Monthly Archives: October 2007

Piper on sexual sin, guilt, shame, and following Jesus

Leave a reply
Gutsy Guilt
Don’t let shame over sexual sin destroy you.
John Piper | posted 10/19/2007 08:27AM

The closest I have ever come in 26 years to being fired from my position as a pastor at Bethlehem Baptist Church was in the mid-1980s, when I wrote an article for our church newsletter titled “Missions and Masturbation.” I wrote the article after returning from a missions conference in Washington, D.C., with George Verwer, the head of Operation Mobilization.

Verwer’s burden at that conference was the tragic number of young people who at one point in their lives dreamed of radical obedience to Jesus, but then faded away into useless American prosperity. A gnawing sense of guilt and unworthiness over sexual failure gradually gave way to spiritual powerlessness and the dead-end dream of middle-class security and comfort.

In other words, what seemed so tragic to George Verwer—as it does to me—is that so many young people are being lost to the cause of Christ’s mission because they are not taught how to deal with the guilt of sexual failure. The problem is not just how not to fail. The problem is how to deal with failure so that it doesn’t sweep away your whole life into wasted mediocrity with no impact for Christ. [READ THE REST]

Greeting Throne Room People 4

1 Reply

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

and are faithful in Christ Jesus

“Christ” means essentially King in Paul’s letters, with association with certain promises that a king would come and save. It would be more natural for us to read Paul write of those who are faithful to Christ Jesus, but that is not what he says. Rather, Jesus is not only the one to whom we are loyal, but He is the context in whom we walk the walk. Jesus is not only the king, but he is, in some sense, the realm or land in which our behavior can make any sense.

This idea actually goes back to David who is treated like he is somehow the land in which the Israelites live:

Then all the men of Israel came to the king and said to the king, “Why have our brothers the men of Judah stolen you away and brought the king and his household over the Jordan, and all David’s men with him?” All the men of Judah answered the men of Israel, “Because the king is our close relative. Why then are you angry over this matter? Have we eaten at all at the king’s expense? Or has he given us any gift?” And the men of Israel answered the men of Judah, “We have ten shares in the king, and in David also we have more than you. Why then did you despise us? Were we not the first to speak of bringing back our king?” But the words of the men of Judah were fiercer than the words of the men of Israel (2 Samuel 19.41-43).

And then again in the very next passage (ch. 20; emphasis added):

Now there happened to be there a worthless man, whose name was Sheba, the son of Bichri, a Benjaminite. And he blew the trumpet and said,

We have no portion in David,
and we have no inheritance in the son of Jesse;
every man to his tents, O Israel!

Christians are “in Christ” just as Israelites were “in Israel.” Christ is the environment in which they live and act.

In this context, we should mention that the faithfulness that Paul attributes to believers is not in any way contrary to the Bible’s message of grace and being right with God only through faith rather than earning such a position through moral behavior. Rather, in Christ, they are continually forgiven so that their obedient deeds, no matter how imperfect or wrong, are gladly received by God as a loving Father. As believers who have entrusted themselves to Christ alone, they have been faithful to the call of the Gospel and our counted faithful as they work that faith out in their lives, despite their shortcomings.

(This, by the way, has tremendous implications for how believers should treat others for whom they are responsible and with whom they are related. Paul will spell this out.)

If McCain wasn’t so hawkish, this would persuade me

1 Reply

I took out the last sentence since my social theory isn’t Lutheran, but I thought the stuff below was stellar.

I also think that McCain was entirely correct on the immigration issue. Sometimes I don’t understand my fellow conservatives. Aside from immigration laws being government regulations that prevent people from seeking economic prosperity — and when did support for regulations like that become a “conservative” issue? — American is about immigrating to seek a better life. I say we should welcome everyone, provided that they are willing to join in the American project as well. Besides, I can’t help but think that the conservative anti-immigration position will do for the GOP nationally what it did for the California Republican party — move it into a permanent-minority party. McCain is absolutely right on on the immigration issue, for both principled and tactical reasons.

Finally, there’s McCain’s mixup with the religious right in the 2000 election. Whatever. The Bush campaign was playing hardball, and some Christian groups got on board with Bush. McCain got mad, and slapped them on the nose. So don’t come crying to me when you’re trying to beat up on someone and he happens to punch back. Truth be told, I find most religious-right organizations (as opposed to individual Christians who are conservative) mostly to be embarassments to Christianity.

Also, I have to say I’m wondering if I’m being unrealistic about Fred Thompson’s virtues.