"Full of Grace and Truth"

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’”

And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

John 1:14-16 (NKJV)

In these verses we see another glorious contradiction so often present in our savior. In our human mind we see actions of things like mercy and justice as mutually exclusive. They cannot occur simultaneously. They can be exercised in part parallel with each other but cannot coexist in totality with each other. In an act of counterintuitive love these two met and kissed at the cross. “Mercy and truth have met together; Righteousness and peace have kissed.” Psalm 85:10 is a prophesy about the work of the cross. The cross is the only point in history where perfect righteousness (demand for justice, perfection, and truth) coexisted in one action – in the work of one person – in complete form with mercy (grace, peace, forgiveness and love). The Old Covenant was one of truth (demanding perfection, righteousness, and justice). This was the Law of Moses. However when Christ came and ushered in the New Covenant, He brought one that entailed satisfaction of both perfect righteousness and offered the greatest and most perfect display of love imaginable.

The verses from John 1 above comment on how Christ was full of both grace and truth. As humans it is extremely hard for us to be full of, or even to display at the same time these two seemingly diametrically opposed concepts. We tend to only be filled with one or the other. As a male I am a truth person. I love the down and dirty doctrines that require studious thought and research. I love earnestly defending the faith against attacks. I am by no means saying here that truth is tied with masculinity. Some of the most respected men in my mind have been grace people. In some ways these are the most manly of men as they seek to display Christ in their lives (as in my opinion the standard we should set for masculinity is Christ-likeness – see end note). I also know many women who are truth people. In general though, I think that men tend to be truth people and women tend to be grace people.

What I challenge you with (regardless of which side of the truth-grace continuum you fall on) is to be more like Christ. Christ’s display of grace in no way diminished his staunch defense of truth. His defense of truth in no way diminished his showering of grace. Power is found in the combination of these two concepts. This is not easy. I’m not even talking here about a balance (a balance implies falling in the middle of these two ends). What I’m saying we need is to be filled with both. Truth people, I am not challenging you to become less devoted to truth. Rather, I am exhorting you to grow in grace. Exercise discipline in grace when you advocate unapologetically for truth. Grace people, I by no means want you to diminish the grace you have, instead grow in knowledge of our Lord by studying His word. Speak with conviction and boldness in situations that require unshakable belief and determination in speaking the truth. Which of these two we display will change with circumstances. Christ at times demonstrated a strong display of truth while at other times his grace was seen in greater form. But never did his display of one contradict or diminish the presence the other. Knowing which to show when takes wisdom. As James encourages us, we need to faithfully pray for wisdom from above.

Regardless of whether you consider yourself to be a grace or truth person Ephesians commands us that we should be “speaking the truth in love, that you may grow up in all things into Him who is the head that is Christ” and 2 Peter exhorts us to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” May we grow to be filled with grace and truth as we strive to imitate Christ in us!

Endnote: As I’ve thought about what true masculinity looks like I’ve gone back and forth between to extremes. In general I rebel against the highly immature common conception of men being über-macho individuals with very minimal class, etiquette, and intelligence. On the other extreme I suppose I should label this as refined pansies is not much better though. As I ponder what men should look like I find no popular objective standard that does not necessarily exclude a wide range of individuals for things completely outside of their control (for instance some people are not born with strong frames and will never be strong or athletic) and yet these individuals can display the most masculine form of character. I am left only to conclude that the only objective standard by which masculinity can be measured is by the degree to which they pursue Christ-likeness in their lives. Christ as perfect in every way is the most manly man ever to have lived. The Word says He grew in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man. Growth is important but there is an order here He grew spiritually (in wisdom) first and then stature. I exhort men then to pursue wholeheartedly Christ-likeness in their lives.

Speak with Boldness and Conviction!

Typography

Exodus 14:13-14

“Do not be afraid. Stand still, and see the salvation of the LORD, which He will accomplish for you today. . . The LORD will fight for you, and you shall hold your peace.”

GRADUATION COUNTDOWN!!!

Loving Those Who are Suffering

Should Christians promote the distribution of condoms and birth control in order to alleviate the suffering of the world?

This question was a subject of much debate in one of our previous Intervarsity Christian Fellowship meetings. My initial response was that we should not. However, I quickly rejected the notion of drawing a hasty conclusion. I believe that due to the immense suffering that results from diseases such as STDs this is something that deserves fervent prayer and thought. Why do I reject my quickly formed opinions? I say this primarily because the suffering that is caused when an individual contracts an STD is so severe that we should wish this on no one. It should pain us as Christians to see people suffer. It is indeed a consequence of sin. But so is famine, hunger, cancer and so on. Should we cease trying to cure cancer because it is a consequence of our sin and we deserve it? Certainly not. Nor as Christians should we ever place ourselves in a position of judgment over someone with one of these diseases. What they deserve for their sins is nowhere our business. All sin is equal in that it is an eternal sin against an eternal and loving God. The punishment of STDs is no more deserved than a consequence to a sin that any and every one of us has committed (say lying or pride). Do we comfort an individual that has recently gone through a divorce as a result of sin? Yes. We are to love all men. As Christians we should care very much about the suffering of the world. We are told over and over again to aid the sick, the homeless, the widows, and those who have less physical blessing than we have. ‘Humanitarian aid’ started first and foremost as Christian aid. The majority of Christ’s activity on earth was curing people from the tangible consequence to sin (as he went about healing the masses). So the question arises, is there a difference between condom distribution and humanitarian aid (or even Christ’s action)? This is why I thought it important to question any opinion that is superficially or hastily formed and approach the matter through prayer and Spirit-led discernment. Upon further thought and prayer I am led to agree with my original conclusion that it is not right for Christians to distribute condoms. Let me explain why.

1. There are tangible and intangible consequences to our sin. Our sin is against a Holy God; one who is infinite. There are physical (tangible) consequences for our sin and because it is against a wholly spiritual being, there are spiritual (intangible) consequences to that sin as well. To explain this let me use the example of burns. This example is flawed in that both levels of consequence are in fact tangible but it will give you an idea of the multi-dimensional consequences that take place when we sin. Should an individual place his/her hand on a stove that has been running they will severely burn themselves. The tangible consequence to this ‘sin’ is the pain. The burn causes excruciating pain. The intangible consequence in this example would be the burn itself. It is destruction of flesh; a wound that will take longer to heal than the pain and has deeper physical residual effects than the pain itself. These are indeed separate consequences. In the real world STDs are the tangible consequence of sin. The deeper first level consequence is the damage that is done to the soul when an individual sins against almighty God.
   
2. The intangible consequence of sin is far more damaging than the physical, 2nd level consequence. David says in Psalm 51 “against You and You only have I sinned.” He obviously doesn’t deny that he sinned against Bathsheba, Uriah her husband, or the child that died as a result of David’s sin. But the sin against God was so far more severe than his sin against humans that in comparison it was not even worth mentioning that he also sinned against these other individuals (two of whom died as a result of his sin). The Bible says that we should not fear him who can destroy the body (the tangible consequence to sin) fear Him who can destroy soul and body in hell (result of the intangible consequence to sin). In the context of this discussion, the spiritual consequence to sin is by far more damaging than the physical consequence (such as STDs etc.).
   
3. This said, we must strictly prefer the physical consequence over the spiritual consequence. This does not say that we want people to physically suffer! But if we have to choose between the physical and the spiritual consequence, the physical is much less damaging (severe though it may be). This demands the question then does condom distribution increase the likelihood that someone will have sex. Or, in other words, does removing the tangible consequence increase the likelihood that the sin will take place and incur the intangible consequence as well? If no, then condom distribution may be our Christian duty. If yes, than condom distribution would be a conscious choice of curing the physical result of sin over the spiritual result. This is the key question in this discussion. People argue that if someone is going to have sex, then they are going to have sex regardless of whether or not they have protection. I find this argument to be false.
   
4. God instituted physical consequence as a determent to committing sin. Absent consequence and working of the Spirit an unsaved person would have no rational reason not to commit sin. This would be extremely detrimental to their spirit! Going back to our stove-top example: if the pain was removed from the equation, individuals would not know not to touch the stove again. The pain signals to people that touching the stove is bad and hurtful to their being. The Bible says men look on the outward but God looks at the heart. Usually when this verse is used the emphasis is on the fact that God looks on the heart. I do not think this is wrong but I would like to highlight here the fact that man looks on the outward. People are motivated more by what they can tangibly see. For the unsaved, they are far more likely to resist sin due to the physical consequence (STDs) than they are to resist it from the spiritual consequence. This is why God in His grace instituted physical consequences (painful burns). These undeniably act as a determent from the act of sinning. People across the board respond to this tangible result over the intangible result of sin.
5. Removing the physical consequence to sin is rendering ineffective a God-instituted determent mechanism. There is no basis then by which to claim that removing the physical consequence to sin (supplying condoms and removing the likelihood of STDs) does not increase the likelihood of sin taking place. Why else would God institute this mechanism when He clearly hates physical suffering? We can only be left with the conclusion that removing God’s mechanism will most likely increase the instances of sin. This sin’s spiritual consequence is far more severe than the physical consequence. Therefore in an effort (noble though it may be) to alleviate the suffering of the world, we would in fact be greatly harming them. This is an improper demonstration of love. True love must take a biblical form! If it is not, than it is an improper and ultimately selfish love (although I acknowledge fully that the intentions are pure). Therefore I strongly believe that Christians should have no part in condom distribution.
   
6. Let me make one more point to clearly articulate that we must love those around us unconditionally. Working to alleviate the suffering of those who have STDs is indeed a biblical action. Preventing it when doing so would increase the likelihood of sin taking place is not. There is nothing except for the grace and love of Christ that separates those who sin from those who don’t. There should be no judgment then from Christians on people who have this disease. We are called to love and serve as Christ did. Not distributing condoms out of a sense of pride or judgment is a sinful response to the problem. ‘They deserve it’ is also a condemnation on oneself for all and every sin ever taken place. This sin (all sin) demands death. This is why Christ in His love offered Himself as a payment for our sin. Ultimately we cannot judge the consequences of others actions for in doing so we claim the punishment that we deserve – a punishment that we cannot endure. By the grace of God may we grow in true love for one another.

Let your words be few

A couple days ago a friend told me to read Ecclesiastes chapter 5. And let me tell you, I needed to. Verse two says:

Do not be rash with your mouth,
And let not your heart utter anything hastily before God.
For God is in heaven, and you on earth;
Therefore let your words be few.

"God is in heaven, and you are on earth; therefore let your words be few." I was just struck by how we dominate our Christianity with noise. We infuse our prayer life full of speaking. In fact we have come to think of prayer as something we initiate. "Dear heavenly Father . . . " opens the couple prayers we may utter during our hectic day and then we close it with a tacked on "in Jesus name amen." Rarely do we even think about these words that we speak. Beyond this though we limit our interaction with God to what we are aware of. "Thy will be done" is only (if ever) tagged on requests we're making. Instead in a general sense we should be asking that God's will be done in an open, un-tethered sense. How foolish could we be to think that God only has a will for the few things we bring before Him?! In this same way we limit our interaction with God to us speaking. This verse challenges this mentality. "God is holy, God is omnipotent, God is in heaven. Think about who you're coming before yo! Shut up and listen." We've removed God speaking from the equation. Here we are challenged to listen. I am almighty God. I am the ruler of the universe, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. I am the savior of the world, sovereign over all things, glorious in majesty and power. I breathed the universe into existence. I am the bringer of rain; the builder of mountains. The heavens cannot contain me. I am Holy. "Be still and know that I am God."

This stillness jars us though. We freak out with silence. We fill it with mindless rambling - requests that are spiritually equivalent to the word 'um.' A biblical concept of prayer would realize that God is the one who searched out and spoke to Samuel. He was the initiator. Samuel didn't answer with a fidgety laundry list of requests and fragile recognition that he was speaking to God in Christ's name. He answered "here am I." So simple, so open. Samuel didn't limit God by his requests. He gave God the reigns controlling the direction and subject of their conversation.

God is the one who initiated the conversation with Moses. Moses didn't approach God with his strategy for freeing the Israelites from the bondage of slavery and then halfheartedly rhetorically allow God to stop this if it wasn't His will. No, God came to Moses. In the midst of a burning bush God called out "Moses, Moses" and Moses, similar to Samuel replied "here I am." This is what our prayer needs to be. "Here I am. Have Your way with me. I am listening." Unlike Martha we need to cease running to and fro doing/praying for things that we know and that we find important. But like Mary, we need to sit at the feat of our Savior and hear His words. We need to sit at the feat of Jesus and listen to what HE has to say. Our ears need to be open for when God calls to us. And we need to respond with the recognition that we are in the presence and a very real and very Holy God and that He knows all things and has a will for our life that may be beyond the realm of our limited foresight. We need to respond with a "here I am, use me as You see fit." It is from these prayers that our doubts will be answered with "I am certainly with you!" It is from these prayers that we will be empowered to go out and accomplish things in the name of the great, almighty I AM!

Be still and know that [He] is God. Let your words be few.

Contrast. Reality. Seriously.