When Hurting Helps 5: What Does That Title Mean?

Posted on 3 November 2014 by Seth Meyers

Read Part 1: A Popular Call to Some Good Things

Read Part 2: Ignoring Churchplanting and Evangelism

Read Part 3: Redefining Poverty

Read Part 4: Refusing to Confront Culture

The Cause of Poverty

Outside of natural disasters like hurricanes and car accidents and cancer, the real cause of poverty is sin—and even natural disasters find their roots in sin. It is that simple. All over the world, in each culture, sinful decisions have been calcified into systems of thought and behavior. These days, those systems are called worldviews. The system of thought described in Scripture is a Christian worldview and is responsible for the wealth of the world.

Notice that the sinner responsible for the poor person’s poverty may be a politician or a criminal. A poor person in the Congo may be poor because of his own sin, or maybe because of those in his government or the criminals that the government should have stopped. But what is always sure is that poverty comes from sin.

Suffering may be allowed by God as in the case of Job, but poverty is a state of lack in a world sufficiently stocked by the Creator. If sin is the most common cause of poverty, then a book on poverty alleviation should talk about the precious remedies against this poison. You won’t find much discussion of repentance, Bible study, evangelism, or the means of grace in When Helping Hurts though.

Even in the 16-page discussion of poverty, they make sure we know that worldview “transformation is often insufficient to alleviate poverty for several reasons. … Even if all humans had the correct worldview, Satan would still be on the prowl, attacking us and the rest of creation, thereby causing ‘poverty’ in many manifestations.” (83) Having our minds renewed by Scripture is insufficient because Satan will still cause poverty? Did he really mean to write that? (After all, as a good amillennialist, doesn’t he believe that Satan is bound right now?) I think he did mean to write it that way because throughout the book, he does not act as if sin causes poverty. Except for one full page (76), he does not treat evangelism, and churchplanting does not show up in the entire book. So apparently, poverty alleviation does not require new hearts or new churches; it might be nice to have some Christianity, but according to the authors, it’s not necessary.

Painful Advice

In When Helping Hurts Fikkert and Corbett aim to help rich Americans do a better job alleviating poverty around the world. Of course, they make some good recommendations regarding short term mission trips and personal responsibility, but the main point of their book is too weak to really lift the huge weight of poverty from the shoulders of those struggling around the world. Unfortunately, the authors are more concerned with keeping the temperature of the discussion comfortable than with actually eradicating poverty.

“What is wrong with you? How can I fix you?” … Starting with such questions initiates the very dynamic that we need to avoid, a dynamic that confirms the feelings that we are superior, that they are inferior, and that they need us to fix them.

Fikkert and Corbett, When Helping Hurts, 119

But what if this is the truth? What if “they” have something terribly wrong with themselves that is trapping them in poverty? What if they desperately need to be fixed so that they can get out of the downward spiral of generational poverty?

The truth is that inferior cultures have always been conquered and ultimately helped by superior ones. In ancient times, the loser found better weapons and farming techniques from the victor. Today, American Christians may offer a superior understanding of work, time management (The discussion of time management on 152-153 makes me cringe, possibly the most naïve section in the book.), personal responsibility, planning, education, and theology.

But in order to accept these strengths, the poor person needs to recognize that his culture, his way of doing things, and his worldview are wrong. Ouch. No one likes to admit he’s wrong, but you’ve got a choice: keep your pride and your poverty, or grasp after humility and hopefully catch enough wisdom to get you out of the miserable hole of material want.

Of course, poverty alleviation also includes changing the government as well as cultural values of the whole community. But each person must take responsibility at the very least for himself and his family. And yes, that’s a Western idea that we have been borrowing from Moses, Jesus, and Paul for many generations. There was a time when America was poor too.

Why did I call this set of reviews, When hurting helps? Because as Spurgeon told us at the beginning, “If you really long to save men’s souls, you must tell them a great deal of disagreeable truth.” He also said, “Why carry your head so high that it must needs be cut off?” Truly helping the poor means telling them the painful truth, that their religious beliefs are terribly wrong. And these beliefs bear the greatest responsibility for the iron shackles of poverty that they and we so desperately want to break. The poor are released most entirely from their fetters by preaching, evangelism, and churchplanting just like the book of Acts says. All other efforts are nice add ons, like repainting a car with no engine.

Now why couldn’t Fikkert and Corbett have given us 250 pages of painful, healing truths like that? Maybe they think we can’t take it, or maybe they couldn’t take it.

Posted in Book reviews, Missions, Multiculturalism | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

When Hurting Helps 4: Refusing to Confront Culture

Posted on 3 November 2014 by Seth Meyers

Read Part 1: A Popular Call to Some Good Things

Read Part 2: Ignoring Churchplanting and Evangelism

Read Part 3: Redefining Poverty

American whites should feel guilty. And all cultures are filled with goodness, truth, and beauty. You haven’t read well if you didn’t get these two points from When Helping Hurts. We’ll follow the author’s thinking on these two tracks before looking at the real cause of poverty and then closing with some painful advice.

White Guilt

We all use stereotypes, and language would be difficult without them. A stereotype is a summary of dominant characteristics. It is not meant to be an exhaustive catalogue just like saying that Toyotas are dependable is not false because of the occasional Toyota that may be a lemon. They are illustrations, which are meant to communicate at least one point. Stereotypes may be wrong, but using them is not necessarily wrong.

And Fikkert does that with us throughout this book. On 247 he says there is “one step that is more important than” anything else in the book. What is it? “It is the step of repentance … our repentance.” (italics and ellipsis in original) The book is filled with “like us” and “we too” or as this final example shows (only 3 pages from the end), the most important thing we could remember about helping the poor is to repent ourselves.

Who is the “us”? And what did they do? He’s talking about the average reader of this book in American evangelicalism. The average reader is an evangelical white male. He needs to repent. He has capitulated to a modern worldview (90, 248), has a god-complex (60, 62, 248), is a syncretist (248), and is—amazingly—guilty of the prosperity gospel (66). For those who are theologically in tune, Fikkert even takes a swing at someone who sounds suspiciously like a dispensationalist whom he accuses of “replacing the biblical Jesus with ‘Star Trek Jesus’.” (44, 248)

I have searched the book and found only the mildest comments directed toward the poor themselves. They certainly are not told to repent as “we” are told is the most important step for helping the poor. Whenever anything negative is said about the poor or their worldview, “we” are included. Repentance is needed when someone is guilty, and apparently, that guilty party is “us.”

So, let’s get this straight:

  1. A lot of people are desperately poor in the world.
  2. The most important thing that can be done for them is for us to repent of our pride. (63, 247-248)
  3. We should not tell the poor about the problems with their thinking. (112-113)
  4. Therefore, we are guilty for their poverty, but they are not.

Multiculturalism

The authors subscribe to a popular, but faulty view of culture. When Richard Mouw, the president of Fuller Theological Seminary, was debating a Mennonite on the topic of culture, the Mennonite summarized the two views brilliantly with the following lines: “Mouw views culture as fallen, but still created. I [the Mennonite] view culture as created, but fallen.” That’s it. One side starts with the tendency to find good things in the cultures of the world, and the other side looks at the various cultures through a negative lens.

Notice Fikkert’s attitude toward poorer cultures, “Hence, as we enter a poor community, there is a sense in which we are walking on holy ground, because Christ has been actively at work in that community since the creation of the world!” (122) “While sin has brought enormous brokenness, Christ has been sustaining all of creation—including culture—since the dawn of time and is in the process of reconciling all of it.” (129) It is not hard to find this language and reasoning throughout the book. I’m sure he would acknowledge that things like suttee in India (the cultural practice of burning widows alive) were bad, but stereotypically, when he looks at a people group’s way of doing things, he is going to focus on the good, not the bad. He is not modeling Biblical love in this way, but unbiblical gullibility. In case, we have forgotten Proverbs being simple is a vice not a virtue.

What if Christ’s work in a poor culture has been a work of reprobating judgment such as we read in Romans 1:21-25 “They became foolish in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools. … Therefore, God delivered them over…”? Even though the authors by default assume that the cultures of the world are filled with goodness rather than badness (123), many societies have been so mastered by their own sinful lusts, that they are being eaten from the inside out.

Abraham Kuyper’s brilliant line about every square inch of creation being under the control of Jesus Christ has been commandeered by evangelical postmoderns who don’t want to admit that the entertainment of their current culture in 2014 is a degraded mess, or that 200 years ago thinking was closer to Scripture on things like amusement, meditation, and evangelism. Therefore, they have to swallow the largest unchewed bite ever: the lie that all cultures are equally good, true, and beautiful. The one exception to the multicultural motto is of course, that classic Western culture is rife with rot.

Fikkert and Corbett do discuss worldviews on 79-94, but the section is startlingly weak, like watching a man play at boxing with his 5 year old, no punches actually land. What do I mean? They urge American Christians to “repent of [their] modern worldview” (90), but they never call on the poor to do the same. Rather, according to the authors, a poor black in America needs to see that he “is also a victim of powerful systemic forces.” (85) Why don’t they address the cultural values of initiative, hard work, planning, humility, and delayed gratification? Why not discuss the need for fathers and the material devastation that happens without them?

Again, “people have more confidence to face an unknown future if they are bringing forward positive elements of their past.” (129) Why are we spending our time trying to find out good things about their culture, when several bad things make up the pack of jackals that is stealing their wealth?

And the third shall suffice to stand for all the rest in the book. A pastor in a poor country was given a free house by an American ministry, but he doesn’t want to live in it because he doesn’t like it. (135) In a section on worldview, they should talk about how that man should be grateful for grace and eagerly trying to learn how this other group could have so much disposable income.

I can close this section by saying that at least Fikkert and Corbett were consistent with their views on culture. They never raised their voices at the cultures of those in poverty, and they never missed a chance to sneak in a kick at those with Western culture.

Posted in Book reviews, Missions, Multiculturalism | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

When Hurting Helps 3: Redefining Poverty

Posted on 23 October 2014 by Seth Meyers

Read Part 1: A Popular Call to Some Good Things
Read Part 2: Ignoring Churchplanting and Evangelism

When Helping Hurts bases all of its practical tips on the first third of the book. It is refreshing to read a book that starts logically with clear definitions—much more difficult to critique if you can’t understand. Chapter 1 defines the mission of the church in light of Christ’s mission as “making all things new.” The error here is to broaden the definition so wide that anything becomes mission (or missions) rather than the more narrow emphasis of the NT and especially the book of Acts on planting churches in lesser reached areas.

Fikkert’s grasp of the church’s task fits hand in glove with chapter 2: What is poverty? And the stakes are high, “Defining poverty is not simply an academic exercise, for the way we define poverty—either implicitly or explicitly—plays a major role in determining the solutions we use in our attempts to alleviate that poverty (52).” I agree.

The plot thickens with a chart from an academic source published by a Catholic press (58). And this chart is vital to explaining that there are many kinds of poverty: “a poverty of spiritual intimacy, a poverty of being, a poverty of community,” etc. (59). That list follows on the heels of the only definition of poverty stated in the book (that I could find), “Poverty is the absence of shalom in all its meanings (59).”

How did he get here? Mainly just assertion, but he did use that most favorite hermeneutical friend of the 21st century exegete: Biblical theology (54). Rather than citing proof texts (Is anything less fashionable?), these various kinds of poverty are derived from a loose comparison of the grand narrative of the Bible with our contemporary experience. If this sounds like the primary means of interpreting the Bible to you, then you just scored an A on the “Am I a post-modern?” quiz. By blending relationships and story, they may have hooked their target market, but they have not accurately interpreted the text of Scripture.

And why would they try to base their definitions on something as illustrative as the story of redemption? Three reasons come to mind that have already been hinted at. First, stories provide more wiggle room than propositions. People can hold multiple views without being clearly wrong when we are proving points with stories. Second, the spirit of the age wants warm, feeling narrative, not cold, cutting logic. Third, it takes some of the sting away from being poor. If the first two observations above are right, then we are all poor in some sense. So, no one has to feel ashamed as if they are in a category by themselves being poked and examined. The authors are very concerned that poor people do not have hurt feelings (53, 61, 62, 64, 75, 101, et. al.).

But we haven’t even looked to see if the sting is necessary to actually helping the poor. Guarding the feelings of the poor is such a major part of the book and recurs so repeatedly in little phrases that the majority of the final post will treat this reflex of the authors.

Back at the definition though, who talks that way? Other than academic evangelical authors who want to be published by friends of the Magisterium. In short, “poverty of being” is pop psychology eisegesis, not something that should be lauded by speakers at T4G as foundational for ministering among the poor.

They did tell us in advance that their definition would effect their applications. And just a few pages later, we have this shocking example of Biblical interpretation, “Poverty alleviation is the ministry of reconciliation [spoken of in 2 Cor. 5:18-20] (74).” Here is that passage:

18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

Having bolded the relevant phrases, if one of my students had interpreted Paul’s words as “poverty alleviation” I would have filled his paper with red ink and asked him to rewrite. Do I need to point out the obvious? This passage is about freedom from sin, not poverty. “Not counting their trespasses against them” is one among several clues. The verse before and the verse after are two of the most powerful gospel, regeneration, justification verses in the whole inspired corpus. There is zero evidence that Paul was thinking of raising the standard of living for the poor at Corinth when he wrote this.

Unfortunately, this is the usual kind of exegesis that the book carries on each text it dissects. See the discussions of Luke 4 (31-32) and Colossians 1:15-20 (33).

Still within the same bowl of stew is the term “the poor.” Who are these people? On 40, Fikkert says,

“Indeed, throughout the New Testament, care of the poor is a vital concern of the church (Matt. 25:31-46; Acts 6:1-7; Gal. 2:1-10; 6:10; James 1:27). Perhaps no passage states it more succinctly than 1 John 3:16-18:

16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.”

Again, the first principles of Bible interpretation tell us to ask who is writing and to whom. “Our brothers and sisters” are to be the primary objects of our compassion ministries. The same holds true when we look at the OT. The passages about the poor in the Law refer almost entirely to those within the nation of Israel. The Jews were not responsible to go around the world eradicating poverty. The parallel in the NT is explicitly stated in the NT “especially to those who belong to the family of believers.”

Before we draw up big plans, shouldn’t we find out if the people are brothers in Christ? And shouldn’t we ask what effect our poverty alleviation plans will have on creating fake converts? We’re right back to the gospel again. Evangelism and church discipline should be at the forefront of poverty-fighting ministries. Without those tools, how will you know who the brothers are? And each of the passages cited above has that inside-the-family wording.

But this book does not have time for such basic distinctions. Let us tell the truth about poverty even if it hurts. Yes, we can talk about a “poor imagination” or those who are “poor in spirit,” but the most common way this term is used when referring to the differences between people groups today is material or economic. Therefore, poverty is a relative material lack due to sin or acts of God.

Acts of God refers to the devastation of tidal waves, hurricanes, and earthquakes. Sin refers to that person’s or someone else’s failure to obey the law of God. If everyone obeyed the Bible, the poor would not exist. Zimbabweans are poor in part because their government is full of corruption, laziness, and lying. Yet, they are also poor in part because of their own moral choices.

A really interesting book would explore the balance between those two categories answering questions such as, How can we determine if this man’s poverty is caused by himself, his society, his government, or other men? But this book is not that interesting. In fact, as disturbing as it is to those of us who live among the poor, sin as a cause of poverty was barely even mentioned.

And to that most crucial argument, I shall now attend.

Posted in Definitions, Hermeneutics, Missions | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

When Hurting Helps 2: Ignoring Churchplanting and Evangelism

Posted on 16 October 2014 by Seth Meyers

Read Part 1.

With nearly 250,000 copies sold, When Helping Hurts is touching a nerve in the church. As I worked through the text keenly interested because of the ministry God has called me to, I was consistently disappointed. My frown first came on the first page of the first chapter when Fikkert set the stage for social ministry as the goal of the church rather than churchplanting.

The chapter is entitled “Why Did Jesus Come to Earth?” and he argues something like this:

  1. Jesus came to earth to fix everything that is wrong with the world. (32)
  2. The main job of the church is to take Jesus’ place doing what he did. (37 and 41)
  3. Therefore, the Church is supposed to fix everything wrong with the world. (37 ff)

In 2009 the book that I awarded as Best of the Year that I had read was How Christianity Changed the World by Alvin Schmidt. It is an inspiring catalog of social changes that Christians have produced because of their faith in Christ. The list includes schools, hospitals, legal rights for women, and the world’s greatest pieces of art. That book should be read by every believer (and unbeliever) since all things are under Christ’s feet, and we must master every legitimate cultural expression to His glory. In short, I am glad to encourage Christians to take part in societal change.

But is that the most Biblical way to explain the church’s mission on the earth? No, it is not. Interestingly, on the first page of chapter 1, Fikkert recognizes that there is some controversy on this point which he calls “nuanced differences (32).” In the next sentence he admits that this “small differences can have dramatic consequences for all endeavors, including how the church responds to the plight of the poor.” (32) So, the author knows that he is entering disputed territory. There is no consensus on the theological foundation he is trying to lay.

He quotes Luke 4:17-21, a favorite of liberation theologians, and then assumes that each of the terms such as poor, prisoner, and oppressed are to be taken literally. Yet on the same page when he cites Luke 4:43 “the kingdom of God” is to be taken figuratively. By what hermeneutic?

None needed because he has a preconceived conclusion about social ministry that he wants to support with Scripture. And to add some star power, in the same paragraph, the second page of actual text in the book, he quotes Tim Keller who is well known for his position on social ministry (32).

Fikkert correctly says, “The mission of Jesus was and is to preach the good news of the Kingdom of God” then he adds his interpretation of what this means: “I am using my power to fix everything that sin has ruined.” How did we get from preaching about the kingdom to fixing everything? Only an amillennial could explain that.

Throughout this chapter, there are fuzzy definitions of the gospel (“Jesus is making all things new” 33) the task of the church (37), and the poor and the oppressed (39). And we can be sure that the bricks he lays here will support the applications that come later on.

In a 17-page chapter on the purpose of Christ on the earth, evangelism is barely referenced. When he gives about 6 pages to explaining “What is the task of the church?” (37-43) evangelism does not feature prominently. I am sure that he does believe in evangelism, but this chapter will not encourage anyone to do that. It’s supposed to be about the main theme of Christ and his church, but apparently that main theme does not have much to do with turning people from darkness to light.

This chapter forms a critical part of his argument (See the syllogism above), but he handles Scripture in such a way that the church’s mission at the end of his exegesis has little do with evangelism. Can’t we all see that the believers in Acts did not think of the church’s role that way?

Therein lies a critical category of Scriptural data almost totally neglected by the authors: the book of Acts. What exactly did Paul do? How often does the NT record him being involved with social ministry? Isn’t he said to be our earthly pattern on at least three occasions (1 Cor. 4:16; 11:1; Phil. 3:17)? If so, then why aren’t we following him?

And if we are supposed to do what Christ did, then why don’t we atone for the sins of the lost as well? Why don’t we use parables so that the truth will be obscured from some?

Because of this theological confusion at the beginning (the role of the church is to fix all the problems in the world), there is basically no concern for the next world in this book. I found “Hell” referred to two times (23, 66). In both instances it referred to a slum in Africa. Does this writer have any concourse with eternal realities to speak this way? Does he really believe in literal conscious torment as the Westminster Confession teaches? When the apostle tells us to “rejoice in the Lord always” (Phil. 4:4) based on the fact that Christ will return and fix the problems with our bodies (just 5 verses earlier), I have to ask if they believe that? Why not tell the poor what Paul told them?

This book will not help us to plant churches or evangelize like the believers in Acts, and yet it wants to pretend that the emphasis it places on poverty alleviation is rooted in the NT model of the church. There may be some temporal pain caused by placing the great majority of our resources into churchplanting in contrast to helping unbelievers out of poverty, but if we believe the NT model is best, then there will be little helping without it.

Posted in Book reviews, Hermeneutics, Missions | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

When Hurting Helps 1: A Popular Call to Some Good Things

Posted on 16 October 2014 by Seth Meyers

Poverty fighters need boldness to get at the root of endemic poverty. As Spurgeon said, “If you really long to save men’s souls, you must tell them a great deal of disagreeable truth.” And is that not the case in every worthwhile endeavor?

These days American evangelicals are taken with the idea of social justice, compassion ministries, poverty alleviation, “preaching the gospel in deed as well as word,” and Great Commandment missions. Notice I did not say “ideas” because these are all basically synonyms. And these are the big things to talk about in books and missions (or mission) periodicals. Less common are discussions of churchplanting, evangelism, and confrontations with sinful cultures.

With this as a background, I both listened to and read When Helping Hurts by Fikkert and Corbett (rev. ed. 2012 by Moody). Before having read this book, I recommended it based on its clever title, implied emphasis on personal responsibility, and general acclaim among some people I respect. And the 250+ pages of text have some worthwhile points to make. Let me start with them.

Personal Responsibility
Fikkert (he was the main author of the book, page 26) does believe that people should work hard for themselves and their own wealth. He even castigates himself for about 4 pages (123-126) for inadvertently stealing from some poor Ugandans a great chance for them to show personal responsibility. He returns to this theme on a number of occasions throughout the book. As a pastor among poor people who has preached a six-sermon series on personal responsibility, I am especially glad for this emphasis. So many great doctrines and blessings of Christianity rest silently on the presupposition that every man will answer, be rewarded, and be punished for his own actions. Like the existence of God, personal responsibility is assumed from Genesis 2 until Revelation 22:12 where Christ will return with his reward in hand to give every man according as his work shall be. Of all the important notes to sound in ministering among the poor, this is certainly near the top of the list.

Short Term Mission Trips
About a decade ago, Americans spent $1.6 billion on short term mission trips (page 151). In one of the longest chapters in the book, he carefully dismantles myths about short term trips and speaks firmly to any one who might be tempted to consider this “ministry.” I myself have taken 5 short term trips from 1995-2003, yet I found his critique to be backed up with ample facts and sound reasoning.

Love for the Poor
Finally, this book comes from a compassionate desire to alleviate pain around the world. We are naturally self-centered pleasure-seekers, and that tendency is only heightened by living in the richest country in the history of the world. The OT is replete with texts about the poor and God’s love for them; Christ’s example follows the law of God perfectly by sympathizing with their plight. Elihu said to Job, “Teach me what I do not see; If I have done iniquity, I will not do it again.” In loving poor people, we need to constantly examine our hearts.

However, that was not all Fikkert and Corbett squeezed into these 12 chapters. In fact, these points were not the main emphases of the book. Since this particular book has received so much positive press—213 of 233 reviews on Amazon are 4 or 5 stars and the first four pages of the book are packed with Evangelical stars saying, “Amen”—and since I live permanently among a people group that is significantly poorer than the average American and since some of the errors are serious, then I offer a review. Maybe another book is needed in response.

In some sections, especially in the first 3 chapters, my copy is heavily marked in red. Rather than making a superficially impressive double-digit list of problems that are all very similar, I’m grouping them under three main headings. Yet even within the narrow confines of three separate concerns, it should be obvious that there is a vital relationship between each of them. They are something like individual supports for a three-legged table. Remove one, and they all fall. Or, a web whereby every strand that shakes reverberates throughout the whole.

Lord-willing, I’ll treat each of these problems in separate posts within the coming week.

  1. Ignoring Churchplanting and Evangelism
  2. Redefining Poverty
  3. Refusing to Confront Culture
Posted in Book reviews, Missions | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Preaching

Posted on 7 October 2014 by Seth Meyers

What is preaching? Logic on fire!

And again:

What is the chief end of preaching? It is to give men and women a sense of God and His presence. … I can forgive the preacher almost anything if he gives me a sense of God.

From Preachers and Preaching by D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones

If clear thinking, passion, and a deep reverence for God marked the preaching in the average American church, what would our Christianity be like now?

Posted in Pastoral, Quotes | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Selling Salvation and the Blood of Jesus

Posted on 5 October 2014 by Seth Meyers

A few weeks back, I attended a pastors’ conference in South Africa where one of the speakers described Africa’s Christianity with the words “vital” and “explosion.” May I present just one of many examples of Africa’s vital explosion?

T. B. Joshua’s “Anointing Water.”

Notice the copy on the packaging: “For the salvation of your soul.” But salvation is such a weak word these days in prosperity circles. Can’t we ratchet up the marketing power with some real godtalk? So, the enhanced packaging reads, “THE BLOOD OF JESUS.”

Joshua peddles his water like a modern African witchdoctor looking for a quick buck. This is the “Christianity” that is taking over sub-Saharan Africa. Blasphemy is not too strong a word. But “vital” most certainly is.

Posted in Prosperity gospel | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Mandela’s View of the Problem

Posted on 27 August 2014 by Seth Meyers

We must face the matter squarely that where there is something wrong in how we govern ourselves, it must be said that the fault is not in our stars but in ourselves that we are ill-governed.

Nelson Mandela, quoted in Martin Meredith The State of Africa

A few pages later Meredith lists some facts about the continent after 50 years of independence.

Most African countries have lower per capita incomes now than they had in 1980 or, in some cases, in 1960.

Its entire economic output is no more than $420 billion, just 1.3 per cent of the world GDP, less than a country like Mexico.

It is also the only region where life expectancy is falling.

All twenty-five countries that rank lowest in terms of human development are African.

Meredith does not offer solutions, just history, yet for the sake of my impoverished brothers and sisters here, I long for a Christian worldview and all the earthly benefits it brings to take deep root in a broad cross section of the society.

Posted in Book reviews, Quotes | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Responding to the Arguments Against Divorce and Remarriage

Posted on 26 August 2014 by Seth Meyers

The plot thickens since I have for years held to the no divorce position. Writing the critique of the “pro-divorce” side revealed a number of hidden crags in the rocks of Scripture I hadn’t seen before. But now I have the privilege of really getting into the other side, which is by far the more popular position. That position is: Divorce and remarriage are permissible (but not required) in the cases of adultery and desertion. I’m not playing games; my prayer is that God would reveal truth to His people whether that requires changing sides, relaxing a level of confidence, or holding more firmly than before.

1.    Christ does not divorce his bride (Eph. 5:31-32).
Proposition 1: Jesus will never divorce His bride.
Proposition 2: I must be like Jesus.
Conclusion: I must never divorce my bride.

According to this argument, divorce testifies against the gospel in a similar, but converse way to marriage’s support of the gospel.

This syllogism is as valid as:
Proposition1: Jesus prohibits judging.
Proposition 2: Clarence Thomas judges.
Conclusion: Clarence Thomas is prohibited from judging by Jesus.

Just like the word “judge,” the word “bride” has two meanings. In the first proposition, it means a supernaturally created group of believers who cannot fall away because of divine omnipotence. In the conclusion, it means a normal woman. The Church is not, in all respects, equal with my wife, so the analogy breaks down. The correct syllogism would say:
Proposition 1: Jesus will never divorce His bride.
Proposition 2: I must be like Jesus.
Conclusion: I must never divorce (leave or forsake) the church.

This syllogism looks persuasive, but there is—like in most logical errors—a simple solution going right back to the basic definitions of terms.

2.    Romans 7:2-3 builds its illustration on the premise that only death can break the marriage bond.
The point of the illustration loses its power if other reasons could validly release the woman from her covenant. Paul wants to say that only one thing can release us from the guilt of the law. The absolute ending of that guilt which happened through Christ on the cross. There are no other options for how to remove the law’s just condemnation.

As an illustration of the singular solution to this problem, Paul chooses marriage. Only the spouse’s death can give freedom to leave the marriage. And once freed, the wife may remarry. The theological reality that was supposed to be clearly communicated by this picture is that the believer has only one hope of release from the law’s grip. Since that is the theological point Paul is making, then we know that the illustration must support that. Marriage has no other valid outlets except death.

Paul’s illustration should not be pressed past the point of comparison. Illustrations are valid only when the two ideas being compared are evaluated in light of that one element of similarity or difference. All ideas are similar in some ways and different in some ways, so illustrations can be rather tricky. In Romans 7, Paul does not offer a comprehensive explanation of marriage, he chooses one undeniable aspect of marriage and then compares that with a man’s bondage to the law. No Biblical advocate of divorce would say that divorce is normal. It is rather the exception which is why Paul does not treat it here. This illustration should not be made to say more than it says as if Paul was forbidding valid exceptions that Scripture does offer in other places.

Secondly, to use Romans 7 against a conservative view of divorce has all the force of a great assumption. Since the passage does not treat the exceptions, we are supposed to assume that it opposes them. Arguments from silence may be interesting as corroborating evidence, but they have no logical force.

3.    No man should separate a married couple (Matt. 19:6).
When a similar construction is found in John 10:28 (“No one will snatch them out of my hand”), it is clear that the “no one” includes the person himself. No one should try to take them out of God’s hand, and were someone to try, it would not be successful. The grammar in Matt. 19:6 communicates an ethical duty: it is wrong to attempt to separate a husband and wife (that which God has joined).

Commenting on this passage MacArthur says, “[N]o man—whoever he is or wherever he is or for whatever reason he may have—has the right to separate what God has joined together. … In the ultimate sense, every marriage is ordained of God and every divorce is not.”  He goes on to argue for divorce in Matt. 19:9, but in his comments on 19:6 he explains the text as it stands on the surface.

Who would disagree with this? Divorce should be exceedingly rare, and marriage should be protected in society. As His first response, Jesus stated the rule for the overwhelming majority of marriages. However, as with Romans 7, God is allowed to introduce exceptions to His general laws (See Ezra 10 and Deborah’s leadership in Judges 4-5) as it pleases His kingly will.

As an illustration of this principle, God grants to the civil magistrate the right to separate “what God has joined together” if the husband has committed a crime worthy of death. Capital punishment would definitely break the marriage covenant since it even allows the widow to remarry after the death of her spouse. If she can be separated from her husband by the state, then why couldn’t she be separated from her husband for some other reason?

4.    God hates divorce which implies that He would not endorse exceptions for it (Mal. 2:16).
Something that God hates should surely be something we stay far away from. Is there any doubt? Is there any level of uncertainty? Then why get near to something God hates? The reasons must be overwhelming for a lover of God to choose to do something that the Master has expressly condemned as abhorrent to His holiness.

Christians must do a better job of loving what God loves and hating what He hates. Yet this verse does not have the length or context to cover all scenarios. At other times and to other people, God has revealed His will more fully. So Matthew and Paul recorded the exceptions to the general rules that these other passages copiously establish.

God also hates the violent man (Psalm 5:5), yet His Son will be stained with the blood of His enemies as He returns to execute His just and violent fury on all His enemies (Rev. 19:13-15). Does the Father hate the Son? If not, then there may be times when He does not hate divorce.

5.    The exception clause of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 is doubtful.
A.    When asked by the Pharisees if a man may divorce his wife for every cause, Jesus’ first answer is phrased in such a way that the reader does not expect any exceptions (Matt. 19:1-6). The exception clause did not come immediately to his lips, but rather a firm denial of divorce.

Since he had just begun the discussion, we are not surprised to see an opening summary of the main position. As things progress, riders will be attached to the original bill until the full scope of the legislator is revealed.

B.    After his first answer denying divorce, and after the exception clause answer, when clarifying with his surprised disciples in the house, he confirms no divorce and no remarriage without an exception (Mark 10:10-12).

The gospel writers confirm the general rule like any good writer would. He repeats the main point which constitutes the vast majority of the cases.

C.    The disciples were surprised by Jesus’ answer which means that he did not take either the liberal (divorce for any reason) or conservative (divorce for adultery) school.

Yes, the disciples apparently were assuming the liberal position.

D.    Matthew 1:19 gives an example of divorce within the betrothal period. Matthew could have recorded the exception clause that Mark and Luke left out because he had already illustrated it for his readers in the first chapter. Joseph was righteous, but he was going to divorce a woman with whom he had never been intimate.

This example may is circumstantial evidence and proves nothing. It only fits if the conclusion is true.

E.    Deut. 22:23-29 shows that adultery during betrothal and before physical relations was a far more serious crime than fornication after. Adultery during betrothal could have deserved death. Whereas pre-marital relations could have deserved marriage. In the NT, a number of the death penalty offenses were changed, but the point here is that adultery during betrothal was a potential that had to be dealt with in the law. Jesus knew the law as well as human nature, so it would make sense that he deal with betrothal adultery here.

Again, this is a good observation, if the conclusion is true that Jesus’ exception refers to the betrothal period. If that is not true, then this observation is misapplied here.

F.    Mark and Luke were written to larger and Gentile audiences who would not have understood betrothal so it makes sense that they did not include the exception clause.

We can’t know why they did not include the exception clause so we can’t argue from their silence.

G.    1 Cor. 7 explains divorce using Jesus’ teaching about marriage and divorce (7:10) yet does not reference the exception clause which would be an obvious fit here.

Same as above.

H.    Romans, 1 Corinthians, Mark, and Luke were written to groups of Christians before Matthew was written. They all treat divorce, and yet none of them allow for divorce on the grounds of fornication. It is difficult to understand why these other sources would not mention this major difference for the many believers that would never have access to Matthew’s gospel.

Revelation is revealed over time the early Christians did not have the entire mind of God on divorce just like they did not have the entire mind of God on the Millennium or many other NT matters.

These observations cannot disprove the position that Jesus’ words are a clear exception from the normal covenant of marriage. We start with the clearest flags in a text and then move to the less obscure. The meaning of “except for fornication” is clearer than any and all of these observations however interesting any of them might be.

6.    The alternative position seems to open a wide gate to divorce and remarriage for many reasons.
If divorce is possible for adultery and desertion, then what about pornography, flirtation, lust, fornication before marriage, adultery within marriage years before the divorce is requested, or adultery after an “unjust” divorce? Desertion could be expanded to include financial desertion if the man does not provide and emotional desertion if he is abusive. The frequency of divorce in evangelical churches testifies that this is not hyper-sensitivity. This is not wild-eyed “slippery slope” fear-mongering.

The WCF allows for divorce for these “two” reasons reminding believers that they must not take advantage of these provisions, but it would seem that is exactly what has happened.

This is a genuine concern. The current divorce rates among professing believers is a sad statement about the godliness of those who claim to be Christians. The tendency is exactly that warned about in the WCF because the sin nature so strongly pulls us away from the law of God. However concerning this trend may be, it is not an exegetical concern about the two key passages: Matt. 19:9 and 1 Cor. 7:15. If these passages allow for divorce, then we must allow for it as well regardless of the difficulties that this position presents to us. And it must be remembered that all positions will have difficulties as long as they are held by sinners. A “no-divorce” position can easily produce a lack of compassion just like the divorce position can produce frivolous divorces.

Posted in Divorce, Ethical dilemmas, Hermeneutics, Pastoral | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Responding to the Arguments for Divorce and Remarriage

Posted on 21 August 2014 by Seth Meyers

Having already set the table with the basic arguments for two major positions regarding divorce and remarriage, I am going to try to step fully into each perspective and refute the other from its vantage point. Taking on the glasses of those who oppose divorce in all instances, I offer the following responses in blue to the major reasons presented by the pro-divorce side (not intended to be a pejorative term).

1.       Jesus’ clearly gave an exception multiple times (Matt. 5:32 and 19:9).
Matt. 5:32 is part of a famous sermon that would have been heard everywhere Jesus preached. He also repeated the exception clause (except for fornication) in the lengthiest passage in the NT dealing with divorce (Matt. 19:3-12). The most natural reading of this clause permits divorce today. This is probably the strongest reason to allow divorce because not only is it repeated, but it appears to be the obvious meaning of the text.

First, it should be noted that if this argument fails, then the strongest leg of this position is gone. Why is that so? Because without this 3-word expression (μη επι πορνεια), we have Jesus’ words from three gospels repeatedly rebuking divorce and remarriage (Matthew 5:32; 19:3-12; Luke 16:18; and Mark 10:2-10) in unqualified terms. This is Jesus’ only qualification when he otherwise prohibits divorce. Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 7:15 are less clear and are only found in one epistle as compared to four places in three gospels.

In response to this statement of Jesus’ I would include the observations previously noted about Matthew’s “exception clause.” They are copied here with some added comments.

  • When asked by the Pharisees if a man may divorce his wife for every cause, Jesus’ first answer is phrased in such a way that the reader does not expect any exceptions (Matt. 19:1-6). The exception clause did not come immediately to his lips, but rather a firm denial of divorce.
  • After his first answer denying divorce, and after the exception clause answer, when clarifying with his surprised disciples in the house, he confirms no divorce and no remarriage without an exception (Mark 10:10-12).
  • The disciples were surprised by Jesus’ answer which means that he did not take either the liberal (divorce for any reason) or conservative (divorce for adultery) school. Their response (“If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”) as well as their asking him privately (“in the house they asked him again” Mark 10:10) indicates surprise. What can account for that? In Romans 9, a key argument for unconditional election is that the objections Paul answers (9:14 and 18) will only be raised if unconditional election is the theological conclusion Paul is arguing for. We know the true interpretation of the passage because of the response of the hearers. The same applies here since the disciples, like the Pharisees, would have expected Jesus to side with Hillel or Shammai. What reason would they have for being surprised if Jesus sided merely with the conservative position that divorce is bad, but there are valid reasons for being divorced? This question must be addressed for the divorce position to stand confidently. In fact, if someone from this position holds firmly to the clarity of the exception clause, then their opponent could just as viably hold firmly to the clarity of the disciple’s surprise. To paper over their response to Jesus’ sounds as convincing as those who oppose divorce and remarriage without a full recognition of how formidable the exception clause is to their position.
  • Matthew 1:19 gives an example of divorce within the betrothal period. Matthew could have recorded the exception clause that Mark and Luke left out because he had already illustrated it for his readers in the first chapter. Joseph was righteous, but he was going to divorce a woman with whom he had never been intimate.
  • Deut. 22:23-29 shows that adultery during betrothal and before physical relations was a far more serious crime than fornication after. Adultery during betrothal could have deserved death. Whereas pre-marital relations could have deserved marriage. In the NT, a number of the death penalty offenses were changed, but the point here is that adultery during betrothal was a potential that had to be dealt with in the law. Jesus knew the law as well as human nature, so it would make sense that he deal with betrothal adultery here.
  • Mark and Luke were written to larger and Gentile audiences who would not have understood betrothal so it makes sense that they did not include the exception clause. Those who support divorce in some instances need to offer a viable reason for why Mark who, in a relativity brief, fast moving gospel, extends his treatment of divorce yet leaves out three Greek words that make such a huge difference. Mark saw this topic as worthy of extended discussion, yet he left out the three words that would have made the entire thing understandable!
  • 1 Cor. 7 explains divorce using Jesus’ teaching about marriage and divorce (7:10) yet does not reference the exception clause which would be an obvious fit here. If Jesus’ was allowing for divorce why is Paul silent about fornication as grounds and unclear even about desertion? This observation does not disprove the divorce position, but it should cause the exegete to pause especially in light of the other flags.
  • Romans, 1 Corinthians, Mark, and Luke were written to groups of Christians before Matthew was written. They all treat divorce, and yet none of them allow for divorce on the grounds of fornication. It is difficult to understand why these other sources would not mention this major difference for the many believers that would never have access to Matthew’s gospel. All the Gentile readers for many years would have had access only to documents which do not allow for divorce because of fornication. How many years passed before Matthew was in common circulation among Gentile churches? Probably, enough time would have passed for these believers to form an ethical culture before they read the first gospel. Then, according to the divorce position, they would all be allowed to divorce and remarry in cases of fornication where previously they had been bound. Again, it is merely a cause to slow down the train of confidence, not to win the debate. But it should at least slow the train.

In conclusion, the exception clause when viewed in light of the Jewish background of its original recipients, other flags in Matthew 19, and observations from the rest of the NT is not nearly as clear as may be taken with a first reading. We can validly say, “It probably allows for divorce” or “It possibly allows for divorce”, but to say that it unequivocally settles the matter is too much dogmatism in light of the entire textual evidence.

2.       Allowing divorce and remarriage for the injured party is a demonstration of mercy and grace.
This is a theological reason culled from dozens of statements throughout the Psalms about the lovingkindness of God. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for missing the major points of the faith one of which was mercy (Matt. 23:23). The fruit of His Spirit include love and kindness. The merciful will inherit the earth. God endures the wicked and even gives them many blessings for a long time before the final judgment. David served Mephibosheth. And on and on, the proof texts and examples go throughout Scripture of God’s delight in mercy. What could be more gracious and merciful than allowing someone bruised through a terrible marriage to get relief with a divorce and then peace with a second marriage to a godly Christian?

This argument is as much pastoral as it is theological. If we were locked away with books handing down decisions for others to put in place, we may not put as much store by this particular reason. But we all have prayed with and counseled friends, brothers, sisters, and parents who have lived in painful, abusive, unfaithful relationships.

From an exegetical standpoint, however, this argument is not conclusive. Allowing divorce and remarriage is only merciful if it is the will of God. If it is not the will of God, then the most merciful thing is to strengthen the wounded spouse for healing and perseverance while hoping for our Lord’s return. Many of His choicest servants have lived and died in bitter pain only to awaken to the joy of Aslan’s country. While I find this argument very persuasive when I am actually speaking with people, when I am in my study, there is no meat to it.

3.       The binding that Paul references in 1 Cor. 7:15 probably means “bound to marriage.”
He uses that same picturesque term in 7:39 where it clearly refers to being bound to marriage. If we are bound to marriage there, why would 7:15 not refer to marriage? This seems like the most natural, surface reading of the passage. On top of that, other interpretations of this passage stretch the natural flow of language and the context.

First, we should notice that if this verse represents Paul admitting divorce for desertion it is the only place in the Bible by any author where desertion is grounds for divorce. The argument is furthermore based on two words “bound” and “peace” rather than a grammatically clearer phrase such as Matthew’s exception clause.

Secondly, even if the binding refers to marriage, could it not mean bound to continue trying to reconcile? The believer may relax his efforts at coaxing his spouse to counseling or inviting her to church. He is called to peace that allows him to resign himself to his wife’s departure without any guilt that he needs to do more.

Another way to understand the binding speaks of bound to guilt. If a man’s wife wants to leave him, and he tries to keep the covenant, he need to be driven to despair in his guilt, but live at peace knowing that God has granted his beloved peace even in the midst of the storm. Romans 7:3-4 seems to support that view since the death to the law there frees the believer from the guilt brought on by the law. A Christian is freed from that. In 1 Corinthians, Paul could be reminding them of that same truth: “Do your best to work out the marriage, brother, and then trust that God is not angry with you. You are not right to feel constantly guilty as if you could have forced her to repent.”

Finally, Paul’s words to the believer are passive. It is the unbeliever who actively divorces the believer. The believer is merely unbound (a passive voice). What unbinds him? The unbeliever’s action of divorcing the believer. The believer is not given permission to dissolve the covenant since the divorce that loosed him from guilt and bondage to reconcile was already committed by the unbeliever. So, even if the bondage refers to marriage, the believer has been passively loosed from it by the active divorce of the unbeliever thus the ethical conclusion is the same.

The binding could refer to marriage, but since the active agent of the divorce is the unbeliever (“the unbelieving partner separates…” 7:15), the believer does not receive from Paul in this verse the right to initiate. The binding could also refer to reconciling the marriage or to guilt about the divorce. Ultimately, it would seem that each of these options arrives at the same place.

If this passage allows for believers to initiate divorce it does not allow for it explicitly. At best, this passage is doubtful owing to its shortness (one word not repeated or expanded on) and equivocal language.

4.       1 Cor. 7 sets up several “rules” and then offers exceptions to those rules. So, we should expect an exception to the prohibition to divorce.
There is an exception to staying single: Marriage is better than ongoing temptation (7:1-2). There is an exception to paying your conjugal debts: fasting (7:5). Marital and family issues are so varied and complicated, there must be exceptions. Even though the general rule is no divorce, there are sad, sickening, and even terrifying circumstances that call for exceptions. Paul knew about human nature and so he included exceptions for these kinds of abuse and desertion.

This argument carries very little force. It would be nice icing on the cake if the cake were already baked. But that begs the question of whether the cake is in the oven or whether we are fasting that day. We can admit that 1 Cor. 7 has a number of exceptions to its rules because that does not prove that this rule has an exception. There are other rules in chapter 6 as well as later in chapter 7 that do not have exceptions.

5.       Ezra seemed to bless divorce under certain circumstances (Ezra 10:1-14).
Ezra as the spiritual leader and the people both took responsibility to break up marriages. The reasons for divorce may have changed for the NT, but the barest conclusion to take away from this account is that divorce is sometimes blessed by God.

It is unclear if God blessed these divorces. He may have been pleased with the wholehearted spirit directed toward His glory (Ezra 10:1), but not been pleased with all the actions taken in his name. Questionable decisions were made by others in the OT without a rebuke in the text.

This may have been God’s directive for the nation of Israel at that time. He knew the situation and all factors involved. If He chose to ordain those divorces, then we must fit that into His other legal claims that are no longer binding on NT believers. The laws of levirate marriage as well as laws regarding marriage of slaves (Exodus 21:4-11, etc.) would be two examples of marital ethics that have been expressly changed for NT believers.

6.       God divorced Israel in Jeremiah 3:8.
When Israel sinned against her “husband” the offended party acted to give a certificate of divorce.

Proposition 1: God had the right and exercised the right to divorce His bride for her unfaithfulness.
Proposition 2: I must be like God.
Conclusion: I have the right and may exercise the right to divorce my bride for her unfaithfulness.

cheap anastrozole 1 mg online

Whatever “divorce” God offered Israel, it was entirely consonant with his eternal and unchanging love for her. It also fit with his explicit desire 4 verses later that she return to Him. God’s divorce of Israel appeared to be temporary and did not abate His wooing, open love for Her. It certainly did not cause Him to choose another wife.

We who live in a modern state of legalities may not understand what exactly God’s divorce paper meant to Israel, but we can easily see that He did not dissolve the covenant. So we must not throw out the substance of the argument which is clear—God never changed His manner of love toward Israel—because legal terminology has changed over millennia.

7.       This is the most common position today as well as being found in the Westminster Confession of Faith.
The accumulated wisdom of years means the evidence must be very strong to oppose it. They had the Holy Spirit as well as we. So, why would we depart from the position that is far more common?

Interestingly, the Baptist Confession does not have the paragraphs that allow for divorce. Also, the WCF admits that divorce during betrothal was a valid claim to be considered. (See WCF 24.5)

This argument does not have the force of Scripture so it deserves to be treated lastly. But it does deserve at the least real caution when a man arrives at a conclusion that godly brothers who love and know Scripture oppose. However, since many of these giants of the faith had other obvious hermeneutical errors such as paedo-baptism, it is not too difficult to imagine them being wrong on a less clear issue.

 

 

Posted in Divorce, Ethical dilemmas, Hermeneutics, Pastoral | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment