Saying Nothing: We Condone Sin by Our Silence

“Judge not, that you be not judged.”- Matthew 7:1

“Judge with righteous judgment.” – John 7:24

---

The one who gives an answer before he listens–this is foolishness and disgrace for him.
 – Proverbs 18:13 CSB

Seven is the perfect number (or so it is said) and this is our seventh time featuring the writing of Shane Idleman, founder and lead pastor of Westside Christian Fellowship in Lancaster, California.  Today’s devotional is from Shane’s personal blog, click the title below to read at source.

Naming Names—Should We Ever Confront Others Publicly?

Whether it’s regarding a worship leader wavering on biblical truth or a pastor speaking error from the pulpit, should others ever speak out? When a podcast addressing a recent concern was released, the amount of positive feedback was very encouraging. However, some are angry when I name names. On the surface, I can understand. As a youth (and even today) I had the tendency to isolate myself to prevent future pain. I became an approval seeker, something you would find hard to believe if you heard my preaching. Angry people scare me, and personal criticism hurts more deeply than it should. So I, of all people, understand the need to build people up instead of pulling them down.

But here is the kicker: We don’t have to pull people down to address important issues. We can also use it as an opportunity to speak the truth in love and redirect them back to God’s Word. When a well-known person wavers on or makes an incorrect public statement about God’s Word that could potentially give millions the wrong idea about God, possibly validating or encouraging sin, those who have been given a platform should pray about tilting the scale back in the direction of truth. New Testament writers would name names from time to time for this very reason.

If a prominent Christian says they aren’t sure if pornography or adultery is wrong today, I’m sure most would agree that we would have a moral obligation to respond. But why must we remain quiet when it comes to the issue of homosexuality? Why are those who are simply clarifying what the Bible says scorned?

When a person, including myself, makes public statements, we open ourselves up for public scrutiny. Freedom of speech comes with social responsibility. We can’t always say whatever we want and hope that others leave us alone. Our words must be weighed carefully. Granted, I have concerns about some “heresy hunters” and modern-day Pharisees who lack love and humility in their blogs. They are proud, unteachable, and eager to dispute. They are doing a lot of damage and should be publicly rebuked. We should err on the side of grace whenever possible. Finding the balance between being bold or passive is difficult—I myself fluctuate—but it can be done if we look at the biblical course and remember that it’s not what we say but how we say it that determines the impact.

Those who strongly believe in the Bible and God’s will regarding sexual behavior also strongly believe in unconditional love and forgiveness. To say that authentic Christians hate or fear those trapped in the homosexual lifestyle demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the Christian faith. To truly “confront in love” simply comes from a desire to honor God and to sincerely love and care for others. The ability to relate to people on their level, show genuine concern, and love them regardless of their lifestyle is the mark of true Christianity (read more here).

Sadly, many churches take the easy route by avoiding confrontation. But saying nothing is saying something: we are condoning sin by our silence. True, we should not rush to judgment; grace, mercy, and forgiveness must be underscored, but we also must speak up now and then. God’s patience with us is a good example to follow. If someone is caught in sin, we should restore that person gently while being careful not to fall into temptation as well (see Galatians 6:1). Here are a few ways:

Examine your heart first. Believe it or not, Jesus actually encourages us to judge others (read more here). Because our sinful tendency is to point out the flaws in others, judgment must begin with us by removing the plank from our own eye. This means we should refrain from eager judgmentalism. Before appearing on Fox News to debate the topic of homosexuality (you can listen to the full audio here and a short clip here), I spent a month praying and fasting. I needed to examine my heart first. As a result, the peace, boldness, and love I felt while at the studio was a true gift from God.

Research the facts. Proverbs 18:13 says that we should not make a decision before hearing both sides. Be patient, and ask God to reveal what’s really going on. Don’t be quick to assume.

Don’t move too quickly. Moving too quickly can hinder our decision-making and damage communication. But on the flip side, moving too slowly has pitfalls as well. Sometimes we must intervene immediately, as in the case of outlandish media statements. But even then, I try to pray for a day or two on whether I should I say anything. Wisdom is needed here.

Lovingly confront the person when possible. This is often not the time for anger but for tears. Lovingly and graciously challenge the person. It may also be appropriate to walk them through relevant Scriptures, reminding them that poor choices have consequences, but there is grace and forgiveness via repentance. However, public figures are rarely able to do this; therefore, our public critique must be tear-stained and seasoned with grace.  It should not be something we want to do but something we need to do.

Offer a solution. Saying “I will walk through this with you” offers great hope if you can talk to the person individually. The man addicted to porn needs to show he is serious by installing accountability software, the wife who left her husband needs to end the affair immediately, and so on. Accountability often starts the process of lasting change. Here are some helpful articles and sermons on addressing sin in the local church.

When confronting, don’t forget about the emotional state of the person, as well as their family, especially if children are involved. Their spiritual well-being and emotional health are just as important as ours. When I write or speak against something, I try to imagine the person or their family reading or hearing it. Am I humble and broken before God? Am I seasoning my words with grace and hope? Am I encouraging them in their walk and reminding them that we all make mistakes—including me? I could write articles daily against things I see or hear, but I try to be very selective. We shouldn’t be eager to critique others. If we are, something is wrong in our own heart, and we need to back off until God deals with us. As a final thought, how can we warn if we won’t confront, correct if we won’t challenge, and contend if we won’t question? We must speak the truth in love if God opens that door.

 

Wheat Among the Weeds

The Parable of the Weeds

^{NIV Matt. 13: 24} Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. ²⁵ But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. ²⁶ When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

²⁷ “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’

²⁸ “‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.

“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

²⁹ “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. ³⁰ Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”

This parable came up in a discussion on the weekend, and I went looking for some commentary on it, even though we’ve covered it here before two or three times. I think there’s a powerful principle here we can miss.

Karoline Lewis is Associate Professor of Preaching and the Marbury E. Anderson Chair in Biblical Preaching at Luther Seminary in Saint Paul, Minn. Click the title below to read at source. Note: Her website, Dear Working Preacher, is addressed to pastors.

Wheat and Tares and Other Truths about the Kingdom of Heaven

Good and evil side by side, co-existing without set checks and balances, without resolute criteria for adjudicating which is which, without a sense of qualifications and quantifications that might provide certain conclusions to ease our moral consciences? Perhaps one of the most challenging and problematic issues in the history of theological thought. Where does evil come from? Is it as simple as assigning it to an alternate being? Is it as easily determinable as we tend to think? Is it so readily recognized as we want to believe?

These are the theological questions that Matthew’s parable seems to raise. A first step in preaching this week is to acknowledge these difficulties, to dwell in the discomfort, and to resist any definitive test to secure answers that surely demand far more deliberation than a twelve minute sermon can give justice.

We are really good at assessing what is good and what is not with the effortless phrase, “the Bible says.” But, the problem with evil? With sin? Is that it looks pretty darn good. So close to what seems right and virtuous. So close to our vision of what we imagine good should be.

Matthew’s parable…is in one sense a warning. Lest we think we have it all figured out how to judge evil from good, moral from immoral, right from wrong, virtuous from unvirtuous, think again. According to whom? When? In what contexts? By what standards? This is the time for some prophetic proclamation. Pointing out the places in our history, in our present, when evil was and is justified biblically, theologically, morally, socially. This alone is worth preaching.

Such is our human inclination, is it not? Our penchant for judgment and condemnation. For declaring the future of those we deem somehow inadequate in faith and Christian life. For assuming maleficence in another as if our own actions are above reproach.

This parable is one that should stop us up short. Really? Who do you think you are? God? Yet many do. We do. A lot.

I recently shared a saying on my Facebook page that appeared in my news feed, “When they discover the center of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed they are not it.”

When we start going down the road of making our lot in life electing what is good and evil we may very well discover that others will make similar conclusions about us.

Matthew’s parable invites some honest preaching about the existence of evil. When was the last time you listened, really listened, to how your parishioners talk about evil, about theodicy? Call attention to the ways in which these realities co-exist. How difficult it is to determine the difference until the point when it’s too late. That it is ok. Because in the end, the parable promises that God’s job is not ours. Exuberant efforts to eradicate evil may very well end up only in questioning our own eschatological actuality.

This parable is a description of a reality we’d rather not admit. Maybe even a description of a God in whom we’d rather not believe. Can’t God do something about the enemy, and now? What is God good for anyway if God can’t see to it that evil is eliminated? The parable of the wheat and the weeds is not told for the sake of action but for the sake of honesty. Our presence in the world as Christians is not about a full-blown plan to get rid of evil at every turn.

That our calling as disciples is to seek out and purge sin and evil? Frankly, I don’t want that job. I don’t trust myself. But I do trust God. Our presence in the world as Christians is to be the good. To live the Gospel. To be the light. To be the salt. Because we are, says Jesus to his disciples. This should be good news. This parable calls us simply to be. To be the good in the world with the full awareness of what the resistances will be. To be light when darkness will surely try to snuff us out. To be salt when blandness and conformity and acceptability are always the easier paths.

Maybe you are wondering, but aren’t we called to call out evil? To resist the forces that would deprive those who hunger and thirst for righteousness? To make sure that those who mourn are comforted? To uplift the poor in spirit? Yes. Absolutely. But perhaps not in this sermon. There will be other texts and other sermons that will have us lead a charge for this kind of action.

Perhaps in this instance we believe in the text and take our cue from Matthew’s vision of God. Immanuel. “I am with you to the end of the age.” We are called to just to be. And in order to be we trust that God is with us.

Indeed, God is.

 

The Great Axiom of Domestic Pets

^{NIV Matthew 7:6} “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

^{NIV Matthew 15:25} The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.

²⁶ He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

²⁷ “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”

When the conversation is lagging, here’s a bit of trivia that is sure to get a reaction, I call it the great axiom of domestic pets (in the Bible at least):

The cat is the only domestic animal not mentioned in the Bible

Actually, as much as I was told that and passed it on to others, I know that my son kept degus and they and hamsters are not mentioned, at least not by that name. (And my friend Steve would then say, “Did you know you can’t tan through glass?”)

The corollary to the great axiom is something I came up with when my dog loving friends jumped all over it:

But the dog is always cast negatively in scripture.

Well, not anymore.  Keith Brenton at Blog in My Own Eye puts an end to that theory at a blog post he titled:

Jesus, Syro-Phoenicians and Dogs

Click title to read at source

I just got in from walking my dog Roadie, and I’m sure that had some bearing on this topic leaping to my mind.

A few days ago, I made the apparently outrageous suggestion in the comments of a Facebook post that Jesus didn’t call people “dogs” in a prejudicial, insulting way in Matthew 7:6 or 15:25-27; rather that He was quoting a maxim of that era to illustrate the pervasiveness of judging others and how wrong it is.

I was immediately shut down with a chorus of “of-course-He-dids” and didn’t have time to defend my contention right then, and the moment passed. So I will now.

First of all, to call someone a “dog” who is of a different ethnicity is completely foreign to the nature of God, who created all men and all ethnicities. To say differently of Jesus — through Whom and for Whom all things were created (Colossians 1:16) — is to declare that the signers of the Declaration of Independence were less bigoted than the Lord when they declared “all men are created equal.” Preposterous.

Secondly, it is not possible for Jesus to have been prejudicial. He could be judicial, because He knew men’s thoughts (Matthew 9:4; Luke 9:47), but not pre-judicial. He could call certain people “a brood of snakes” (Matthew 23:33) because they were children of the great serpent Satan when they were plotting to kill Him (John 8:39-47). It wasn’t like He didn’t know; He did. We don’t have that knowledge, and we are not equipped to judge. He was. But that wasn’t His purpose in coming (John 12:47); that is His purpose when the day set for it comes (Acts 17:37).

Third: “Dogs” was a term of derision in the first century. See Philippians 3:2 and 2 Peter 2:22 and Revelation 22:15. Don’t miss whom these verses talk about, and what they have done or are doing.

They are not about ethnicity. They are about sin.

“Dog” was an insult. In the centuries before, especially in the books titled “Samuel,” the term “dog” is a term of self-deprecation as well as an insult to others, and I believe it is always used as an insult about peoples outside of Israel. Several translators insist that Jesus even softened the term to “puppies” or “little dogs” when speaking to the Syro-Phoenician woman — perhaps lest she imagine real judgment in His tone.

In speaking to this woman and granting the miracle she desires, He refutes what He has said in Matthew 7: He gives a holy gift to someone He has called a “puppy.” How could this not be an object lesson to His entourage, to help prepare them for the idea of the total giving of Himself for all mankind?

Fourth: In Matthew 7:1-6, when Jesus — I believe — quotes this maxim about giving dogs what is holy and giving pearls to pigs, it immediately follows what He has just said about not judging people. If He is not quoting a common proverb as a bad example, then it follows (immediately!) that He was violating the principle He has just given them — how credible is that?

How can we escape the conclusion that prejudice and judging and insulting other people is not Christ-like, and is never something that His followers should participate in?

Finally: Let’s face it. It’s easy to create God in our own image — and doing the same to Jesus is no exception for us. We sometimes want to justify things we want to do by maintaining that He did them in this flesh, in this world. But that doesn’t mean He did them, or said them because it gets us off the hook for wanting to say or do them. We all judge, and we all should not judge. Using the excuse of being like Jesus is no excuse because we do not have all of the authority or capability of Jesus to do so.

Okay. It’s not a Q.E.D., but it is a simpler explanation to me than Jesus saying one thing and then immediately contradicting Himself, and if you respect Occam’s Razor as a sound principle of logic, then I think you’d agree that William would shave with it.

And it certainly is preferable to the theology of a God who called people dogs based on the ethnicity He gave them.

~Keith Brenton

Short Devotionals With Big Ideas

Once again today, God totally provided something to be re-posted here through a comment left at T. O. L.   Carley Evans is in her third year of blogging almost every day at Grace Partakers, which is now listed in the blogroll here.  Each day’s devotional title is based on a phrase of the key verse and I appreciate her use of a variety of translations.  I read through about a dozen of her recent posts and a few of her very first, and ultimately decided to give you a sample of two of her most recent; something we’ve never done here before.  Her posts are shorter than some we’ve done here, but she digs into some deep ideas and leaves you with something to consider. 

Don’t rush through these. Perhaps you can take a minute to read each one through a second time. The title of each post is also the direct link to the article.

“Don’t Handle, Don’t Taste, Don’t Touch” ( Colossians 2: 21, NIV )

“Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom,” says Paul. However, “they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.” (Colossians 2:23) Instead, these rules calling for you to not handle, not taste and not touch create only a “self-imposed worship,” a “false humility” and offer only “harsh treatment of the body” without any lasting effect on the state of the soul. (Colossians 2:23)

“Do not let anyone,” says Paul, “judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” (Colossians 2:16-17)

People get puffed up with false humility, warns Paul. They go on and on about conforming to rules and regulations, “which depend on human tradition.” (Colossians 2:8) Instead, rejoice that “God makes you alive with Christ. He forgives [you] all [your] sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that is against us and that stands opposed to us; He takes it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, He makes a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.” (Colossians 2:13-15)

Because God cancels the written code, why then put yourself back under that which has no authority?

~Carley Evans

“We Know And Believe The Love” ( 1 John 4: 16, KJV )

One of the saddest personality flaws is the inability to know and believe that you are loved. Janis Joplin had such a personality flaw; she was incapable of believing people loved her. Despite accolades for her music, she lead a barren existence of self-doubt, self-hatred, and abject loneliness. By loneliness, I am not referring to solitude, but to that feeling of complete isolation in the midst of shouting people — people shouting adoration and respect and yes — love. The loneliest moments for Janis were likely those in the midst of her public admirers. Janis also unfortunately did not know and believe the love of those closest to her, no matter how they tried to convince her. She found herself totally unlovable.

The author of 1 John writes that “we know and believe the love that God has to us. God is love.”

What an amazing statement — read it again. “We know and believe the love that God has to [or toward] us.” Why? Because “God is love.” And if we know and believe God, then we know and believe His love. Like Paul reminds, “If God be for us, who can be against us?” (Romans 8:31) “What shall separate us from the love of Christ?” (Romans 8:35) Essentially, assures Paul, nothing “shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus, our Lord.” (Romans 8:39)

Do not insult God. Do not hold yourself in such low esteem that you fail to realize God is love. Know and believe the love God has toward you! His love does not depend upon you; His love is wholly dependent upon the sacrifice of His Son.

~Carley Evans

Footnote: I want to add something here that I don’t usually share. Writing a post a day like Carley does or like I’ve been doing takes a great deal of discipline; but I am so much richer for doing this, as it has propelled me into considering scriptures and ideas that I never would have previously. 

Have you ever considered doing something like this? Even if no readers showed up — and actually, they will — it would be of great benefit.