At another blog there is a post up about a church that is hurting.  And let me preface everything else to come by saying: a hurting church anywhere is a cause for all of us to weep.  This church is in pain because of the specter of disunity and division.  We should take the words of our Lord to heart from John 17:23, “I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.”  If we truly believe what Jesus says, then we truly believe that disunity and factions in church are ultimately a hindrance to the spread of the Gospel.

Disunity is damning.

And that should cause us to weep and to pray not only for the struggles in our own churches but also for our sister churches who are facing times of trouble.  (Side note: the idea of unity above must be tied to the truth and holiness of God.  It does us good to lay our pride aside and stand hand-in-hand with others who disagree with us on non-primary matters; but it does us no good to sacrifice the core truth of Jesus and his gospel on a alter of false unity.)

In this blog post, after sharing a letter of concern from a dear lady, the author concludes: “Do you hear this dear Christian’s anguish? Do you hear the cry of the unsuspecting church member who is being run over theologically and personally by Calvinists? This is where the rubber meets the road. This is no longer a theological debate. This is damaging the local church. Do you care enough to help stop it?”

I want to contend that such a response to the dear lady’s letter is damaging and also potentially damning in the disunity it creates as fearmongering.

The letter we read there, of course, gives us only one side of the story.  When problems arise, truth always seems to be somewhere in the middle.  But let’s work from the one side we have.  I won’t reproduce the letter in total here, but two words in particular come to mind when reading the letter: pride and arrogance.

The pastor in question who is supposedly destroying this church because of his Calvinism is described in a way that paints him as difficult to know, mostly uninvolved, arrogant in response to questions, and uses big words people don’t understand.

But these are not marks of Calvinism, Calvinists, or Reformed ideologies.  They are marks of a heart that does not understand shepherding in humility.  I have personally known, and know of (as I’m sure we all do) Southern Baptist pastors who are not Calvinists who are difficult to know, mostly uninvolved, arrogant, and used big words.  They have even split churches.

Should we sound the alarm bells?  Should we cry from the rooftops?  The debate is over, their non-Calvinism is damaging the local church, do you care enough to stop it?!?!?

Or should we focus on what the real problem is?

The letter also mentions the lack of having a revival or an alter call.  I agree with the heart of what the pastor of that church said—we can’t make revivals happen.  Only the Holy Spirit can do that.  That being said, having “revival” meetings or not is also not a mark of Calvinism or non-Calvinism.

I spent 3 years at a church during my college years that was not only non-Calvinist, it was anti-Calvinist.  Not once in that time did they have a revival meeting.  Here at the church I pastor now, the man who pastored before me was a self-identified Calvinist, they had a revival meeting almost every year he was here.  I’ve been pastor here for not quite two years, in that short time we have also had such a meeting.  We didn’t call it a “revival” by name, but it was an event designed to fire-up the members and reach out to the town, involving guest speakers, special music, and a whole lot of advertising.  I am also a self-identified Calvinist.

We did it because my theological beliefs inform me that not only has God ordained the ends—who will be saved, he has also ordained the means—the Gospel must be spread.  The only way for anyone to be saved, the only way for the elect to be saved, is to hear the Gospel message.  It is a necessity.  God will not let his elect be lost; the rocks will cry out if we are silent.  But Jesus didn’t give the Great Commission to rocks, therefore we will honor our God by spreading the Gospel in a variety of ways.  And whether or not you agree with the “God ordained the ends” part of that, we would all agree whether Calvinist or Arminian or that great Baptist norm in between that if we truly love Jesus we have no choice but to spread the Gospel.

So let’s cut the rhetoric and the fearmongering and the intentional disunity that flows from agendas to drive.

The problem is not Calvinism and Calvinists, the problem is when pride pops up on both sides of the aisle.  So can we have a little sanity, realize the issue, strive to be humble servants, and live in true unity?

(Where’s that picture of the rainbow people holding hands???)

Ed Stetzer’s 7-year-old daughter is hospitalized with  serious but as yet unidentified illness.  Please pray for her and for the Stetzer family.

Ed is updating his site, so you can go there for the latest information.

I saw a link to this today and thought that it was an amazing asset for bloggers. It is a listing of graphic insults from Martin Luther’s writings.  I do not know who compiled this list, but this is a great boon for us.

Instead of making up our own insults, we can just generate one from Luther himself!

Here is the link:  The Lutheran Insulter

This does tell us that the kind of interaction we often bemoan in blogging is not new at all!

Here are a few choice entries:

You are like mouse-dropping in the pepper.

You are worthy only to be mocked by the words of error.

You do nothing with all your profusion of words but fight a fire with dry straw.

You are undisciplined heads who out of utter perversity are able to do nothing in common or in agreement, but are different and self-centered in heart and life.

This is my favorite!

It seems I must have liars and villains for opponents. I am not worthy in the sight of God that a godly and honorable person should discuss these matters with me in a Christian way. This is my greatest lament.

This one is just about as good.

What bilgewater of heresies has ever been spoken so heretically as what you have said?

I’m planning to use that one the next time I’m in a kerfuffle.  (Get ready, Rick Patrick, I’ve got a few picked out….)

“I want to stick to the biblical standard.  I don’t think we should compromise the Bible to let divorced men serve as deacons.”

I was having a discussion with my deacons a few years ago.  Our church has had an unwritten rule for a long time that divorced men were ineligible to serve as deacons in the church. That is not unusual at this church.  Unwritten, unofficial policies abound!  Soon after I assumed the pastorate here, I began a crusade against unwritten rules, and so we needed to discuss this issue. During the discussion, one of our men made the declaration above. For him, the Bible was absolutely clear that divorced men were not allowed to serve in positions of leadership in the church. It was settled doctrine and only those who desired to compromise the truth and molly-coddle sinners would hold to the other view. It is also a pretty loaded way to end debate, painting those of us who disagree with his conclusion as those who prefer to follow the culture instead of the Word of God.  It stung a little.

That was the challenge that led me to take this old seminary paper (from before man had discovered fire) and turn it into a more extensive study on divorce, remarriage and ministry.  I wanted to demonstrate to my good friend (who has since gone to be with the Lord) that my position was based not on a desire to compromise truth, but on a serious attempt to understand the biblical teaching on the topic.  I know that many serious (and perhaps more qualified) Bible students disagree with my position, but I wanted to demonstrate that my position came out of Bible study, not Bible compromise.  I do not think the biblical evidence supports the strict prohibition of all who have been divorced from serving as elders, pastors or deacons.

It is now time to get to the heart of this matter.

Can a divorced man be biblically qualified to serve the church as a pastor, elder or deacon?

What does the Bible say here?  There may have been a time when opinion was nearly unanimous among those who had a high view of Scripture.  Only the most liberal of churches gave their pulpits to divorced men in previous generations.  Now, it is common for churches to have divorced men in service on staff, as elders or as deacons.  I pastored in a small association for nearly 15 years in which three of our leading pastors were divorced men.  These were conservative, Bible-believing, Gospel-proclaiming men who had failed marriages in their pasts.  Each was remarried with a godly and supportive spouse in the present.  Many have left the absolute prohibition against the divorced serving the church in the dust.

But in questions of biblical interpretation, majority does not rule. The fact that at one time the prohibition against the service of the divorced was nearly universal did not make it right and the fact that many churches have now rejected that standard does not make it wrong.  The answer is in exegesis, not popular opinion.  What does the Bible say?  If the Bible does support the traditional prohibition to these leadership positions, we should not compromise just because divorce has become so prevalent.  We should do exactly what the Bible says.  So, that is what we will examine here.

The crux of the issue is one small phrase that appears twice in 1 Timothy 3 (verse 2 concerning overseers and in verse 12 concerning deacons) and again in Titus 1:6 as a requirement for elders.  Elders and deacons were both required to be “the husband of one wife.”  That is the sum total of the biblical evidence.  Those who maintain that divorced men are prevented from serving as pastors, elders or deacons must demonstrate that this phrase applies to divorce.  Those who hold that this passage permits service from divorced men must demonstrate that the phrase does not speak to divorce.

The issue boils down to this question.  Does the requirement that elders and deacons be the “husband of one wife” preclude those who have been divorced from serving?  If we can determine what that phrase means, we can answer the question pretty easily.

The question is what “husband of one wife” means.  The answers have generally fallen into three categories.

• The most obvious answer might be that Paul was prohibiting polygamists from serving in these leadership positions.
• Others, like the deacon whose quote I mentioned earlier, see the phrase as synonymous with “never go.”
• And, of course, there are those who believe that there is more at stake here than polygamy or a simple divorce prohibition. The meaning of that phrase answers the question

A word of warning is appropriate here. There are two serious sins that we must avoid. In Revelation 2, Jesus rebuked both Pergamum and Thyatira churches for tolerating evil and false doctrine.  Tolerating what God calls sin cannot be tolerated!  If this phrase is properly interpreted as “never divorced” then we should not go beyond what the Word of God allows.  But there is another danger to be avoided.  In 1 Corinthians 4:6, Paul warned the people not to “go beyond what is written.”  Jesus rebuked the religious leaders and Paul warned the Galatians about those who added human rules to God’s Word.  If “husband of one wife” does not refer to divorce, then those who have issued a blanket prohibition of service by divorced men have gone imposed human rules on God’s Word and that is no small matter.

Look at Revelation 22:18-19 where John gives this warning about the prophecies he has written.

“I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”

Severe penalties attach to either adding to or taking away from the words of the prophecy.  Perhaps that warning is specific to the Revelation, but the principle is instructive for us.

It would be deeply damaging to the Body of Christ to allow divorced men to serve in leadership positions if the Scriptures prohibit it.  But it would be just as serious a sin to prevent men from serving without biblical warrant.  It is not acceptable to either take away from the teachings of scripture or to add to them.

Anyone who engages in an argument wants to place the burden of truth on the other side; it grants a huge advantage if one’s opponents bear that burden.  But I do believe that it is incumbent on those who would use “husband of one wife” as a blanket prohibition against divorced men serving as pastors or deacons to prove their point.  If the passage cannot clearly be demonstrated to be a prohibition on service by the divorced, then it should not be used in that way. Unless there is a clear prohibition in God’s Word, we should not make one!

Ultimately, though, the crux is the meaning of this phrase.  So, what does it mean to be “the husband of one wife?”

Husband of One Wife

As mentioned above, there are at least three major ways to view this passage. Let us examine these in a little more detail.

1)  First, many have taken this in the most literal sense possible, as a condemnation of polygamy.  The common English translation of the phrase would seem to differentiate the husband of one wife from the husband of more than one wife.  It is the simplest interpretation and most literal interpretation.

But two objections can be raised to cast doubt that this phrase speaks of polygamy.  First, there was evidently little polygamy practiced in the Roman Empire.  There was some polygamy practiced among the Jews, but Paul was not writing to a primarily Jewish culture here.  If polygamy was not a huge issue, it seems unlikely that Paul would focus on that as he gave instructions about church leadership.

But the most devastating evidence against the polygamy interpretation is found in 1 Timothy 5:9, where the same phrase is used with the gender roles reversed.  Widows who were going to be added to “the list” (which no one knows too much about) had to have been “the wife of one husband.”  Regardless of how common polygamy (more than one wife) was, polyandry (a wife with more than one husband) is among the rarest of cultural phenomena. When Paul demands a woman be the wife of one husband, it is clear he was not addressing polyandry.  When he uses a nearly identical phrase to refer to a husband of one wife, it is then unlikely that polygamy is the focus.

Polygamy obviously is outside the boundaries of God’s original intent and this passage would probably have at least a secondary application to the practice.  Men who have more than one wife would not be allowed to serve as pastors or deacons in the church.  But that does not seem to be the primary teaching here.

2)  The most common focus of this verse has been as a prohibition against divorced men serving in leadership positions.  Since Jesus said that divorce (except on the grounds of adultery) was invalid and adulterous, it is logical to assume that a divorce man who remarries is actually married to two women and by that is the husband of more than one wife.

The prohibitionist group is not uniform by any means.  Some would prohibit all divorcees from serving in these positions.  Other would restrict only those who were divorced after their conversion.  How can we hold someone accountable for their actions before Christ saved them?  There is a continuum of strictness among those who hold this traditional view, but share the belief that this verse eliminates those who are divorced from this kind of service in the church.

3)  The third view, the one I hold, is that this passage does not refer to divorce, but to the kind of husband a man is to his wife.

I could list pros and cons of the second and third views, but it all comes down to the exegetical study of the phrase.  What does “husband of one wife” mean? So, let us examine this phrase.

Examining the Phrase

It is my contention that neither divorce nor polygamy is the primary focus of this passage.  I believe that Paul is requiring that a man must demonstrate himself as a faithful and devoted husband before he is ready to lead God’s church.

The translation “husband of one wife” may not be the best translation of the passage.  The Greek phrase in 1 Timothy 3:2, “mias gunaikos andra”, could be literally translated “one-woman man” or “a man of one woman.”  The last word, man, appears in a slightly different form in each of the three passages, but the meaning is the same.  The key leaders of the church, elders and deacons, are to demonstrate themselves to the church as “one-woman men.”

That accurate translation seems to almost explain itself.  What is in view here is the man’s heart.  It involves much more than just being sexually faithful to his wife.  A one-woman man is faithful in body, yes, but also in soul and spirit.  He is devoted to his wife.  His relationship with his wife demonstrates that he knows how to be a servant leader.  If he is not faithful and devoted to his wife, it is unlikely he will be faithful and devoted to his church duties.

This is a much higher burden than some other interpretations require.  Since we do not have polygamy (at least officially) in our nation, it would be an empty requirement if that meaning is accepted.  If the command is simply a prohibition that a man never has been divorced, all that is required is that a man has avoided divorce.  But this command is more significant than that.  I have known men who have never been divorced and have never cheated on their wives, but show little devotion to their wives.  They may be technically “the husband of one wife” but cannot by any means be called a “one-woman man.”

It is my belief that this kind of character is what is in view in this command.  If Paul had wanted to say that a man who had ever been divorced was not qualified to serve as an elder or deacon, there are ways he could have said that in Greek.  Paul spoke clearly and it is clear what he meant in this passage.  He was saying that men who lead the church should be men who have demonstrated their abilities to lead their homes and demonstrate faithful servant leadership to their wives.

Conclusion

The meaning of Paul’s phrase here will always be open to discussion and interpretation.  It seems highly likely he was not speaking of polygamy, since polygamy was not a common practice in Roman culture, and since the same construction is reversed as a requirement for a woman.  Certainly, polygamy would be inappropriate for church leaders, but it is not the chief intent of this verse.

In reality, those who use this as a prohibition of divorce are also assuming the passage refers to a form of polygamy.  They believe that the first marriage was not ended and so, by the second marriage, the man has become a kind of polygamist, married in God’s eyes to both his former wife and his current one.

My quarrel with this view is two-fold. First of all, I think it makes a blanket generalization about the teachings of Jesus on divorce that is, in many cases, not warranted.  A man who is divorced on biblical grounds is freed from his marriage covenant and is free to remarry.  When he remarries, he is the husband of one wife and one wife only – his new wife.  The former marriage is over, in God’s eyes.  We will examine this in more detail later.

My second problem with this view is that if Paul was intending to prohibit divorced men from serving as deacons or elders, there are ways he could have stated that more plainly.  “An overseer must never have divorced a wife and remarried.”  He could have given words that would clearly and unequivocally say what he meant.  Paul was never one for veiling his words.  He said what he meant.  If he had meant divorce here, he would have said it.

The most obvious focus of the phrase is fidelity and commitment.  A husband must demonstrate to all that he knows what it is to be a servant leader by being a good husband who loves his wife and devotes himself to her.  Context, linguistics and logic all seem to support this viewpoint.

It is an unwarranted stretch to use this phrase as a blanket condemnation of divorced men as serving as deacons, elders, pastors, or in other leadership positions.  No biblical grounds exist on which to deny all divorced people from serving.  To do so, in my mind, is to violate the teachings of Scriptures.

Next time, we will examine the implications of the phrase in more detail.

Previous Installments

Part 1 of this series “Divorce, Remarriage and Ministry: What Does the Bible Say?” introduces the topic and sets forth three different approaches to the topic.

Part 2 of the series, “Divorce, Remarriage and Ministry: The OT Foundation: Does God Hate All Divorce?”, examines several OT passages that set the foundation of the biblical teaching.  It especially examines the Malachi passage that has been interpreted as a general statement, “God hates divorce.”

Part 3 focuses specifically on Deuteronomy 24:1-4, the key OT passage on the subject.  “Divorce, Remarriage and Ministry: Deuteronomy 24:1-4 – Establishing Grounds for Divorce.“

Part 4 focuses on the teachings of Jesus on the subject.  “Divorce, Remarriage and Ministry: What Did Jesus Say?”  

Part 5 examines Paul’s teachings on the subject and lays the groundwork for the study of 1 Corinthians 7, the pinnacle of biblical teaching on the subject of divorce and remarriage. It especially examines the question of whether Paul’s teachings in 1 Corinthians 7 were just Paul’s opinion or were they inspired scripture.  “Divorce, Remarriage and Ministry: Were Paul’s Views Scripture or Opinion?”

Part 6 examines 1 Corinthians 7:10-24, a post entitled, “Divorce, Remarriage and Ministry: Paul’s Groundbreaking Teaching.”

Part 7 summarized the biblical teachings, drawing seven conclusions about divorce and remarriage.  ”Divorce, Remarriage and Ministry: A Summary of the Biblical Teachings on Divorce.“

An unborn child is considered a human being for White House security purposes but a mere product of conception for abortion purposes.

Would it be too much to ask for a little consistency here?  http://bit.ly/JtjCYf

If you have time at 2 PM today (Central Daylight Time), “The Exchange” will be featuring a discussion with Ed, Trevin Wax and George Guthrie concerning the “Story of Scripture.” Go to Ed Stetzer’s blog to watch the webcast live.

Should be well worth your time.

While you are at it, pray for Ed’s seven year old daughter Kaitlyn who has been very sick and in the hospital!

And the ransomed of the Lord shall return and come to Zion with singing, everlasting joy shall be upon their heads; they shall obtain gladness and joy, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away! ~ Isaiah 51:11

A bit of a warning: I think this post is as much me trying to work through things as it is try and edify others.  I’ve been in a bit of a funk lately—emailed Dave and told him I was taking a break from writing blog posts and commenting.  Didn’t think I’d be back this soon, but lo-and-behold, I get caught up in a comment stream…so I figured I might as well write.

I have a calendar with all the individual and families of my church divided across 28 days.  I pray through it monthly, and every other month I mail (yes, I said “mail”) prayer cards letting them know I prayed for them and giving them an opportunity to share requests.  Each card contains a verse—the one for May and June is above, Isaiah 51:11.  I hand write these verses at least once almost every day, and just finished doing it four times today (Monday)—I slacked on card writing over the weekend.

Isaiah 51 then has been dwelling daily on my mind for the past two weeks.  It is a beautiful passage describing how as we look to God and the promises he gave to the father of our faith, Abraham, he will build up our wastelands and give us comfort.  He is God, after all…the righteous one, the one who put his law upon our heart, the one who defeats his enemies (and thus ours), and who dries up seas so the redeemed can pass through.  He stretched out the heavens and put his words into our mouth.  And he spoke to us through Jesus, “You are my people.”

Thus when we come into our eternal Zion it shall be with singing and everlasting joy…

But joy is not merely something that is coming.  Somehow, some way, in our struggles through our broken lives in our broken world we are to be joyful people now.  Jesus prayed, “I am coming to you [Father], and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves” (17:14).

Sometime I feel like a statistic—just look at the number of pastors who struggle with depression.  I’m there.  Funny (sad?) how joy can be so hard to find sometimes in the one “profession” where we should have no trouble being completely centered on the Gospel message of God’s word.

Reading blog comments certainly doesn’t help when you’re in a funk—I’ll admit to some hypertensity (I don’t think that’s a word) when I feel my beliefs are under attack.  Look, when it comes to the doctrinal subpoints, I don’t believe what I believe because I’m having daily devotions out of the Institutes or Piper…I believe what I believe because I believe it’s what the Bible teaches.

I have been Southern Baptist all my life, and have been taught over and over we are to be people of the Book.  So that’s what I’m trying.  I need to learn to be more gracious at all times and also to take my own advice here: if we disagree on the subpoints, let’s let iron sharpen iron and work out our salvation in fear and trembling by actually talking the Scripture, and let’s leave the strawmen and the hyperbolic language in the dirt where they belong.

Permit me to come back from that bunny trail…and since I did mention Piper…

For someone who fits into a young, quasi-restless, and reformed camp (that’s YQR as opposed to YRR, btw)—I have only read two of Piper’s books and only listened to maybe four of his sermons.  I think he’s a godly man with a passion for Jesus and the Gospel, but frankly his stuff doesn’t personally excite me that much.  But one thing (the main thing) he said in Desiring God does resonate, even if I still struggle with how exactly to live that out.  Changing one word of that old catechism to read, “The chief end of man is to glorify God by enjoying him forever.”  You can find several places in the Bible where it speaks about God delighting in his people, and we as his people are to delight in him and his word.

Delight…

That goes along with that joy thing.

I’ve been trying something new.  I know the language of “I preach the Gospel to myself, daily” sometimes gets a bad rap, but it seems to be what we need.  In the funk, I’ve been trying to return to that central core message of all that I believe.

In my sin, I was dead (Ephesians 2:1-3), I was enslaved (Romans 6:17), I was an enemy hopelessly under God’s wrath (5:6-10), I would never seek God (3:11), and I was completely and utterly unwilling and unable to submit to God and please him (8:6-8).  Yet as that beautiful passage in Ephesians 2:4-10 begins, “But God…”  He is the one out of his mercy and love who made us alive in Christ, raised us up, and seated us in the heavenly places, bestowing his rich grace to save us through faith as a gift and transform us into his workmanship.

Everything that made us dead, enslaved, and an enemy in complete rebellion against God was placed upon Jesus on the cross, “So that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21).  I don’t always feel righteous, I certainly don’t always act righteous, but I am righteous because of Christ.

In Matthew 3:17, after Jesus came up out of the waters of baptism, the Father’s voice thundered from heaven, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”  As God looks at us through the righteousness of Jesus and what he accomplished on the cross, God says of us, “This is my beloved son (or daughter), with whom I am well pleased.”  Beautiful.

That is the Gospel I am now “preaching to myself” each day as I remind myself of it.

The “funk”—that struggle for joy and against depression is more complicated than looking in a mirror, smiling, and saying, “I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggoneit, people like me.”  There are layers upon layers, some emotional, some physical, some spiritual, and some bio-chemical.  I don’t know how long mine will last (let alone yours when you go through those down times), but even writing a brief glimmer of the reality of that Gospel truth (reminding myself today of what Christ accomplished through God’s loving plan) is enough to give a glimpse of light through a break in the clouds…

…and that’s what we constantly need.

The SBC Plodder is back with his insights into all things SBC.  We always welcome and appreciate his thoughts.  Thank you, William!

Fred Luter (image from BP) is expected to be elected president of the Southern Baptist Convention in just a few weeks in New Orleans. If I am there (and it’s not looking like I will be) I would be unhesitant in casting my vote in his favor. His election will be notable because he will be the first black president of the SBC.

That’s good.

But there is something more notable about Fred Luter that is acutely relevant to the SBC. He is a megachurch pastor and would be the latest in a long string of megapastor elected president of our convention. But he is a megachurch pastor whose church gives an above average percentage to the Cooperative Program. 

This is unusual as these things go.

Fred Luter’s church gives about six percent, not a large percentage but quite healthy for a megachurch. His six percent is more than given by our current president, Bryant Wright, whose megachurch is in the 4% range. Previous megachurch pastors who were SBC presidents, Johnny Hunt, Jack Graham, and James Merritt were in the 2% range (although Hunt notably increased his church’s CP giving in recent years).

Fred Luter will be the first megachurch SBC president whose CP giving is above the SBC average since Jim Henry back in the mid-1990s.

That is notable.

For all the laments about the decline of the Cooperative Program (we have gone from an average above 10% a generation ago to under 6%) when messengers meet in our annual session they rarely find a megachurch pastor that they are unwilling to elect as president, regardless of the low giving to the Cooperative Program.

Wright was easily elected in 2010 even though alternative candidates far surpassed him in their church’s CP giving. That is the usual scenario. I can think of only one megachurch pastor, Ronnie Floyd, whose CP giving was so low (around 0.3%) that it cost him the election (he has since raised it to around 5% last time I checked).

If Southern Baptists are genuinely concerned about falling Cooperative Program giving, one of the ways we ought to express our concern is to consider unelectable any candidate for major denominational office whose church gives less than a threshold percentage. Five percent is a good number, though I made an exception for Bryant Wright who was a little under that.

One of the more ridiculous things regularly heard about the SBC is all the  complaining about megachurches having undue influence, when we regularly elect them to the top SBC office in spite of their low CP giving.

I hope that Fred Luter’s election establishes a precedent in ways other than related to his race. Such would be good for us all.

“Dear, can you find my face-wash?  It’s in a small bottle with a fuchsia colored lid on the dresser,” my wife lovingly requests.

I hurriedly look through a conglomeration of numerous bottles that I am totally unfamiliar with.  I am only vaguely familiar with fuchsia.  I know it isn’t blue, so I quickly eliminate everything in the blue family.  Same goes with white, black, and maybe green and yellow.  I think it’s in the purple or red family.  So now I’m looking for something in a small bottle—quickly giving up hope.
“I don’t see it in here,” I shout back at her—not a mad shout, mind you, but a you’re-in-the-other-room-so-probably-can’t-hear-me shout.  Perhaps this will cause her to give up hope or give me a much easier bottle to locate.

“No, I know it’s in there.  It’s in that wire basket”.  She thinks that narrowing my locations will somehow cause me to have girl eyes and understand what fuchsia is and what her face-wash looks like.

I quickly peruse through the previously described basket.  Eliminating several options I’m soon coming to the conclusion that our daughter must have stuck this face-wash in the toilet, or perhaps a stray goat wandered into our bedroom and had lunch, or maybe my wife is just insane and this object simply does not exist.  “It’s really not in here”, I lovingly inform her—and with a voice that lets her know that I’ve looked absolutely everywhere.

I mean I really know this wire basket.  I’ve searched everywhere up and down, left and right.  It’s really not in here.  I’m going with the goat theory, because it absolutely is NOT in this wire basket.

My wife gives up hope.  “That’s okay.”  A few minutes later my wife walks into the bedroom, looks into the wire basket, and pulls out her fuchsia lidded face-wash that must have the ability to disappear when gazed upon by desperate men.  (Which by the way is a superpower that I hope my daughter learns).

“Ohhhhhhhh, that bottle.  Ohhhhhhh that’s what color fuchsia is”.

That bottle was there the whole time.  I thought I knew the wire basket but I didn’t.  I forgot in my maleness to actually look under other objects.  I was convinced that I had exhausted my search for this fuchsia colored bandit but was quickly exposed by a wife that knew the basket and her face-wash far better than I did.

The Danger of Assuming

I share this story because there is an ever present danger in assuming the gospel in the same way that I assumed that I had searched everywhere for my wife’s face-wash.  In Hebrews 2:1-3 we read a very sobering warning:

“Therefore, we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it”.  For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?

The “therefore” is there because the author of Hebrews has spent the entire first chapter showing that Christ is far superior to angels.  And as verse 2 says if the message delivered by angels (the law) was reliable and if transgressing it was enough to cause legal action against you then how much worse if we neglect the gospel.

This warning is the first of five warnings (3:1-4:13, 5:11-6:12, 10:19-39, 12:12-29) that each ascends in strength and urgency.  I believe it is intentional that the author of Hebrews begins his warnings with the subtle-yet-deadly drift of assuming the gospel.

I take the author of Hebrews admonition to be something similar to this: “Don’t just assume you know that wire basket, that you’ve searched everywhere, that you understand the color fuchsia, or that you even know what girly face-wash looks like.  Dig Man, Dig!  Turn over stuff.  It’s there—right where it was said to be—if you can’t find it there the problem is that you’re dense not that the gospel is bland, unhelpful, or exhausted.”

Infidelity always starts with the wrong-headed assumption that you’ve exhausted the gospel.  And to this foolishness the author of Hebrews calls us to “pay much closer attention” to the gospel.

Dig man, dig!  The Spirit within you is eager to spotlight the gospel and leap for joy at the sight of Jesus.  Just keep turning stuff over until the gospel is exposed.