Different Standards or a Genuine Stumbling Block?

In the Christian life, it’s not uncommon to hear someone referenced as a stumbling block. However, what exactly is a stumbling block and what is the difference between a genuine stumbling block and a violation of a person’s standards on a particular issue? In order to see the difference between the two, we must examine how the Bible uses both of these situations and compare them to one another.

Offending Someone

There is much in the New Testament about how a person should maintain healthy relationships within the church. For instance, in Ephesians 4:3, we find Paul urging people to be “eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” We should strive to walk together in peace within the church and to value our relationships in Christ Jesus. This is so important, notice what Paul wrote at the end of Ephesians 4:  Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another. Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and give no opportunity to the devil. Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need. Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you (Ephesians 4:25–32).

Some of these verses in this paragraph in Ephesians 4 are often used regarding how we treat one another in our home, especially between husband and a wife in Ephesians 4:26 regarding not allowing the sun to set on your anger.  The four rules of communication are certainly implications that one can take from this passage. However, this entire paragraph is contextually referring to the relationships within the church (although we can make application to how we treat one another in other contexts as well). The idea is that we should maintain love and healthy relationships and seek to walk in peace together for the glory of God—not giving the devil an opportunity to divide us and cause us to sin.

Stumbling Block

In the Bible, we see a few different types of stumbling blocks mentioned. First, we find the stumbling block used in the Old Testament in Leviticus 19:14. That language is picked up and used in the New Testament to describe a person who causes someone to stumble in obedience to God. We see this as Peter questioned the crucifixion of Jesus and was subsequently rebuked for his words. While he was certainly not going to prevent Jesus from going to the cross, he could become a stumbling block, or a hurdle by getting in the way of God’s eternal plan.

Why I Dress Up on Sunday (and Why You Don’t Have To)

For the past many months I have had the great joy of pastoring Lake Country Bible Church.  This local church is best known for two Christian virtues.  1) A deep and abiding love for one another (John 13:34-35) and 2) an intense appetite for the pure milk of the Word (1 Peter 2:2-3).  These ministry hallmarks make shepherding and preaching to this congregation a real blessing.

One of the reasons I moved to Lake Country, Wisconsin is because of how like-minded we are.  LCBC and I share the same deep convictions relating to a biblical philosophy of ministry among many other things.  However, that does not mean that there are not any differences.  One such minor difference revolves around dress.  On any given Sunday I may be one of two or three men in a suit and tie.  For many weeks, I had members jokingly remind me that, “You don’t need to wear that here.”  I generally just smile and say something like “I know.”  So why do I choose to “dress up” so formally and why am I totally fine if the congregation chooses not to? 

Let me try and answer both of these questions for you. 

1) The Scripture places a premium on the heart.  External religion without genuine passion and love for God displeases the Lord (see Rev. 2; John 4:23-24).  Matthew 23 and the Old Testament book of Malachi also drive home this timeless truth.

One of the reasons why I am fine with a more informally dressed flock is because the members at LCBC still take worship very seriously.   Biblical worship needs to convey both holy fear and exuberant joy.   One without the other misses the mark.  David put it this way in Psalm 51:17, “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.”  Tim Challies notes that “it is a matter of the heart before it is a matter of dress, and the heart is both tricky and deceitful.”

2) The Bible commands believers to dress modestly.   In some inspired instructions related to worship the Spirit of God calls women (in particular) “to dress modestly, with decency and propriety” (1 Tim. 2:8-15).  In short, worship is about glorifying God (Psalm 150) and edifying our brothers and sisters in Christ (Col. 3:16).  In view of this one should strive to not draw undo attention to themselves.  This could take place in terms of flaunting one’s wealth (look at me) or in showing off one’s body (look at me). Both of these things are common place in the world today. I mean isn’t that what most red carpet events are designed for?  However, this sort of practice is unacceptable within the body of Christ.  The heart of worship is that it's ultimately about Him (not me).  The Triune Lord of creation is the main attraction at LCBC.  I thank God for this. 

Whatever Happened to Christian Liberty in Political Elections?

Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon has been posting some very discerning pieces on Christian liberty and politics lately.  Sadly, I do not think his platform is nearly as large as is the machine that is the Gospel Coalition or Christianity Today.  In large part Dr. Gagnon is reacting against those Christians who suggest that it is wrong, immoral, and/or hypocritical to vote against Hillary Clinton (i.e. to vote for Trump) come November.  At the same time Robert wholly understands that some believers will not vote for either candidate come November because of conscience sake.  As a wise and balanced Christian thinker he does not belittle such persons with, "Don't you realize that a vote for a third-party candidate will ensure a Clinton victory!  Don't you realize what Clinton's positions are on religious freedom, militant LGBT advocacy, abortion, etc- You are an idiot if you ____!!"   Instead, Gagnon presents a thoughtful, principled, and balanced set of convictions and arguments.

Here is his latest article:  "I'm sure that Andy Crouch, executive editor of Christianity Today, thinks that he is doing the right thing when he accuses of idolatry (!) any evangelicals who vote for Trump, even evangelicals who hate that Trump is the GOP nominee and express disgust for Trump's sexual sin (the latest of which are 11-year old remarks that even Trump himself has apologized for, at least in part) and other behaviors but who nonetheless see a Clinton/Kaine administration as doing far greater policy harm. To Mr. Crouch, there can be no validity any longer to averting the even graver apocalyptic disaster of a Clinton/Kaine administration for the unborn, the male-female matrix for sexuality, religious liberty protections, and the appointment of jurists who don't treat the Constitution as so many tea leaves configured to their leftwing fancy, even though long after anyone will be talking about Trump's disgusting behavior we'll still have the abusive and coercive legal and judicial legacy of a Clinton/Kaine administration.

Here's how it comes across to persons whom Mr. Crouch bashes: insulting, condescending, bullying, and histrionic, not to mention ill-informed at points. The recipients attacked in this and other recent articles (one by Russell Moore and another by a certain Colin Hansen of the Gospel Coalition, both for the fair-minded and politically balanced publication known as the Washington Post, essentially a media outlet for the Clinton campaign) are being portrayed slanderously by a self-appointed evangelical magisterium as too stupid, too morally shallow, too hypocritical, or too crazed with a desire for political power to be respected for their own moral judgments. The tone of these articles goes something like this: Shut up you moral hypocrites and ignoramuses and do what we tell you.

Trump v. Clinton and Going Beyond What Is Written

Evangelicals, of all people, should not be silent about Donald Trump's wicked immorality or about Hillary Clinton’s habitual lawlessness and her LGBT, radical pro-choice platform- AMEN!

Christians must not try and present an unrepentant, rich, old ruler as a “born again” Christian- AMEN!

Believers should not dismiss Trump’s licentious behavior by pointing to the Democrats "poster child president" (Bill Clinton or JFK); as gross immoral behavior does not justify gross immoral behavior- AMEN!

Disciples must not confuse an apology/worldly sorrow for genuine repentance (see 2 Cor. 7:10; Psalm 51).

BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN that Christians are only left with two options: 1) To either vote for Hillary Clinton (an immoral candidate); 2) OR to vote for a third party/fill in. Elections are matters of wisdom and conscience. In this regard this political election is no different than the last nine or so you have participated in.

Pray, seek God’s Word, educate yourself, listen to wise counsel; especially from Word-governed believers- At the end of the day you must vote (or not vote) according to your conscience!  Don’t let the Gospel Coalition or any other source tell you who you MUST vote for. Christian liberty is just that.  Russell Moore and Collin Hansen do not officially speak on behalf of the Church; (Protestants do not have a Pope)!!! Christian teachers and authors should highlight any and all pertinent biblical principles and historical facts but must work hard to not go beyond what is written (1 Cor. 4:6).

In response to Collin Hansen's Washington Post Op-ed Dr. Roberty Gagnon wrote this balanced response.  It is well worth your time.

Lucado, Trump, "Evangelicals" and the 2016 Election

Photo Credit: http://www.christianitytoday.com/

An earlier post provided a brief overview  of Homespun Gospel: The Triumph of Sentimentality in Contemporary American Evangelicalism.   This new book demonstrates how Max Lucado, Rick Warren, and Joel Osteen have been leading advocates of a hyper-sentimental gospel that has been widely accepted by a large number of religious consumers.   I'll showcase more of the highlights of Homespun Gospel in future articles.

Today's post is devoted to Lucado, Trump, Evangelicals and the 2016 Election (if nothing else consider my 10 takeaways at the conclusion of this article).

What spurred me on to write today's post?  I decided to write this article after I saw how many Christians reposted a "Anti-Trump" blog article written by Pastor Max Lucado.  In the past two months I have never read more critical pieces of a Republican candidate written by conservative and/or Christian authors.  In a follow up interview "America's Pastor"said that he does not normally inject politics into his pastoral ministry.  Lucado noted that "I don’t even put a candidate’s bumper sticker on my car. People don’t attend church to hear my views on a presidential candidate."

Though I do not agree with Lucado's theology on a number of points, (or his philosophy of ministry- see Homespun Gospel), I think his default position on politics and the pulpit is wise.  The centrality of Christ, the gospel, and the core doctrines of Scripture can be unintentionally eclipsed when Christian preachers become political commentators on Sunday morning instead of 'mouthpieces' of God (to use the language of 1 Peter 4:10).   Having said that, if a cultural/political issue is addressed in the Scriptures, the man of God (2 Tim. 2:15) should faithfully communicate God's position on X, Y, or Z (Acts 20:27-35).  (Examples include: the sacredness of life (at conception), God's view of marriage, gender, and human sexuality, a theology of work in relation to welfare, the role of government, the sinfulness of racism and genuine bigotry, etc).

If a minister of the gospel decides to address a controversial, hot-topic issue from the pulpit (such as race relations and the police, the Ferguson riots, social justice, immigration, Israel, welfare and poverty, gender equality, Roe vs. Wade, SCOTUS, etc) they must be very careful to not read their personal opinions into the inspired Text.  If your pastor says, "This is heaven's perspective on such and such" you better be certain that his finger is pointing to a book, chapter, and verse AND that he is rightly interpreting the true meaning of Holy Scripture (Phil Johnson recently called out brother Thabiti Anyabwile for this very thing- see Against Mission Drift).  Over the years, many errors and half-truths have been propagated from American pulpits (often times unknowingly).

So why did "America's Pastor" post an public article that was critical of Donald Trump (the current front-runner of the Republican party)?