What’s heretical about saying God is clearly blessing him?

This is a public business and a loss last Sunday would probably have meant the end of his career in Denver, probably the end of his career as a starting QB anywhere and the termination of all the power that comes with that position. Therefore, I told my wife and kids on Sunday morning that I was praying that Tim Tebow would win. With one minute left in the game I had to consciously yield my thoughts to God and bow to His sovereign plan as superior to anything that I thought because I believed Tebow was losing. When he won we danced and shouted like crazies.

So many people, Christians especially, are trying to defend God by saying that He’s too great and mighty and lofty to care about who wins football games. They couldn’t be more wrong. Theologically. God cares about everything. Even a tiny little sparrow in the market place that’s worth only a farthing. Here is something I wrote in response to HOF Tarkenton’s piece in the Washington Street Journal in which he basically tried to defend Christians from the sneering world by saying we don’t actually believe God cares about who wins football games.

Sadly, Tarkenton is wrong. He and Bob Costas and a host of other Christians claim God doesn’t care about football games. They couldn’t be more wrong. He cares about everything. He notices a sparrow that falls to the ground and He notices big business sports games. Plainly stated, God cares who wins and loses.

However — HOWEVER! — this in no way means that God necessarily grants wins to saints and losses to infidels. Nor does it necessarily mean that saints get a supernatural edge. It does mean that in respect of the doctrine of Providence it is okay to say God did something favorable to Tim Tebow last week by granting him a W.

NFL football is not “just a game.” It’s a big business and every game is a huge business affair. If Tim Tebow were in any other business we’d want him to succeed at that business when he was deliberately giving God the credit for his success and using the success as a platform for doing good to the helpless and speaking out the Name of Christ. So, yes, I prayed Sunday morning to God that Tim would win against the Steelers. I felt that he needed that win for his career and I think his career is, at the moment, pleasing to God. And I literally thanked God for his victory Sunday afternoon. I’m sure thousands of others, including his mom and dad, were doing the same. We all knew his career in Denver banked on it.

I don’t feel that he has to win against the Patriots to save his career so my prayers for him are less earnest.But what do I know? I just know that I also want the businessmen and workers in my church to pray to God for success in whatever it is that they do. This doesn’t preclude hard work, opposition, setbacks, discouragement, and even failure. It does mean, however, that whatever successes we do get we can humbly and truthfully say, “God helped me do it.” I think that is what Tim does.

Holiness is an internal change or renovation of our souls, our minds, our wills, and affections by the grace; a universal compliance with the will of God in all duties of obedience and abstinences from sin out of a principle of faith and love; a designation of all the actions of life unto the glory of God by Jesus Christ, through the gospel.

Wow. Pursue holiness (Hebrews 12:14).

I know of situations where the mothers could vindicate her children’s claims about the abuse they received at the hand of their men. Yet those mothers who tearfully claim to love their babies will not offer the necessary testimony required to substantiate the claims of their children. I know of situations where the mother kept her children in the home of her abusive husband even though he had slept with minors in her bed and yet she does not step forward to accuse. The smog of suspicion that hovers over the home could be dispelled by one clear word from mommy. There are mothers all over this country that could put their husbands behind bars if they would.

Tragically, they won’t.

The question that I have mulled on for years is, “Why?”

Wouldn’t you expect a mom to instinctively turn into a mama-bear when her child has been touched in an  unseemly way? Do you not think it is natural for a mother to be overcome with a protective instinct and remove her children from the reach of their predator no matter how much it cost her? Why do mothers who are the first line of defense for the otherwise defenseless children not only put them in scenarios where they may be endangered but when a day of accounting is upon them, whether in a court of law or in counseling with their now-adult children, they actually choose to stand by their man? How come so many abused children that I know (who are all now adults) have the unshakeable resolution of mind that their mom will not help them get justice when the perpetrator is “her man”?

Some thoughts:

First, it is precisely because the perpetrator is “her man” that indicates part of the problem.

I have come to believe over the years that part of the curse is a woman’s blind loyalty to “her man,” her husband. Whatever man she has chosen to embrace as “her man,” whether by matrimony or by co-habitation, the curse of sin makes her extremely vulnerable to a gripping “desire toward her husband”. In other words, a woman’s prioritization of “her man” above God and Gospel makes her likely to prioritize her man over protecting sexually abused children because “her man” is her god.

I think Wendy Alsup rightly understands Genesis 3:16 in this excellent post. Here she addresses women in general, but my experience with a great number of mothers of children abused by “her man” shows that this could explain their bizarre reticence to put their abusive husband behind bars:

The word for “desire” in Genesis 3:16 can mean craving or longing.  The issue is best understood if we make the simple substitution of God for her husband.  Her desire SHOULD BE for her God.  Instead, her desire/craving/longing is misplaced.  The curse is not that women want to dominate the men in their lives.  Women’s problem is that they worship the men in their lives and look to them for affirmation and provision emotionally and spiritually for things that God alone is supposed to provide.  Their problem is IDOLATRY.

A Christian woman who fails to do her duty of motherhood toward her innocent children because she craves her husband is guilty of idolatry. No man who lives with a Christian woman should feel secure that she is so desperate for his love and security that she will keep his dirtiest secrets even when they involve the molestation of creatures made in the image of God and the breaking of the law.

It is true, of course, that there are many women who would not tolerate the least amount of abuse done toward their children, but having been acquainted with the matter of sexual abuse now for many years I no longer automatically expect a mother to do what she needs to do to get the justice necessary if the violator happens to be “her man” unless God mercifully (for the sake of her children if not for her) spares her from the effect of the curse.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is good news for a mother living with a man that abuses or has abused her children. (And certainly this applies to the woman who is being abused by her man). The Gospel is powerful enough to make a woman who has a craving for her husband or the man she lives with to give her a dawning awareness that she is fulfilled without her man.  She doesn’t need any man if it means to have him she must fail her calling to do God’s will. And God has stamped His will into the instinct of mothers: protect your children. This divinely implanted instinct is too often smothered by the curse in which “her desire is toward her husband.”

Some women delude themselves into thinking that they are dutifully pleasing the Lord by remaining faithful to their unfaithful husbands by keeping their mouths shut about his criminal behavior. I know of women that actually convince themselves that they cannot divorce their husbands on grounds of adultery because he hasn’t actually cheated on them with other women. He’s just had sex with their daughters.

For the life of me, I cannot see why these mothers do not understand that to be the worst form of infidelity. Not only is he cheating on her, but he’s destroying for life her precious children. He’s taking something from them that will never be recovered. The debilitating delusion of Christian faithfulness in marriage that these women abide under is nothing more than a twisted self-love that does not want to replace “her man” with her God.

Now, this is a highly emotional and sensitive subject and I know that there are women who are literally afraid for their lives. I’m thinking right now of two women who are literally – literally! – convinced that if they utter a peep about their husband’s vile ways that they or their children will pay for it with their lives. I know of one woman who has left her husband, a man that says he’s a Christian and raises his children under the despicable practices taught by the Pearls. Her children remain under his tyranny and his alleged sexual abuse. She has so succumbed to fear and irrational thinking that she  is emotionally and spiritually paralyzed and has still not come to grips with what she must do to rescue her children. She’s conflicted. Why?

She loves him. Still.

But her love is not a gospel love. It’s a curse love. I am convinced that the only thing that will rescue these children and her is for her to to accept the fullness that is in Jesus Christ alone. But she, like many women in domestic violence, finds herself in a conflict of interests: on the one hand she longs for safety and on the other hand she longs for her man.

The beauty of the Gospel is that it rescues us from conflicts of interests. If a mother is deeply drinking from the Living Water she will not find herself thinking, “I’m so confused. I love my kids. I love Jesus. I love my man.” Loving Jesus supremely will dispel the confusion and give her the clarity of thinking, the right prioritization of affections, and the courage to take up her cross and follow Jesus.

Every woman is called to be a disciple of Jesus. I would like to suggest what that may look like (and I am aware that every situation is unique) for many women who live with a man that has abused their children.

1. A woman who has trusted Jesus to save her has also come to trust Him to accept her. All the time. No matter what. Jesus loves her despite how dirty she feels that her man has used her children. Many women would rather bury their heads in the sand than to accept the reality that they have hooked up with a monster. The violator of her children makes her feel filthy as well, a loser at picking out “her man.” But God comes to us through the Gospel and says to us through Christ what Gabriel said to Mary,”You don’t need to be scared. God is very happy with you!” (S. Lloyd-Jones rendition).

There is no limit to what a person can do when he or she feel totally accepted. There is no cure for the curse of trying to find acceptance in “her man” like knowing that “God is very happy with you” through Jesus Christ.

This means that, biblically, she has been made into a follower of Jesus. Jesus defined his followers as those who “took up their cross.” Therefore,

2. In the context of her relationship to her husband and her children, she must “take up her cross.” What does it mean to take up one’s cross?

Unfortunately, this is one of the most confusing cliches Christians use without really understanding the biblical understanding of cross bearing. Too often cross bearing is related to some kind of pain, suffering, or discomfort that one has to put up with; a bum knee, an fussy baby, a flat tire, or – more seriously – cancer or financial ruin. But atheists and Hindus get bum knees and have fussy babies. So “cross-bearing” cannot mean putting up with bad stuff.

To take up one’s cross (cross bearing) is to voluntarily sacrifice one’s personal interests for the glory of God and the good of the church. Let’s parse that definition.

• A follower of Jesus voluntarily sacrifices. The bum knee is not a voluntary sacrifice. Cancer is not voluntary. There can certainly be cross bearing in these things, but the followers of Jesus do as he did and they choose to sacrifice their lives in a voluntary commitment to God.
• This voluntary sacrifice is for the glory of God. Even as Jesus “set his face toward Jerusalem” (Luke 9:52) where he knew he would be crucified for the glory of God (John 17:2), so Christ-followers desire God to be glorified in everything they do – even if it means personal sacrifice and loss.

How does this apply to a mother who finds herself tempted to cover her man’s crimes against her children?

She needs to realize that her children will be most inclined to glorify God when she does good works. Jesus said, “Let your light so shine before men that when they see your good works they will glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 5:16). The way we bring glory to God is by good works. When people (a mother’s child) observe those good works they (the child) will be more inclined to glorify God.

But good works are more than just making hot meals and maintaining stoic silence in a bad marriage. Just as it was for Jesus, the best works are a dying to our own self interests. A mother, for the glory of God, may have to sacrifice her relationship to her man in order to do what is best for her children, justice, and the cause of societal morality. Her good work may be to report her husband’s abuse to the police. Good works that are the fruit of sacrifice are the kind that cause men to glorify our Father in heaven.

Do you see the contrast? They glorify our Father in heaven, not the father here on earth or the man in mom’s life. The disturbing reality is that in cases of abuse in the church her man may be the pastor. Her pastor may not be the violator, but if she has the distinct impression that she could lose his favor she may be very inclined to cover for her man in order to keep the peace for a man that has become to her what her husband is not, a symbol of spiritual authority.

But she must act for the glory of God.

• Not only is biblical cross-bearing voluntarily sacrificing one’s interests for the glory of God, but it is directed for the good of the Church.

This has been one of the nuances of cross-bearing that I have found to help women find the courage to do what is right concerning their perpetrators, and mothers to do what is right concerning the abuser of their children. A woman must realize that a little bit of leaven, leavens the whole lump, as the Apostle says. Purity in the Church depends on evil being dealt with. The Church at large and society as a whole will never be able to stop the tidal wave of sexual abuse that is destroying children by the millions until many mothers, Christian mothers, realize that they need to kiss the security of their marriage goodbye for the glory of God and the good of the Church. Sin is sin is sin.

Christian homes are not exempt from Matthew 18. If a mother confronts her husband for a sin and he doesn’t repent, she must enlarge the circle of knowledge. Marriage is not allowed to have secret sins. But crime is different. The molestation of a child is not just a sin, by its very definition it is a crime against society. The mother has a moral duty before God and society to report her husband. Molesting a child is not a private sin between individuals; it is a crime, not just against the child, but against society. While the law does not make a mother a mandatory reporter, God does. And there are rare circumstances where this does not require significant sacrifice for the mother. In most cases it will devastate life as she knows it and could likely mean public testimony in courts and jail time for the man she thought was her Prince Charming.

I do not hold anger in my heart toward mothers that bear this horrible responsibility. But I plead with them to realize that the courage necessary to do the right thing is given to the disciples of Jesus. In fact, I would urge her to desist with an artificial moralism that elevates marriage above the law and morality. Marriage is not above morality. Marriage is within the confines of morality; and everything, including marriage, comes after Jesus.

Only the Gospel with all of the assurances of acceptance and love and healing can empower some mothers to rise above the curse of craving her man so much that she sacrifices her children to her idol. Only the Gospel can pour into her heart the love of God to the point that she needs nothing but to know that she is loved by God and thereby able to love others according to the will of God. Loving her children according to the will of God is to protect them and speak the truth even if it means to lose her man. Loving her man according to the will of God is to love him free of the curse.

*Yes, I’ve removed my original post about Dave’s article.

No, my feelings have not changed about it.

Yes, I was angry.

No, I am not yet persuaded that my anger was not righteous.

Yes, I know that I am a too-oft self-deluded sinner.

No, I do not have any concern whether or not the leadership within fundamentalism was offended by me.

Yes, my strongest feeling of anxiety this morning is that my outburst could possibly hurt the cause of the weak, the victims. It is that anxiety alone that compels me to withdraw my opinion about Dave’s piece at this moment.

No, I do not know how to influence the leadership within BJU fundamentalism if you are not one of the boys. Tears don’t work. Truth won’t work. Petitions don’t work. Angry posts won’t work.

Yes, I believe Dave is a very useful servant of my King Jesus.

No,  I do not think he is truly an independent thinker who will open his eyes to the real heart of the matter that makes thousands of non-signees wonder what leaders within BJU fundamentalism are actually going to PUBLICLY challenge Bob Jones.

Yes, I have no doubt that there are private appeals taking place, but every effort is given to show solidarity within a movement that is, as they say, not a movement and that is why you don’t see public denunciations of stupid choices from within the coterie of Bob Jones, NIU, DBTS, and affiliates unless it is Bob Jones rebuking one of them.

I apologize to all of you who are frustrated with the leadership, who love people within the movement as I do, and who do not hate its institutions. You are the ones that I care about for I am one of you. I do not apologize to the leadership of these places.

*I will heavily monitor comments on this post and not allow any that pile on Dave. I’ll reserve the right to bash on Dave on my blog to me. Also, I’ll reserve the right to decide who gets to bash on me on my blog. I usually don’t mind letting you people say your thing, but I don’t have the time to read/defend myself or Dave this week. So there.

This is especially true when the abuser was not another child, but an adult or authority figure with powers to intimidate and silence the victim.

Some women hold the dark truth in their souls year after year, holiday after holiday, church service after church service, in the very presence of the man who violated them. They see him honored, cheered, celebrated, and happy. Meanwhile, they fade. The truth infects their inner being. Sometimes they get inexplicably sick. Physically sick. Sometimes they start eating. Or not eating. Sometimes they start drinking. Sometimes they get cynical and disbelieving. Others get naive and spineless, stupidly following after every abusive man that gives them attention. Many times they try to seal off that compartment of reality, that dank closet of filthy memory, and pretend as if their lives are normal, innocent, and unviolated. How victims cope varies, but the one thing they have in common is a nasty secret shared with the abuser. A fact, a naked reality. A sharp truth.

But God did not make people to live with hidden truth and thrive. In the cosmic battle against Satan the issue at stake is the glory of God in the Church now. Satan knows that his destiny is sealed. He knows he has lost. He knows Christ has already made a public mockery of him on the cross (Col. 2:15). He also knows that God is getting glory from the Church now and magnifying His wisdom and glory now in and through the Church and therefore Satan fights against that present goal (Ephesians 3:10). Since he’s fighting against God’s glory in the Church now, it is imperative that we arm ourselves properly to participate in the Gospel goal of glorifying God now in the Church. And one element of that armor is factual truth. Paul’s “belt of truth” is not referring to abstract theological truth; it is referring to the facts.

No person can truly magnify the glory of God and enjoy the thrill of His exaltation when she is intimidated into concealing plain facts. Christian people, of all people, should be people who embrace the truth, the facts. There is no need to spin our past. We are who we are. And if we are anything useful it is because we are who we are by the grace of God. Am I proud of the fact that my own grandfather did jail time for sexually abusing small children? Of course not. Do I hide that fact? Not at all.

The reason I don’t hide the skeletons is because if the goal of God is the glory of God in the Church (all redeemed people) now, and if Satan is wrestling against that goal right now, then the reflection of that glory is in God’s trophies, trophies of grace. In fact, before the foundation of the world we were chosen for the praise of His glorious grace (Ephesians 1:6). Trophies of grace exalt God. If there is no sin, no ugliness, no weakness then there is no amazing grace. That is why Paul candidly said, “formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent” (1 Tim. 1:13). No need to hide the ugly roots. Not necessary to disguise my weakness. “I am what I am by the grace of God” (1 Corinthians 15:10).

The intense commitment many show to protect family and institutional reputation to the point of covering up the facts is to make ourselves more vulnerable to Satan’s relentless ambition to rob glory from God in the Church now. That is why in order to stand in the evil day we must fasten on the belt of truth, factual truth (Ephesians 6:10-18). The Gospel is only relevant in the sphere of reality. Christians who plug their ears and yell louder and louder to protect the reputation of their family and institution from the natural results of disclosed facts are people who have their sense of identity more in family and institution than in Christ. Wear the facts. Strap on the ugly truth. Nothing frustrates Satan more than a Christian who wears the facts about himself, his family, his school, his past, his nature. Because in so doing the Christian celebrates another indisputable fact: he is saved by grace and one with Christ who has already made a mockery of the Evil One on the cross and is now causing the universe to adore the skill and wisdom of God through a Church of messed up people.

However, the point of this post is to discuss something far more complex. What if the past is something intimately painful like a personally experienced molestation? What if the abuser is intimidating and threatening, forcing his victim to keep the secret? What if a boy or girl have already leaked out the truth, the facts, to other trusted people only to be dismissed, ignored, or — worse — rebuked? What do you counsel a woman who has been holding a secret about an abuser for years? What if the statute of limitations is up and there is no possible legal recourse anymore? What if the person tells you that when she was a little girl she was blamed by her pastor for causing her daddy to stumble? What if a woman unfolds her heart to you about horrible experiences that are so detailed and so plausible you know that she is giving you the truth but she panics and will not pursue a resolution or confrontation with the perpetrator? What do you say to a person who has already tried to get help from pastors and teachers only to sense an uncomfortable vibe from the ones that should be giving light?

I believe that your counsel must come down to this: Drink the poison or the truth will kill you.

In Numbers 5 there is a very bizarre trial by ordeal that is designed by God for women who are suspected of infidelity. In short, if a husband felt a “spirit of jealousy” he was permitted to bring his wife to the priest and make her go through a trial by ordeal that would prove whether or not she was innocent. She had to declare her innocence to the priest who verified that she understood the seriousness of the charge and the consequence of lying by having her repeat the solemn word “amen” twice. She then would drink poison. If she was innocent, she survived without harm. If she was guilty the “womb would swell and the thigh rot away.”

Before we investigate how I believe this applies to victims of sex abuse, it is necessary to address some questions about this weird trial by ordeal.

First, moderns as we are, we are appalled by the whole notion of trial by ordeal. Trial by ordeal is something that was done in, say, the Salem witch hunts. Some trials by ordeal would require that the suspected woman be bound to a chair that was weighted down by rocks and cast into the river. If she didn’t drown she was innocent! Hardly a recipe for justice. Scandalously unjust.

But it is the omnipotent and omniscient God who has designed this trial! Our Holy God specified the ritual. Furthermore, it seems so unfair that there is no trial by ordeal for husbands, likely cheaters as well, who are being suspected by their wives who may have a “spirit of jealousy.” How could this blatantly sexist discrimination be tolerated in a book we refer to as the Holy Word of God? Two thoughts about the purpose of this trial by ordeal here:

Thought #1 about the Trial by Ordeal in Numbers 5

1. The purpose for the Law was not primarily for civil justice, but to reveal the redemptive plan of Christ. The Law and the Prophets wrote about Christ, Jesus claimed (Luke 24:44). More succinctly stated, God communicated to the world redemptive truths not only in theological words, but with graphic illustrations that are recorded in God’s Word. One such illustration is the trial by ordeal in Numbers 5.

Throughout all of Scripture the relationship of God with His covenanted people is illustrated as one of a marriage in which God is the husband and His people are the wife. Thus, Gomer the prostitute wife of the prophet Hosea represents the covenanted people of God while Hosea represents God. The illustration in Numbers 5 suggests that it is the people of God, not God, who have a proclivity toward unfaithfulness and therefore there is no provision in the law for a woman with the mere suspicion of her husband’s infidelity to force him to a trial by ordeal. It has nothing to do with preferential treatment of men or the assumption that men are more faithful than women, or that it doesn’t matter if men are unfaithful. It is probably not a gender issue at all. It’s merely one more graphic illustration that God has given to the world of the nature of the relationship between mankind and God.

With this in mind the imagination cannot help but glory in the picture of a mediating priest who ministers the water of bitterness and declares the mind of God for the innocent woman if she is found to be innocent. More on that later.

Thought #2 about the Trial by Ordeal in Numbers 5

2. It is best to imagine the scenario in which this trial by ordeal may be called for in light of the Lawmaker’s self-description. In the Lawmaker’s first first-person self-description in the Law of Moses (Genesis thru Deuteronomy) He emphasized His gentle and loving character. Again, as you read this text, remember that this is the first self-description in the first person given by God about Himself in the Holy Word. I think this is an important interpretational point. It seems as if this is the first impression that God wants us to get about Himself. He defines Himself as,

“The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation” (Exodus 34:6-7).

Do you note the emphasis on love, grace, mercy, forgiveness? Do you see His resolute commitment to justice? Would this God who had the power to draw water out of a rock and separate the seas fail to vindicate an innocent woman who was going through a trial by ordeal? Would the poison hurt her if he intended to vindicate her? Is it possible that this trial by ordeal was actually a ritual given by a loving God to protect women instead of discriminating against them?

Imagine that you were falsely accused of something that you knew was not true about you. Imagine that God had ordained a trial by ordeal in which you were given the opportunity of proving your justice by being tied to a chair weighted down with rocks and thrown into the river. Imagine that you had an unshakeable confidence in both your innocence and in the omnipotence of your God. Imagine that you knew He would not fail, yea could not fail, on His commitment to prevent you from drowning. I think you would be happy to be vindicated by a trial by ordeal that Omnipotent and Just God had ordained.

The truth of the matter is that this trial by ordeal, if ever used, may have saved more lives of innocent women than if it had not existed at all. In the day it was no big deal to falsely accuse a woman of anything worthy of divorce. And divorce was easy. Once divorced, without dowry, and shamed a woman had no hope left at all. It doesn’t take much of an imagination to think that a woman, previously abused, might be discovered by her husband to not be a physical virgin. Nor does it take much imagination to see the poor woman fearful for her very existence, knowing that she is really innocent, casting all her hope on the fact that the God Who Sees will not let the poisonous water swell her belly and rot her thigh because the only option she has left to her is to drink to the last dregs the “water of bitterness.” Her husband and circumstances have dragged her to the priest for a trial by ordeal.

As I contemplate the nature of sexual abuse and sexual accusations, I can see how merciful it was of our gracious God to provide for the weakest people in society, women,  assurance that an accused woman could place her life in the hands of God’s mediators, the priests, hear his words of warning, solemnly protest her innocence, and with sober and resigned spirit drink to the bottom the chalice of poison. In faith she had to believe that God loved women.

Observations for Counseling Victims

While I cannot be certain of all the reasons for this trial by ordeal, I think there is some wise counsel to be derived from this for my readers who may be suffering with a dark secret. Let me enumerate them for you.

1. The truth will kill you. If you were a Hebrew woman, or a woman who had been captured to be the wife of a Hebrew, your very life depends on the integrity of your claims of virginity and innocence. There is no job for single women. There is no life for a woman outside of the protection of the man that is accusing her. In fact, his accusation, if believed, could result in your death or in your banishment from society. But you know that you are innocent. You know that physical evidence of your supposed non-virginity is because you were violated; not because you were unfaithful. But it is not enough to know this. It is not enough to say this. It is not enough to accuse your accuser or another man. You know a truth that will not be believed.

Because we are created in the image of God we are  incomplete unless we are believed. This is, of course, why people lie. No one lies to not be believed. Being believe empowers us. Being believed protects us. Being believed opens up doors of opportunities for us. In ancient times the man in power was the man who always had the benefit of the doubt. The man, for no other reason than that he was male, was believed. The woman, on the other hand, had to bear the burden of being unbelieved simply because she was a woman. Things were hard for women back then.

Or is it much different now? The most troubling commonality in the stories of victims of abuse is that they began to shrivel up and die inwardly simply because they were not believed. The harshest reality of sexual abuse is that the victims face an unbelieving society or a community unwilling to hear the facts. But as I said at the beginning of this article,

No person can truly magnify the glory of God and enjoy the thrill of His exaltation when she is intimidated into concealing plain facts.

Since the victim was created to glorify and enjoy God she (or he) longs to be able to glory in the gospel of God and enjoy the thrill of his exaltation by celebrating grace, but she (or he) has been forced to hold an evil fact and debased to the less-than-complete humanity of being unbelieved despite having a gruesome, indisputable, ever-present FACT that relentlessly dominates his (or her) worldview. And, as I stated before,

The Gospel is only relevant in the sphere of reality.

So, first observation: the truth will kill you. It will gnaw away at your soul because God made you, my dear brother or sister, to be believed. Your desire to be believed is because you are made in the image of God. You must deal with that fact, but you have to deal with it God’s way.

2. The second observation that I think we can glean from God’s trial by ordeal for accused women is this: God knows the facts. It was an abused woman who made this observation first. Hagar, so relieved that God saw her and knew the reality of her plight, worshipped God and gave Him a name we cherish. “So she called on the name of the LORD who spoke to her, ‘You are a God who sees me’” (Genesis 16:13). Hagar felt the grace of being believed by the God of Abraham. She – she! – had seen Abraham’s God! Read that verse again and imagine this helpless and abused woman shooed away from the camp for no other reason than that she had been sexually abused by Abraham and Sarah and now they didn’t want her around anymore. Read her words again:

So she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, ‘You are a God who sees me,’ for she said, ‘Truly I have seen him who looks after me (Genesis 16:13).

I can hardly help but weep when I imagine her joyful relief. She had seen the God who knew the facts. And He looked after her. And, ironically, it was Abraham’s God!

3. Thirdly, you need to see Hagar’s God. He is the same God that designed the trial by ordeal in Numbers 5. This God sees you. He saw your tragedy. He saw the time that trusted loved one became your violator. He has seen every detail. He knows every motive. There is not one ugly thing that He has not seen and yet Hagar’s God looks after you.

So many victims feel thrown out. Discarded. So many suffocate under a killing truth that stifles the life out of them because they don’t now if anyone will believe them. Tragically, some begin to think that even God Himself will not deign to look on them. Or they wonder if God has abused them. I have no doubt that some of my readers are going to know exactly what I am talking about and I want you to imagine that these words are for you and you alone: Hagar’s God is calling you and wanting you to see Him. You must by faith believe in the sovereignty of Hagar’s God and the fact that He knows everything. Yes, everything. There are no secrets with Hagar’s God.

4. Fourthly, there is only one way to meet Hagar’s God. That is to be dragged to the priest with your ugly secret. A priest is a mediator between man and God. The Scriptures tell us that now we do not have priests like the ones in the days of Moses. Instead, our priest today is “holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens” (Hebrews 7:26). It is Jesus, the image of the invisible God, Hagar’s God, the God who sees everything. The Hebrew Apostle, Paul, asserted this about Jesus: “There is one God”, — and we know that he speaks of Hagar’s and Moses’ God — “and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). Therefore, the only way to meet Hagar’s God is to trust the fact that though circumstances have been foisted upon you they are compelling  you to a mediator for ultimate vindication where Hagar’s God will stand by you.

I keep saying

The Gospel is only relevant in the sphere of reality.

This means that you will never be able to come to Jesus without bringing your secret. He will gently make you own your shameful secret so that you realize that He loves you as  you are. When an abused woman tried to be healed by Jesus while keeping her secret from Him, He stopped the throngs that were around Him and asked, “Who was it that touched me?”

And when the woman saw that she was not hidden,  she came trembling, and falling down before him declared in the presence of all the people why she had touched him, and how she had been immediately healed. And he said to her, Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace (Luke 8:43-48).

It is as if Jesus has provided a trial by ordeal to prove to you His unconditional love. He dares you to be so enamored with His attention and His affection that you are no longer victimized by your secret. He frees you to be who you are; hurt, damaged, abused, and wounded.

If you have not met the mediator between men and the God of Hagar. If you have not experienced the joyful relief of seeing the God who looks after you, come to Jesus. There must be no sweeter words in Scripture for the abused person than Jesus’ invitation:

Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light (Matthew 11:28-30).

Gentle and lowly. Easy. Rest. Is there not some irony that the only person that can give a victim of sexual abuse is the only mediator between man and God, the man Christ Jesus? But this man calls you to realize that not only does the perpetrator of those heinous things done to you need to be saved, but that you also are a sinner with no natural right to Abraham’s God, even as Hagar had no presumptions about Abraham’s God except to cry out for mercy. And yet this man invites you to recognize that your whole life of abuse has been an ordeal, a trial by ordeal, in which you are invited by faith to come into His presence and say, “I need you to vindicate me. Save me not only before God, but save me before men.”

Perhaps the most interesting part of Numbers 5 is that the woman, upon hearing the curse on unfaithful liars, is asked to say, “amen, amen.” This, to me, is fascinating. The first occurrence of this most popular Christian word appears in this bizarre setting, the setting of a woman dragged before the priest for a weird ritual of trial by ordeal in which God, and God alone, could prove her words to be true.

Did you know that the word “amen” which mean “so be it truly” is also one of the names of the man Christ Jesus?

And to the angel of the church in Laodicia write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation.

Your priest, Amen, calls all you people with dark secrets and the pain of being disbelieved to trust Him and in His name do the unthinkable:

5. Drink the poison. Put on the belt of truth. Wear the facts. Trust Jesus and find the courage to pursue justice. Not in vindictiveness. Not in bitterness. Not in retaliation. Pursue the exposure of the facts for the sake of God’s glory now.  You cannot live with your secret because you allow the abuser to live with his secret. His secret is more dangerous than yours. His secret is the kind that will be judged in the last day:

On that day, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus (Romans 2:16).

Your secret, forced upon you, is one that must be brought to light so that you can enjoy the glory of acceptance in Christ and the exaltation of the grace of God. Your abuser’s secret is his damnation. Jesus, the mediator between you and Hagar’s God, assures you by His unfailing love that He will not allow the process of “coming forward” to destroy your productivity. To use the Hebrew image, your belly will not swell and your thigh will not rot. Literally, you will still be able to have babies. Or, as I’m using it to illustrate the compassion of Christ for the weak, you will have a productive life.

This process of coming forward with your accusation is one of incredible importance. You must come forward with it. But you must have Gospel intentions. Please don’t be allured by the Cult of Self Empowerment and vengeance. Come to Jesus for healing and let Jesus give you the full confidence that there is nothing in your life that He has not seen and ordained for the glory of God. Let Jesus tell you that you cannot be –yea you do not want to be — hidden. Find disciples of Jesus who are open and joyful about who they are, skilled in advising, and embrace God’s trial by ordeal as your only means of escape.

Tell everyone why you come to Jesus. Be who you are without shame. Experience what it is like when Hagar’s God vindicates you and gives you the overwhelming joyful relief that He is watching out for you. And watch Jesus hold your hand while you drink the poison.

Drink the poison or the truth will kill you.

In the last few weeks, an environment has been created on the internet in which BJU is being criticized by some people unhappy with the University for having Dr. Chuck Phelps on our Cooperating Board of Trustees. Because of the increasing attention the criticism is receiving, we believe an answer is now prudent.

I am also signing and urging others to sign because Bob Jones University specifically chided critics with the admonishment:

We believe that the biblical way to approach this information is to get all the facts before judging Dr. Phelps or his actions, including going directly to him for answers to questions.

Clearly, they did not get all the facts. I asked Tina’s husband personally if the university had contacted them for her perspective. They had not. One would think that if you are going to rebuke critics on the basis of not getting all the facts that they would have gone to Tina for her angle of the story. Furthermore, they give a link to Chuck Phelps’ website which has the nakedly transparent goal of protecting his image, but they do not give links to numerous other sources that show any clear minded person that Phelps’ account is sometimes obviously spin. In righteous indignation I have decided that I would sin against my conscience if I did not speak up. Again. (I’ve spoken to this issue here, and here, and here, and here, and here and here.)

Actually, the posting of

The Position of Bob Jones University Regarding the Membership of Dr. Chuck Phelps on Its Cooperating Board of Trustees

is very encouraging to bloggers and internet activists, something I’m sure was not the intention of the university. This gave me hope that people are actually reading criticisms and so I’m returning to some blog activism. In the following remarks I’d like to explain why I was declining to sign the petition and now why I have decided to add my signature to the growing number of petitioners. Perhaps many of my readers have the same reasons for not signing as I had even though they are unhappy with the posture Bob Jones University has taken and desire to show full support for victims of sexual abuse. Perhaps my line of thinking will encourage them to speak up.

Reasons for NOT Signing

• “I don’t want to band with haters.” Let me be blunt: finding 1000 angry people online is no big feat. This is why I was astounded by the fact that Bob Jones University would advertise the internet activity as they did in their poorly written and unreasonable internet position statement concerning Chuck Phelps a few days ago. Quite honestly, they could have dismissed the resistance as “haters” and be smug about the relatively small number of actual online petitioners. I didn’t want to put my name on a useless list of haters, a number of which I recognize as flagrantly immoral and haters of me as well. However, there is a time for co-belligerency and I do not believe that the founder of the petition is a “hater,” yet it would matter little to me if she was at this point. This particular petition is right. I’ll explain later.
• “If I sign the petition I’d be endorsing factual inaccuracies.” I have not been persuaded by anything that I read that Bob Jones University was aware of the whole Tina Anderson affair prior to reinstating Chuck Phelps back on the board. Many of the “haters” are spinning it to appear as if Bob Jones watched the whole Tina Anderson affair and then appointed Chuck Phelps on the board as a show of solidarity with him in the face of victims of abuse and authoritarian systems. As far as I can tell, Phelps was reinstated immediately after he resigned from Maranatha Baptist Bible College and prior to the breakout of the story about Tina Anderson.

One has every right to question the wisdom of BJU having Phelps on the board after the news of Tina Anderson came out, but no one has the right to spin the story as if there was a calculated effort to thumb the nose at victims and critics in a show of solidarity by appointing Phelps to the board if that was not actually the case. So, I didn’t want to sign what seemed to be a misrepresentation of facts.

Now Bob Jones University has removed all doubt about expressing solidarity with Chuck Phelps despite his tragic mishandling of the Tina Anderson matter. It is a moot point whether that was the case or not at his reappointment. More on that later.

• “I have friends at the institution and on the board itself and I know that they are reasonable and concerned as I am about the whole Phelps issue.” This doesn’t apply to everyone, but it still applies to me. Since I have friends on the board who are getting my texts, emails, and also on the receiving end of a gazillion other emails from disturbed friends and angry haters about the situation, I thought I’d give them a break and let them sort it all out. I had reason to believe that they were going to hash out their position about Phelps and come to a sane decision. I trust my friends to know that they are telling me the truth so I was happy to not complicate my life by sitting back and watching the right thing unfold, knowing that good actions sometimes take time. All that was before  BJU published its statement just a week or so ago prior to the upcoming board meeting this coming weekend in which it was my understanding (assumption?) good men believed they would have an opportunity to voice their opposition to Chuck Phelps’ role on the board. It’s clear that the university administration pulled a fast one on the board by not allowing the board to voice itself on this matter in the face of a increasingly vocal opposition to Phelps’ role on the board.
• “My expressions online are to no effect and only causing me the further pain of being misrepresented as a ‘hater.’ Honestly, I’m losing friends over this. Siding with Tina (even though I don’t know her) has cost me some good friendship that I thought were solid. And the “haters” of Bob Jones University are not my friends either. Believe me, they’ve dropped me like an old pair of culottes because I don’t salivate over all their angry pontifications and sloppy handling of the facts. In other words, they are like the fundamentalists they hate: if you don’t kiss their butts and worship their ideology you’re a ‘hater’ to them. So, I don’t think I want to associate with either side. But my own writing on the subject only seems to be fodder to the “haters.” People that could actually make a difference would rather ignore a critic that actually has the ear of non-haters even though my little blog has had upwards of 2,500 hits in a single day when it comes to discussing issues like these. I was losing hope that anyone who could make a difference was actually paying attention.

However, as already noted, BJU acknowledged in its official statement that they are, in fact, hearing the internet chatter and it made me regret that I haven’t been mixing it up a little bit more. I have several articles on abuse, sex abuse, etc. and I plan to re-enter the blogosphere. Somebody is listening. I’ll try to have an influence no matter what the consequences.

• “I’m just one person. What difference does it make?” This is related to the above reason, but it’s more  general. With all of the cares that each of us has we truly wonder if one person can make a difference. This is actually a humble thought because the truth of the matter is that one person makes little difference. But we need to be humble and active because a little difference multiplied makes a huge difference.
• “I’m unaffiliated with the school. Wouldn’t this be like me signing a petition to remove the mayor of some small village in northern Uzbekistan?” I am only distantly affiliated. Heres’ the reality for me: I was born on that campus. I have relatives that have drunk the koolaid and love it. I have other relatives that are haters. I have relatives that are appalled that anything about BJU is questioned. I have other relatives that are on the list of 1000+ signees on the petition. I’m reasonably confident that some from both sides will read this post and both sides will be unhappy with my reasoning. But here’s the point: I’m not signing because of my affiliation with Bob Jones University. What the university chooses to do affects me little. I’m signing because I believe in acting upon the principle of ownership. If you’re fascinated by this story, you own it. Involve yourself.

Reasons for Signing the Petition

• I believe that it is time to demand that institutions take the issue of the sexual abuse of minors so seriously that even the innocent mishandling of the sexual abuse of a minor should be severely censured. 

I’m signing because I believe in acting upon the principle of ownership. If you’re fascinated by this story, you own it. Involve yourself.

In this village if you saw something you were not supposed to see you looked the other way.

What does illiteracy mean for Christian development? Robinson makes this indisputable point:

It means that young people are not being taught to know God intimately and grow in their relationship with Him. After all, mature Christians frequently point to the Bible for revelations of our faith. We point to the Bible for those who desire to know God. The Bible is a book that consists of various genres of literature: narratives, poetry, similes and metaphors, allegory, and other types of figurative language that are not all accurately interpreted in the same manner.

And then she wonders exactly what I’ve been wondering:

I wonder what would happen in this country if the church rose to lead the charge to provide educational options. What would happen if churches spent money to build and resource more schools to support free Christian education instead of building bigger sanctuaries for themselves? Or what would happen if those same churches with resources bought buses to bring students to their churches and financially support a tutoring ministry for the children who need it?

What would happen if the homeschool moms decided to also homeschool a child who lives across the tracks or across the bridge? If they had the same concern for their neighbor’s children as they do for their own?

What would happen if Christian men made this injustice a priority? Or if housewives, stay-at-home moms, singles and widows, unemployed and part-time workers, and retirees committed their time and resources to tutoring youth in the neighborhoods where the schools are failing? There is more than enough work for all of us to do.

I wonder if the church stood up, would we continue to see a lost generation of children whose lives of struggle are sure to end in poverty, prostitution, jail, unhealthy relationships, or homelessness? I wonder if any of this matters to the church.

I don’t have the time to blog lately, but occasionally I read some. I strongly dislike bad argumentation and Mark Driscoll, the most fundamentalist-like of all the popular guys out there defends MMA (I neither defend or condemn it at this point) with a typical straw man argument, the likes of which I heard in my growing up years in narrow fundamentalism. Notice this glaring example:

Some Christians will vocally declare that we must reject MMA. Sometimes it’s because they simply do not understand the nature of the sport and misperceive it, and other times it’s because they are pacifists theologically who don’t condone violence in any form. Their picture of Jesus is basically a guy in a dress with fabulous long hair, drinking decaf and in touch with his feelings, who would never hurt anyone. The problem is that Jesus probably had short hair (1 Corinthians 11 says it was a disgrace in that day for a man to have long hair), was in good shape from a labor job and lots of walking across rugged terrain, and upon his return will come again not in humility but rather in glory. Revelation 19:11–18 explains that day saying. . .

Furthermore, not only will I champion the sideshow, but I’ll ridicule anyone that disagrees with me by pretending that this idiotic notion of Jesus is the best thing they’ve got to offer. I will not give the argument of a former MMA fighter. Especially since he punches me in the mouth.

How ironic, Mark. You want to promote manliness by foisting the MMA on everyone, but you compile a straw man and puff your chest out as if you’ve got a double pair of balls. You’re so tough because you watch it. I want to be like you when I grow up. Oh, wait! I am grown up. And though I don’t have thousands of sheep that I have to give an answer to God for, I still don’t have the time to write an apologia for games that bothers some Christians. Grown-ups have little time for hobbies; and grown-ups with lots of responsibility have even less time. Maybe when I become a mega church pastor (which I weirdly thought assumed more responsibility) and have a following of thousands of pastors who have a man crush for me I will finally get the time to write a scathing critique of anyone that doesn’t appreciate the finer points of rugby. But right now,  I’m just a normal guy pastor that kind of thinks that my freedom to play or watch certain games shouldn’t be front and center in my ministry so that I don’t unnecessarily trip up people; a girly idea I got from the Apostle Paul while reading his epistles once. What a wuss he was.

Come on, Mark. Real men actually prefer to fight their match. They don’t think it’s cool to beat up on the nerd with crutches. Why don’t you be a real man and deal with real arguments if you are so earnest about championing the MMA?

For what it’s worth, I couldn’t care less what people decide about the MMA, but it galls me to no end when pastors decide to “play the man” by being bullies. It’s reprehensible that a man can be so erroneous in his argumentation that he not only misrepresents his opponents, but he misrepresents the misrepresentation of his opponents! Driscoll not only erroneously pretends that most opponents of MMA are pacifist (simply not a fact), but he also misrepresents pacifists!

Theologically-minded pacifists had/have no illusions of a feminine Jesus. Nor did the politically-activist pacifists. I can assure you that Martin Luther King, Jr. did not think of a feminine Jesus. In my reading of “The Dagger and the Cross: An Examination of Christian Pacifism” by the late Baptist pacifist Culbert Rutenber, I saw no indication whatsoever of a feminine and weak Jesus. Ironically, pacifists look forward with more conviction than most to the coming of the glorious, kick-butt Lord with the Sword in His mouth that Driscoll pretends to represent best with his gascon frothing that intimidates only the illiterate barbarians of Western America. Unlike Driscoll in this case,  many Christian pacifists also have the testicular fortitude to deal with real arguments in a real tough arena, the arena of crime, bomb-packing terrorists, violence-drunk entertainment, and gun-toting libertarians with neo-conservative hawks in places of power. And celebrity Preacher Mans.

Driscoll sneers at the silly people that think of Jesus as someone “in touch with his feelings, who would never harm anyone” as if those of us who actually believe that the words “harmless” and “sympathize” are words associated with Jesus, our High Priest (Hebrews 7:21; 4:15) are androgynous boy toys that are afraid of breaking a nail. But it’s bullies that fight like pansies. And Driscoll fights like a pansy here. It is granted that “harmless” does not mean “never hurt anyone” and that, in fact, Jesus will someday soon lay a whole lot of hurt on people. However, it’s lame to pretend that a call to non-violence is a weakling’s whimpering fear of a black eye. I for one am not afraid to get punched in the mouth if necessary, but I’m also not afraid to tell a big name preacher he sounds stupid and is off track. Driscoll is out of his league when it comes to real men making real arguments about almost anything of real importance. And the MMA is not one of those real important things.

Meanwhile, we Christians are supposed to idealize the messianic ministry of the Prophet who was “gentle and lowly” (Mt. 11:29) and the Priest who served like a lamb led to the slaughter and when reviled, did not revile back (1 Pt. 2:23). The Kingly role of putting everyone under His feet is not ours to share. Being manly enough to smack down religious leaders who detract from the Cross work of Jesus with belittling and insulting argumentation that not only misrepresents their Christian brethren but castrates Christian dignity is a Jesus-like thing to do too (Mt. 23).

Of course, with the hordes of Driscoll groupies, I have lost my man credentials because by merely disagreeing with Mark on the cultural benefits of MMA to American Society I worship a guy in a dress. Mark said so. And he said so with his shirt unbuttoned and this, like, really cool bling. So there.  Besides, in his official “Christian evaluation” of — and evangelistic tract for – MMA that’s how he, as the Young Calvinists’ pop-pastor, represented the presumably best arguments there must be against his hobby. After all, wouldn’t a real man with real courage and real integrity seeking real unity lay out the real arguments against his thesis? Wouldn’t real arguments constitute a “Christian evaluation” from a nationally known leader in the Coalition of Gospel Defenders?

Instead we get a boyish anticipation of the next thing on TV.

After presenting the supposed reasons for why anyone would oppose MMA (he gives two suggestions that are lame) and dismantling them with condescending scorn and the tone of scholarly superiority, Mark then promotes the fact that there are many sincere Christians in MMA. This part of his argument begins this way:

“Many Christians are involved in MMA as their conscience dictates.”

Mark, are you for real? That’s an argument? That qualifies as a legitimate evaluation of anything? If you call that an argument with any kind of punch, prepare to be knocked out by this roundhouse kick: Many Christians are pacifists as their conscience dictates.

Boo-yah! Tap out, my man! I just declared the validity of a line of thinking by saying that Christians do it! I don’t need to actually evaluate pacifism, let me simply just give a brief summary of what it is and then knock you out with this unassailable argument: Christians do it. In fact, I’ll name a few. I have actually talked several times with some!

I speak as a fool. Of course, many Christians are also involved in premarital sex as their conscience dictates. And mega-ministries. And church. Mark is a preacher talking about things he needs to keep to himself. He’s starting to sound too much like the unchallenged Preacher Man with no accountability.

What floors me is why former fundamentalists drool all over this guy? Didn’t you get enough of this pulpit machismo in fundamentalism? Didn’t guru worship sicken you when you were among the fundies? Weren’t you tired of hearing chest-beating and huffing and puffing that blew down huge straw fabrications of the other view before the adoring “amens” of the star-struck sheep? Don’t bother to answer me. You give the same answers the Jack Hyles people gave.

I’m serious.

Mark needs somebody in the Gospel Grouphuggers Coalition to get in the proverbial cage with him and give him a licking that makes him humbly tap out. He’s an evangelist of the Gospel that has been used by our Lord. He needs to desist the evangelism of a sport, even if that sport is the genteel sport of croquet.

It won’t happen.

Ain’t nobody man enough.

Actually, I like James MacDonald and since I minister in his shadow it behooves me to say nice things about him lest I get squashed like a boiled peanut in a room full of elephants, a simile that really makes little sense to me except that MacDonald’s farm includes an Elephant Room and I’ve heard elephants like peanuts, albeit not boiled. Anyway, at this point I couldn’t care less if Perry Noble lied or didn’t lie. Nor do I mind that MacDonald wanted to promote a more charitable analysis of Perry Noble’s alleged lie. I’m cool with charity.

The point that compelled me to opine as commenter #96 (?) was ridiculously overused arguments in defense of Noble’s strategy to “tick” off the religious with overtly irreligious behavior. So ho-hum. Cliché. Intellectually juvenile. The elephant in the room that needs to be discussed is lousy critical thinking.

For now I’ll just post the comment as I left it on James’ blog without the necessary modest emendations.

I don’t mind defending a guy or at least trying to stem the tide of rash judgments that are made about a person even if the guy is a whacko. I appreciate it and admire this part of what you did, James.

What I don’t get is the very traditional (irony alert) use of Jesus infuriating the Pharisees as a justification for ***ing off religious people. That defense is so overused it bores me. The fact of the matter is, it’s apples and oranges. Jesus did, in fact, offend religious people. But he did it with righteousness. Light offends darkness. Purity scandalizes demons. And there were also a great deal of religious pharisees that actually did come to Jesus, not offended, because they knew he not only was a teacher from God but that he kept the law (i.e. Nicodemus).

Even when Jesus ate with the Publicans and sinners (a passage American evangelicals love to use in defense of their worldliness), the record is clear that those around the table with him were already followers of Jesus. The discussion was all about Him. The theme was Jesus. The conversation was Jesus. He wasn’t hanging out with them cracking lewd jokes and conjuring up ways to **** the Pharisees.

Paul, the Apostle, did not want to unnecessarily offend the Pharisees. In Romans 10 he commends them for their zeal even though he is sad that they are ignorant of the righteousness of Jesus. In Acts his conscience seems to have been bothered by the fact that he stirred up a controversy between the Pharisees and Sadducees. He deliberately made efforts to avoid scandalizing the “religious” unnecessarily. On the occasions when he did, it was to make a very solid Gospel message and it was not the usage of anything that is objectively of the flesh. “The works of the flesh are manifest (obvious)”, he said, and if there is occasion when he upset the Pharisees it was on something obviously not of the flesh.

It takes a great deal of charitable blindness to think that Perry’s song choice is not manifestly “of the flesh” since per Paul’s list, the song promotes everything that is manifestly ‘of the flesh.’ Clearly, you do not defend his song choice, but you cannot be irritated by commenters who charge you for defending Perry’s song choice when you equate his desire to anger the religious to the heart of Jesus. He could have shown a pornographic video clip and that would have angered them as well.

The brutal reality is that a person cannot claim to have the heart of Jesus “agains the religious” while not also having the heart of Jesus for the irreligious. The whole NT shows what Jesus thinks about the kind of song Perry listens to. How can someone with the heart of Jesus even work out to that? And if a person can ignore the heart of Jesus listening to the trivialization of hell in music (a subject that grieved Jesus), is it not reasonable that people question if he has the heart of Jesus toward the religious?

Certainly you must be able to understand what I’m trying to say.

Finally, I’m religious. The anti-religious fervor of American evangelicals is another boring cliche. Religion simply means to believe in the supernatural and answer to a higher being. That defines me. And you. And we want pure and undefiled religion.

Pharisaical religion would get offended by Perry’s antics. Pure and undefiled religion would as well. To judge all religious people and their grievances the same is too simplistic even for American evangelicals. Or should be.

I appreciate most of what you say and do, James. I really do.

Sincerely,
A devoutly religious brother.

I tried to frame our thinking of it within the framework that was an actual reality for the Pharisees and disciples: they were talking with the King of kings and Lord of lords about the matter! I think there are four results consequently:

1. Humble discussion with the King on any topic tunes our hearts to love His purposes.
2. Humble discussion with the King on any topic prevents our minds from finding refuge in wrong thinking.
3. Humble discussion with the King on any topic convicts us of the error of our ways.
4. Humble discussion with the King on any topic empowers us to receive His word on the matter because He gives grace to the humble.