The Trouble at Wheaton

Last week, I posted this. Later that day, I saw the news about a demonstration at Wheaton College, a Christian college in the greater Chicago area. I mentioned it in a tweet, thanking Wheaton for proving my point so quickly, and urging repentance before any further harm could be done. I was asked for some clarification, so here's my attempt to explain what I think the real problem is.

[I should note that this was written days ago but, providentially, computer problems and other issues delayed the posting. I've had a chance to re-think what I originally wrote; I'll leave that intact, and put an addendum at the end to address some possible questions.]

Rosaria Butterfield was going to Wheaton to talk about the gospel and its effects in her life. She was a lesbian, atheist, virulent God-hater. But she was convicted of her sin and brought to faith in Jesus Christ. She now knows that she is a sinner, fully deserving to receive the wrath of holy God. But Jesus took her sin on himself on the cross, bearing the wrath of God, and having made atonement for sin was raised to life and seated at the right hand of God. Through repentance and faith, her sin is forgiven, and she is credited with the very righteousness of Christ, and will inherit eternal life. More than that, she is being sanctified - transformed ever-increasingly into the image of Christ while she is still alive here, as sin is being put to death and replaced with righteousness. In her case, the most visible transformation has been the redemption of her sexuality - her former sinful lust has been mortified, and a holy marital love has arisen.

While her story may be spectacular, it's important to note that it's not unique or even rare. It's the same story as every Christian past, present, and future. Born in sin. Brought to conviction, repentance, and faith in Jesus Christ. Forgiven of sin, counted righteous in Christ, and sanctified in his image. The particular sins may vary, but the outline is the same. Old sins are put to death, and holiness is brought forth in their place. We cease to be slaves to sin, and are instead slaves to righteousness.

Which brings us to the first group in need of repentance: the student protestors. They are claiming that there is one special class of sin from which repentance is impossible, one sin which places a person beyond sanctification - homosexual lust. They object to the idea that slavery to sin and submission to the lordship of Christ are "oppositional"; they apparently see Christ and their lust as co-lords, or more likely, their lust is lord, and Christ can have the rest. They want to claim the status of Christian, while openly defying Christ, refusing to repent of this sin, and despising the power of Christ, as though the sovereign lord of all creation isn't able to sanctify them.

In effect, they are protesting the gospel, the most basic declaration of Christianity: Jesus is Lord.
It would be one thing if they wanted to make this tragic choice for themselves. But they want to spread the anti-gospel of unrepentable, unsanctifiable sin to others. They want to present this tragic, hopeless message as at least the equal of the actual gospel, the only hope for any man anywhere. That is to say, they are not just lost in their sin and denying Christ, they are false teachers as well. They are trying to deny people the grace that can save them and keep them enslaved to sin, which is the most hateful thing one person can do to another.

Which brings me to the second group in need of repentance - the administrators at Wheaton. While it's a college and not a church, a large part of their purpose is to prepare Christians for life, and particularly for ministry. So while they are not elders per se, surely part of their mandate is to put down false teaching. Instead of silencing the false teachers, however, they are giving them an ever-larger platform. Consider how bad things there must be that a group can come out to protest *the gospel* without fear of discipline or even the slightest disapproval (let's just say it's not surprising this happened at Wheaton). How negligent in their duty must they have been, that an anti-gospel is allowed to flourish under their watch, and the students promulgating it have no fear of being confronted; when they get louder and more aggressive, the administration invites them to talk about it more!

They should be calling these students to repentance, but instead they're affirming them in their sin, and giving them platform to spread their despising of Christ and hatred of people.

So that's it. The students need to repent of their denial of the power of Christ and their false teaching, and the administration needs to repent of their dereliction of duty in allowing such a destructive teaching to flourish.

*****Addendum********

The first thought upon re-reading is, was that too harsh? Specifically, the assessment of the student protestors as having denied Christ - am I saying that every student who protested is a reprobate? Not necessarily - but the ratio of wolves to confused sheep in that group is likely much higher than anyone would like to admit.

No doubt some of the student protestors are 'homosexual Christians' - those who have fallen prey to the sin, have come to faith, and are now struggling to eradicate the sin. The key there is that they are struggling - they are fighting, and though the sanctification from this sin will be a lifelong battle (as it is for all Christians and whatever sins have befallen them), they will not be slaves to sin. These people are Christians, and they need the same grace and support in their struggles as any of us.

But there are others who are 'homosexual Christians' in that they have completely given up the fight. They wish to take comfort in the name of Christ, while being at peace with their sin. Their attitude can be summed up as "This is the way I am, and God's just going to have to get used to it". It's impossible to stay in this group for long; either the sin or Christ has to go. Sadly, for many the choice has already been made, and they have chosen poorly. The time will come when they can no longer pretend to serve two masters, and then their apostasy will be revealed in full.

While there are most likely representatives of the first group, the latter is the driving force behind this protest. They want people to know that there's another way besides repentance - you can be a Christian, and keep your pet sin, too! There may be naïve, struggling, confused Christians mixed in with this crowd, but the main point of the group is anti-gospel. So while the message may appear harsh, I don't believe it's unnecessarily so. Some need to be helped to maturity, but more need to be called to repentance and faith.

Now a second point - when I mentioned this story to someone at church, he was surprised it happened at Wheaton, given the good reputation of Phil Ryken. Ryken is the recently-installed president, and from what I gather he was a welcome choice. I had forgotten about the recent change, so maybe that answers some of the post. In calling Wheaton to repent of their fostering of this anti-Christian atmosphere, maybe Ryken's presidency is part of the answer. What is apparent is that if he intends to clean things up, he has his work cut out for him. If he intends to make this college one that truly honors Christ again, he will need prayer and support, probably for years to come. If this is the plan, may God bless his endeavors and give him perseverance. Because one thing is for certain - this is but the tip of the iceberg, and it's not going to get any less ugly if he leads a crackdown on the heretics and false teachers among them.

Church Discipline vs Gutless Grace

I've sometimes said that no statement is simultaneously more obvious and controversial than "boys and girls are different". So much of current wickedness - being forced to pretend two boys can marry each other, a 6-year-old boy pretending to be a girl and everyone else being forced to play along - comes from fighting against perhaps the most obvious fact of personhood. If boys and girls are different, these things are reprehensibly wicked. If they're not, then... um... you know, I can't even imagine what to put here. The fact that male and female are different is so blazingly obvious, I can't even think of what to use to illustrate what things would be like if they weren't. Yet that's what we're (very selectively) being forced to pretend. Yeah, that'll end well.

But there's another statement that, within the church is nearly as obvious and nearly as controversial. You ready? "You can judge a tree by its fruit". Aside from pretty much being a tautology, you have Jesus directly teaching it, so you'd think that would settle it. But you'd better have a strong backbone if you try to teach it, or worse yet, act like you believe it. Prepare for the onslaught of "you're confusing law and gospel!" protests, and all manner of assaults from the Gutless Gracers, who seek to exalt grace by insisting that it does nothing but provide fire insurance. I never cease to be amazed at how hard people will work to denounce the thought that a new creation will somehow be new.

I was thinking of this recently as I read some texts on church discipline, Matthew 18:15-20 and 1 Corinthians 5. I seriously wonder how someone who holds to Gutless Grace would handle those passages. That position maintains that there is no necessary connection between your profession of faith and your ensuing life - you can be justified without subsequently ever experiencing even the tiniest bit of sanctification. You can become a good tree while still producing nothing but poisonous fruit and thorns; Jesus is your savior but Satan remains your lord.

Now read those passages, which address how the church is to deal with sin. Notice first, the one being disciplined is one who claims to be a brother - he professes belief in Christ. Second, the discipline is brought on by his actions - in one case sin which he refuses to repent of, in the other case sin which is especially vile. Finally, the last stage of punishment is to put him out of the church, to hand him over to Satan, to have nothing to do with him (such as sharing the Lord's Supper with him), to treat him as an unbeliever.

Put it all together, and here's what you get. Based on his actions, the church is to deny the validity of his profession of faith. The church is to unite and say that he is not one of them, to deny him any form of fellowship, which is only appropriate if he is an unbeliever. Which is to say, because of his conduct, they are to have no confidence that he is a brother in Christ. If a man's belief doesn't affect his actions, the church is to regard it as no belief at all. If he claims Jesus as savior but not as lord, the church is to contradict him and disassociate from him.

So how does the 'Jesus as savior only' position deal with this?

The Romans Inclusio and Gutless Gracers

Here's the introduction to Romans, emphasis added:

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ... (Rom 1:1-6)

And here's the closing:

Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith — to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen. (Rom 16:25-27)

Paul brackets his magnum opus with this phrase summarizing the purpose of the letter, and in fact his entire ministry: "to bring about the obedience of faith". He starts by saying that's what it will be about, concludes by saying that's what it was about, and in between, well, that's what it's about: the glory of saving faith and the corresponding transformation to Christlikeness.

What this phrase (and the entire rest of the letter!) makes clear is that, to Paul, if there is no obedience, there is no faith.

Yet Romans is the perpetual favorite of those who insist that obedience is merely optional, a nice little extra for the Christian. All that really matters is just saying 'Christ is Lord' once - after that, you can be sanctified and that's great, but you don't need to. You don't even have to keep claiming to be a Christian - just say it once, and you're good. This idea mostly comes from a really, really lazy interpretation of Romans 10:9-10 (hints: what does "Lord" mean, and what would such a confession mean for a 1st-century subject of Caesar?). This interpretation flies in the face of the rest of the letter, where nonchalance towards sin is condemned, sanctification is a necessary result of being a son of God, being conformed to the image of Christ is what we are predestined to, etc.

Romans simply cannot support the Gutless Grace position - it denounces it many times and in various ways - which Paul lets us know with a few little words at the beginning and end. The gospel brings about the obedience of faith; no obedience, no faith.

Repetitive Repetition: Sin Altars

Hosea 8:11 has a repetitive bit of repetition in the 11th verse of Hosea 8. It's actually kind of funny when you first read it:

"Because Ephraim has multiplied altars for sinning,
       they have become to him altars for sinning."

Well, yeah, duh. They built altars, they got altars. Nothing to see here, just kind of obvious, right?

Slow down a minute, and look a little deeper. How much work went into building an altar? The surface for the sacrifice took some work, like precisely cutting a large stone or doing some high-quality metalworking. But there was even more to it than that. Take a look at this picture from Beth Shan, where the Philistines hung the bodies of Saul and Jonathan.

The remains of the city are in the foreground. Notice that big hill in the background, the one that looks a little unusually tall and more than a little unnatural? That's because it is unnatural - it's an artificial, manmade hill. Tons of dirt and rock were hauled to this site by generations of people building it a few feet higher every year, until they had an artificial hill towering over their city - what you may know as a "high place".

Yes, that hill is where the people of Beth Shan would have had their altars, Asherah poles, and any other instruments of pagan worship. Similar high places were found in cities all throughout Israel. When they wanted to put an altar on a high place, they didn't just find the highest natural hill nearby. They continually built bigger hills to hold their new, fancy, forbidden altars.

So when Hosea says that Ephraim "multiplied altars for sinning", this is what he means. In pretty much every town of appreciable size, Israel spent years hauling in multitudes of tons of material (without modern earth-moving equipment!) to build these high places, grew grass and trees on them, made large, ornate altars of metal or stone, and hauled them to the top. And all of that was just the preparation for sinning!

Some sins were committed on a whim, of course. But these sins - these altars of sinning - required years of toil to lay the groundwork for sin. Many of these required years of scheming, transgenerational effort, incredible cooperation, and enormous expense - all to prepare a place where they could properly rebel against their Creator. These sins didn't just happen. They were planned and prepared for.

After all those preparations, all that time and effort and expense, what are the chances they would not indulge in the sin? They went through all that trouble to set the stage for sin, so of course they followed through, and the sin became for them an essential part of life.

Now track with me here. How are we doing the same thing? There are some sins that you just do - they're the instant reaction, the momentary lapse in judgment, the failure to do what's right, etc. And while those are plenty bad, there are sins that are so much more dangerous - the scheming sins. The ones you plot how you're going to do them, and how you'll hide it, and how far you're willing to push, and how you'll get away with it.

Addictions come to mind - hiding booze around the house, plotting how to get alone to watch porn, moving money around to hide it for gambling. Adultery is often like that as well - it's often said that nobody wakes up one morning and just decides to cheat; it's the culmination of a long process of increasingly bad decisions, dangerous thoughts, and nursing smaller sins to help them grow. Or think of plotting revenge, or scheming to defraud a client, or cheat on your taxes, or a host of others.

All sin is horrible. But these types of sin that require deliberate planning and focused effort - they're a whole 'nother level of deadly. If you have a pet sin like that, now is the time to put it to death. Get some friends to be like Hezekiah or Josiah for you. Don't just stop sacrificing there (for a while) - tear those high places down entirely.

Can't Someone Else Do It?

And now for something completely different. Consider the following two statements:

A) I am free to use a product
B) Someone else must provide that product for me

Does B necessarily follow from A? No, of course not, that's ridiculous. But the idea that it does forms the foundation of numerous Democrat talking points. Whether the product is birth control, post-secondary education, medical care, housing, food, or whatever the cause du jour will be tomorrow, the product is claimed as a right - and anyone who doesn't want to provide it for you can be accused of denying you that right.

Now a half-second's thought would be enough to reveal the super-secret solution to this problem: just pay for it yourself. But a half-second's thought would be more than enough to dissuade anyone from even considering voting for Obama, and we saw how that worked out. What they're banking on is the unthinking response to Homer Simpson's impassioned campaign rhetoric of "Can't someone else do it?" They expect that we've sunk to Springfieldian levels, so that we'll expect to receive every good thing we want, while someone else has to do all the work. Sadly, based on the population of Occupy Useful Idiotville, they may very well be right.

But that's all introduction. As I was thinking about this idea, I came to another realization. Consider the following two parallel statements:

A) I am free to progress in sanctification
B) Someone else must do all the work for me

That's right. Keswick Theology is the Obama-voter of the Christian world.

One More Night With The Frogs

Have you ever noticed this in Exodus? The second plague God unleashed on Egypt was to completely overwhelm it with frogs. Pharaoh had his magicians try to help, but all they could do was replicate the problem and make it marginally worse - they were utterly powerless to stop it. Finally, Pharaoh gives in and decides to axe Moses for help...

Then Pharaoh called Moses and Aaron and said, "Plead with the LORD to take away the frogs from me and from my people, and I will let the people go to sacrifice to the LORD." Moses said to Pharaoh, "Be pleased to command me when I am to plead for you and for your servants and for your people, that the frogs be cut off from you and your houses and be left only in the Nile." And he said, "Tomorrow." Moses said, "Be it as you say, so that you may know that there is no one like the LORD our God. (Exodus 8:8-10)

Wait, what?

Tomorrow?!

What about, oh, I dunno, right now?

Pharaoh had a thoroughly disgusting problem he had exactly zero hope of solving, and a standing offer of help from the only person in the entire world who actually could stop it. And he decided to spend one more night with the frogs.

When it comes to dealing with sin, how often do we do the same thing?

Learning to Like It

If you've paid the tiniest bit of attention to the Christian blogosphere or publishing world this year, you probably heard about Rob Bell's fancy new update of George MacDonald-style universalism (that 'hell' is temporary (in Bell's update, it's temporal as well) and restorative rather than punitive - it's God's redeeming/purifying fire rather than his wrathful punishment of sin). Hopefully if that book was even the slightest bit intriguing to you, you first (or better, instead) read Kevin DeYoung's outstanding critique affirming the Biblical doctrine of God's judgment.

But this isn't about any of that, per se.

One interesting phenomenon which arose from the discussion of hell was the tone of many of the defenses of the doctrine - "I may not like the idea of hell, but the Bible teaches it, so I guess I have to believe it". Now this is clearly superior to outright disobedience, but it's short of what Christian maturity requires. DeYoung recently posted two articles which deal with this issue, and these I also wholeheartedly commend to you.

It boils down to this: scripture teaches us the character and will of God. God is good, and everything He does is good. Our goal in sanctification is to become more like Christ, which involves renewal of our minds to love the things God loves. Now, begrudging acceptance is certainly better than rejection of any kind, but we can do better. Consider four possible responses to Biblical teachings, ranked from worst to best:

1) Hypocrisy/Sabotage. Someone who claims to believe, but actively works against the Biblical doctrine. Often accomplished by using familiar Biblical terms in new, unbiblical ways (any similarity between this description and Bell's entire modus operandi is totally not accidental). This is the lowest of the low, worse than outright atheism - these are the wolves, the false teachers that we are so frequently warned about.

2) Defiant rejection. Better than the first class, because at least it's honest. The Bible clearly teaches it, but we reject it because we don't like it. This is the default state of fallen humanity.

3) Begrudging acceptance. "I may not like or understand it, but scripture plainly teaches it, so I have to believe it." Clearly and unquestionably better than the previous, but still not where we need to be. It still trusts my own sense of goodness more than God's, and places myself as judge over him, which is obviously wrong. The acceptance at best comes from a commendable knowledge that God's Word is true, but lacks the conviction that God's way is good.

4) Conformed affection. This is where we need to get. Not only accepting the truth of God's Word, but being fully convinced of its goodness. We learn to love what God loves.

Now the big challenge is to identify areas where you, personally, are still stuck in group 3 and need to grow up, to mature to response 4 (if you're in response 1 or 2, your biggest need isn't maturity but repentance). In my experience, there are three big doctrinal areas where the Biblical teaching is abundantly clear, but acceptance for many is begrudging at best.

God's righteous judgment/hell. See the DeYoung articles. Far too many of us 'defend' the doctrine as if it's detestable. And the thought of any person willingly bearing God's wrath rather than repenting and believing in Jesus Christ is horrific. Yet scripture is clear that glorified saints in heaven will cry out for God's judgment on the wicked and rejoice when it happens. What do we need to understand about hell and judgment to bring our attitude closer to the perfected saints in heaven?

God's sovereign election. I spent a long time as a begrudging believer, after a long time trying to rationalize away the scriptural evidence. The big change for me came through a better understanding of our depraved nature as well as God's gracious display of his glory.

Complementarianism. I think I'm detecting more begrudgingness in defenses of God's created order. Not just with complementary roles for male and female, but also with sexuality in general. Why is it good that the genders are designed have different roles in the church and home? Why is it good that boys should like girls, and why is it good that boys should not like other boys? Maybe it's just my imagination, but I'm hearing a bit too much "Well, sorry you can't be a pastor, but rules are rules, ya know?" and "Gee, it sure would be great if you could indulge those sexual desires, but God says it's bad, so you have to resist, I guess", and not enough faithful proclamation of the glorious way God created us male and female.

What doctrines do you struggle to wholeheartedly accept? With what other doctrines do you too often see timid, begrudging acceptance?

Nature

Today we're taking Rebekah to the zoo, for possibly our last trip with only one child. I'm really looking forward to it, seeing as how she's generally incredibly happy, especially when she's watching animals do cute animal things. Should be a great time.

And how can she not be entertained? She'll get to see butterflies swinging from the trees and climbing on vines. Turtles will be on the prowl, waiting for an unsuspecting antelope to walk by - and then they'll pounce! The tigers will gently float along in their little pond, waiting for little kids to drop in a handful of food pellets. And don't forget the sheep putting on their amazing aquatic show, with the jumping through hoops and synchronized swimming and doing tricks and being rewarded with fish!

What's that? Ridiculous, you say? Well, yeah, that's kind of the point. Obviously these animals don't do those things - you could say it's against their nature. Butterflies do butterfly things, turtles act like turtles, etc. If something looks like a monkey and acts like a monkey, it doesn't matter if it calls itself a zebra, or if someone labeled it a horse, it's a monkey. Animals act according to their natures.

With that in mind, let's take a look at what Peter had to say:

"His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire." (2 Peter 1:3-4)

This text was the basis for our sermon last Sunday, and it's worth repeating. If you are in Christ, you are a partaker of the divine nature. You've been born again, you are a new creation, you have been raised from death to life. Is it possible that the new, living nature can be the same as the dead, old one? A person with a new nature will have the appropriate new appetites. A person with the divine nature will have new, fitting behaviors.

The challenge is to examine yourself. Do you actually show the signs being a partaker of the divine nature? Do your thoughts, desires, attitudes, actions, environments, and affections appropriately represent new birth in Christ and transferal from the kingdom of Satan to the kingdom of Jesus Christ? If not, are you really in the faith? Then today is the day to repent and believe the gospel.

Oh yeah, that's me

Read this. Personalize it, because it definitely applies to you. Me, too.

It's real easy to read the Bible and see myself as the good guys (in the places where there are any, of course). I can somehow relate to David, but can't imagine being one of the faithless multitudes cowering because of Goliath. I can see what all those people in scripture did wrong, and wonder how they cold be so foolish. Pointing out people making the same mistakes today? Oh, that's easy - far too easy.

But actually using scripture as a mirror and seeing reflections of my own sinfulness? Now that's a lot more of a challenge - not because it's difficult, but because it's painful. It also happens to be blessed and beneficial.

Sure, it's more fun to read scripture (or an open letter) and think of how awful those other guys are. But it's significantly better to diagnose my own sin, repent of it, and kill it.

Restaurant:Impossible and You

We didn't mean to go there. We really didn't.

There are some shows on Food Network and similar programs that are pretty reliable guides to finding a great restaurant to visit. For example, if you visit an Iron Chef's restaurant, you can be sure it'll be top-notch (such as Mesa Grill, where we went Sunday evening). Shows like Diners, Drive-Ins, and Dives or Best Thing I Ever Ate profile a lot of restaurants around the country that are worth a visit if you're in the area. But one show profiles places that we would never intentionally seek out - Restaurant:Impossible.

We really, really didn't mean to.

For those unfamiliar with the show, the concept is pretty simple. A restaurant is really struggling, and doomed to fail if things don't change drastically. They beg for help from an expert chef/restaurateur, who has two days, a small budget, and free reign to suggest whatever changes are necessary. After a whirlwind of renovations to the facility, staff, and menu, the place reopens. (It's the same concept as Kitchen Nightmares, except without the perpetual vileness of Gordon Ramsey, so it's significantly more watchable.) It's a pretty neat show, but not one where I would ever plan to go to any of the restaurants or anything.

We were staying one night in the little town of Mystic, CT, and just went over to grab dinner at our hotel's restaurant. The name seemed familiar, but I didn't know why. The inside looked sort of familiar, which was odd since we'd never been there before, and there was something about the show kitchen that made me think I'd seen it before. And when I saw that the chef looked really familiar, too, it clicked - this place had been one of the renovation projects on R:I. Totally unintentional, but hey, might as well see how the turnaround went, right?

It was excellent. Some Chicagoans might not believe me when I say the calamari was the best we've ever had, better even than Harry Caray's, but it was. Everything we had was delicious. The place was fairly busy, and I noticed that on the walls, they had some awards displayed. They had won quite a few (Best in County/State awards from various publications), seemingly every year up through about 2007, but then there was a gap of a few years, until their proudly-displayed 2011 award. Once good, the quality had slipped and brought them to the verge of failure, but it's completely turned around. Good for them.

So what does this have to do with us, or you?

At the end of each episode, there is a quick update about how the restaurant is doing several months after filming. Some places, like this one, are booming. Others went right back to where they had been, and at least one of them had already closed. These restaurant owners put out a desperate plea for help, bring in an expert to straighten them out, but then it's up to them how to proceed. Those that make the suggested changes tend to do well. Others fight against it the whole way, revert to what they had been doing, and fail.

We are no different. Consider this familiar passage from James 1:22ff: "But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing."

Or Proverbs 26:11: Like a dog that returns to his vomit is a fool who repeats his folly.

Or Hebrews 13:17: Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.

When you go to scripture looking for promises to break the power of sin, when you beg your pastor and/or small group for help, do you intend to actually do what you're told? Or will you forget the authoritative word, and scoff at the advice of the experts?

No true Scotsman would write a post like this

There is a logical fallacy commonly known as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. For those who aren't familiar with it, here's the classic story used to illustrate it:

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."

Why bring this up? It seems that NTS has become the accusation du jour for atheists/fools to hurl at Christians. A typical exchange will go a little something a-like-a this-a.

Atheist: There are many Christians who are evil, wicked, immoral, reprehensible, etc.

Christian: Anyone who does such things has shown himself to not be a Christian.

Fool: A-ha! It's the No True Scotsman fallacy! By relying on such a fallacy you show the weakness of your position, and admit defeat! You lose, sucka!

So the question before us today is, is this a proper place to cry 'fallacy'? Let's break down the fallacy and see what exactly is being said.

What you have is group A with essential and necessary membership requirements; everyone who meets the requirements is part of the group, and everyone who is in the group meets all the requirements. In math proof speak, they are "if and only if". In the Scotsman fallacy, the requirement is "being Scottish" (whether born in Scotland, born of Scottish parents and/or just lives in Scotland, the exact definition is beyond the scope of this paper). A man born of Scottish parents in Glasgow is a Scotsman, a German born in Berlin or New Zealand is not. For the group "Pitchers for the Atlanta Braves", the requirements would be (1) a Major League Baseball player (2) for the Atlanta Braves (3) who plays the position of pitcher. Anyone who meets all three requirements is in the group, anyone who meets zero, one, or two isn't. Clear? Mmmmkay.

Next, you have some separate, unrelated issue B, usually a negative condition, such as the acts of the Aberdeen man in the example above. Finally, you put them together - someone who meets all requirements for A, but also does negative B. Is he still in group A? Of course. But someone else in group A could say no, which would be the fallacy.

Now how does that apply to the exchange with the atheist fool? In this case, group A would be "Christians", and issue B would be wickedness/immorality. His claim is that when the Christian asserts that wanton, unrepentant sin reveals someone to not truly be a Christian, he is committing this fallacy. Does this hold up? In order to work, the fallacy requires B to be a completely separate issue from group identity. In other words, whether or not someone is so evil that even an atheist is willing to call it evil must be completely unrelated to whether or not he is actually a Christian.

But if something like, oh, say, submission to the Lordship of Christ is a necessary requirement of Christianity, the objection completely falls apart. (See, among numerous examples, Mat 7:15-27, Romans 6, like, all of 1 John, etc etc.)

A few closing observations.

1) I have no idea how the no-Lordship folks would respond to this. But that's way down on the list of objectionable things about no-Lordship theology, so whatever.

2) Take a gander at the introduction to John Piper's excellent little book, Finally Alive (pdf). Go ahead and read the rest of it too - but for now just the intro will suffice. Note that both the atheist fool and the Barna group begin with the same premise: that someone professing to be a Christian or born again actually is, and that his behavior has no bearing on the validity of the claim. To them, the only requirement for being in A is claiming to be in A. Not surprisingly, both reach a similar anti-Biblical conclusion (that being born again does not result in sanctification). Just something to keep in mind when reading the next Barna book about how we need to reform the church or church growth wizardry or whatever.