result, Gospel-minimalists seem to be bending over backward to demonstrate how their pet issues are Gospel-issues. This hermeneutical technique requires such interpretive gymnastics in order to arrive at the intended conclusions that it can easily leave onlookers’ heads reeling.

I’m not arguing that the issues in question shouldn’t come under the umbrella and influence of the Gospel. They should, and all issues in that sense are Gospel-issues. Everything for the Christian, to a certain degree, is subject to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Whether we’re talking about race relations, the environment, gun control, taxes, family life, work, etc., etc., etc., the Gospel impacts every area of life. The problem arises when someone comes to endorse one particular solution to one of these issues—a solution that is not the direct result of their study of the Gospel—and then they claim that, because the issue itself is a “Gospel-issue,” Christians must without exception adopt the same solution to addressing the issue that they do.

Gospel-Issues or Gospel-Solutions

This line of argumentation fails to account for certain very important nuances within the Christian community. To say that racism is a Gospel-issue is not an incorrect statement. However, to say that only one approach to alleviating the church of racism is the correct “Gospel” approach is dishonest at the very least. Nor is it incorrect to say that orphans and widows are a Gospel-issue. However, to say that others don’t have a proper handle on the Gospel because they are convinced of the merits of a different solution than you is disingenuous at best.

The difference is a categorical difference. Simply because a brother in Christ has a different approach to solving the problem, which you both recognize as a problem, does not mean that he doesn’t recognize the implications the Gospel brings to bear on that issue. Rather, it means that his culture, his education and, more generally, his life experiences bring him to vastly different conclusions as to how to solve this Gospel-issue.

The issue itself is a Gospel-issue insofar as all things in the life of the Christian touch the Gospel at some point. However, the approach to solving it may not be shaped by the Gospel. In fact, the Gospel message itself often offers no practical, “how-to” solutions for the woes of society. It simply exposes them as woes in the minds and consciences of believers. The Gospel will often compel us to act without giving us the necessary guidelines on how to act in every particular instance.

Gospel Zeal

For instance, we understand that the two Great Commandments teach us to love God and love our neighbor. As a result of the regenerating work of the gospel and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, Christians are now enabled to recognize where we need to grow in our love for God and love for neighbor, and we are now enabled to act out of love for God and love for our neighbor. The grace of God makes us zealous for good deeds (Tit. 2:11-14), but zeal without reason is foolhardy.

Christians are to temper our zeal with sound judgment. The gospel and the grace it bears emboldens Christians with a godly zeal necessary to live lives that are pleasing to our Father in heaven. However, without the tools for navigating the nuances of cultural discernment, many of us will fall into pitfalls and commit our Gospel-fueled zeal to unprofitable ends. We recognize that the Gospel emboldens us to take action and be “salt and light” in the world, so we ride off into battle without the proper weapons and armor of our warfare.

As a result, we call for action that does the opposite of what we intend. We don’t rightly understand economics, so we call for actions on the part of the government that we think help the poor when really they are the very things doing them the most harm. We don’t rightly understand the best means for preserving human life, so we call for measures to be put in place by the government that we think will minimize violent crimes and death, but those very measures make people more vulnerable to violent criminals and devalues human life. We don’t rightly understand the biblical teaching on ethnicity, so we call for measures from state and church authorities that encourage deeper divisions rather than promoting unity across ethnicities. And those are just three issues of concern.

The Gospel Hammer

Worst of all, many who promote these counter-productive solutions seek to reinforce their arguments for them by appealing to the Gospel. They (rightly) recognize that every Christian must come under the shadow of the cross when considering the issue about which they are concerned. Subsequently, they recognize that this issue touches the Gospel, in one way or another, the moment a Christian comes to consider it. Wrongly, though, they assume that their approach must be the only Gospel-centered approach to solving their issue.

This approach to addressing issues within our cultures and within our local churches has an undercurrent of gracelessness. It assumes, “If someone else’s approach to solving this Gospel-issue is different than mine, this person is not as Gospel-centered as I am.” Allow me to play the role of peacemaker, here, and call for a little more Christian charity and mercy in regard to these issues.

Simply because someone recognizes the Gospel compels us to act on an issue does not make their subsequent action necessarily right. Just because someone disagrees with your action when you were the first to point out the fact that the problem at hand is a Gospel-issue does not mean the person in question is not Gospel-centered. You don’t have the right to use the Gospel as a hammer to bash your brother in the faith simply because he endorses a different solution to the problem you both recognize. So allow me to call for a moratorium.

A Call for Gospel Grace

Let’s stop saying issues are Gospel-issues, as though not all issues should come under the authority of the cross in the Christian life. Let’s recognize that all issues to one degree or another are Gospel-issues, which means none of them are Gospel-issues in the way Western Evangelicals use (more appropriately: abuse) the term. Let’s stop telling Christians they have to endorse the exact same solutions we do, or they aren’t Gospel-centered enough. The world is more nuanced than that.

We should feel free to point out problems in our world, but then we should be humble enough to ask, “What can be done about this?” rather than shouting one another down when we have difficulty arriving at a consensus. Wasn’t it our Savior who said: “Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy”? Let’s endeavor to show one another a little more mercy. Let’s stop using the Gospel as a hammer to bash one another when we disagree on how to solve problems. Rather, let’s commit to listen to one another, pray, submit ourselves to the Gospel, educate ourselves so we can make the most informed decision possible, and commit to following our consciences in the zeal God has granted us by His grace.

Soli Deo Gloria

The Sins of Our Celebrities

May 23, 2015May 23, 2015 / William F. Leonhart III / 2 Comments

Recently, there has been a lot of discussion on the interwebs about the proper Christian response to a repentant celebrity who has admitted to heinous crimes. The general consensus among many is that if we have been forgiven by the gospel, and if the celebrity in question has been forgiven through the gospel, we too ought to forgive them as we have been forgiven. Those who would offer any contrary opinion on this matter are then accused of not understanding or “living out” the gospel in their response to these Evangelical celebrities. Many others are simply at a loss for how to respond at all, or whether or not they should. I REALLY did not want to post anything about this. I tweeted about it earlier, but at my wife’s insistence, I have agreed to write this little blurb. All I will do is seek to explain what I have already tweeted. My tweets read as follows:

“It’s neither my place to judge, nor defend, nor forgive any celebrity child molesters. I leave that to God, their church, and the victims.”

…and…

“I wonder what a price the church in the West has had to pay as a result of the celebrity culture that has infiltrated her.”

First, regarding the specific case in question (I’m not going to name names), I have been asked if I think the family handled the matter incorrectly. I don’t know all the details. From what I can tell from what I’ve been told, the family handled things fairly well, as did the local church, as did the criminal who committed the criminal act. The criminal admitted to his crimes and repented of his sins, the family reported him to the authorities, and the local church investigated the matter thoroughly. However, the police seem to have dropped the ball. Besides the police, though, I will say that I think that a lot of Evangelicals are responding in a very improper way. I believe they are responding in an improper way because, in most cases, it is not their place to respond.

There are several questions that seem appropriate here before determining to tweet, blog, comment, re-post, share, etc. Let’s get into them:

1. Am I God?

Unless you are crazy, we can pretty much agree to the answer to this one. We are not God. As such, in most cases, it is not our place to judge, redeem, forgive, defend, or punish the person in question. That was an easy one. Next question.

2. Am I the victim?

Now, I feel the need to clarify here, because many are making the perpetrator in this case out to be the victim. I’m not talking about him. I’m talking about the little girls he molested. They are the only victims here. If you are not God and you are not the victims, it is not your place to forgive this man for his crimes. It’s just not. Next question.

3. Am I a member or leader in his local church?

If you are, you probably have reason to discuss these matters when they come before the church to be dealt with, and you should probably seek the counsel of your leaders before letting your kids be alone with the man. However, blogging, tweeting, etc., should probably be out of the question.

4. Have your previously, publicly endorsed the man?

This is important. Too often in evangelicalism, pastors endorse men to their congregations and to other pastors that they know to be volatile and reckless, only to respond with utter silence when those men destroy churches and go on speaking circuits seeking to justify their sins without any true repentance. But I digress. If you have publicly endorsed this man in the past, you may feel a need to either retract your previous statements or explain why you still endorse him. However, if you’re not a nationally known mega-church, multi-site pastor, silence may still be the best answer.

5. Are you just defending him because he’s a celebrity?

You shouldn’t say anything.

6. Are you just using this situation as an ice-breaker to start conversations about the gospel?

You should probably find a better ice-breaker.

As a final note, I would just remind you that there are real victims here. To defend a man on the basis that he has been forgiven through the gospel only turns the gospel into a tool to keep victims silent. You may not realize it, but in defending this man, you may be perpetuating the stigma of hopelessness that keeps current victims from speaking out against those who are presently victimizing them. I don’t even think the man you are trying to defend would want that.

Finally, if you have celebrity idols in your life, I would encourage you to turn them over to God. If you find yourself getting overly defensive over your favorite celebrity pastor, or if you find that your favorite Christian actor or TV personality can do no wrong in your eyes, you probably have an unhealthy fixation on them. You should probably diversify your interests in these areas so that your identity is not so wrapped up with theirs. Listen to dozens of pastors instead of just four. Hold loosely to your fascination with celebrities who claim the name of Christ. If you find that you are utterly unable to do these things, these celebrities may just have become idols in your life, idols from which you need to repent.

Well, that’s all I got. I welcome discussion in the comments section. Let’s try to keep it civil.