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

Divorce and Remarriage - Part 2

Yesterday (click here for part one) we looked at Luke chapter 16 in beginning to lay a framework for a Biblical Theology of Divorce and Remarriage. Today we'll look at other Scriptures and continue to allow Scripture to speak to us on this matter.

The Biblical View of Divorce and Remarriage -- Part 2

When we consider Luke 16:18 in light of other verses, we are presented with a problem if we emphasize that Jesus was teaching about the doctrine of divorce and remarriage in Luke 16. Take Matthew 19:19 for instance.

Here the pharisees ask a very clear question in Matt 19:3. Jesus answers by teaching God's view of marriage. To the pharisees, this didn't really answer the question so they ask a more specific question in Matt 19:7. Jesus' response in Matt 19:8 responds with a rebuke, and his teaching in Matt 19:9 couldn't be more clear.

Let's look at that verse:

"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." - (Mat 19:9 NKJV)

Look again at Luke 16:18 . . .

"Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from [her] husband commits adultery. - (Luk 16:18 NKJV)

Very similar verses aren't they? However, there is one difference that makes both these statements a seeming contradiction. That little clause in Matt 19:9 that says "except for sexual immorality". Luke 16:18 is a sweeping, all encompassing, statement, and Matt 19:9, because of that clause, is not a sweeping, all encompassing, statement.

As I said in my series on hermeneutics, God is a perfect communicator. If we take both verses as being the final doctrinal statements on divorce and remarriage, we have a muddled and murky mess. Is it ok to divorce and remarry in the case of sexual immorality of not? However, if we allow Scripture to speak for itself and don't emphasize a point that is not emphasized by the context of a Scripture, these two verse are thoroughly harmonious.

This is the exact situation we are facing here. Matt 19 is Jesus answering a direct and clear question about divorce and remarriage. Luke 16 is Jesus teaching about self-righteousness. Clearly we can take a look at how divorce and remarriage could play a role in a self-righteous life and to do that, we ought to give precedence to Luke 16. However, to build a doctrine on divorce and remarriage, and not on self-righteousness, we have to give Matt 19, and scripture like it that deals directly with marriage, precedence.

Now, my dear readers, I want to briefly talk about another matter that has great application here. I want to warn you about being "red-letter" Christians. We've all seen, and most of us probably own, Bibles with the words of Jesus in red. Some Christians want to give priority to those words. While they are certainly not less important, I tell you the truth that they are not MORE important either.

2 Tim 3:16 says:

"All Scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," - (2Ti 3:16 NKJV)

The greek word for "all" is πᾶς ("paws") which Vines defines as "radically means "all." Used without the article it means "every," every kind or variety. " It is the same word used in Matt 4:4 when Jesus emphasizes that man lives on EVERY word of God (and not on bread alone). So when it is used here in 2 Tim, we can see clearly that God is putting all Scripture on the same plain. When you think about it, this makes sense. After all they are His words whether He spoke them in person or "inspired" them through another writer.

How does this apply to our topic? Well it becomes clear then that we must give equal weight on a topic to everything Scripture has to say about it. When we've done that, we have to accurately plot the boundaries and direction of those Scriptures and see what all of Scripture is teaching us in harmony with it's various parts.

So then, when we look at divorce and remarriage we may not ignore 1st Corinthians Chapter 7. Paul begins the chapter by giving general principles for marriage. He reminds us that marriage is a good thing, that we ought to treat our spouses well, give ourselves to our spouses (yes, he means physically), and finally says that while marriage is fine, singleness is better. In fact, to that last comment, he says that marriage is much better than "burning with passion".

Then in verse 10, Paul gets into divorce and remarriage. First he spells out very clearly that divorce is not an option to fix a bad marriage. All of chapter 7 so far has been written to the believers in Cornith who want to marry one another. He just finished talking about two believers burning in passion for one another, and continues that it is not right for two believers to depart their marriage.

1Cor 7:12 gives a clue that he's now talking to a different group of people when Paul writes "But to the rest . . .". Also, look at what he says there in continuing his thought "I, not the Lord. . . " This plays off of 1Cor 7:10 where he writes "Not I, but the Lord . . .". What does this mean?

Well, it's not a denial of inspiration, that much is clear. Otherwise, this letter to the Corinthians would not be a part of Scripture. Paul is not giving his human opinion here. Instead what it means is simple, what he said in verse 10 was something Jesus had already said (e.g. our text above; Matt 19). Now in verse 12, Paul is saying something new. Stop and think about that for a minute. What we are seeing is the progressive revelation of Scripture. God was not done saying all He had to say about this topic much as He was not done speaking about Eschatology (or whatever other topic) until the rest of the New Testament was written.

What then, does God tell us? 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 is very clear:

But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such [cases]. But God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save [your] husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save [your] wife? - (1Cor 7:12-16 NKJV)

Verses 12 & 13 tell us that it is not impermissible to have an unbelieving spouse, and if they want to live with you, a believer, then divorce isn't an option for you. There isn't a mention of problems in the marriage or any other extenuating circumstances here. The question is simple, does your unbelieving spouse want to live with you; yes or no? If yes, then you should continue to do so.

Verse 14 tells us why. The unbeliever is sanctified by your presence in the marriage and your children are holy. This does not mean that the spouse is saved by your presence there, otherwise they wouldn't be unbelieving. It means that your spouse is blessed by you being there. As God blesses the believer, that grace is spread to the unbeliever too. They get to take part in some of the good things coming your way.

As for the children, well, you needn't worry about them either. The fear may be that they would be corrupted and turned away from God by the presence of an unbeliever. While their salvation is far from guaranteed by these circumstances, Paul is instead emphasizing the blessings your children receive by having you, a believer in their life. It is, after all, a far better situation than children growing up in a home where no one is a believer.

My dear readers, I have stop here and marvel at God's goodness in this matter. Look at the optimism of this Scripture in the face of a terrible situation. God is comforting believers in this situation, reassuring them that it's going to be OK and that He remains in complete control. This optimism is reinforced a few verses later as well (1Cor 7:16). What a tremendous God we serve! Oh how He loves you and me!

However, what happens if the unbeliever wants to depart the marriage? Verse 15 is our answer:

But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such [cases]. But God has called us to peace. - (1Cor 7:15 NKJV)

It couldn't possibly be more clear. If you are a believer married to an unbeliever who wants to end your marriage, let them go if that's what you think is best. You're not bound to them in that situation. This doesn't mean that we should just be dispassionate about it. We are called to love our spouses (e.g. Eph 5:25) and we can't do that without their being some sort of emotional involvement. Yet, if it comes right down to it, you aren't bound to such a marriage as a believer.

Now, we've looked at three verses of Scripture in depth. There is much more in Scripture about this subject and much of it speaks in far broader terms than our focus here.

What we find in Scripture are some principles about divorce:

• God hates divorce. (Mal 2:16)
• God doesn't want anyone to get divorced if they can help it. (1Cor 7:10-12)
• God forbids divorce except in two cases, adultery (Matt 19:9 & Matt 5:31-32 and abandonment (1Cor 7:15).
  
  
  

Tomorrow we'll finish up this Mini-Series and talk more about remarriage. I'll also take to task those, including John Piper, who would burden Biblically divorced believers with a yoke not put on them by Scripture.

Tweet

Divorce and Remarriage - Part 1

Few topics impact me on such a personal basis as this one. I am a divorced man; a single father raising my 10 year old son (who is the second greatest thing to ever happen to me). I won't speak much about my divorce here because I believe it would be disrespectful to my ex-wife and to my son (both of whom read this blog from what I understand).

However so that you know that I am not a Christian blogger living in sin; I will say that my divorce was Biblical and that I was under the authority of elders in my old church when we split. They mourned the loss, but understood and approved of what was happening in my marriage. When I moved to Pennsylvania and joined my current church, the elders here were informed of the situation and echoed the approving sentiments of my previous church.

At no time have I relished the thought of my marriage ending, but there are situations where there is little choice as to how to proceed. God always hates divorce, and he hated mine, but his hatred of it does not mean it is ALWAYS sinful.

And that's all I'll say publicly about that.

The Biblical View of Divorce and Remarriage -- Part 1

Good day all!!

There are certainly very few circumstances where God is permissive of divorce. In fact, one of the doctrines that Jesus taught about and rebuked the pharisees over was their doctrine of divorce. It was prevalent problem in the world in those days, both in Israel and in the greater secular world, just as it is a problem today in the church and in the greater secular world.

In those days, it was believed that a man could divorce his wife for any reason he saw fit. The Greeks in Paul's day divorced and remarried seemingly at the drop of a hat. It was much the same in Israel and was largely due to the Pharisees typically narrow legalistic view of righteousness. Essentially, if there was a loophole, the Pharisees would find it and exploit it to make sin seem ok. Mostly this was because they reduced their faith down to a religion of do's and dont's. They believed that if they just did enough religious things they would be seen as righteous in the eyes of God.

The result of this was an apostate and sinful mess. They were fastidious about eating all the right things, saying all the right prayers, wearing all the right clothes, going through all the ceremonies, etc., but their lives were filled with self-righteousness, idolatry, and yes. . . divorce.

Obviously, we're going to focus on that last point for this mini-series. Jesus spoke rather clearly about divorce in Luke 16:18. Since we are big believers in Hermeneutics around here, let's take a look at that verse.

"Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from [her] husband commits adultery." - (Luk 16:18 NKJV)

This verse comes in the middle of a long session of teaching which begins probably at chapter 15 and ends at chapter 17 verse 10. Luke 16:14 tells us that Jesus' teaching in verse 18 is a response to the Pharisee's "deriding" of Jesus. The greek there is ἐκμυκτηρίζω ("Ek-to-more-ee-zo"), which Thayers Lexicon tells us has a meaning of scoffing and sneering (Vines concurs). It's the same word used in Luke 23:35 where the people scoffed at Jesus as he hung on the cross. That Luke 23 verse kind of gives you a picture of the attitude Jesus was responding too here in Chapter 16 doesn't it?

What caused the Pharisee's to scoff? Immediately before verse 14 is "The Parable of the Unjust Steward". In this parable Jesus told us of a shrewd steward (a chief of the servants in those days) conniving and manipulating those around him to buy friendships. Upon hearing the news that he's losing his job, and finding himself suddenly destitute and unable to work, he calls some people's debts owed to his master. He reduces the debt, making those in debt pleased and now obligated to help take care of the steward. When the master finds out, he is actually impressed with the wicked steward and commends him for his shrewd dealings (indicating that he is also pretty wicked).

Jesus uses this story to teach three points:

1. Verse 8 - "the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light." In other words, worldly people know the ways of the world better than some Godly people know the ways of God. Sad huh?
   
   
2. verse 9 - Jesus then plays off of that shrewdness by saying that the steward was wise enough to make friends for himself, albeit unrighteously. In much the same way we ought to seek to prepare for ourselves. MacArthur takes the viewpoint that the steward used his master's money to buy friends for himself and we should use our Master's money that will "accrue friends for eternity". Older commentators Jameson, Fause,t and Brown agree and say: "then, like the steward, when turned out of one home shall ye secure another; but better than he, a heavenly for an earthly, an everlasting for a temporary habitation. Money is not here made the key to heaven, more than "the deeds done in the body" in general, according to which, as a test of character--but not by the merit of which--men are to be judged" (I rely on commentaries here because I am not focusing on this point, merely trying to give a background for verse 18).
   
   
3. vv. 10-13 - Faithfulness transfers. If you are faithful in a small matter, you'll be faithful in a large matter, and vice-versa. The steward was faithful in his realm to deal in the way he was used to dealing and his master was pleased with him. Same goes for us; if we try to serve two master's, we won't succeed, but if we are faithful in the little things we are given by our master, we'll be faithful in the big things too.
   

Then we have verse 14. It's pretty clear: The pharisees didn't like what Jesus just said. They were probably pricked by the fact that they were constantly missing the forest for the trees. Jesus picks up on this in verse 15 saying that those things men applaud are an abomination to God. It's another rebuke (among so many in the Gospels) by Jesus of self-righteousness, and the particular self-righteousness of the pharisees. This kind of self righteousness that causes you to pray loudly in the public square but throw out your 14th wife at home because she spilled your dinner all the while making it sound oh so holy. Jesus is clear. That kind of thing is an abomination.

Luke 16:16 is a tough verse to exegete. It's debated constantly by people on different sides of various issues. For example, whole books have been written by men on what "pressing into it" means. I'm not in the mood for that kind of discussion, so I'll just give you my opinion here and move on. Jesus is saying that until John the "Law and the Prophets" were, and now the Kingdom of God is being preached. Which I believe means that prior to John mankind was told about the coming Messiah and now we preach about the Messiah who has come. Since He has come, people are "pressing into the kingdom" or wanting to be saved. It draws the contrast to the pharisees here. The pharisees fancied themselves to be the most righteous. Yet here was God in front of them and they were scoffing at him while those who didn't have the advantages of the pharisees were following Jesus. It's a scathing rebuke.

However, lest we think that Jesus is rebuking the pharisees by rejecting the Old Testament, we have Luke16:17 to set us straight. Jesus makes it clear that the law won't just go away. Personally, I think verse 17 is the lynchpin to understanding this whole passage. For one thing, it makes it clear that Jesus is dealing with the pharisees and their problem of picking out the behavioral aspects of the law (i.e. dietary concerns, etc.); even to the point of creating their own rules (i.e. hand washing rituals, etc.) while simultaneously looking for ways of ignoring the ethical laws and aspects of the law dealing with the heart (i.e. adultery, etc.). He reminds them, even warns them here, that those important heart issues don't go away just because they were careful to say the right prayers.

Ok, I've done a lot of background in order to deal with our text, which is verse 18. In defense of my own longwindedness, I did it because I think it is necessary to point out that verse 18 is NOT the point of Luke 16:1-18. Jesus certainly intends to say exactly what the verse says, and the verse is clear. However, is the subject matter of the verse the point that Jesus is raising? The answer is no, and we know this because it sticks out like a sore thumb.

Actually, to be more accurate it sticks out like an example and an illustration of what Jesus is saying to the the pharisees in verses 14-18. To paraphrase Jesus in our own vernacular:

"You pharisees are the same people who act holy and self righteous in public, but God knows what you are really like. You might make a big show out your own righteousness before people and they applaud you, but that kind of emphasis is an offense before God! Before John, there was only the hope of a coming kingdom, but now it's being preached and look at all the people who are pressing to be a part of it! But it would be easier to get rid of the whole earth than to get rid of God's law. Take divorce for instance; this lifestyle of yours filled with divorce and remarriage is nothing but adultery."

So much for the kinder and gentler Jesus modern Christianity wants us to believe. He comes down hard on those pharisees here.

However, I have heard some who have built a doctrine of divorce and remarriage on this verse. Tell me, do you think that it was Jesus' intention in saying this, or Luke's intention in writing this, to build a doctrine of divorce and remarriage on it?

I say no. I say that the point of Luke 16:14-18 is not divorce and remarriage, but rather self righteousness, and divorce was a very relevant example that illustrated the point.

Now, certainly if we can begin to build a doctrine of divorce and re-marriage in the Bible, and we can use this verse as a part of that. I would say that if we are to believe that we are righteous before God and think that our family life has nothing to do with that, we are much like the pharisees here.

If this were all the Bible were to say about this topic, then we would have little to go on in regards to marriage and divorce, however it would be clear. Nonetheless, it is far from all Scripture has to say about the subject. There are numerous verse in the Gospels alone.

Tomorrow we'll examine some of those other verses.

Tweet

Being Crazy for Christ -- 2 Cor 5:13-15

In the interest of giving credit where credit is due; my supportive, beautiful, and sweet girlfriend was helping me to toy with the blog last night and suggested that I use this verse since "it seems to be what you're driving at". I love her insights, she thinks nothing like me (which is very often to her credit). That conversation got me in the mood to write about what I discovered while researching the verse.

Good day all!

The title of this blog has been a catalyst to raised eyebrows for sometime. Although I have only committed to blogging since the beginning of this year, I have toyed with the idea for sometime. I remember a dear brother in the Lord telling me that calling myself a Crazy Christian might seem abrasive to my brothers and sisters in Christ and may be a point of degradation to those in the secular world.

I happened to disagree with him, but I did begin to understand that perhaps the title might need some explaining. So I added the tagline "A blog that's unafraid to be called crazy by a world gone mad." I felt pretty confident that this explained my position: I think the world is mad. Sinful people, as sinful people have ALWAYS done, act like madmen (Romans 1). Yet, this sin is so pervasive (Rom 5:12) that those who are in bondage to it (Gal 4:3) look at those who aren't as being crazy.

However, what we find in the world today is a church that looks too much like the world. We're busy trying to make the world like us, make the world realize we aren't so bad, shun the things of God in exchange for the things of the world, and above all, NEVER, under any circumstances, EVER do we call the World into repentance. Churches, by and large, either spend their time petting the wool of the sheep they are shepherding or spend their time finding goats to pretend to be sheep. (Matt 25:32-33)

Along come guys like me, who see this for the madness it is, and we're called crazy. The world and the church say the exact same thing. Interesting isn't it?

So, are we crazy? The Apostle Paul, in his letter to Corinth, dealt with the same question:

For if we are beside ourselves, [it is] for God; or if we are of sound mind, [it is] for you. For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again. - 2Cor 5:13-15 NKJV

Note that this comes in the middle of the chapter. Let's break down the chapter for context.

Verses 1 -5 more or less begin the larger point Paul is making in this chapter. Paul is playing off the points he makes in Chapter 4 by saying that we have in our "earthen vessels" the treasure of the light of God and that we carry it around with us. He finishes chapter four expanding on the idea that we ought not lose heart because of persecution or other issues because those things are temporal, while the light of God is eternal. In verses 1-5, Paul continues this thought with a different analogy.

Then in verse 6 we have one of Paul's famous "Therefore"s. In other words he is saying "I've given you the facts, now here is what you ought to do. Verses 6 - 10 gives us two bullet points (if you will) of what we ought to do since we have the light of God in us.

• Be of good courage (2 Cor 5:6)

• Be in the habit of pleasing God (2 Cor 5:9)

It it the expansion and explanation of the second bullet point (2 cor 5:9) that Paul writes our verse. Paul knows that there are some the Corinthian church has dealt with that only look at the appearance (2 Cor 5:12). Given what Paul has said about outward appearance to the Corinthians, we already know that Paul doesn't care much for that point of view. (2 Cor 4:16 cf. Matt 23:26 & Luke 11:39) . But, what he is saying is that those who are in the habit of pleasing God may also point to that habit as a defense for why they do what their accusers say are foolish, perhaps even crazy, things (1 Cor 1:18).

If they're crazy, they're being crazy for the Lord. If they seem sane, they seem that way for the sake of the Corinthians (2 Cor 5:13). In much the same way; if we are crazy, it's for Him. If we are sane, it's for the benefit of those around us (1 Cor 9:19-23).

Why? Paul answers that it is because they are compelled to do so by Christ's love. Being reminded that as Adam died and as a result all have sin. Yet in the same way, Christ died so that all may have life (This dichotomy is a theme of Paul's and appears in many of his writings). But most importantly, the life that all may have isn't to be self serving, but rather to be life on our Lord's behalf as He died and rose again on OUR behalf (2 Cor 5:14-15). See how that works?

C.S. Lewis once talked about this in his address to Oxford called "Is Theology Poetry?" Lewis said that when one looks at all the religions of the world, one can only have two camps: Paganism (which Lewis called Hinduism) and Christianity. Every other religion, he said, was some heretical version of those two religions. Lewis dismissed "Hinduism" as silly and clearly man-made, and the Bible obviously agrees (Hab 2:19-20). Christianity he implied, could also be easily dismissed save for one glaring historical fact. . . Jesus.

Lewis said that Jesus was either the person He claimed to be or He was a complete lunatic. Often people refer to this (and too often mock it) as the apologetic of "Lord, Lunatic, or Liar". Yet for Lewis, there were only two choices, Lunatic or Lord; for any man who would willingly put himself through a crucifixion to keep up a lie would indeed be crazy.

I've often wondered if that is how the world looks at it. That this guy Jesus must simply be out of His mind. That the story is almost too incredible to be believed. That Jesus was simply an insane man who happened to say sensible things every now and then. I know, not all are like that. Some just dismiss Him as a perfectly sane moral teacher who said things that Rome and the Jews found unacceptable which is why they killed Him. We can call this the 'tragic victim dismissal'. Still others simply try to deny His existence altogether, and they continue to demonstrate their lack of learning and intellectual honesty in the process.

Now Lewis rectifies this by simply stating "And He was not a lunatic." Lewis was a genius like that. He would simply state the obvious and leave it to us to come up with the reasons why it was obvious. Good writers always encourage their readers to do their own thinking. In this case, we can examine Jesus' life and see that He certainly had His wits about Him. But, that's not the point here.

The point is that what we do is crazy. We devote our lives to a man who walked the earth over 2,000 years ago, and guide our lives by a book written by 40+ men of various backgrounds and in various times and places. To those who profess to be wise (and who doesn't in some way?), and to those who think that they can give only a cursory acknowledgement of the things that rule our lives, it must sound like total nonsense. We must look like complete lunatics. Too often, I think, the church is tired of its image and wants to just appear normal. If Paul said that this lunacy was a result of the love of God controlling us, what then (I ask slyly) is the controlling factor for wanting to shun this supposed madness?

Nonetheless, just as Lewis stated simply about Jesus that "He was not a lunatic", and we know it is obvious as to why; we know with confidence that we Christians are far from crazy. No no, instead the love of Christ compels us to not live merely for ourselves, including our own image, but for others. And ultimately, for Him.

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." Where [is] the wise? Where [is] the scribe? Where [is] the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." - 1 Cor 1:18-25 NKJV

Tweet