morality

biblical worldview, immorality, judge not, morality, putnam, society

The plague of non-judgmentalism

Posted on September 23, 2022September 23, 2022 by elizabethprata

By Elizabeth Prata

I saw an essay by Gene Veith, titled “Class, children, & the social costs of nonjudgmentalism.”

The Veith title and the essay itself is based on the work of Robert Putnam, “a very important social scientist”, who has written a new book called Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis. It deals in part with what happens to a society that refuses to hold anyone else to a moral standard. The collapse of moral standards (in the face of unwillingness to call out bad behavior and set expectations for good behavior) is causing a crisis among families. We do feel sympathy for latchkey kids, abused kids, families split, drug culture ruining lives. NY Times columnist David Brooks opined about “Our Kids”,

But it’s increasingly clear that sympathy is not enough. It’s not only money and better policy that are missing in these circles; it’s norms. The health of society is primarily determined by the habits and virtues of its citizens. In many parts of America there are no minimally agreed upon standards for what it means to be a father. There are no basic codes and rules woven into daily life, which people can absorb unconsciously and follow automatically.

Reintroducing norms will require, first, a moral vocabulary. These norms weren’t destroyed because of people with bad values. They were destroyed by a plague of nonjudgmentalism, which refused to assert that one way of behaving was better than another. People got out of the habit of setting standards or understanding how they were set.

I am familiar with Putnam’s work, most notably his 2001 book Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.

I referenced Putnam’s earlier work from Bowling Alone in a blog essay, Churching Alone: The Collapse of American Churches. I’d written about the lack of a thriving biblical presence in communities, the Christian parallel to what Putnam had been saying about civic responsibility in his 2001 book. However, his new book “Our Kids” actually touches on the Christian relativism, ‘judge not’ mentality problem even more insightfully, albeit unknowingly. There IS a cost to relativism that affects both the secular society AND the biblical church. Let’s see from the Bible what the cost to the church is when it sinks into ‘non-judgmentalism.’

We see that clearly in the letter from Jesus to the Church at Thyatira. The church there had refused to set moral, biblical standards. Jesus was angry that they were tolerating sin. They were too tolerant, just like the ‘judge not!’ crowd screeches at the Christian who attempts to set biblical standards of morality. We all know Jesus did not mean for that to become a cover for their own immoral behavior.

The church at Thyatira was commended for being loving, faithful, having a service-oriented attitude, and for their perseverance. They were the only church to be so heartily praised in such a wide range of attitudes. (Revelation 2:18-19)

The problem at Thyatira was that they were tolerating a false prophetess. They were tolerant. This false prophetess, metaphorically named Jezebel, was declared to be leading the Thyatirans to idolatry, apostasy and infidelity (of the Lord).

Being busy, serving, loving, and persevering is not enough, if sin is allowed to take hold. The situation was so serious, Jesus promised that unless the Jezebel false prophetess repented and her followers with her, He would —

–throw her onto a sickbed,
–and those who commit adultery with her He will throw into great tribulation,
–and He will strike her children dead. (Revelation 2:20-23)

THAT is how seriously Jesus takes sin in the church. Tolerant love is no love at all, if it includes allowing false wolves to lead people away from Jesus.

Within the church, failure to set a moral standard based on His word brings death, either through the wages of sin or via direct intervention from Jesus. Outside the church, even secular people wonder about the long-term effects of a general lack of agreed-upon moral standards, as Mr Brooks stated in his NY Times article here,

People sometimes wonder why I’ve taken this column in a spiritual and moral direction of late. It’s in part because we won’t have social repair unless we are more morally articulate, unless we have clearer definitions of how we should be behaving at all levels.

Yet of late, the rapid decline in morality has occurred precisely because of a general refusal- in the church and out- to define morality and to stick by the standards. It must be acknowledged that in order to function effectively, a society needs to have moral standards, and these standards need to be agreed upon. Where does on obtain a moral standard? They ALL originally came from God.

At no time in any epoch and at no place upon the earth did all people ever agree on the truth…but enough people agreed so that the false ones felt pressure to conform at least superficially to the moral standards the bulk of society lived out. Now, since no one agrees even upon the basics, such as ‘what is marriage?’, it’s a free-for-all.

Yes, failure to “judge” immoral behavior in the church angers Jesus. That was a problem in Corinth. Paul charged the Corinthians for failing to specifically articulate a moral standard about incest and adultery. A man had his father’s wife, and all the church AND the pagans knew it. (1 Corinthians 5:1). The Corinthians ‘did not judge,’ and the problem grew scandalous and destroyed their witness. Failure to live by Christian boundaries then leaks over into the world, where even the peer pressure to even pretend to be moral declines and eventually evaporates. Pretty soon, the tipping point is reached where no one will stand up for any standard at all, and all is deemed good and acceptable.

We are called to be a holy people so as to be pure for Jesus and to be an example to the people of the world. (Romans 11:13-16; 1 Corinthians 10:33). A young Christian lady who remains a virgin is committing a moral act, all the brighter for the darkness that surrounds her. A married Christian man who doesn’t look at porn, or tell dirty jokes at work, is committing a moral act. Couples who stay together and don’t divorce are performing a radical, moral act.

In a healthy society, social morality is comparatively “thick.” One consequence of the cultural revolution of the 1960s was a weakening, a thinning out, of social morality. The result is that the standards of right and wrong are reduced to the minimalist test of whether a particular action is legal. This is an unthinkable degradation of standards from the America of earlier periods, when society assumed that an individual’s moral responsibilities encompassed far more than merely observing the law. The decline in social morality and the rise of legalism are illustrated in Figure 1.2 below. (Source)

Christians who speak out against sins like fornication, homosexuality, divorce, gossip, anger, impetuousness, fiscal irresponsibility … are doing Christ’s work by pointing to His moral lines He has set. Further, as Putnam said, we need a moral vocabulary. In the Christian world, call sin as sin, not a mistake, or a stumble. It is up to us to set the lines and stay behind them, because we know where they are.

–we have an absolute line, it does not move nor does it change with the culture. Share it.
–call sin what it is: sin. Use the word.
–call it out in the church. When Ananias and Sapphira were killed by Jesus on the spot for being hypocrites and liars, all who heard of it feared greatly. The church grew. (Acts 5:1-10, Acts 6:1). Paul opposed Peter to his face. (Galatians 2:11). Peter called out Simon the magician and exhorted him to repent. (Acts 8:20).
–live morally in the world. We are meant to be the Light in the world, our own sin and non-judgmental tolerance doesn’t help anyone. Tolerating sin dims our Light.

Non-judgmentalism has a cost. Yes, we are living in a time that is pretty bad, morally speaking. Perhaps even worse than the well known immorality of the Corinthians lived among. Pastor Phil Johnson thinks so. I do too.

Again, as Mr Brooks said in his review of Putnam’s book,

The health of society is primarily determined by the habits and virtues of its citizens…They were destroyed by a plague of nonjudgmentalism, which refused to assert that one way of behaving was better than another.

My son, if you receive my words
and treasure up my commandments with you,
2 making your ear attentive to wisdom
and inclining your heart to understanding;

Then you will understand righteousness and justice
and equity, every good path;
10 for wisdom will come into your heart,
and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul;

(Proverbs 2:1-2, 9-10)

adultery, discernment, morality, pastor, tullian tchividjian

Fallen pastors can still lead: here’s how

Posted on June 26, 2015May 9, 2016 by elizabethprata

When a pastor or elder falls, it affects all of us and it hurts because it is such a reproach onto Jesus. I understand the pressures and the temptations, and that we are all standing on the same blood-soaked ground and it could happen to any of us. But Pastors are held to a higher standard (James 3:1) for a lot of reasons, one of which is that he is supposed to lead by example. (1 Corinthians 9:27, 1 Timothy 3:2).

A pastor who fails the doctrinal, moral and behavioral purity expected in 1 Timothy 3:2-7 disqualifies himself and he may not lead a flock again. He may be restored to fellowship, he may be forgiven if showing repentance, but not restored to leadership. He destroyed his integrity and that leadership kind of trust cannot be regained.

So what do I mean when I say a fallen pastor may still lead? He can lead by showing a good example of how to handle himself biblically in the aftermath of his scandal.

A fallen pastor can still lead by example in the aftermath by choosing to be spiritually mature, displaying honest repentance, sorrow, humility and a servant-like attitude. And not just the kind of sorrow that is sorry he got caught! We can tell the difference, you know. He can be honorable in showing how to honor Jesus while he is attempting to emerge from the sin by taking the expected biblical actions expeditiously and honestly. He can actively ask for forgiveness for his sin, and doesn’t call it anything else.

My issue with Tullian Tchividjian in the recent adultery scandal is two-fold. It’s not just that he fell, which is sad and a reproach, but that he continues to fail- this time in displaying how to humbly handle the fallout.

First, let us examine his press release statement to The Washington Post. A press release/statement given to the media in advance of or during a scandal is always a well-thought out, carefully constructed piece of writing. Mr Tchividjian did not make this statement verbally, under pressure, off the cuff, or any other way we can say was spontaneous and thus can be taken with a grain of salt. Apparently Mr Tchividjian had been struggling for months in leading his family. He had met with his elders several times and had met with another (famous) pastor who was flown in for counseling. Tchividjian apparently had not revealed his own adultery at that time but only days later when specifically confronted. This is what he released to the public:

“I resigned from my position at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church today due to ongoing marital issues. As many of you know, I returned from a trip a few months back and discovered that my wife was having an affair. Heartbroken and devastated, I informed our church leadership and requested a sabbatical to focus exclusively on my marriage and family. As her affair continued, we separated. Sadly and embarrassingly, I subsequently sought comfort in a friend and developed an inappropriate relationship myself. Last week I was approached by our church leaders and they asked me about my own affair. I admitted to it and it was decided that the best course of action would be for me to resign. Both my wife and I are heartbroken over our actions and we ask you to pray for us and our family that God would give us the grace we need to weather this heart wrenching storm. We are amazingly grateful for the team of men and women who are committed to walking this difficult path with us. Please pray for the healing of deep wounds and we kindly ask that you respect our privacy.”

In his press release he chose to call his act an “inappropriate relationship,” not what it was: adultery, (1 Corinthians 7:2, Matthew 5:27-28) or at the least, a “sinful relationship”. They separated, which is not biblical. He blamed His wife (a la Genesis 3:12). He used the passive tense for his resignation (“It was decided”), thus distancing himself from the decision by linguistic deflection. You just might as well say “Mistakes were made.” Then there were all the “woe is me” tweets and activity on social media, indicating a lack of humility in being mindful of how he hurt his church, his wife, his readers, and his Savior. His focus should have been on Jesus, and his wife, not himself.

In my own world, this is the kind of statement I’d love to see a fallen leader make.

I resigned from my position at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church today due to my sin of adultery. As many of you know, recently I informed our church leadership of my ongoing martial issues and had requested a sabbatical to focus exclusively on my marriage and family. Subsequent to that time, I wrongly chose to seek comfort from another woman. Last week I confessed this to my church leaders. I know that I have harmed my marriage, my church, and most of all my Savior. I failed the moral standard and I now step down, knowing I can no longer lead by example. I am heartbroken over my sinful actions and I seek your forgiveness for this hurt I’ve done to our church, my family, and to the name of Jesus Christ. I ask you to pray for us and our family. I know that that God gives us the grace we need to weather this heart wrenching storm, a storm of my own making. We are amazingly grateful for the team of men and women who have counseled us. I thank them for their love, diligence, and example during this time.”

Instead, we get drama.

Mr Tchividjian is playing the grace card here.

Oh, such dramatics…

And on Facebook-

No you don’t have to be perfect, but you do have to be above reproach.

There were some other tweets and Facebook comments. I didn’t post them all. Absent from any of his public statements was asking for forgiveness. This is significant.

Falling into sin is one issue, how you handle it after exposure is another. So it is a #fail on two levels, he failed to lead by moral example in purity by remaining above reproach, and Tchividjian failed to lead in being an example of humble repentance afterwards.

When I was doing research on the rampant plagiarism from pulpits, I came across a 2006 report in the Christian Index of a Georgian pastor who plagiarized few times. Plagiarizing is a disqualifying offense, just as adultery is. Here is the CI account (the page at the Christian Index has gone dead, or I’d link to it).

One misstep can be disastrous. Consider the case earlier this year of a mid-Georgia pastor who was struggling under stress of personal problems and had trouble focusing on weekly sermon preparation. Over a six-week period he preached several sermons verbatim without giving attribution. When confronted he confessed and shared his problems and asked forgiveness from the church. It was not an act of laziness but pure survival, he maintained, trying to hold his ministry together in the face of seemingly insurmountable difficulties. While the church apparently extended the forgiveness, the pastor did feel his ministry had been severely damaged and resigned from the church.

He is an honorable pastor. He explained why he did it, he didn’t make excuses, he did the honorable thing, the biblical thing, and resigned. He had integrity in understanding he had fallen below reproach, didn’t blame his wife or whoever his personal problems were with, didn’t go on a drama ride on social media saying woe is me, he asked forgiveness, and he resigned. I’d be likely to trust this man much more than I would Mr Tchividjian.

Any fallen leader can lead by example, from a biblically advised position of repentance that’s genuine, honoring Christ above all, taking responsibility without blame-shifting, and stepping down without fuss, drama, or a fight. Go quietly, humbly, knowing that-

we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:15)

—————————

Further reading

(UPDATED) Tullian Tchividjian: It’s not the celebrity pastor, megachurch model that is the problem

culture, jenner. dolezal, morality, prophecy, woe

Jenner and Dolezal, evil is good and good is evil, Isaiah’s warning hovers over America

Posted on June 14, 2015May 9, 2016 by elizabethprata

There have been multiple news stories regarding these three issues depicted in the panorama below. I saw the photo on twitter and it sparked something in my mind from the book of Isaiah. The original photo was a quartet but I cut the fourth photo from the array because it was political and not moral.

Any mature Christian with eyes in their face and a brain cell left in their head can see the astounding moral decay here in America that is accelerating at breakneck speed. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President Albert Mohler responded to this question recently in this article: Albert Mohler on How to Survive a Moral Revolution

How did in the span of a generation an entire moral understanding in North America become reversed? And how did this moral revolution happen so fast?

Mohler: We’ve never experienced anything like this. . . . And the bottom line is that no part of the culture is going to be left untouched. . . . We haven’t had any moral revolution on this scale in human history.

“Reversed” is a good way to put it. Everything is upside down and it did happen fast, in my lifetime. Words have no meaning anymore, especially words that are attached to what used to contain any semblance of a moral philosophy, never mind moral absolutes. Growing up we never dreamed that a man would identify as a woman and a white lady would identify as a black person.

If Rachel Dolezal isn’t black how is Caitlyn Jenner a woman?

Spokane NAACP president Rachel Dolezal, a professor of Africana Studies at Eastern Washington University, was outed earlier this week by her parents as being white. In what has to be one of the more bizarre news stories of 2015, Dolezal pretended for years to be black. Social media accounts posted pictures of a black man who she said was her father (he’s not). She regularly wrote about her black son Izaiah (he’s actually her adopted brother). It also appears as though she repeatedly lied about being the victim of race-based hate crimes. She claims to have been the victim of at least nine separate hate crimes. As you might expect, this story has gotten a lot of attention, namely because Dolezal isn’t black.

NAACP is the acronym for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Not the National Association for the Advancement of White People Pretending to Be Black. But for Dolezal, for years she claimed to be Black because she wanted to be Black.

Elizabeth Warren is the Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, formerly a Professor at Law with Harvard Law School. “Starting in the mid-1980s, when she was at U. Penn. Law School, Warren had put herself on the “Minority Law Teacher” list in the faculty directory of the Association of American Law Schools but dropped from that list when she gained tenure at Harvard in 1995” as it states in the Elizabeth Warren Wiki. It was Bloggers and Reporters that uncovered Warren’s 30-year history of claiming to be Native American for employment purposes. For 30 years Elizabeth Warren claimed to be Native American because she wanted to be Native American.

Bruce Jenner was an Olympian and is currently a television celebrity who decided he wanted to appear as a woman. In June 2015 he began using makeup and clothing that women wear to alter his appearance, and insisted on being called by a female name and using female pronouns. Bruce has undergone some minor cosmetic surgery but not the drastic gender reassignment surgery which removes his male appendage. (Which would render him a eunuch but not a woman). He began hormone therapy in the 1990s but stopped that when he got married for the third time. Jenner professes Christianity. Now Jenner claims to be a woman because he wanted to be a woman.

There really is no difference between the three. One White woman who wanted to be Black, one White woman who wanted to be Native American, and one man who wanted to be a woman. It’s simply about lying and personal desire. Of course, the culture awards the sexual perversity in Jenner but slams the lies from the other two.

The Federalist poses the question:

Rachel Dolezal changing her wardrobe, her makeup, and her hair do not make her black. Pretty much everyone seems to agree on that, for obvious reasons. You don’t turn red into blue by magically declaring that red is now blue. And yet, the Left and the media would have us believe that Bruce Jenner can become a woman by…changing his name, his wardrobe, his makeup, and his hair. How can you logically square the belief that Jenner is a hero while Dolezal is a mental case? Well, you can’t.

It’s also about re-defining words. White, black, woman, man, marriage, Christian… none of those words contain a commonly understood moral definition to them anymore.

In Isaiah 5, the prophet declares 6 woes against God’s unrepentant people, Israel. The fourth woe is this one-

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20)

MacArthur puts it this way-

The fourth woe condemned the reversal of morality that dominated the nation. They utterly confused all moral distinctions.

Did you catch that? A “reversal of morality.” Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible says,

Who confound and overthrow the distinctions between moral good and evil, who call evil good and moral evil (v. 20), who not only live in the omission of that which is good, but condemn it, argue against it, and, because they will not practise it themselves, run it down in others, and fasten invidious epithets upon it—not only do that which is evil, but justify it, and applaud it, and recommend it to others as safe and good

The woe was pronounced specifically to Israel through the prophet from God. However we know God’s attributes of holiness and justice commands us to adhere to His laws and precepts, and He is not happy with any nation that turns them over. He sent Jonah to preach to the gentile city of Nineveh for the same reason. (Jonah 1:2). And against Damascus (Isaiah 17:10) and against Egypt (Isaiah 19:1). And against Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim. And against Babylon. And against every city and every nation that is wicked. So, yes, the Lord would be angry with America for reversing His morality.

Bible Knowledge Commentary–

Some people lead others astray by their perverted values. Evil-for example, adultery, idolatry, materialism, murder, and many other sins forbidden in the Scriptures-is often held up as being good. Those who say such things are under the threat (woe) of God’s judgment.

Roy E. Gingrich says in his outline on the Book of Isaiah,

Sin sears our conscience (Ephesians 4:19; 1 Timothy 4:2) and destroys our moral nature, leaving us confused concerning what is true and what is false, and what is right and what is wrong.

We see the effects of sin-seared consciences in the New Testament in Romans 1:18-32. Once God’s truth is suppressed in unrighteousness in verse 18, the slide down to complete moral decay is inevitable by verse 32. If there is such a thing as the bottom of the barrel, we’re there. America is sliding around in the muck and sludge at the very bottom, calling good evil and evil good. Woe.

biblical worldview, immorality, judge not, morality, putnam, society

The plague of non-judgmentalism

Posted on March 13, 2015May 9, 2016 by elizabethprata

Interesting that yesterday I wrote about the “judge not!” crowd. Today I saw on my twitter stream a new essay by Gene Veith, titled “Class, children, & the social costs of nonjudgmentalism.”

But it’s increasingly clear that sympathy is not enough. It’s not only money and better policy that are missing in these circles; it’s norms. The health of society is primarily determined by the habits and virtues of its citizens. In many parts of America there are no minimally agreed upon standards for what it means to be a father. There are no basic codes and rules woven into daily life, which people can absorb unconsciously and follow automatically.

Reintroducing norms will require, first, a moral vocabulary. These norms weren’t destroyed because of people with bad values. They were destroyed by a plague of nonjudgmentalism, which refused to assert that one way of behaving was better than another. People got out of the habit of setting standards or understanding how they were set.

I am familiar with Putnam’s work, most notably his 2001 book Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.

Six months ago I referenced Putnam’s earlier work from Bowling Alone in a blog essay, Churching Alone: The Collapse of American Churches. I’d written about the lack of a thriving biblical presence in communities, the Christian parallel to what Putnam had been saying about civic responsibility in his 2001 book. However, his new book “Our Kids” actually touches on the Christian relativism, ‘judge not’ mentality problem even more insightfully, albeit unknowingly. There IS a cost to relativism that affects both the secular society AND the biblical church. Let’s see from the bible what the cost to the church is when it sinks into ‘non-judgmentalism.’

–throw her onto a sickbed,
–and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation,
–and I will strike her children dead. (Revelation 2:20-23)

THAT is how seriously Jesus takes sin in the church. Tolerant love is no love at all, if it includes allowing false wolves to lead people away from Jesus.

People sometimes wonder why I’ve taken this column in a spiritual and moral direction of late. It’s in part because we won’t have social repair unless we are more morally articulate, unless we have clearer definitions of how we should be behaving at all levels.

Yes, failure to “judge” immoral behavior in the church angers Jesus. That was a problem in Corinth. Paul charged the Corinthians for failing to specifically articulate a moral standard about incest and adultery. A man had his father’s wife, and all the church AND the pagans knew it. (1 Corinthians 5:1). The Corinthians did ‘not judge,’ and the problem grew scandalous and destroyed their witness. Failure to live by Christian boundaries then leaks over into the world, where even the peer pressure to even pretend to be moral declines and eventually evaporates. Pretty soon, the tipping point is reached where no one will stand up for any standard at all, and all is deemed good and acceptable.

We are called to be a holy people so as to be pure for Jesus and to be an example to the people of the world. (Romans 11:13-16; 1 Corinthians 10:33). A young Christian lady who does not sleep with her boyfriend is committing a moral act, all the brighter for the darkness that surrounds her. A married Christian man who doesn’t look at porn, or tell dirty jokes at work, is committing a moral act. Couples who stay together and do not divorce are performing a radical, moral act.

In a healthy society, social morality is comparatively “thick.” One consequence of the cultural revolution of the 1960s was a weakening, a thinning out, of social morality. The result is that the standards of right and wrong are reduced to the minimalist test of whether a particular action is legal. This is an unthinkable degradation of standards from the America of earlier periods, when society assumed that an individual’s moral responsibilities encompassed far more than merely observing the law. The decline in social morality and the rise of legalism are illustrated in Figure 1.2 below. (Source)

Holly Hunter’s character Jane Craig said to William Hurt’s character Tom Grunick in the movie Broadcast News, when Tom breached ethics and faked a news spot, “You crossed the line!” Grunick responded,

“It’s hard not to cross it–they keep moving the little sucker, don’t they?”

Non-Christians are confused as to what morality is and what a moral life lived out looks like. The takeaway for us is:

–we have an absolute line, it does not move nor does it change with the culture. Share it.
–call sin what it is: sin
–call it out in the church. When Ananias and Sapphira were killed by Jesus on the spot for being hypocrites and liars, all who heard of it feared greatly. The church grew. (Acts 5:1-10, Acts 6:1). Paul opposed Peter to his face. (Galatians 2:11). Peter called out Simon the magician and exhorted him to repent. (Acts 8:20).
–live morally in the world. We are meant to be the Light in the world, our own sin and non-judgmental tolerance doesn’t help anyone. Tolerating sin dims our Light.

Non-judgmentalism has a cost. Yes, we are living in a time that is pretty bad, morally speaking. Perhaps even worse than the well known immorality of the Corinthians lived among. There was a line that even the pagans didn’t cross, that the Corinthians tolerated,

“It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife.” (1 Corinthians 5:1)

I say worse, because it seems that we tolerate that kind of thing pretty well now. We also have the world’s first three-way gay marriage, government approval of three-person genetic babies, polyamorous parenting, and more. Again, as Mr Brooks said in his review of Putnam’s book,

The health of society is primarily determined by the habits and virtues of its citizens…They were destroyed by a plague of nonjudgmentalism, which refused to assert that one way of behaving was better than another.

Christians, ASSERT. One way of behaving IS better than another, and it’s better because one way of behaving pleases God more than another. We know the line, we know the standards, we have the vocabulary. Do not fall into the pit of non-judgmentalism. Someone’s soul could depend on being honest, clear, and forthright about right and wrong, morality and immorality. His word is the benchmark, the line, the standard of morality and every good thing. See the ‘if-then’ statement of Proverbs-

(Proverbs 2:1-2, 9-10)

ben franklin, good, grace, morality

Can we be good without God?

Posted on December 12, 2014May 9, 2016 by elizabethprata

It is an age-old question. If you ask someone, “Do you think you will go to heaven when you die?” Most often they will reply, “I think so. I’ve been a good person.”

The question arising after that is “What is good?” Even then, most people will answer with a list of attributes that include do’s and don’ts. They’ll say that they would be qualified for heaven because they don’t steal, they don’t murder, they don’t cheat. They’ll say that they are nice, kind, charitable, loving, and so on.

But let’s back up to a moment even just before the person’s answer about being good. Why is there a universal acknowledgement in the first place that one must be good to get to heaven? Why can’t we just go there after we die? Why is that even in the mix at all?

Because God put in us the desire to be good. Most people acknowledge that we need to be ‘good.’ But where false religions come in is their acknowledgement of their definitions of good, and from whence the qualifying benchmarks come. Christians know that the external source of all Good is God, (Matthew 19:17) and the benchmark for attaining heaven is written in the bible. Yet non-Christians still feel the pull of conscience, conviction of sin, and therefore they intrinsically understand there is a bad, or evil. They express the intuitive understanding that we cannot go to heaven as we are. We must be ‘good.’

For ages, people have tried to go their own way with being good, attaining a morality of their own making that would be pleasing (to whomever, to their own self, to society, or to a made-up false god, etc. Let’s take a case-study of this attitude in a famous American: Benjamin Franklin.

They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them. (Romans 2:15)

Franklin is a good one to study because he was obsessed with self-improvement, he acknowledged a deity, he proclaimed a need for a moral code, and he was a prolific writer.

It should be said at the outset, that Benjamin Franklin was not saved. He was not a Christian. As a matter of fact, from the beginning of his life to the end, though he acknowledged the likelihood of the existence of ‘a deity’, he repudiated the personal need for one.

In fact, Franklin wrote in 1757 of his pity for-

“weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual…”

So we need that though Franklin knew that man needed to be good, he denied needing any help in attaining it. He would do it himself. To wit, exhibit A.

In his autobiography, a young Franklin wrote,

It was about this time I conceived the bold and arduous project of arriving at moral perfection. I wished to live without committing any fault at any time; I would conquer all that either natural inclination, custom, or company might lead me into. As I knew, or thought I knew, what was right and wrong, I did not see why I might not always do the one and avoid the other.

Pride is at the root of all sins, it is the first sin, it is the universal sin. Here we see the result of Franklin’s unsancitifed mind: he would conquer all his faults and become perfect.

Then he wrote,

But I soon found I had undertaken a task of more difficulty than I had imagined.

I’m shocked. Shocked.

While my care was employed in guarding against one fault, I was often surprised by another; habit took the advantage of inattention; inclination was sometimes too strong for reason. I concluded, at length, that the mere speculative conviction that it was our interest to be completely virtuous was not sufficient to prevent our slipping, and that the contrary habits must be broken, and good ones acquired and established, before we can have any dependence on a steady, uniform rectitude of conduct. For this purpose I therefore contrived the following method.

Franklin was surprised by how often different “faults,” as he put them, popped up in his daily life. What he needed was to be organized. Then he’d be on his way to moral perfection.

What Franklin did was create a little booklet containing lines and columns, like a ledger. He’d mark one spot for his failures for each day of the week and one line for each of his virtues he was trying to perfect. Though there hundreds of virtues a person can display, selected 12 in particular Franklin thought he needed improvement on. He added the 13th, ‘Humility” because a Quaker friend said that Franklin was well-known to be difficult to converse with because of his tendency to dominate the conversation and telling everyone they were wrong. After the Quaker friend gave Franklin some examples, Franklin decided to add the 13th and work on humility.

Though in the list below, the Christian can see the roots of these virtues in certain portions of scripture, Franklin did not ascribe their source to the bible. How or why he self-selected these thirteen and not another thirteen, is also part of man’s delusion that he can become good. One needs perfection in ALL in order to be considered good on the same level that Jesus is Good. Franklin decided that he would ‘fix’ one at a time, turning an opposing vice into the stated virtue. Incredibly, he estimated that it would take one week to fix each one, and that he could conclude his project in 13 weeks.

Franklin’s list of virtues he planned to pursue to perfection,

Temperance
Eat not to dullness; drink not to elevation.

Silence
Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself; avoid trifling conversation.

Order
Let all your things have their places; let each part of your business have its time.

Resolution
Resolve to perform what you ought; perform without fail what you resolve.

Frugality
Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself, i.e., waste nothing.

Industry
Lose no time; be always employed in something useful; cut off all unnecessary actions.

Sincerity.
Use no hurtful deceit; think innocently and justly, and, if you speak, speak accordingly.

Justice
Wrong none by doing injuries or omitting the benefits that are your duty.

Moderation
Avoid extremes; forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.

Cleanliness
Tolerate no uncleanliness in body, clothes, or habitation.

Tranquillity
Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common or unavoidable.

Chastity
Rarely use venery (sexual intercourse) but for health or offspring, never to dullness, weakness, or the
injury of your own or another’s peace or reputation.

Humility
Imitate Jesus and Socrates.

Did you ever read anything more proud? Anyway, for example, he chose to work on “Cleanliness” but did not include patience. Perhaps he thought he or his floor, could be better scrubbed, but had already achieved moral perfection in displaying patience? Or maybe there as a bit of the old craftiness in his selection, because cleanliness is a quantifiable virtue, an external virtue that others can see, and one that is easier to attain than, say, tranquility (especially when his wife would do most of the cleaning).

In his pride, Franklin surmised that all it would take would be thirteen weeks dedication to the project and then moral perfection would be attained. He did write in the future he planned to write a book on how to attain moral perfection using his method, and all people would be able to benefit from it. To that end, he purposely avoided mention of any one religion saying,

I had purposely avoided them [religious sects]; for, being fully persuaded of the utility and excellency of my method, and that it might be serviceable to people in all religions…” [emphasis mine]

It wasn’t long before Franklin understood that the project of attaining moral perfection would take longer than 13 weeks. As a matter of fact, he kept his book, with few intermissions, for 50 years. Of all the virtues, he found humility the hardest to overcome. After a while Franklin simply used less dogmatic and inflammatory language. He’d say, “I perceive” instead of “Undoubtedly,” and “I apprehend” instead of “Certainly.” The most he could do was fake humility. Side note: if all you’re doing is faking humility, doesn’t that also destroy ‘Sincerity’?

At the end of his life, Franklin wryly wrote that despite his best efforts to disguise his pride with cloaking language that he thought would be less dogmatical,

In reality, there is, perhaps, no one of our natural passions so hard to subdue as pride. Disguise it, struggle with it, beat it down, stifle it, mortify it as much as one pleases, it is still alive, and will every now and then peep out and show itself; you will see it, perhaps, often in this history; for, even if I could conceive that I had completely overcome it, I should probably be proud of my humility.

Preacher Charles Spurgeon said in sermon #2591, “Pride the Destroyer”

This sin of pride is often forgotten and many persons do not even think it is a sin at all. Here is a man who says that he is absolutely perfect. Does he know what the sin of pride really is? What prouder being can there be than one who talks like that? “Oh, but,” he says, “I am humble.” Is there any soul living that is so proud as he is who says he is humble? Is not that the acme and climax of pride?

The older Franklin got, the more he acknowledged that perhaps the Deity was indeed involved in the affairs of men, and perhaps Jesus of Nazareth was a good man delivering the best “system of morals” the world ever saw, but refused to believe in Jesus’ divinity. Sorrowfully, at the end of his life, Franklin wrote,

“I have … some doubts as to his divinity; tho’ it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble.”

Franklin couldn’t be troubled to discover his eternal destiny? It was Franklin’s eternal mistake.

As for our Lord, isn’t a relief we do not have to spend 50 years trying to perfect humility only to fail every time? Isn’t is a wonderful thing that we don’t have to look at an eternity of pride blotting our heart to the detriment of all our relationships? Because we cannot attain moral perfection. We can’t even go a day and not fail to display some grievous display of moral corruption.

Only Jesus is Good, and that (Luke 18:19). This is why only He could be the sacrificial Lamb, slain so He could shed His blood to cover our sins.

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, (Ephesians 2:8)

We cannot be good without God. But by grace, we have God.

bible, marriage, morality, tim gunn

Tim Gunn chose celibacy thirty years ago. How about you?

Posted on August 7, 2013May 9, 2016 by elizabethprata

I’m writing three loosely connected blog entries. The first one was about marriage. The second was about divorce. This third one is about celibacy.

Tim Gunn, Wikipedia pic

I started watching Project Runway this summer. (Thanks, free Hulu!). Project Runway is a contest show where each week the fashion designers must create a fashion look and the best one is selected and the worst one causes the judges to boot the designer. During the times while the designers are creating, a man named Tim Gunn who used to be a professor of fashion at the Parsons New School for Design in NY comes in and consults with the contestants. He mentors them and helps them. He is very good at what he does.

Being the fashion industry and set in NY, there are many gay contestants. Some don’t talk about it and some do. Mr Gunn doesn’t. After binge-watching a bunch of episodes, I became interested in Mr Gunn. He seemed like a very nice man.

Googling him yielded uniformly that he is, indeed, a nice man. He’s very caring and genuine with the contestants and very skilled in his ability to mentor and draw out their thoughts and convert them to concrete design. I enjoy his style as a teacher and also his clothing style!

It turns out, that yes, Mr Gunn is gay.

The most prominent item in the search results was this: he stated in an interview last year that he has been celibate for 29 years.

photo credit: Dead Air via photopin cc

He said that his partner broke up with him, which was devastating, and said the boyfriend did so because Gunn’s sexual perfomance wasn’t all that great. It also was said that Gunn had struggled with his sexual preference and as a result he had attempted suicide as a young man. Gunn said that he made the decision to abstain from sex because “it’s very psychological”. Lastly, he was very worried about staying healthy, since at that time the pestilence afflicting the gay world, AIDS, was rampant. He said he is glad to be alive today.

When Mr Gunn made his declaration last year, it stunned secular society (at least, the segment of the society that follows these things). The LA Times said that he “blew the nation’s mind this week” and asked, “How weird is it to go without sex for 29 years?” Others speculated that this was so unusual that perhaps a new disorder should be added to the DSM–IV for asexuality. The tone of the article was that certainly no one would make this choice if there wasn’t something wrong with him.

Certainly, society’s pressure to be sexual was felt by Mr Gunn, who insisted that he had ‘nothing to be ashamed’ of, and that he “is a fulfilled individual.”

Excesses at the NY Gay Pride parade.
photo credit: Boss Tweed via photopin cc

Heterosexual youths hook up like it’s nothing nowadays. The adherents to a homosexual lifestyle in particular insist that one be promiscuous, in a celebration of ‘pride’ in their choice to have unnatural sex. Gay men are supposed especially lusty and proudly strut and have sex at the drop of a hat.

The day after Mr Gunn’s revelation, the LA Times reported, “Today, Tim Gunn’ was one of the mostly widely searched terms on Google, partly because such an admission was shocking even in a world that thrives on TMI.”

That’s because the lustful world cannot conceive of a person not indulging their lusts.

Here is the point, he made a personal decision to refrain from sexual activity (for whatever reason) and held to that for three decades. If a man who has unnatural lusts can do that for himself by himself, then what can a person struggling with homosexual thoughts and desires do who appeals to the Holy Spirit? The Spirit aids us in resisting lusts, and Mr Gunn shows us that it can be done.

The Holy Spirit helps all of us in resisting that which is not profitable. He helps us resist any and all sins. In today’s society, l-ust, promiscuity, fornication, homosexual sex, adultery, p-ornography are the most deeply embedded of the sins and the ones society most pressures us to succumb to. However they are exactly the sins which should be most resisted.

photo credit: EssG via photopin cc

This is what Jesus said about marriage and the marital bed:

“For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.” (Matthew 19:12)

So there are three categories. Those who were born without an ability to engage in a sexual union. Second, some have had some sort of accident, or undergone some kind of religious rite, or some slaves castrated to work in a harem, etc. and physically cannot perform.

The third category are people who feel led to remain single and not married (not because of an unwillingness to commit) but do so by a dedication to this state of singleness (‘made themselves’) and it is for the sake of the kingdom.

Jesus is saying many things here. First, that if you are married, it is not good to be celibate. Celibacy is only good for those who are not married. The context of his sermon here is on the subject of marriage & divorce.

Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 7:1-5,
“Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”

So we know not to make ourselves eunuchs if we are married. That does not further the cause of the kingdom.

At the end of His talk, Jesus said “let them receive it.” This means receive His whole teaching on marriage, sex, and singleness. It is not a command, because He said, ‘let them’ receive it. If you are married, have a happy and fruitful marital bed. If you are single and feel that the Lord is not leading you into marriage or back into it if you are widowed or widower, let them receive it. It is all for the sake of the Kingdom.

Now, does one think that the Holy Spirit is not going to help in either of these cases, the married or the single? Of course He will! He ministers to us, helps us resist unwanted thoughts, convicts us of potential actions, brings scripture to mind in dangerously tempting situations.

The world cannot understand a Christian’s actions regarding sexual conduct. The world was amazed, perplexed and felt almost betrayed by Mr Gunn that he chose to make himself a eunuch for three decades.

They won’t understand. Here is John MacArthur expounding on the Matthew verse, especially the part where Jesus says, ‘let him receive it.’

photo credit: soundfromwayout via photopin cc

“I think this is a very important statement at the end of verse because, you see, the Lord puts this in there knowing that most people aren’t going to be able to hear this, right? I mean, if I go into the average situation with a bunch of pagan people, I mean, if I went down and spoke at the local Kiwanis club, for lack of a better illustration, or if I went into the local college classroom and I said, “Now, I want you to know, people, this is the law, here’s what is God’s standard: you will marry one person for the rest of your life and make a lifelong commitment‑‑no divorce. Furthermore, if you are single, you remain single for the sake of the kingdom of God, not to play around.” Now, how well would I be received? They’d say, “Who is this idiot? Where did you come from?”

Take heart single people. The Holy Spirit will help you resist desires. Gill’s Exposition explains of the Matthew verse:

“But here it means such, who having the gift of continency without mutilating their bodies, or indulging any unnatural lusts, can live chastely without the use of women, and choose celibacy: for the kingdom of heaven’s sake; not in order, by their chaste and single life, to merit and obtain the kingdom of glory; but that they might be more at leisure, being free from the encumbrances of a marriage state, to attend the worship and service of God.”

If you are single, choose celibacy. You are doing something for the Kingdom! Not that your choice expands it, but that in the extra time you have in being single, you can devote yourself to the Lord instead of the the spouse & children. If Tim Gunn can do it without aid of the Holy Spirit, you certainly can. “Casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you.” (1 Peter 5:7)

Why should you cast your cares on Him? Because He cares for you.

photo credit: Lel4nd via photopin cc