Thursday, November 10, 2016

Election 2016

In Matthew 7:12, our Lord says, “In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”  This is so important following the election results…from everyone.  President Trump has invited us to come together.  He offered some very kind words toward Mrs. Clinton thereby indicating that his rhetoric during the campaign was just that.  Secretary Clinton urged her supporters that they owe Mr. Trump an open mind.  These are good reminders, and I hope, more than just political speech.  Our population is divided in half between those who are pleased with the results and those who are disappointed.  How would you wish to be treated if you were on the other side?
            Today, I read posts from Trump supporters criticizing Clinton supporters who are protesting, even though Trump himself indicated that he would have protested had he lost.  On the other hand, Clinton supporters who criticized Trump for his willingness to only support the results if he won, are now declaring, “Not my president.”  That is not how our government works.  I would hope that believers would demonstrate compassionate understanding toward those who voted differently. 
The Trump supporters should be pleased.  It was unlikely that Mr. Trump would win.  His supporters believe deeply in many of the issues raised by Trump and long to see conservative ideals directing our nation.  Let them celebrate.  “Rejoice with those who rejoice.” Clinton supporters are deeply saddened.  The loss was a total surprise and they either supported a more progressive ideology or were offended by Trump’s rhetoric.  Let them grieve.  “Weep with those who weep.” 
The glory of God is at stake.  We are not Americans first.  We are the people of God.  What unites the Church is a love for Jesus Christ AND His people.  When we mock one another, we do not demonstrate the glory of God.  I hope that we can consider the emotions being felt by our brothers and sisters and demonstrate understanding and compassion.  We pray for our nation and our leaders so that the Gospel will spread and sinners will be saved.  Let’s not lose sight of our purpose.
"Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace.
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
Where there is injury, pardon;
Where there is doubt, faith;
Where there is despair, hope;
Where there is darkness, light;
Where there is sadness, joy.

O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek
To be consoled as to console,
To be understood as to understand,
To be loved as to love;
For it is in giving that we receive;
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
It is in dying to self that we are born to eternal life."


Wednesday, November 9, 2016

Rich Mullins on Politics

In an interview, Rich Mullins said this.  I share it not as a sort of fatalistic response to the election, but as a reminder to live for heaven.  That is my home.
“I think for a long time I believed that there would be political solutions because, growing up in America, you endure several political campaigns and these people make promises and they say, we will do this and we will do that and you believe them because you don't know any better. And I really believed for a long time that this was all going to work. And I thank God now for Richard Nixon and for Gerald Ford and for all those people who betrayed any confidence that the American people could have in their government who said that the leadership of this country is not accountable to the people who elect them and who made so clear what we now know that no government works. And I wanted the government to work. And what I have now realized is I used to make fun of the sentimental feeling of the church that there was an afterlife. I used to mock songs about Heaven. And I used to think that it was somehow stupid and even wicked to dream of Heaven and to long for Heaven. And now I see the kind of a horrible place earth really is. And I go hiking and I go, this could be so beautiful. I met the guy last night sweeping the stairs down there and I talked to this very gentle man, a very kind man, a very simple man and I thought, how could a world made up of people like this be such a horrible place. And then I pick up the paper and read about dishonesty and deceit and betrayal and all that and go, I do long for Heaven. Someday God will destroy injustice. Someday there will be a judgment and because we have a loving and a forgiving Father, maybe we'll survive it. If we don't, sometimes I think hell is better than what we deserve anyway.”
1 Peter 2:11-12 “Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul. Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation.”
 

Thursday, October 6, 2016

Bonhoeffer


This morning I read an article from the Banner of Truth which critiqued Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  While I do appreciate much of Bonhoeffer’s work, this is not a defense of Bonhoeffer.  It is a defense of scholarship and an opposition to “proof by assertion” arguments.  While there are a number of areas to both agree and disagree with MacLeod, I will address just one point he makes in order to illustrate the flaw of his methodology.

MacLeod writes, “For evangelicals the cross is at the centre of their faith. Bonhoeffer did not believe in substitutionary atonement – Christ suffering as a substitute for our sins, dying in our place to earn eternal life for us.”  MacLeod offer no examples of this assertion, he does not point the reader to a single citation to demonstrate this serious accusation—an accusation that would remove Bonhoeffer’s works from the realm of Christian writings.  In addition, this assertion is patently false.

In Chapter 4 of the Cost of Discipleship, which is entitled, “Discipleship and the Cross”, Bonhoeffer writes, “The Son of God bore our flesh, he bore the cross, he bore our sins, thus making atonement for us.”  What is Bonhoeffer talking about if not “substitutionary atonement?”  Earlier in the same chapter, Bonhoeffer writes, “…since he has suffered for and borne the sins of the whole world…” which while not Calvinistic—but Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran—this statement is clearly teaching “substitutionary atonement.” Later he writes, “…it is true that only the suffering of Christ can atone for sin,” leaving no doubt about his position on the “substitutionary atonement” of Christ.  Here are three statements by Bonhoeffer that disprove the assertion of MacLeod.

For some reason, MacLeod felt it necessary to disparage Bonhoeffer.  I cannot see the benefit of his efforts.  He may have noted some of the errors of Bonhoeffer, which is good, but why make up something that is easily disproven?  I am disappointed at the lack of scholarship in his article.  I understand that MacLeod does not want people to “blindly” follow Bonhoeffer.  I agree.  I am opposed to “blindly” following anyone, including Calvin.  To reject all of Bonhoeffer is to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.  Bonhoeffer brings a much needed critique to Cheap Grace—a theological ideology that is running rampant today.  His description of a grace that justifies sin and not the sinner is invaluable today.  His honest effort to follow Jesus’ words from the Sermon on the Mount are essential to be heard today when many teachers over-spiritualize Jesus’ words.

I think it behooves us to read Bonhoeffer, compare his words with Sacred Writ, discard the errors and follow the truth he espoused and lived.  His determination to oppose oppression

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Belize 2016 Update

Dear friends,
God is stubborn. He always gets His way. I guess a part of the Christian life is learning to be glad He does. This is the message God seemed to want to deliver to our team last week in Belize.
Saturday morning, our team left Baltimore for Houston on United Airlines (The airline becomes important later). We had a short layover in Houston so we got to the gate just a few minutes before boarding. We had a couple of teens who needed letters of permission signed by both parents. As the flight began to board, the United agent discovered that one of the parents wrote their name but failed to sign the document. (The parents missed this, I missed this, the notary missed this, the two ticketing agents in Baltimore missed this.) He could not get on the flight. This was not my plan. We were stranded in Houston trying to either find a way to get original copies of newly signed and notarized documents to us, or to send him back to Baltimore.
The United agent, Brandy, saw this young man and said, “We need to help him get to Belize. She began a non-stop, determined flood of calls. She contacted ticketing agents in DC and flight attendants who would be heading to Houston and ultimately arranged for the papers to be brought to us in Houston. United provided two Hotel rooms for the night and we arrived in Belize a day late, but in time for worship Sunday evening. (I preached.) The young man, though at first discouraged, saw God’s hand in all of this. He had been at a football camp up until the day before we left for Belize. He had not slept well, and he was exhausted. He recognized that God gave him a private room in an air conditioned Hotel to give him some much needed rest before a grueling week in Belize. God is stubborn, and good.
On Tuesday, one of the women on our team came down with a virulent stomach virus that left her dehydrated. Her roommate was a Physician serving the clinic in Patchakan. We transported her to the clinic where she spent the day recovering and receiving IV fluids. Her teenage son was also on the trip. When he learned of his mother’s illness, this man went to her side. He sat near her, and cared for her. He even left the work site at one point to see to her needs. His attentiveness to his mom lifted her spirits and help to draw them closer together. We want health, but God prefers love. He is stubborn, and good.
This year, we committed to a very new ministry for us. We decided to take our VBS program to Belize. In the past, our “word” ministry has been doing sports with the kids and bringing a short devotional. Doing a full-blown VBS required much more preparation, supplies, and energy. We did not know what to expect. When we arrived, our “deed” ministry was to re-roof a Sunday school building. We could do some of the deconstruction for about two hours on Monday and then the Belizeans took over. We stood around a lot. Several members walked throughout Patchakan inviting children to VBS. Although very hot, we did not have much work to do. Through the week we saw more and more kids come to VBS. On Thursday, around 90 kids showed up. That was amazing. If we had worked as hard on the “deed” ministry as we had in the past we would have lacked energy for teaching kids the Word of God. Oh…on the last day, we finished our projects and helped the church finish its Sunday School building. We had our plan, but God’s was better. He is stubborn, and good.
The Spirit works in the hearts of His people. The Belize team learned to look for that plan. Faith (Hebrews 11:6) involves our purposeful choice to take up God’s plan. How sweet it is when we do this willingly. Thanks for praying.

Monday, March 21, 2016

Response to Kevin Labby

 I recently read Kevin Labby’s thoughts on hiring Tullian Tchividjian so soon after his deposition (see here).  His explanation revolves around the ideas expressed in these two paragraphs.
I’ve long thought that American evangelical churches do a generally abysmal job caring for their “fallen” pastors. We drum them out of service; clear the books; and move on. Don’t tell me that it doesn’t happen. I’ve seen it. Heck, I’ve participated in it.
Jesus didn’t do that. After Peter’s three-fold denial, he sought after him and worked to restore him. He went after Doubting Thomas, and reassured him back into service. He went after the deserting disciples on the road to Emmaus.
The issue raised in the second paragraph is easy to address.  There is a difference between Peter’s momentary lapse, and even his repentance, and that of a pastor who carried on an adulterous relationship while weekly exercising leadership in the church. 
The first issue Kevin raises is based entirely on a false dichotomy, as though there are only two options.  Either we hire fallen pastors in our churches, or we “drum them out of service; clear the books; and move on.”  Maybe this happens, but the failure of some does not mean we should ignore the teaching of Scripture that a leader in the church ought to be above reproach, living a life worthy of imitation (1 Timothy 3 and Hebrews 13:7).  According to the PCA constitution, Tullian was disqualified for office and was assigned to the oversight of a local session.  Unless sessions are utterly incapable of caring for a fallen pastor, Tullian would have been shepherded and assisted to bring about true repentance.  His restoration to church membership was never in question.  His qualification for office was. 
Kevin mentions Tchividjian’s need to provide for his family.  Yes he does need to provide for his family, and so do all of the men in a congregation.  Why would a church hire him and not others?  This is a “red herring.”  It makes the decision look more pious but is irrelevant to the issue at hand.  By hiring Tullian, the church bestowed on him an honor which was inappropriate.  When Chuck Colson was convicted of obstruction of justice, he was disbarred and unable to make a living as an attorney.  Why would there be lower standards for a minister of the gospel.  It is not ungracious to require the deposed minister to get a job outside of the ministry context.  It may be ungracious toward the people the deposed minister has injured to hire him to a church position. 
The currently proponents of grace, which I believe is actually “cheap grace” consistently create a black and white world.  It is either law or gospel; grace or legalism, Jesus or Pharisees, drumming “out of service; clear the books; and move on” or hire the fallen pastor as church staff and promote them returning to their teaching ministry online.  I believe that the best option is to see that by Tullian’s sin, God indicated that he was no longer qualified for ministry.  Therefore, we can rightly conclude that God wanted Tullian out of ministry related work.  I, for one, would rather not argue with God.



Wednesday, March 2, 2016

Hermeneutics

     I want to post a couple of my thought on hermeneutics.  Hermeneutics is the science of interpreting a text.  I am seeing a growing lack of hermeneutical discipline and I would like to remind believers of how to properly understand the Scripture.
     I just listened to a sermon in which the preacher repeated a common assertion that the first century division between Jews and Gentiles corresponds to the racial divisions between blacks and whites in the US.  On the surface, this seems like a fair statement if we assume the Jews and Gentiles was divided primarily by ethnicity.  What divided Jews and Gentiles was not their family lines, but their faith.  The people of God were not to intermarry with Gentiles because it would lead to idolatry.[1]  That is why Paul, in 1 Corinthians 6:14, tells believers to not marry unbelievers.  Ephesians 2:11-22 shows what divided the Jews and Gentiles.  In Jesus, Gentiles are brought into the covenant and are made fellow partakers of grace with believing Jews.  
     If, as the aforementioned preacher suggested, the division between blacks and whites is parallel to the division between Jews and Gentiles, and Ephesians 2:11-22 is true, doesn’t it follow that blacks are outside of the covenant?  The apodosis is clearly wrong, therefore one of the protases must be wrong.  Since Ephesians 2:11-22 is true, then the division between blacks and whites is not parallel to the division between Jews and Gentiles.
     The assertion by the preacher led me to wonder, “How could he draw that conclusion?”  Today, I am seeing a lot of common hermeneutical errors used to promote an agenda.  This preacher rightly opposes racial divisions and is working to build a multi-ethnic congregation.  I think his intention is noble but he is seeking to justify his efforts and exalt their importance by equating it to the work of the Apostle Paul, (Ephesians 3:1-10).  The problem is that his effort at racial reconciliation has an even higher purpose—which was really at the root of Paul’s apostleship—love.  Jesus said, “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."[2]  Love is the greatest commandment and summarizes the entire law and the prophets.  What we are doing in racial reconciliation is helping all of God’s people to learn to love one another.  We are not trying to bring African Americans into the covenant with us. 
      The hermeneutical error that the preacher made is to fail to understand the context in which the passage of scripture was written.  The exegete must first understand how the passage was understood in the original context, then glean the universal principle that applies to all situations, and finally apply that principle to today’s audience.  It is too common for preachers to skip the first step and simply assert that our situation is the same as those who first received the message from the text.  It may even be helpful to advance our agenda.  However, it is lazy and may bring about some dangerous errors.



[1] Deuteronomy 7:3-4 "Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons. For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you.”
[2] John 13:35

Thursday, February 18, 2016

Overture 4

Several Presbyteries within the PCA are currently discussing Overture 4 entitled “Confession of Sin and Commitment to Racial and Ethnic Diversity”  While I admire the desire to repent of racism, or any other form of oppression, I cannot in good conscience support this Overture.  I hate racial oppression and I am deeply saddened by the reality that much racial oppression has been perpetrated by Christians.  I do not, however, believe that I am bound to confess sins that I did not commit.  In addition, I believe that the Overture errantly asserts that the PCA is a continuation of the PCUS.  The documents from the time of the formation of the PCA indicate the intention of the founding fathers to form a “new” denomination by separating from the PCUS. 
In the second paragraph of Overture 4, we read,
Whereas, in the 1973 “Message to All the Churches,” the founding generation of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) expressly declared our denomination to be the “continuing church” of the Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS), saying, “We have called ourselves  ‘Continuing’ Presbyterians because we seek to continue the faith of the founding fathers of that Church,”
The assertion that the PCA began with the intention of being a continuation of the PCUS is inconsistent with the very document quoted.  Nowhere in the Message to All Churches is the phrase “continuing Church” used.  The only time the word “continuing” is used is in the above quote that indicates a continuation of “Presbyterianism,” not a continuation of the PCUS.  In fact, in the third paragraph of the Message to All Churches  the authors say, “The constituency of this new denomination for the most part have separated themselves from the Presbyterian Church in the United States.” Notice two key ideas from this declaration.  First the authors viewed the PCA as a NEW denomination.  Secondly they viewed themselves as separating from the PCUS.  This belief is affirmed by the numbering of our General Assemblies.  In 2016, the PCA will meet for the 44th General Assembly not the 222nd. If the founding fathers of the PCA believed that they were the continuing church, they would not have begun numbering their GAs with 1. 
            To further illustrate that the PCA has never acted as though it is the continuation of the PCUS, consider the number of congregations that lost their property in joining the PCA.  If they are the continuing PCUS and their property is owned by the PCUS presbyteries, how could they ever lose their property.  The only explanation is that the founders of the PCA always understood that they were leaving the PCUS and the courts of the USA agreed.
            Consider the full text of the third paragraph in the Message to All Churches,
The constituency of this new denomination for the most part have separated themselves from the Presbyterian Church in the United States. The decision to separate has come only after long years of struggle and heartache on the part of many of us to return the Church to purity of faith and practice. Principle and conviction entered into that decision, reached only after much soul searching and earnest prayer. We have reluctantly accepted the necessity of separation, deeming loyalty to Christ to take precedence over relationship to any earthly institution, even to a visible branch of the Church of Christ.
The founding fathers of the PCA never intended to be a continuation of the PCUS.  The word separate, or its cognates, is used eight times in this Message indicating the firm conviction that they were founding something new.  Why were they founding something new?  The founders told us why in the fifth paragraph.
We are convinced that our former denomination as a whole, and in its leadership, no longer holds those views regarding the nature and mission of the Church, which we accept as both true and essential. When we judged that there was no human remedy for this situation, and in the absence of evidence that God would intervene, we were compelled to raise a new banner bearing the historic, Scriptural faith of our forefathers.
            There are, likely, current members of the PCA who sinned during the time of the Civil Rights Movement while serving in the PCUS.  Those individuals should confess and repent of those sins even as one such leader did on the floor of GA last year.  At the same time, honesty requires us to acknowledge that the PCA did not exist during the Civil Rights Movement.  We must also acknowledge that the PCA includes former RPCES congregation which were never a part of the PCUS.  Note as well, that the history of the PCA is one of racial inclusion. 
1)      At the advisory convention item 47 says, “It was resolved that the continuing Presbyterian Church movement welcome fellow believers in Christ regardless of race.”
2)      In 1977 the PCA (including Morton Smith) helped draft the NAPARC declaration on Race Relations which expressed, “In repentance we acknowledge and confess that we have failed effectively to recognize the full humanity of other races and the similarity of their needs, desires, and hopes to ours; and thus we have failed to love our neighbor as ourselves.”  It also commended seminaries and churches for working toward racial equality, including Covenant Seminary which would later become the PCA’s seminary.
3)      In 2002 the PCA made strong statements decrying many racially driven sins including slavery, oppression and racism.  In this declaration the PCA committed to further oppose the racial inequality around us.
4)      In 2004 the PCA adopted a proposal from MNA that decried the sin of racism and gave practical instruction to churches to oppose it.
The history of the PCA which began in 1972 is one that opposes racism and seeks to be racially inclusive.  Even so, it is likely that racially driven sins continue.  For this, we must address these sins according to the scripture, calling the offender to account for their sin (Galatians 6:1-2).
This leads to my second concern for Overture 4.  Overture 4 assumes a covenantal and generational culpability.  Let me reiterate.  I do not believe that the PCA is the continuation of the PCUS and therefore we are not accountable for the sins committed by that body.  In addition, I believe that God establishes a principle in Scripture that opposes the idea of covenantal and generational culpability. 
When God reveals to Abraham that He was about to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham protested, “Will You indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?”  Lot was attached to his city and yet he was not found covenantally culpable for their sins.  God dealt with the individual.  This principle is more clearly articulated as Jeremiah reveals the promises of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31, 29-30, “In those days they will not say again, 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge.' But everyone will die for his own iniquity; each man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge.” God declares that the children are not culpable for the sins of the fathers.  Ezekiel expounds this principle even more fully in chapter 18:1-9 where God draws a clear line of demarcation between the one who sins and the one who does righteously.
In trying to establish the idea of covenantal and generational culpability which might require confession for sins committed by our fathers, the pastors supporting Overture 4 refer to Daniel 9, Leviticus 26:40 ff, and Nehemiah 1.  What seems to be overlooked is that in each of these passages God speaks of shared sin.  Leviticus 26 is the easiest to see, “If they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their forefathers…”  The Israelites were to confess, their iniquity AND the iniquity of the forefathers.  Both have committed the sin.  That is why both Nehemiah and Daniel confess not just the sins of the forefather but say, “we have sinned.”  These passages demonstrate that the children often repeat the sins of the fathers but they do not support the idea of covenantal and generational culpability.
            Another disturbing element to Overture 4 is that it will be a formal judicial ruling in that it does not only decry certain sins but it implicates individuals for those sins without proper judicial process.  It is inappropriate for a court of the church (BCO 10-2) to issue a finding of guilt without hearing the specifications or evidence and without providing the accused an opportunity to address the accusations. 
In the fourth paragraph of Overture 4 we read…
Whereas, the members of the PCA are increasingly aware that during the Civil Rights period, many of our founding denominational leaders and churches not only failed to support, but also actively worked against racial reconciliation in both church and society through sins of commission and omission, including: barring African Americans from worship services; misusing and twisting the Bible to support racial segregation; participating in and defending white supremacist organizations; and failing to speak out against state-supported segregation and to support efforts to secure access to basic human and civil rights;
Notice the words, “many of our founding denominational leaders.”  Those leaders are individuals who have a right to the process of our church courts (see BCO 6-3, 6-4, 27-2).  Rather than bringing charges against these individuals, Overture 4 summarily convicts them of “sins of commission and omission.”  If we adopt Overture 4, the General Assembly is officially declaring, without process, tht these individuals are guilty.
            In the ninth paragraph, Overture 4, lists some fruits of repentance—none of which truly reflect 2 Corinthians 7:10-11, “For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death. For behold what earnestness this very thing, this godly sorrow, has produced in you: what vindication of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what longing, what zeal, what avenging of wrong! In everything you demonstrated yourselves to be innocent in the matter.”  This description of the “fruits of repentance” raises several questions.
a.      Would it constitute a chargeable offense if an individual failed to “establish interracial friendships?”
b.      If repentance requires us to establish “partnerships” outside of the PCA, would a failure to have such “partnerships” constitute racism?
c.       Is the goal “a more racially and ethnically diverse church” or the elimination of oppression expressed in racism?

Overture 4 says, “that this General Assembly also confesses our continued sins of racism…”  I cannot, in good conscience, declare that this General Assembly is guilty of racism.  I must see some specification of this sin and some evidence of it.  Which members of the General Assembly are guilty of racism?  The General Assembly consists of “all teaching elders in good standing with their presbyteries, and ruling elders as elected by their session.”  This statement would implicate all of the African American teaching elders in the PCA of the sin of continued racism.  Is that true?   I do not believe that I am guilty of racism and I cannot in honesty before the God of truth say that I am.  I believe that there are many PCA teaching elders who are not guilty of “continued sins of racism.”

Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Put Cynicism to Death

“When Joseph saw Benjamin with them, he said to his house steward, "Bring the men into the house, and slay an animal and make ready; for the men are to dine with me at noon." So the man did as Joseph said, and brought the men to Joseph's house. Now the men were afraid, because they were brought to Joseph's house; and they said, ‘It is because of the money that was returned in our sacks the first time that we are being brought in, that he may seek occasion against us and fall upon us, and take us for slaves with our donkeys.’”  Genesis 43:16-18

                Dick Keyes writes in Seeing Through Cynicism, “Cynicism, as we use it today, has to do with seeing through and unmasking positive appearances to reveal the more basic underlying motivations of greed, power, lust, and selfishness.”  Yesterday, President Obama presented a plan for gun control.  During his presentation, his eyes filled with tears.  I noticed articles, written by opponents to gun-control, calling his tears “crocodile tears”; implying that our president teared up only to sell his idea.  How do they know?  Why would they assume this?  Is it possible that President Obama, aware of the number Americans who are killed each year with guns, is actually saddened by that fact and he wants to help?  We may not agree with his solution, but that does not mean he is pretending.
                My state, Pennsylvania, does not have an approved budget.  The state legislature presented a budget in June that the Governor vetoed.  This impasse has meant that some charitable organizations who depend on public funding are not receiving funds.  Again on Facebook, friends regularly malign the legislators, assuming that the process is some sort of joke to them.  Is it possible that the legislature and the Governor are both taking stands on principles that they believe are best for our state?  This does not seem far-fetched to me.
                This brings me to the passage from Genesis 43, which reveals the problem of cynicism.  Joseph’s brothers, assumed that he was planning to do them harm.  They did not trust the Egyptians.  Up until this point, Joseph had only treated them with kindness.  Cynicism is not based—as some errantly assume—on previous experience that teaches us to distrust.  It is based in a fearful, faithless determination to protect ourselves even if that means that we must ignore God’s commands.  The brothers assumed that Joseph intended to harm them, when in reality, he planned to feast with them.  In their assumption, they maligned Joseph’s character to one another, breaking what would one day be the ninth commandment.  Cynicism is not wise, but diabolical, see Genesis 3:4-5.
                What is the solution?  As is most often the case, the solution is faith.  Will I trust God enough that I will not malign other people even if my assumption is right?  Will I believe that it is better to endure pain trusting that Jesus will comfort me, than to compromise God’s commands to be safe (Matthew 5:4)?  Will I follow Jesus even when it is hard, or painful?  Dietrich Bonhoeffer was imprisoned for attempting an assassination of Adolf Hitler.  In his prison cell he wrote to his parents, “Without trust, life is impoverished.”  If ever a man had the right to the cynics assumption, it would be a prisoner in Nazi Germany.  However, this man of God recognized that cynicism would rob him of joy.  He was unwilling to pay that price.  May God keep us from cynicism.

About Me

My photo
I have been a PCA pastor since 1993, having been a pastor in Arizona, Florida, Wyoming, Pennsylvania, and as the Team Leader for MTW’s work in Scotland. I am currently the Senior Pastor of Providence Presbyterian Church in York, PA. As a pastor, my desire is to help everyone I meet live out Psalm 73:25, “Whom have I in Heaven but You, and besides You I desire nothing on earth.” I love my Wife Robin, my two sons, Patrick and Michael and my daughter in law, Britney. I am firmly wrapped around the fingers of my granddaughters.

Followers