Hurt Mail

I once noted some reasons for staying out of theology. Particularly, "If your first response to every confrontation is to take offense at the person’s tone or attitude, you impute sinister motives to all you disagree with you... then please by all means stay out of ministry and the theological profession." It is far too common to whine, and sadly the various cultural factors enhance and facilitate that tendency.

------------------------------
Trueman's Second Law would be formulated something like this: in any exchange of views, sooner or later one or more of the participants will describe themselves as hurt or in pain as a result of somebody else's comment; and at that point it is clear that they have lost the real debate.
------------------------------

Now Carl Trueman offers some better insight of what I was getting at, namely, the replacement of moral categories, truth, right and wrong by the vacuous "I'm hurt" or "I'm offended" or "that was a personal attack." His latest essay "Is Hurt Mail the New Hate Mail" he takes on the notion of our collective cultural response "I am hurt". Dealing with this recent cultural phenomenon is not to discount the reality of ad hominem argument that are indeed a travesty. Instead it is the replacement of arguments and counter arguments for truth and falsehood with highly subjective critiques concerning the pain and suffering one caused so that any argument for truth is viewed with suspicion and cries of "oppression" and "totalitarianism". Indeed, we have no idea what real oppression and real totalitarianism is. Persuaded resolve in the inherent truthfulness of one's position that indeed causes you to act upon it with serious conviction including reasoning with other for the truthfulness of one's own view over and against others in hardly oppressive--if we are truly convinced that man is generally a reasonable creature--or at least it was hardly oppressive until the late 20th century for a whole bunch of adults who have never really grown up but have been catered and molded to think in terms of "choice" and "possibilities" rather than right and wrong. Indeed the later categories inherently curtail the god of possibility--the idol of this age.

Arguing for right and wrong is the modern equivalent of standing on Mt. Carmel against the prophets of Baal. They may call down fire all day with no avail--perhaps their god is relieving himself--but our one cry for truth comes like a rush of fire. And the whiners of today almost invariably label themselves as the water soaked bull. Victims of a rush of fire that is 'so mean' rather than prophets of the wrong god... admittedly our analogy falls apart when we consider the final outcome of Baal's prophets. In today's culture they become more like boys in Pinocchio on their way to Pleasure Island with all the transformation that entails, but to call such whining what it is makes me mean and oppressive.

Carl Trueman is often insightful and penetrating in his insights in modern culture. Mix that with a bit of sarcasm and dare we label it British wit and would often have a mix of good reading. Trueman goes on to show in his essay how this is a cultural fad that "panders to the idolatry of human nature." Thus, by appealing to 'hurt' we sidestep the issues of truth. This of course caters to our culture rather than rising above and transforming it:

Few if any will have read any of these thinkers, but make no mistake: we live in a world that is reflective of the values they embodied and articulated. The importance of therapy in modern America is one key sign that the rarified philosophy of these men has penetrated in practical ways to the commonplace level of everyday life and routine. The net effects are evident everywhere: nobody can dare to say that their position is superior to anybody else's because that denigrates, marginalizes, represses, and oppresses. That therapy, conversation, and a general prioritizing of aesthetic categories now grips the church and its own moral and theological discourse should be a cause for real concern. In a world devoid of truth content, claims to truth are oppressive and thus personal, hurtful, and distasteful; and the church seems, by and large, to be buying into just this kind of namby-pamby nonsense.

But I think there is more to this phenomenon of hurt and pain than a mere aping of the culture. It is more cunning and dishonest than that, Over the last couple of years, I have noticed that the hate mail in my inbox has been replaced by what I now call hurt mail. Now, the agenda of your typical hate mailers is pretty straightforward: they are simply attempting to intimidate or humiliate the recipient into silence. What you see is what you get. Hurt mailers, by comparison, are rather more subtle and duplicitous: by claiming pain, they immediately do two things. First, they make themselves the poor victims; and second, they imply that the targets of this hurt mailing are intentionally malicious perpetrators. The game is precisely the same as with hate mail -- to make someone whom they dislike or whose opinions they discount shut up -- but the tactic is different: to win by seizing the moral high ground that belongs to the professional victim.

I appreciate Trueman's treatment because I think he identifies the problem, the origins and hits at the motives. Make no mistake, Trueman is tough on his own camp too: "before we all start thanking the Lord that we traditional, Reformed evangelicals are not like other men, this is not just a monopoly of the church on the left of the evangelical spectrum; some of the biggest whiners, mewlers and pukers out there are among the professed advocates of the old school approach to things."

Now no Christian would seriously argue we should be malicious against people but there is grave confusion between being intellectual 'malicious' (e.g. rigorous, forthright, and persuasive) against ideas and falsehoods versus being spiteful and vengeful against persons. This whimpering about when one's own idea is opposed is simply dreadful. Grow up, or to use a more Biblical phrase 'Gird up your loins'.

Trueman closes with this advice:

Expressions of hurt are too often really something else: cowardly attempts by representatives of a cosseted and self-obsessed culture to make themselves uniquely important or, worse still, to bully and cajole somebody they dislike to stop saying things they don't want to hear or which they find distasteful. My advice to such is akin to that of the counselor in the Bob Newhart sketch: Stop it! If somebody's writing or speaking hurts you, ask yourself "Why?", don't whine about the discomfort. Get a grip, get yourself some trousers, stop feeling sorry for yourself, and please, please, please, don't hide behind the aesthetic pietisms of the tiresome and clichéd `feel my pain while I process my hurt' posse. Have the backbone, have the decency - nay, have the honesty - to take your licks and move on, either to addressing the substance of the argument or to some area of endeavour that is, well, perhaps less painful and hurtful for you.

*And just in case you didn't get that last culture reference, here it is:

Epicurus' Maxim

There is more irony in to this graphic than we may realize. It is at the cross with the subsequent resurrection that God both uses evil and defeats evil displaying both his omnipotence and sovereign in using evil and granting Christ indestructible life at the same time showing His immeasurable goodness since the benefits of the death and resurrection flow to us. (Romans 4:25; Acts 2 & 4; Romans 8:28-39). The cross of Christ was hardly a defeat, of course, since the first days both Jew and Greek have scoffed at the cross. Christ was cursed the Jew could saw. According to Cicero 'cross' was not a term for polite conversation. Moreover, Greeks scoffed resurrection. N.T. Wright has shown if there is one thing about the afterlife that Greeks believed it was the dead people don't come back to life.

The problem with Epicurus' thought is it only allows to options: (1) a good God who can't all evil (since we obviously find it in existence today) and (2) or a malevolent God capriciously allowing all evil. The third and Biblical option is a sovereign God who both allows evil and uses evil. In short, we have an omnipotent God who reverses evil by seemingly allowing His Son to defeat it by being overcome by it.

It is almost like the scene in the end of the first Matrix film when Neo is shot by Agent Smith. He dies and we are done. But then he awakens and suddenly has the power to jump into Agent Smith and explode him from the inside out. So Christ comes under death but it raised up with indestructible life. "Oh Death where is your victory? Oh death where is your sting?"*

AD 33 is hardly the victory of Epicurus' maxim; it is it's defeat.



*The analogy doesn't really hold for the last Matrix movie primarily because there is 'sacrificial death' with no resurrection. There is an 'ascension' of sorts where Neo's goes into the bright light of the the computer world but it is a dead Neo. Hence it is glorification without resurrection which in the realm of theology is decidedly anti-Christian.

[Braketology]

For those of use of have read Peter Rollins' How (Not) to Speak of God, and have been shall we say less than impressed with his ability to say very little in such a complicated and convoluted fashion (see Wells quote here), Michael Wittmer has a post on Braketology.

{On [multiple occasions in the past month] I have heard people defend a [heretical] statement by saying that the author told them that he doesn’t necessarily believe everything he writes. According to them, this author, let’s call him [Pete Rollins]—a man who is extremely likeable—can pretty much say anything [e.g., we have no revelation; Jesus may not be alive] as long as he brackets his words with the disclaimer that he may not agree with what he just said.

I have a few problems with this approach:

He elaborates but basically:

(1) It is [annoying].

(2) It is [bad faith].

(3) It is [unloving].

Of course he too reminds us that he may not mean what he says:

I realize that [this post contains some harsh judgments], so I conclude by placing brackets around the entire thing {}. Please remember in your comments that [I may not believe a word of this]. }

His humor is right on. When we don't trust words, or even have the conviction to right in plain words, we have more problems than just the appeal of postmodernism.

A leader who can’t even minimally commit to his ideas gives up the right to claim knowledge. And if he doesn’t know anything, why should you bother to read him? Stated differently, [why should you take his ideas more seriously than he does?]

Check out the whole of the brief post.

Exodus 3: Sermon Applications

THE LORD DRAWS NEAR.

1) FIRST, THE LORD DRAWS NEAR BECAUSE HE HEARS US. Exodus 3:1-9

Application: Consider in your heart God’s transcendence and immanence.

Westminster Confession of Faith XI
The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He has been pleased to express by way of covenant.

1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith.
The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience to him as their creator, yet they could never have attained the reward of life but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.

i) It shapes our worldview. Van Til’s diagram. (Large Circle= God; small circle= man... great distance between beings. Double bars= covenant).
ii) It retains the ‘Godness of God’.
iii) It humbles us.
iv) It encourages us.
v) If denied, it destroys us. It is denied everywhere today. Even those claiming to be ‘Christian’ deny one or both aspects of this.

2) SECOND, THE LORD DRAWS NEAR TO REVEAL HIMSELF TO US. Exodus 3:10-15

Application: Some theology in Exodus 3:

(1) God is unknowable (apart from His self-revelation) and incompressible. There is a mystery to the divine name here. In a sense, it hides more than it reveals. Phil Ryken says: “Who is God? God is who he is, and that’s all there is to it.” In revealing himself God ‘condescends’, steps down to our level, puts it in baby talk so that we can “get it”. But even in doing this it hints to us there is more to God that we can ever grasp or know. Although in a relationship with God, we can truly know God, we will never fully know God as God knows Himself. The finite cannot contain the infinite. The infinite can be revealed to the finite but never exhaustively made known.

Have God lost His mystery to you? Do you find Him containable or manageable? It is idolatry to ‘contain God’ in this sense.

(2) God is eternal and unchangeable.

(3) God is self-existent and self-sufficient.

(4) God makes His name known. God memorialize Himself to us. We can never and must never think of God apart from His covenant to us. We know God because of what He has done in history. He reveals and He redeems. I CAN KNOW GOD. I CAN DRAW NEAR TO GOD—only and always because God makes Himself known in a covenant that climaxes in Christ. Only because God draws near to me in Christ. God heard my affliction and came down in Christ Jesus.

Some take the ‘unknowable God’ and say it is wrong to every say anything about God. They would say ‘to make a statement about God puts him in a box and that is idolatry’. Yes the infinite cannot be contained. BUT if God has limited Himself in some way by revealing Himself—to not think that way about God is idolatry.

(a) If God has spoken about God then it is idolatry if I do not believe and repeat what He has said about Himself. IF He has spoken then I am obligated to pattern my thoughts about God after what He has said.
(b) I know God as the “I AM” because that who He said He is.
(c) Truly seeing the ‘I AM’ means I cast off all other false gods. There can be no rivalry of gods… if I ‘get it.’

God doesn’t draw near out of some self need. It is no comfort to us if God “needs” us. If God was dependent upon us for self-fulfillment—what hope would there be? If I somehow complicated ‘God’ then what we would have would be no God at all.

Instead—it is incredible comfort to think about a self-sufficient God. His might and His power can free His people. God as independent has all the resources, strength and power to deliver, heal and bring comfort. It brings God joy to give to us but not from out of any lack of joy that He might have. It brings God glory to deliver but not out of any lack of glory. As the “I AM WHO I AM”—He is sufficient in Himself; He is independent. He has every ‘resource’ that we might need.

If God was dependent in anyway on anything, he would not be mighty to save. He could not comfort us. If God ‘drew near to us’ like some kind of clingy co-dependent—it would not be ‘good’. It would be no help. It would be no deliverance. We do not complete God, God completes us.

The best thing we could ever have is an independent God who draws near because He has chosen to make covenant promises that guarantee to us that He is dependable.

3) THIRD, THE LORD DRAWS NEAR TO DELIVER. Exodus 3:16-20

Application:
(1) The question that we are forced to ask: who has the mighty arm? Ultimately it is God. The fact that He is the “I AM” guarantees that His arm is mighty to save. God is independent. His power is completely His own. Pharaoh’s power is only that which as been delegated to him. This is true of every power, principalities, ruler, authority, and false god—any power we perceive in them is only delegate power. THE LORD GOD HAS NO RIVALS.

God is God alone.

You need to put off any false rivals that you hold on par with God—whether it is family, friends, government, famous people, money, sex. All those things that we look to for security or fulfillment or joy can become false god’s if we do not draw near to God alone as the only place to find true security, fulfillment and joy.

God will take those false gods and humble them under a mighty hand if we do not draw near to Him.

(2) Take communion:
i) Treasure the “God with us”
ii) Treasure the “deliverance of God’
iii) Communion Symbolize God’s ‘nearness’ which comes in Christ on the cross. He is near as a human being—blood and a body. He is near as a Savior and Mediator. He is reconciling the ‘spiritual’ distance caused by our sin.
iv) We can draw near to God because He has drawn near to us first.

James 4:8 8 Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.

A Great Quote on Hypocrisy

Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practise ; since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions, without having yet obtained the victory, as a man may be confident of the advantages of a voyage, or a journey, without having courage or industry to undertake it, and may honestly recommend to others those attempts which he neglects himself.

The interest which the corrupt part of mankind have in hardening themselves against every motive to amendment, has disposed them to give to these contradictions, when they can be produced against the cause of virtue, that weight which they will not allow them in any other case. They see men act in opposition to their interest, without supposing that they do not know it; those who give way to the sudden violence of passion, and forsake the most important pursuits for petty pleasures, are not supposed to have changed their opinions, or to approve their own conduct In moral or religious questions alone, they determine the sentiments by the actions, and charge every man with endeavouring to impose upon the world, whose writings are not confirmed by his life. They never consider that themselves neglect or practise something every day inconsistently with their own settled judgment, nor discover that the conduct of the advocates for virtue can little increase or lessen the obligations of their dictates ; argument is to be invalidated only by argument, and is in itself of the same force, whether or not it convinces him by whom it is proposed.

Yet since this prejudice, however unreasonable, is always likely to have some prevalence, it is the duty of every man to take care lest he should hinder the efficacy of his own instructions. When he desires to gain the belief of others, he should show that he believes himself; and when he teaches the fitness of virtue by his reasonings, he should, by his example, prove its possibility. Thus much at least maybe required of him, that he shall not act worse than others, because he writes better; nor imagine that, by the merit of his genius, he may claim indulgence, beyond mortals of the lower classes, and be excused for want of prudence, or neglect of virtue.

Samuel Johnson The Works of Samuel Johnson. p.34

Integrity of Moses: Humiliation and Exaltation

Here's an interesting sermonic illustration.

Moses 'strikes' an Egyptian and then a day later harps on a Hebrew offender for 'striking' a fellow Hebrew. In a sense it is the classic pot calling the kettle black. You sinned too who are you to judge me.

Interestingly, we have a fairly recent illustration of this type of behavior. Governor Mark Sanford has spoken of the need for integrity and for honest in politics. For this reason he needs to resign. Consider this article which makes a case based on ten points. In particular:

3. If he clings onto power, he’s guilty of hypocrisy. Yes, we all have personal failings and we all on occasions do not live up to the principles we proclaim. But during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Sanford branded Bill Clinton a “rascal” and said: “I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally [to resign]… I come from the business side,” he said. “If you had a chairman or president in the business world facing these allegations, he’d be gone.”...

5. Moral character matters. Sanford himself said as much, stating that politicians should lead by example: ‘The bottom line in politics is, I think, at the end of the day to be effective in standing for both the convictions that drove you into office and the principles that you outlined in running. And that is not restrained to simply the world of Caesar, it applies to what you think is right and wrong and everything in between.”

I tend to agree that there is a difference between moral inconsistency and hypocrisy. I do believe that Governor Sanford had a grave moral failing, e.g. a sin. But what will determine whether or not he is a hypocrite will be whether he applies the same judgment to himself that he applied to others. I am not arguing whether or not every politician who has an affair should resign. What I am arguing is that based on Sanford previously stated convictions if he does not apply them to his own behavior then he fails to apply his own standards against himself. It shows a favoritism in his judgments, namely he favors himself. One could argue this would merely be another 'moral inconsistency' an not necessarily hypocrisy but the larger issue is whether or not there is true repentance followed by acceptance of consequence. This will demonstrate whether or not he really believes such things are necessary. If he prosecutes his standards differently on himself than on others not only has he lowered his standards but he shows in practice his standards for himself other than what he professes them to be when it comes to others. If he does not apply his rebukes to himself he shows it was just about attacking 'them there liberals'. If he is only acting about his standards when it comes to others and not to himself then he is a hypocrite. (According to this news story, he is not going to resign).

Moses' motives may have been to deliver Israel (Acts 7:24-25) but he failed to abide by God's moral law and then he rebuke others for it. He lost credibility. He had no right to judge others unless he first wrestled with his own guilt before God (cf. Exodus 3 & 4 esp. 4:24-26). The reality is Moses killed the Egyptian because it was expedient not because it was necessary and it destroyed his credibility with his people. He attempt to exalt himself in order to be their deliverer actually ended up in his humiliation. He would have to humble himself and what for God to exalt him.

Exodus 2: Sermon Applications

MAIN POINT: God preserves his people.

First: God preserves His people in the face of wickedness.

The conflict in Exodus is between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness. The way God always works through history is to preserve his people in the face of wickedness. God defeats this kingdom of darkness by the triumph of the kingdom of His Son. God will send an even greater redeemer. The purpose of redemption is to usher in new creation.

Exodus is all about showing the glory and might of our God. He has no rival and no equals. The application is this: who alone can take on and defeat evil and wickedness? YHWH, the LORD. He does this through keeping His covenant. He does this in an unassuming manner.

God works today to preserve his people in the face of evil and wickedness. Jesus himself prays for you:

John 17:15-16 15 "I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one. 16 "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

It is an incredible comfort to know that God keeps us from the evil one.

Second: God preserves us by redeeming us from under wickedness.
i) Jesus’ fulfillment: God preserves Jesus—e.g. from Herod. Satan tries to destroy Jesus just like Pharaoh seeks to destroy Abraham’s seed.

Revelation 12:1-5 NAU Revelation 12:1 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; 2 and she was with child; and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth. 3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven diadems. 4 And his tail swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child. 5 And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and to His throne.

ii) The church of God today: The church is persecuted and must overcome. The seven churches in Revelation are encouraged in the midst of persecution as they are shown rewards for those who “overcome”. “Overcome” is repeated 8 times in Revelation 2-3 and it is tied throughout the book to the victory of Christ on the cross and His triumph in His return.

ESV 1 John 2:13 I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, children, because you know the Father. 14 I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.

ESV 1 John 4:4 Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.

1 John 5:4-5 4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world-- our faith. 5 Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?

Believers are wandering in exile. We await our Exodus where we are taken to be with the Lord. Part of this entails overcoming evil in the world around us.

Third: God preserves us despite our wickedness.

Our redemption does not come because of our goodness. Our redemption does not come because we can preserve ourselves from evil.

We do not overcome evil:
i) Fighting and taking up our sword.
ii) Exalting ourselves as champions of righteousness and goodness.
iii) Using the church to seek the political prestige of being a ‘prince’ or ‘judge’. (the people of God can be involved in these roles but these roles in a secular government are not the kingdom of God). All work is done to God’s glory but not all work ushers in the kingdom. I am not speaking against Christians serving in political office. I am speaking against the association of evangelical values with politics so that we are a voting block rather than a faith.

The temptation is to fight to preserve ourselves as rather than to trust that God alone preserves His people. This temptation can lead us to seek the triumph of God's kingdom through means other than those God has given.

We overcome evil by:
i) Standing firm in trust in Jesus. Seeing that He is the true overcomer and I just ‘come along for the ride.’
ii) By walking through continual faith and repentance. Humilty.

1 Peter 5:5-6 5 You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE. 6 Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you at the proper time,

James 4:6-10 6 But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, "GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE." 7 Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. 8 Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. 9 Be miserable and mourn and weep; let your laughter be turned into mourning and your joy to gloom. 10 Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord, and He will exalt you.

iii) Proclaiming the Lordship of Christ. We are to announce good news.
iv) Bearing kingdom fruit of good deeds and love, which entails:

1. Praying for our coming redemption and the persecuted saints
2. Helping the sick, the poor, the orphan, the widow. Show compassion and mercy; meekness, gentleness.
3. Being concerned with justice. Not just ‘political justice’ but with truth, fairness, equality.
4. Enduring hardship.