Prison Ministry

Good day all!!

Late last year, my church decided to support a local ministry that focused on evangelism and teaching in the local community. It is a very "old school" ministry, so much so that they don't even have a website that I can link for you here. My church's sponsorship meant that we would give them some money, and that the elders would be encouraging us members to contribute time to helping out their causes.

It just so happened that right around that time I began to look for ways to be challenged to become a better teacher. I had always assumed a teaching posture in the church as I feel that this is how God has gifted me. I can understand things and explain them to people who don't understand them. I've been a children's Sunday School teacher for a few years now, and I'm an occasional guest speaker for the adult class.

Yes, I know, compared to the Al Mohler's and John MacArthur's of the world, that is really small potatoes. Nonetheless, I count it as a privilege to contribute my little bit to God's people.

At any rate, when the call went out to members of my church to contribute time to the ministry, a particular aspect of what they did caught my eye: Prison Ministry.

For some reason I have always been attracted to this type of ministry. I can remember being in college and reading blogs (they were just starting to become a thing) on ministries in prisons. I remember a particular article that stuck out to me saying that Prison Ministry is usually done poorly. Either those involved are bad or false teachers, or they are good teacher with terrible messages. What particularly stood out was that there were genuine believers behind bars who received no instruction in the word. A prisoner was quoted as saying "I don't even need my Bible, I already know what they're going to say."

Typically, it seems, these bad messages either assume the prisoners aren't saved and only preach the Gospel, or the ignore God's word altogether and try to be a friend to the guys behind bars.

I remember trying to picture myself behind bars and never hearing God's word preached. How frustrating that would be! Yet, the need remains to preach the Gospel because many inmates come to prison ministries not having any idea about how to be saved nor the need to be saved.

No one said it was an easy job, I guess.

Well, all of that was racing through my mind when the time came to make my contribution to the new ministry. I marvel at how God puts things together sometimes. I needed to sharpen my skills, this ministry needed a guy with skills, and for some reason that one article I had read (among the literally thousands I've read since) always stuck out to me. So I volunteered to teach a class to the prisoners if they needed me to do so. I didn't really know what to expect from the ministry in response.

They jumped all over the opportunity to have another teacher in the program and invited me to a meeting last Monday.

The meeting went well, I think. I introduced myself, told them of my desire to be of service to their cause. We discussed some of the ins and outs of the ministry. I decided I wanted to preach through First John. I choose First John because it would offer a good balance between preaching the Gospel to the lost and giving instruction to the saved.

One thing I pulled away from this meeting was that this whole endeavor was going to drive me to my knees. I suppose I expected to walk in to the prison, give my lecture, say a prayer, and leave. I have no idea why I thought that would be the situation, but that was kind of the model I had in my head. As it turns out, there is a lot more interaction with the inmates than I realized. They ask questions and expect you to answer them. They have personal issues. They have spiritual issues; not just that they need instruction in the word, but that they need prayer and counseling, even accountability. Some of them are addicted to drugs. Some of them have shattered family lives. Some of them are simply shells of men. You counsel them, pray for them, talk with them. They look at you, as a few of the brothers at the meeting put it, a breath of fresh air. Beautiful feet, I suppose (Rom 10:15)

Ministry just got very real.

While this is certainly not the only place, this is no less a place that is the "tip of the spear". The front lines. This is where our rhetoric is tested, where our slogans are meaningless, and where people's lives are really affected. Sure, I have some influence over the group of 10 year olds I love to see each Sunday morning. Sure, I can be there to support my brothers and sisters in Christ on Sunday and even lead them to Worship. But in prison, like in the mission field, that doesn't mean a thing to someone who has no idea what to do next with their life. That's not to say that I don't love and admire the many brothers and sisters who work hard within our own camps to do what God has put before them, but it is to say that a ministry like a prison is a different battle. A battle with far less margin for error, and far more at stake.

With me in that meeting on Monday were other men, all of whom had varying experience in this ministry. They looked battle hardened, ready for the fight. Some of them looked well used of God, but they all had a certain fire to them. They knew what they were doing was important, and they knew that God held them to a high standard. It was refreshing to meet more real men of God. I couldn't help but feel like a rookie, a kid, listening to them talk. I knew what most of them were made of.

I guess now we'll find out what I'm made of. . . and I'll be sure to tell you all about it here.

Pray for me brothers and sisters. Pray for this ministry too. God knows we need it.

Tweet

Random Crazy Stuff III

I did NOT sleep well and have made some DUMB mistakes so far today. I also haven't really blogged in three days due to my crazy weekend. Therefore, I'll do a "Random Crazy Stuff" for today.

Politics:

• If you care to see John McCain's opposition research for Mitt Romney, you can find it here.
  
  
• Vox Day reminds us of the sheer insanity of our Foreign Policy. He also injects some logic into the right wing response that killing Iranian civilians is somehow not terrorism.
  
  
• It's always frightening when a Federal Judge doesn't seem to understand the Constitution.
  
  
• Mitt Romney is going to have his fair share of problems rallying the conservative base in the general election. This article is just a glimpse of that.
  
  
• Newt Gingrich want to colonize the moon. No. . . you read that right.
  
  
  
  
  
• Ron Paul had a good response to this:
  
  
  
  
• If you are on Twitter and you aren't following this guy, you are doing it wrong.
  
  
  

Christianity:

• Tim Challies has another phenomenal info graphic.
  
  
• We have a new king. *sigh*
  
  
  
  
  
  
• Eddie Long felt need to apologize to the Jewish community for that little stunt. Too bad he also didn't feel the need to repent before God.
  
  
• Good to know that Cripplegate supports my viewpoint about Christ in the Old Testament. Also, my pastor is currently preaching about Christ through the Old Testament.

Miscellaneous:

• This movie looks frightening. Also very important.
  
  
  
  
• I'm pleased to link The Summer Book Company in my "People/Organizations I Support" section. They have some of the best Homeschool stuff out there.
  
  
• The Giants won. Yay. This Steeler fan dislikes the Patriots. However, I'd take 9 more Tom Brady Super Bowl MVP's to never see that ABOMINATION of a Super Bowl Halftime Show again.
  
  
• Speaking of the Halftime show, Barnabas Piper (Son of John Piper) had the TWEET OF THE YEAR (!!!)
  
  
• Be sure to follow me on Twitter, like me on Facebook, and subscribe to this blog!
  
  

Lot's of stuff coming this week once I get some sleep. Until then. . .

Tweet

Join Us for Church This Morning! 2/5

Good Day All!

My church broadcasts its entire worship service online.

Please feel free to click here and join us as we worship the Lord and hear from His word. If you need a password, it is CBC.

Church starts at 10:30 AM EST!

In the meantime, enjoy one of my favorite Worship songs:

Tweet

Divorce and Remarriage - Part 3

On day one we looked at Luke 16. Yesterday we looked at a number of Scriptures to continue to discover a Biblical Theology of Divorce and Remarriage. Today we'll look specifically at remarriage and critique some faulty conclusions others have made.

The Biblical View of Divorce and Remarriage -- Part 3

What about remarriage? Truthfully the Bible doesn't say nearly as much about remarriage. I'm not sure why. Nonetheless, the fact remains that little is said of it. We know that if a person's spouse dies, the survivor is free to remarry (1Cor 7:39). We can say for certainty that if the divorce is NOT Biblical, then the two are not free to be remarried except to each other (Matt 19:9). However, nothing concrete and clear is said of those who are left after a Biblical divorce.

Brothers and Sisters, where Scripture is silent, we must be as well. Now it is a generally accepted throughout Christian history that remarriage after a Biblical divorce is not forbidden nor sinful. After all, Jesus says "except sexual immorality" in Matt 19:9, and Paul says "a (believer) is not under bondage" in 1Cor 7:15. Not under bondage means, well, NOT UNDER BONDAGE. Certainly it's a reasonable position, even admitting that we lack a concrete passage dealing with remarriage save for 1Cor 7:39. Many great expositors and students of Scripture have taken this position.

John Piper takes a different position. I pause to take a deep breath, and look on in horror as I am forced once again to disagree with Piper, whom I admire and appreciate as a great brother in the Lord. One of these days I'm going to write a tribute to John Piper because he has had an indelible influence on my life and I'm tired of taking him to task. He's right way more often than he's wrong and when he is wrong it is infrequent and on secondary matters.

At any rate, Piper wrote this paper. With all due respect, he's wrong.

I won't pick apart his paper piece by piece, but I will take a few things he says here and show you good examples of eisegesis. Eisegesis is when you inject a meaning into Scripture instead of allowing Scripture to speak for itself and determine it's own meaning.

Take, for example his deconstruction of Matthew 19:

"Before we jump to the conclusion that this absolute statement should be qualified in view of the exception clause ("except for unchastity") mentioned in Matthew 19:9, we should seriously entertain the possibility that the exception clause in Matthew 19:9 should be understood in the light of the absolute statement of Matthew 19:6, ("let no man put asunder") especially since the verses that follow this conversation with the Pharisees in Mark 10 do not contain any exception when they condemn remarriage."

Later he says:

"I began, first of all, by being troubled that the absolute form of Jesus' denunciation of divorce and remarriage in Mark 10:11,12 and Luke 16:18 is not preserved by Matthew, if in fact his exception clause is a loophole for divorce and remarriage. I was bothered by the simple assumption that so many writers make that Matthew is simply making explicit something that would have been implicitly understood by the hearers of Jesus or the readers of Mark 10 and Luke 16.

Would they really have assumed that the absolute statements included exceptions? I have very strong doubts, and therefore my inclination is to inquire whether or not in fact Matthew's exception clause conforms to the absoluteness of Mark and Luke."

For one thing, as I said in part 1, we can not look to Luke 16 as an authoritative Scripture on divorce and remarriage in light of the fact that it was not the thrust of Jesus' point in Luke 16. Mark 10, however, is different and much like the need for reconciliation between Matt 19 and Luke 16, we must also reconcile Matt 19 and Mark 10.

I have a problem with Piper's reconciliation because he is writing a portion of Scripture out of Matthew by essentially erasing it by saying it must conform to Mark 10. Rather, a better handling of Scripture would be to say that Mark 10 leaves some things unsaid, and Matthew 19 says those things. That way BOTH portions of Scripture can say all they need to say and are harmonized perfectly. Pipers method requires an eraser. My method requires a reverence for all of Scripture.

Piper makes some conclusions at the end of his paper and says the following:

"In the New Testament the question about remarriage . . . it is determined by the fact that:

Marriage is a "one-flesh" relationship of divine establishment and extraordinary significance in the eyes of God (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:8),
Only God, not man, can end this one-flesh relationship (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9—this is why remarriage is called adultery by Jesus: he assumes that the first marriage is still binding, Matthew 5:32; Luke 16:18; Mark 10:11),
God ends the one-flesh relationship of marriage only through the death of one of the spouses (Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39),
The grace and power of God are promised and sufficient to enable a trusting, divorced Christian to be single all this earthly life if necessary (Matthew 19:10-12,26; 1 Corinthians 10:13),
Temporal frustrations and disadvantages are much to be preferred over the disobedience of remarriage, and will yield deep and lasting joy both in this life and the life to come (Matthew 5:29-30)."

Let's take him point by point, shall we?

1. "Marriage is a "one-flesh" relationship of divine establishment and extraordinary significance in the eyes of God."

This is true. However, to be fair to Scripture, there are instances where this one-flesh relationship ends. If it being one flesh meant that it were always to remain that way, then 1Cor 7:15 and 1Cor 7:39 would be out of place. So while the statement is true, it is limited.


2. "Only God, not man, can end this one-flesh relationship —this is why remarriage is called adultery by Jesus: he assumes that the first marriage is still binding"

Not so. In a 1Cor 7:15 situation, did God end the marriage or did the unbelieving spouse? Is the believer under bondage?


3. "God ends the one-flesh relationship of marriage only through the death of one of the spouses."

While it's true that He does end it that way, by His word he also allows for other endings. Again, you can't erase Jesus' word in Matt 19 or in Matt 5 simply because the statement was incomplete in Mark 10 or Luke 16. You also can't say that Jesus is placing a bondage on those in marriage with Mark 10 and Luke 16 and say that 1Corinthians 7 is wrong to say that a believer is not under bondage.


4. "The grace and power of God are promised and sufficient to enable a trusting, divorced Christian to be single all this earthly life if necessary"

No argument here.


5. "Temporal frustrations and disadvantages are much to be preferred over the disobedience of remarriage, and will yield deep and lasting joy both in this life and the life to come"

And here is where I have my biggest problem. Piper, and those who agree with him, are taking a poor interpretation and poor handling of Scripture and turning it into a burden on their Biblicaly divorced brothers and sisters. They are putting on them a yoke that they put on no other group and a yoke that is not put on them by Scripture.

Piper has to write an entire position paper in which he ignores parts of Scripture to come to this conclusion. No one can point to a scripture or passage that deals with remarriage in a way that he concludes. Rather, the texts must be massaged and compromised in some cases, to come to his conclusion.

No, divorce for flippant and stupid reasons is not Biblical. One can certainly be sure that remarriage in those cases is exactly what Piper and his compadres are claiming it is. But they cannot ignore Scripture nor can they make a rule where Scripture does not.

Treating Matt 5 and Matt 19 on their own, letting them speak for themselves plainly, we see a clear exception. The same is true for 1 Corinthians 7. This cannot be ignored even if other passages do not have the same clauses. The best interpretation of these passages, without doing them harm, is to take them at their word.

There are exceptions to divorce and the subsequent remarriage clauses that follow are also subject to those exceptions. God has shown tremendous grace to believers in those circumstances and our attitude ought to reflect this grace. We ought to be like Christ and make exception where He does. Moreover, there is a lack of clear teaching dealing directly and solely with remarriage in the circumstances of Biblical divorce. Scripture is silent.

We should take the hint.

In closing, I'd like to beg you, my dear readers, to pray and help my fellow divorced believers. Especially those who are also single parents. It is a lonely place to be. One thing I was struck by when I began being social again after my own marriage fell apart was that modern American Churches are overwhelmingly geared toward families. I often felt out of place, misunderstood, and as if I was falling through the cracks. For me, there were long times of despair and sadness. I thought that no woman would ever understand or want me again. I questioned whether God wanted me.

I'm happy to report that God's grace is amazing. I remain a single man, but I am, thankfully, past the initial stages of depression. Others, however, never find their way out. Single parents and divorced believers need our affection and love. They need to be cared for and helped. They need to see Christ's care for them manifested in His people. The last thing they need is an additional burden not found in Scripture. Yes, many of them will remain single and scarred, but some will not. After these past few days, I hope that you'll see that in some cases, that is a good thing and an occasion to praise God with our divorced brethren, not an occasion for rebuke.

Tweet