The Dangers of "Self-Love"

 The term “self-love” has gained popularity, even among Christians. Some would say that Jesus affirms this notion in the Second Greatest Commandment. Is that so? What do people mean by “self-love”?

 

The Second Greatest Commandment: “...love your neighbor as yourself.”  

Some Christians believe in “self-love” because of Matthew 22:39, “And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” In their eyes, “self-love” is clear because we should love our neighbors the way we love ourselves. It’s implied that we should love ourselves—”who doesn’t take care of themselves?”  

 

Taking good care of ourselves isn’t a problem... but why doesn’t Scripture write, “love yourselves?” Wouldn’t it be so easy for God to say, “Love Me, love your neighbor, love yourself?”  Perhaps a question that many people who advocate for “self-love” fail to address is, why is such a “self-love” implied? (We’ll allow the term “self-love” for now)

 

I think Scripture gives us an answer. “Self-love”, as in, taking care of ourselves, is an intrinsic function/response of every human being created in God’s image (cf. Gen 1:26-28). By nature, every human being takes care of themselves (to certain extents) because God created us with intrinsic integrity and purpose. If anyone should understand this, it should be Christians—as we should realize the higher purpose we have in Christ.  

 

When “self-love” is acceptable—diligence 

Therefore, “self-love” is acceptable when some Christians have gone through extremely rough upbringings, where their environment affects their identity. Some Christians need to realize that they are created in God’s Image and with a God-given purpose, and therefore, should diligently treat their bodies with intrinsic dignity. Some people need to see themselves the way God sees us, that our holistic being has intrinsic value. In terms of virtue, this is known as “diligence”--and the opposite is “sloth”.  

 

However, to be technical, “self-love” is not a biblical term. In other words, I believe Scripture avoids such terminology for a reason. Therefore, instead of using the term “self-love”, I’d rather stick with “taking care of yourself” or more biblically, “diligence” (cf. 2 Pet 1:5). We are called to be stewards of our bodies.   

 

When “self-love” is unacceptable—indulgence”  

Perhaps the biggest problem with self-love is that, “self-love” is self-defeating. Self-love is unbiblical. Why? Because love, by definition, is selfless (cf. Jn 3:16; 1 Cor 13:5; 1 Jn 4) Self-love appears to be extremely selfish and egoistic. It’s saying “me first”. But God says “God first” and at times, “put others above yourself.” (cf. Phil 2:3-5) Now, don’t get me wrong, diligence and being stewards of our bodies isn’t selfish but biblical and virtuous. 

(The Trinity seems to demonstrate perfect love and unity shared between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as the Father loves the Son selflessly and the Son loves the Spirit and so on. Notice how Jesus never says, “the Father loves Himself” rather, the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father —Jn 5:20; 14:31)

More importantly, self-love can become indulgence—”doing whatever I want to please myself in the name of love”. We are not called to indulge ourselves, whether with food, entertainment, earthly pleasures, lust, sex, egoism, pride etc.  This is not to say we can’t enjoy life (e.g.: Eccl 3:12-13; 3:22). Married couples are called to enjoy each other’s presence (Prov 5:18 cf. 1 Cor 7) alongside food with fellowship (1 Cor 11:17-34). Diligence, in many cases, involves rest. However, there is a line where enjoyment becomes indulgence.  

 

For example, Ecclesiastes 3:12-13 writes, “There is nothing better for people than to be happy...that each of them may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all their toil—this is a gift from God.” Yet, Scripture also writes, “Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.” 1 Corinthians 10:7  

 

Consider Jesus’ words in Matthew 6:31-32, “So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them.” Indulgence is running after the mere physical and external. Yet, God calls us to love Him and to seek His kingdom—and all these shall be provided (6: 33).  

 

Conclusion: 

Do you see the point? Once you cross the line, enjoyment becomes indulgence, and indulgence is not “love” as “love” seeks what is good in the eyes of God as God is good, holy, just, and righteous. Indulgence is self-harm. Some “Christians” use “self-love” to rationalize/justify indulgence and that is demonic because the enemy doesn’t seek your good. They may feel “loved” or “fulfilled” in the moment, such as one engaging in casual sex, but in the long run, there will be consequences and baggage. Therefore, God calls us to diligence, not indulgence.  

 

As for the term “self-love”, I think Christians should generally avoid it because it’s confusing. Rather, let’s be biblical and use biblical terms, such as “diligence” and “indulgence”. God calls us to diligence, the devil calls us to indulgence. Choose who you want to be your “influencer”. 

 

Preachers, Stop Manipulating Numbers!

This is an excerpt from an upcoming project on preaching:

 

Some preachers like to bring out the appearances of certain facts, names, and terms in Scripture to make a point or contrast. For instance, a pastor mentioned “the Bible uses the verb diakoneo (I serve) 37 times and the noun diakonos (servant, minister, deacon) 30 times.”

I remember the congregants sitting next to me were hectically jotting down these facts. But what good do these facts contain? How do these facts impact one’s understanding of Scripture and biblical truth?

Here’s another example:

“In the Gospels, Jesus asked over 300 questions. Do you know how many times He directly answered a question? 3 times. I’m not good at math, but could someone tell me what percentage that is? If anything, this shows us that, to be like Jesus, we should ask questions and not provide answers.”

The problem with Numbers/Stats

Numbers can be easily manipulated to make a statement or argument that has minimal scriptural warrant. We see that on TV or in presentations. I was taught this in 8th grade. In my experience, there has rarely been a case where numbers have been used well to demonstrate a biblical notion—that it was the intent of the author to use certain words and phrases for effect. On the other hand, there are countless examples of preachers who manipulate numbers, particularly the number of appearances a word has in Scripture, to stress a point that does not make biblical sense.

In my opinion, most preachers use numbers to touch upon significance. The usual argument is something like this: “Because this term appeared [X] amount of times, we should take it seriously or not as seriously;” or, “The term [X] appears [a] times, but the term [Y] appears [2a—twice] times. Therefore, [Y] has greater significance than [X].” These arguments drive me crazy. Allow me to respond with four arguments.

Tread Carefully with Numbers/Stats

First, if all Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16), all Scripture matters. All Scripture is important. Even if a word appears only once in Scripture, it is still God-breathed. A word or phrase is significant for the Christian believer not by how many times it appears, but by the fact that it is Scripture. If the objective of making a case with numbers is for the audience to understand significance, “that we should take the term seriously,” numbers and appearances are not the way to do it.

Second, a word or phrases’ appearance does not equate to greater/lesser importance. A word that is used a lot in the Bible does not automatically mean it is necessarily more important than another one. For instance, the word that appears most in the New Testament is kai, a conjunction that means “and, or, even,” with over 9000 appearances.[1] Yet, one would rarely hear a biblical case concerning the significance of kai. This relates to the next point.

Third, even if a word or phrase appears minimally in Scripture, it can carry massive theological—not lexical—significance. I must assert that there are some words in Scripture that contain great theological significance without anything to do with the number of appearances. For instance, “propitiation” (hilasmos) only makes two appearances (1 Jn 2:2; 4:10). Even if one were to combine the variant hilasterion (Rom 3:25, Heb 9:5), the total appearances of propitiation is four. Yet, propitiation is a rich theological notion that is crucial in explaining the Gospel. The word refers to ample passages in Scripture that detail the process of the Gospel. Surely, one would not consider propitiation unimportant unless they would like to deny the Gospel.

Another example is the contrast between kurios (Lord, master) and philos (friend). There are over 700 usages of kurios, in which most of them are designated in reference to Christ. While there are over 20 usages of philos, only a few of the usages indicate the relationship between Christ and His believers as friends (Lk 12:4; John 15:14-15).

Jesus is Lord and the common term to designate Christ is to refer to His lordship—He is the King of kings and Lord of Lords (Rev 19:16). However, just because there are fewer instances where Christ calls us “friends” (philous), a fraternal term, it does not diminish the significance. Jesus is not lesser as a friend than our Lord. He is Lord over all and He is our friend.

Fourth, the attempt to make a case concerning significance with numbers assume that certain terms and phrases are used in the same way. However, a word (especially in Greek) can be used in different ways. For instance, “word” (logos) is used in Scripture referring to “Christ”, “Scripture”, “logic/reason” and (literally) “word”, in the sense of speech (something someone said). In fact, logos is predominantly used as a communication device. Counting how many times Scripture contains logos to make a case may easily ignore the different meanings that the word has. One simply cannot make a case with the number of times logos is used in Scripture.

In my experience, many preachers who attempt to make a case with numbers are not familiar with the original languages of Scripture nor linguistic practices. That’s not a problem…until they act like pros when they’re not by not doing the actual work. Please do the work and handle the word of truth correctly (cf. 2 Tim 2:15). Scripture is not a means of manipulation—even when the preacher did not intend to manipulate and to present inaccurate information.

All to say, a preacher who truly cares about the integrity of the biblical text must be careful in using numbers as an argument. I would suggest that it would be safe to not use the appearance of a term as much as possible unless the preacher has truly made a biblically true case concerning numbers—which requires ample study. A case that employs numbers well is one in which the preacher can substantially claim that the biblical authors intended numbers to be used for significance. In my own studies, these cases are few. One example where numbers are used well could be the length of a king’s rule during Kings/Chronicles. Kings who were faithful to the Law had a longer reign while those who were unfaithful had a short reign.

Preachers, for the sake of integrity and biblical integrity, don’t manipulate numbers. As Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 2:15, may we do our best in handling Scripture.

[1] Mounce, Basis of Biblical Greek Grammar, 20.  

A Healthy, Growing Church (summary)

Check out my new website: barnabasallie.org.

 My Master’s capstone paper is an independent study in which I wanted to explore the relationship between leadership structure and the growth of believers in a local congregation. My conclusion is that a biblical structure of leadership shares a positive relationship with membership growth. Obviously, membership growth is defined as the growth of true, believing Christians—which may or may not relate with the growth of a local church’s attendees.

My paper addresses a few questions: (1) does Scripture provide a clear basis for leadership structure? (2) if yes, what is it? and (3) how does it relate with the growth of membership?

Since my paper is over 7000 words, I have decided to summarize 4 main conclusions here.

 

1.     Scripture presents a basic paradigmatic structure: The fundamental presupposition and reasoning for my paper and research is that Scripture has outlaid a paradigmatic church leadership structure. In other words, the early church recorded in New Testament Scripture presents a structure that is meant to be adhered to.

This structure is not a coincidental result of the gathering of believers. Rather, the early church’s structure was deliberate and technical, reflecting the Spirit’s work through the early apostles and leaders.

For example, given that the early church apostles were Jewish, they would be well-associated with Sanhedrin terms such as high priest (archiereis), membership (bouleutés), and elder (prebuteros). Yet, we don’t see priestly language to depict Christians or ministers in the New Testament church at all, as Christ is the great high priest (Heb 4:14), nor do we see language of “official membership” in the church as well. Rather, Scriptures uses terms such as melos—member—in depicting the relationship of believers of a local body. On the other hand, eldership language is deliberately transferred to the local church from the Sanhedrin.

2.     The nature of the church is familial, organic, and relational—both spiritual-paternal (relationship with God) and fraternal (relationship with one another). A key indicator of the church’s relational nature is reflected through the Lord’s Supper as a regular family meal.  Organic membership growth is fostered through house churches (perhaps the modern equivalent would be small groups). Throughout history, the primary method of one coming to salvation is through personal relationships, and the early church was designed in a way to foster that.

3.     Church leadership structure is as follows: (1) Jesus—Head and Chief Pastor/Shepherd of the Universal Church, (2) a plurality of elders that serve as human authorities of the local church, (3) deacons serving the local body under the elders, and (4) the congregation as a participating, organic body.

When it comes to church offices, the New Testament never uses poimen (pastor/shepherd) or poimaino (to shepherd) to indicate a role in a local church. Poimen/poimaino are generally used to depict Christ and spiritual callings (spiritual gifts). Thus, human authorities over the local body are elders, in which pastoring is one of their roles/functions. Early church bodies had no senior pastor as Christ was their chief shepherd. On a practical standpoint, I do not think this implies that the position of a senior pastor is unbiblical. The position of a senior pastor could be reasonable. However, the emphasis should lie in the fact that Christ’s rule took place the Spirit’s anointing and appointment of elders with or without a distinguished human representative.

Another significant point to note is the role of the congregation. In some churches today, the structure of the church allows a significant number of the congregation to play a passive role, reflected by a conformity to social norms and behavioral cues. Yet, the congregation is depicted as being “members of one another”, being intrinsically connected to one another via the Blood of Christ—devoting themselves to the service of God’s people.

 

4.     Historical considerations: The last section of my paper was a brief historical survey that considered the problems of churches that deviate from the biblical church leadership structure outlined above.

The most significant problem can be summarized by a quote by Granfield, “the church patterned itself after the state.”[1] This quote is used in reference to the legalization of Christianity under Constantinople in 312. Yet, the problem lies with how some churches today pattern themselves according to cultural institutional structures that may not align with the biblical mandate. This problem has historically proven to be a hindrance to the growth of true believers.

For instance, the Roman Catholic church became a state institution that was a “highly centralized, bureaucratic, legalized society,” [2] deviating from the organic and relational structure between the members of the body. Perhaps the RCC succeeded in contributing to the numbers of people claiming to be Christian, but many would question the legitimacy of those believers.

Other modern problems with some evangelical churches would be a separation between “elders” and “pastors”. In some churches, “pastors” are those who engage regularly with the church congregation while “elders” serve as the board of trustees/directors—in which the elders have little or no connection with the general congregation while making important decisions. As you can tell, such a format is directly transferred from that of a business organization. I may not have a problem with a church operating with a board, but a biblical elder is a pastor, a spiritual father of the flock. When a church operates with elders who do not serve as pastors, the church may opt in a direction that is not biblically sound, thus being detrimental to the spiritual health of the body and deviating from the church’s mission.

 If you are still interested in my paper, please check it out here.

[1]. Granfield, Patrick. “The Church as Institution: A Reformulated Model.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 16, no. 3 (Sum 1979): 426.

[2]. Granfield, 426.

David and Goliath--In Context

Check out my new website for latest information: barnabasallie.org

 Let’s talk about David and Goliath... and how so many people get it wrong. The story of David and Goliath is oftentimes misunderstood and misapplied in the sense that it has been condensed to the following: (1) the underdog (or weak) overcoming the top dog (the strong) and (2) overcoming an obstacle/giant in your life (“who’s/what's your Goliath?”). What's interesting is how the language of David and Goliath is even popularized, even in sports and culture and media—and again, how they all get it wrong.  

  

Honestly, if people (as in, Christians) would read Scripture in context, I wouldn’t need to write this. Anyway, before I present the story of David and Goliath and its significance (and this isn't some newly discovered revelation), allow me to first combat one popular notion that appears to have misinterpreted the text.  

  

David—An underdog?  

Where in Scripture (or, in 1 Samuel 17) do you see David described as an underdog? The truth is, if you ask this question while reading the text, you’ll see how these popular notions (technically, presuppositions) have crept into the text, whereas the text does not affirm them.  

 

The statements that seemingly portray David as an underdog are 1 Samuel 17:33 and 17:42-43. Saul’s comment that David was just “a youth” (17:33) while Goliath was a “man of war from his youth” might portray how he did not expect David to win. In 1 Samuel 17:42-43, where Goliath curses David may also reflect how Goliath didn’t feel threatened by him. But are these statements enough to justify David being an underdog?

 

If we look at the story in context, David, for one, did not consider himself an underdog. He was confident that he was going to kill that giant. In fact, David says to Saul, “your servant has struck down both lions and bears, and this uncircumcised Philistine shall be like one of them.” (17:36) Yes, David didn’t go to the duel with armor, but Scripture presents him as a fearless warrior. 

 

Most importantly, the result of the duel didn’t reflect a “surprise victory” or an underdog beating a top dog. It was literally a slaughter—completely one-sided. David killed the giant without suffering any damage. His HP remained at 100%. He killed Goliath “with a sling and with a stone”. Now some people might claim that David was just lucky, but that also completely defies the text! If anything, David was a skilled slingshot—likely in the way Scripture describes skilled slingshots in Judges 20:16, “every one could sling a stone at a hair and not miss.” He defeated anything that came his way—lions and bears (1 Sam 17:34)—and this time it was no different.  

 

David was not an underdog. Moreover, can God’s anointed be an underdog when God’s Spirit abides with him? No way.  

  

What David & Goliath is all about: God’s Anointed with God’s Anointing 

When it comes to narratives, it is generally better to consider the larger picture as a whole in order to determine what the author is trying to communicate. This way, we can grasp the intended themes and recurring ideas of the author. For example, 1 Samuel deals extensively with God’s anointing (or, “whom the Lord is with”). It began with the prophet Samuel (in contrast to Eli), then Saul, and lastly, David.  

 

But here’s where the Goliath story matters. In 1 Samuel 16 (the prior chapter), David was anointed king (16:12-13). God’s Spirit was with David (16:14) and not with Saul (16:14). The whole point is that God’s anointing was not with the then-present king of Israel, Saul—but with the youngest son of Jesse, David.  

 

With this in mind, we hit 1 Samuel 17. The king of Israel was tasked to “go out before us [Israel] and fight our battles,” (8:19) while organizing the army for war (8:11-12). But when Saul and his army were facing Goliath, Scripture writes that “Saul and all Israel...were dismayed and greatly afraid.” (17:11) Why was Saul afraid? Because God’s anointing had departed from him as God had rejected him from being king (15:23-26). When Saul first became king, a similar thing happened to him as with David, “the Spirit of God rushed upon Saul” (11:6) and he led Israel into battle and defeated the Ammonites (11:11).  

 

Thus, the narrative of David and Goliath reflects that God’s anointing and presence was with David—as he fought and defeated Goliath and the Philistines. Furthermore, this narrative sets up the upcoming chapters as " David went out and was successful wherever Saul sent him, so that Saul set him over the men of war” (18:5), representing how God’s anointing was with him and that he would be king over Israel (18:7-8).  

 

Practical applications: 

A biblical application of this story is not asking the question “who/what is your goliath?” or “what is a giant in your life?” Both David and Goliath are historical characters. They’re not symbolic or figurative. Would you read stories of the second world war and think, who's my Hitler?  

The problem with allegorizing biblical characters or objects (or making them symbolic/spiritual) is that the people who do that, usually end up picking and choosing certain aspects or preferences of each object without considering the whole. For example, if one were to see Goliath merely as an obstacle or “giant” in his/her life, one is ignoring the historical, geographical, cultural, and biblical context as a whole! Goliath’s ethnicity (as a Philistine), character (anti-God), occupation (soldier), and more importantly—role and function in Scripture are completely thrown out. So, in a sense, a person’s “goliath” could literally be anything, and that throws out authorial intent. What I am trying to say is that, with allegorization, you’re making anything in Scripture appear to be anything you want it to be. With allegorization, you are making meaning based on your own understanding, not according to Scripture.

 

Therefore, a truly biblical approach considers the question, “what is the function (intended purpose) of this narrative—especially in light of the larger narrative of 1 Samuel?”  

 

And I believe the answer is clear. Again, this narrative is about God’s anointing with God’s anointed. David’s victory over Goliath reflects God’s abiding Spirit that is with him, and that he would be king over Israel. That’s what can be applied and transferred today into our own context (of the New Testament), that is: (1) Just as God's Spirit (anointing) abided in/with David, His Spirit abides in us and gives us boldness and courage in a time of need—especially when we face the enemies of our time, namely, the spiritual forces of evil (Eph 6).  

 

Or (2) (this is more generalized) Just as God's Spirit (anointing) abided in/with David, His Spirit abides in us and sets us up for His glory and vessels in promoting His Kingdom.

Sproul's Error: "God is non-just"

Sproul’s Error: “God is non-just" 

 

Allow me to begin by affirming Sproul and how much I respect him, his God-given wisdom, and his work. I consider him a man of God and by no means am I throwing the baby out with the bathwater. At the same time, I also don’t want to fall into the category of idolizing (or, fanboying) certain anointed Christians and blindly defending someone. One can be a strong believer with flaws, whether that be one’s belief or character. Church history should reveal that to us.  

Think about the high regard people have shown to John Wesley when his marriage was an absolute disaster (and ironically, he talks about Christian perfectionism). I love Moody’s quote: “If a man doesn’t treat his wife right, I don’t want to hear him talk about Christianity.” Well, Wesley wrote to his wife: “you’re better off dead.” (my paraphrase; here’s the link) ) This is why I believe we should regard Calvin higher than Wesley without considering their theology, but their character and marriage.  

Anyhow, while we should strive to be perfect as God is perfect, holy, and righteous (Matt 5:48; 1 Pet 1:15), we cannot be not perfect in the flesh. So, some people need to be reminded that their favorite pastor or preacher are also fallen people, and fallen people have flaws. Furthermore, I think it is one thing to criticize one’s character (in which we should be a bit more careful about) and another to scrutinize one’s beliefs. There’s an objective component to doctrine, and my criticism does not stem from personal vendetta (I have never met Sproul) or an attempt to defame him but a desire to pursue truth. Shouldn’t all believers do that, in the way of the Bereans who examined Scripture regarding Christ (and by implication, theology)? (Acts 17:10-15) 

 

The Context 

Sproul’s error stems from a teaching series on God’s nature. You’ll find the video and transcript via the link below: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/holiness-of-god/holiness-and-justice  

 

I must affirm that I enjoyed 98% of the lecture. Great stuff overall. But an error is an error. The error is found at the end with the following statement:  

“I’ll close with this: a holy God is both just and merciful—never unjust. There is never an occasion in any page of sacred Scripture where God ever punishes an innocent person. God simply doesn’t know how to be unjust. I thank Him every night that He does know how to be non-just; because mercy is non-justice, but it is not injustice. 

  

So I’ll leave you with this. When you say your prayers, don’t ever ask God to give you justice. He might do it. And if God were to deal with us according to justice, we would perish as swiftly as Nadab and Abihu, and Uzzah, and Ananias and Sapphira in the New Testament. But we live by grace, by His mercy, and let’s never forget it. 

 

Again, the video and transcript are available online. I’m not trying to blindly attack him.  

God is non-just? 

I truly believe Sproul had a good understanding of God’s nature, but this claim is absurd, and lowkey blasphemous. It’s one of those “throw-your-bible-out statements.” I once mentioned this quote to a few of my friends (without telling them Sproul said so) and their response was “If God is non just, He’s not God. What is justice?” Spot on, my friends.  Anyway, let’s look deeper into the claim. 

 

First, can God be “non-just”? Is that biblical? Does Scripture categorize Him in a such a manner? How come Sproul uses Scripture for most of his work but not this part? I would think that a big claim such as this should beg for scriptural evidence. Yet, doesn’t Scripture write,  

“Just are you, O Holy One, who is and who was, for you brought these judgments.” (Rev 16:5 cf. Jer 12:1) 

Umm...unless the angels are wrong, it seems like God is eternally just—not non-just. In fact, Scripture writes, “...true and just are Your judgments!” (Rev 16:7) Isn’t it so simple? God is just and the Bible is clear. Don’t fix something that’s not broken. 

 

Worse off, there are people who take him for his word without examining what he says (and whether it aligns with Scripture) and go out into the world proclaiming: “God is non-just!” or “God is not always just.”  Here’s an example. But seriously, if God is non-just, why bother becoming a Christian?  

 

Second, Sproul contradicted himself. He began the statement affirming that God is just and merciful. He should’ve ended right there. But he didn’t and made a category of “non-justice”. If God is just, how can He be non-just? Justice is justice and justice is not injustice. There’s no in-between, especially when we’re talking about God! If God is good—He is Good eternally as He is the same from eternity past to eternity future. He is eternal in nature (Gen 21:33). He is never non-good. That just makes no sense logically and biblically.  

 

Last, justice and righteousness are married on a lexical basis (dikiaosune). Righteousness= justice. Revelation 16:5 is the perfect example. This passage quotes Jeremiah 12:1, “Righteous are you, O LORD..." Why is it translated as “just are you, O Holy One...” in Revelation 16:5? Because the word for righteous/just is the same word (from the LXX)! It’s diakaios.  Here are some examples for your reference.

• “God is a righteous judge” (Ps 7:11)  

• “…righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne.” (Ps 97:2)

• “Gracious is the LORD, and righteous; our God is merciful.” (Ps 119:5)  

• “Righteous are you, O LORD, and right are your rules.” (Ps 119:137) 

• When Scripture describes God as “the Righteous One” (Prov 21:12; Isa 24:16; Acts 3:14; 7:54; 22:13), it’s same as God being the “Just One”.  

• “Your righteousness is righteous forever” (Ps 119:142)

• "The LORD is righteous in all His ways..." (Ps 145:17)

• “for the LORD our God is righteous in all the works that He has done...” (Dan 9:14) 

 

If Scripture affirms God’s righteousness, Scripture affirms God’s justice. Hence, if God is non-just, He is non-righteous. Now that’s purely unbiblical. By the way, I don’t think Sproul believes that God is not righteous, but his rash statement actually implies this.  

 

The Locus (focal point) of the problem 

I hate to say this, but I don’t think Sproul demonstrated an accurate understanding of God’s justice and mercy. In fact, the example he used prior to the quote (about him showing mercy as a professor to students who submitted their papers late) was terrible. The problem lies in a presupposition, that is, God’s justice demands instantaneous action. He believes that (1) since God is just and the standard of good and evil, and (2) we are fallen human beings in sin, (therefore) God’s justice demands instant eradication/punishment. But when God shows mercy and does not wipe us out, God is suppressing His justice in favor of mercy and grace—thus “non-just”. And somehow, we should not pray for God’s justice as He might kill us like how He killed Sapphira. 

 

But wait, aren’t our sins atoned for by Jesus on the Cross? I’m not sure if the same applies to Ananias and Sapphira given how Satan filled their hearts to lie to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5: 3).  

 

I’m baffled by this because Sproul interprets Scripture brilliantly before the end of his lecture, and somehow, he got to this without any scriptural reference. He conflated justice with “imminent destruction/retribution” but this is how God describes Himself,   

““The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.” (Exo 34:6-8) 

 

The fact that God does not clear the guilty means that He is just and righteous. Scripture does not prescribe God as having the obligation to zap anyone immediately in response to His justice. God remains just and righteous while merciful irrespective of instant retribution. (shoutout to Nathan Reyes for pointing this out clearly) 

 

Consider Romans 2:5, “But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.” Just because God has not fully revealed His wrath does not mean He is non-just. If Paul (and other biblical authors) had an ounce of belief that God is non-just, that would’ve been clear. No, Scripture unanimously presents God as righteous and just.

 

Think of a court. Just because a judge doesn't instantly condemn a mass murderer does not mean he did not administer justice. If God is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb 13:8), He is righteous/just eternally. He is the Righteous One eternally. He cannot be righteous and act non-righteous. Hence, He cannot be non-just, or He’s not God. As mentioned above, the fact that there is eternal judgment means that God is just, but that He is also “merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness.” (Exo 34:6) Certainly, believers will not taste that because of Christ’s atonement, but that’s precisely an example of God’s justice and mercy being displayed together! Both the Cross and final judgment attests to God’s mercy and justice working together.  

Donald Macleod states:

“The antithesis between mercy and righteousness is a false one. The true opposite of mercy is not righteousness, but cruelty; and the true opposite of righteousness is not mercy, but unrighteousness or injustice.”

 

Verdict:  

While Sproul may have thanked God for being non just, I thank God every day for His justice! Ultimately, I thank God for His justice through Christ’s propitiation—that He took on my sin in my place, so I am not considered as an enemy of God (cf. Rom 5:10) but as His child and friend, that I am righteous in His sight not by my works but by His grace (cf. 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 2:16; Eph 2:8-9). Let’s never forget who God is—that He is righteous and just.  

 

 

 

Identifying Culture as means of Spiritual Growth

 As a Missionary Kid (MK) and Third-Culture Kid (TCK), transferring from over 15 schools across 5 countries, I’ve seen and experienced Christianity across different cultures. An unsurprising realization is that Christianity may look different across different cultures. This ranges from worship and homiletic styles to interpersonal communication and events within a local church body. Obviously, some differences may simply be a matter of personal preference in which there may not be an objective or moral value to it (i.e.: chopsticks vs forks; different styles of worship, in which some are more expressive than others). At the same time, I believe that believers should not assume that all cultural aspects and practices are by default innocent, harmless, or pure. By the way, by “culture”, which is quite hard to narrowly define, I’m broadly referring to “the way of life of an individual” that is cultivated through one’s background (ethnicity, language, family, neighborhood etc.). If this is insufficient as a definition, please forgive me as I’m not an expert.

Also, the target audience of this post are professing, bible-belieivng Christians.

As CS Lewis once wrote that there is “no netural ground in the universe” (if someone knows where this quote is from, please let me know) and as Christ says in Mark 9:40 (cf. Matt 12:30; Lk 11:23) that “for the one who is not against us is for us,” it is safe to deduce that culture that is uncultivated by God and biblical values are cultivated by substances (thoughts, ideas, demons) that may be against Him. One cannot blindly assume culture as innocent. I’m not saying that everything belonging to a worldly culture is evil and wrong as we are still created in His Image. However, worldly culture may oftentimes be a deviation from the culture which God ordains.

Thus, as believers and people of God’s Kingdom, I believe the culture that the church should cultivate is Kingdom culture—the Spirit-filled and Spirit-driven way of life that is prescribed in Scripture. I oftentimes find that Kingdom culture is somewhat opposed to certain aspects of various cultures, both corporately in a large group setting (i.e.: ethnic culture) and smaller group setting (i.e.: family culture). Let me present a few quick examples of Christian believers that may display cultural aspects that are against Kingdom culture. These examples range from large group settings to small group settings.  

**Disclaimer:

1. Please note that I’m not claiming that everyone of a certain culture acts and believes the same thing or shares the same tendencies. You will notice the use of “subjunctives” and conditionals—not absolutes.

2. Some of the examples presented below derive from my perspective, which is very limited.

3. Given that I am raised in an Asian background, some of the examples below may somewhat tend to target Asian tendencies.

6 Examples:

1.     Communication in some cultures may operate passively. Someone embedded in such cultures may communicate less directly. They may not reveal what they truthfully believe. Such a manner of communication could come into conflict with passages in Scripture that promote confrontation and direct communication (e.g.: Matthew 18:20-25; Eph 4:15; 1 Tim 5:20; 2 Tim 4:2).

2.     On the other hand, some cultures may be more verbal and outspoken. Someone embedded in such a culture may occasionally come into conflict with Scripture’s imperative to be “quick to hear and slow to speak” (Jas 1:19).

3.     Some cultures may be more open to idolatry, as in, physical sculpted images. People in such a culture may adopt pagan sculpted images without seeing anything wrong with them because their culture does not see anything wrong with idols. This may come into conflict with what Scripture writes concerning physical idols (yes, idolatry is more than physical idols). Scripture affirms that there are demons behind idols (1 Cor 10:20) and God commands us to “keep yourselves from idols” (1 Jn 5:21 cf. Ezek 20:7).

4.     Some cultures may be more reciprocal, in which giving or performing a good deed comes with an expectation of receiving something back in return. This may come into conflict with passages such as Luke 6:35, “…and do good, and lend expecting nothing in return.”

5.     Fathers in some cultures could be somewhat more “detached” from their children in terms of interpersonal engagement. For instance, some fathers may provide, but not play with their children. (I’m not suggesting that “playing with kids” is a biblical mandate) Nonetheless, Scripture instructs Christian fathers to “bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord,” (Eph 6:4) which definitely demands communication and time. As a trivia note, the phrase “bring them up” is ektrepho, which is also translated in Ephesians 5:29 as “nourish”. It appears that the word itself connotes a continuous action, as nourishment takes time. Thus, perhaps it is safe to conclude that the command to “ektrepho your children” demands continuous interpersonal engagement.

6.     Some cultures may emphasize more on filial piety (honoring the elderly). This could go both ways, good and bad. With certainty, Scripture instructs believers to honor their parents (Eph 6:1) and to not rebuke an older man (1 Tim 5:1). Hence, believers originating from a culture that emphasizes filial piety may find such biblical instructions easier to adhere to—great! On the other hand, since people in filial piety culture tend to deem people of advanced age as more mature and worthier of respect, this may thence naturally translate to the church where elderly Christians somehow are more spiritually mature and have more say on biblical and spiritual matters. This could be dangerous as age may not necessarily equate to spiritual maturity (cf. 1 Tim 4:11-12; Jer 1:6-7; Titus 2). Think of how doomed a church would be if all the congregation naturally looked to the older Christians as spiritual leaders because of their age…and not their spiritual record.

The point I’m trying to convey is that, as believers, we are called to promote Kingdom Culture. I believe that every true believer would try to do so, but oftentimes an obstacle that stands in the way of developing a biblical, Spirit-filled culture is our hidden cultural influences and presuppositions (also shaped by our culture) that may not stem from a Christian or biblical root. It is key that we identify these issues. Again, I’m not presenting absolutes.

An Analogy

If I could provide one quick example and analogy before presenting biblical exposition, consider a child raised in an abusive family (childhood abuse).

I hope everyone reading this would agree that it is vital for the child to acknowledge the “wrongness” of his/her parent’s actions and that both physical and emotional abuse is not ok. I hope you would also agree that if the child encounters a person out of romantic interest, only to discover that he/she also has similar abusive tendencies, the child should immediately leave that relationship. The danger is that, given that the child is raised in such a family culture, he/she may consider it normative (or “ok”) for abuse to take place or be prone to revictimization.

(According to IBCCES, one raised in an abusive relationship may continue to seek relationships that are emotionally abusive. Furthermore, a research study done in 2012 shows “a significant association” between physical abuse and revictimization.)

What this means is that, only through firstly identifying the cultural specifics that he/she was raised in—namely, an abusive and uncomfortable family culture—can this child grow and prevent such harm. (this should be purely logical…not even spiritual) Nonetheless, the same applies to the Christian faith in our spiritual growth and endeavors for the Gospel.

Biblical basis

The Kingdom of God is oftentimes known as an “upside-down Kingdom”, that is, it subverts many ways of the secular world. Thus, the notion of identifying cultural “differences” or practices that are unbiblical and anti-Gospel is a biblical notion throughout both testaments.

Without getting into the specifics of the Old Testament, consider Deuteronomy 18:9b (cf. Lev 18:3; 20:23; Jer 10:2), “…you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations,” such as the practice of divination, fortune telling, and child sacrifice (18:10-14). Clearly, the practice of child sacrifice was considered culturally acceptable among Canaanite tribes—but not in the eyes of God.  God’s people were living in the land of pagan culture and practices but firmly instructed to subvert the culture of the land.

Many passages can be used as examples in the New Testament, but let’s consider Paul’s address to the Athenians in Acts 17. The Greco-Roman world was highly superstitious, paganistic (17:22), and polytheistic, with people worshiping an “unknown god” (17:23). Idols were everywhere. Yet, Paul made an offensive and counter-cultural monotheistic claim, “The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth…” (17:24) Even though Paul would have been accustomed to the ancient pagan world, he did not accept pagan rituals nor compromise Christian truth with that culture.

Nonetheless, I believe Scripture is clear concerning a believer’s engagement with culture—that we should be aware of our culture and examine it carefully against God’s Word.

Concluding Thoughts

Culture is quite hard to define as it encompasses a ton of things that contribute to our noetic structure (all our beliefs) and epistemology. Yet, as Christ demands a holistic submission to Him as King and a holistic life filled and engaged with the Spirit, the Christian walk demands us to constantly re-examine ourselves—our thoughts, beliefs, and actions—as well as the roots that shape our identities (i.e.: beliefs and behavior).

Nonetheless, I believe that the more a believer engages with God in prayer, worship, and Scripture, the more the Spirit reveals our cultural tendencies and epistemological roots. I believe the Lord desires a holistic transformation and progression into holiness and that demands a deep internal search within ourselves. (this is perhaps similar to Augustine’s double knowledge)

With certainty, I’m still growing and realizing more previously hidden cultural beliefs and behaviors that may not necessarily be biblical—massive thanks to my wonderful wife; but at the end of the day, may we all continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ (2 Pet 3:18) while growing in the knowledge of ourselves so that we may grow better in His likeness.

Reflection questions:

-       What is the culture I am raised with? Are any of these beliefs and practices potentially antithetical to what Scripture mandates?

-       Ask some close friends about some tendencies that they see in you (both good and bad). Where do those tendencies come from? How did they develop?

-       Think of a Christian brother or sister that you highly respect, or that is highly regarded in your Christian circles. Are there differences in lifestyle?

The "Problem" of Evil?

 

Hello friends! Just wanted to share a recent video I made concerning the "problem" of evil, in which I argue that evil isn't a problem for God but a pointer to God. This is the first complete apologetics video I made, so please have a look!