On Middle Age & its Crises

I recently heard someone describe a person’s teens, 20s, and 30s as a season of sowing. Middle age and beyond is a season of reaping. The so-called mid-life crisis often stems from the realization that what one is reaping is not what they had hoped for in their years of sowing.

Proverbs 4:18 reads:

“The path of the righteous is like the light of dawn, that shines brighter and brighter until the full day.”

Think about that. The way of the righteous gets more and more compelling as time (“the day”) tumbles on. In one’s teenage years, for example, the way of the righteous seems incomprehensible, even foolish. But as one enters their sowing years (usually middle age and beyond) the wisdom of the righteous path grows more evident.

It's Not Just Freedom From, But Freedom To

Note: this is a slightly revised email sent to our church on July 5, 2024.

Happy 4th!

Let’s talk freedom.

I believe our nation is generally confused about the topic. We think of freedom as an end not a means. We think of ourselves as free from things, but never free to things. Think of the times you’ve heard someone say (with a touch of defiance): “It’s a free country, I can do what I want.”

Freedom doesn’t mean you are free to do whatever you want. If it does, you have just given yourself over to the most oppressive form of enslavement: you have shackled yourself to yourself (your ruthless passions and desires). 

Freedom ought to mean you are free to do the right thing.

Let’s consider the Exodus story. This is the great freedom story that hovers in the background of our thinking. (It’s astounding the degree to which this story has shaped those on the left and right, those secular and religious).

Here’s what we get right about the story: God takes an exploited and oppressed people (Israel) and sets them free from their tyranny in Egypt.

Here’s what we forget: Isreal’s freedom from Egypt meant freedom to serve the Lord.

Israel isn’t freed to just do “whatever the heck they want,” they are freed to serve the Lord. In fact, the Hebrew word “abad,” which described their enslavement in Egypt, is the same word used to describe their new task as freed people: “abad” (or enslave themselves to) the Lord (Exodus 8:1).

Freedom from means freedom to.  

As I see it, in America, we have the “freedom from” part down, we’ve forgotten the “freedom to” part. We don't want to think of our freedom as demanding (and being sustained by) obligations to our communities, work, families, the next generation, and so on.

This is why, as many have pointed out, liberal societies (like America) need illiberal institutions (like churches, synagogues, mosques, family, service organizations, etc) to sustain them. Why?

Because freedom from always means freedom to something.

These illiberal institutions have been eroding steadily for decades, which begs the question of how much longer this American project can be sustained. Looking at the current political situation (captured well in last week’s presidential debate), it’s easy to be disillusioned. Has our obsession with freedom from combined with no sense of what that freedom is for or to created a perfect storm for the demise of democracy. Time will tell.

I do know this: early Americans (the Founders and others) were nervous about the project they were undertaking and recognized the importance of illiberal institutions (like churches and schools) to be firmly in place as trellis for freedom, which is fragile apart from any supporting trellis.

I don’t want to sound too dire. I love our country! Our church loves our country. I am thankful for the many in our church who serve our nation in some way or form. We pray for you. We are commanded to be good citizens. We pray for our leaders and we are involved in the political process. 

However, I want us to avoid placing too much hope in our country or politics. Nations rise and fall, but the Church is unstoppable. Christ is King and he will set things right. Our hope is in him. Our ultimate allegiance is to the Church for which he died.

For those seeking freedom, there is one pathway: Jesus. He’s the Greater Moses who frees the world from its enslavement to sin and empowers humanity to live the most free life possible: a life lived according to the law of the Lord. The freedom from our passions, sin, death that Jesus provides means the freedom to live according to the Law (in the Spirit’s power), which is life abundant. 

Freedom from always means freedom to. 

Alan Wolfe on the Non-Liturgical Nature of American Society

Alan Wolfe, from his 2003 book, The Transformation of American Religion, writes:

“American society is a nonliturgical society, its pace of life too fast, its commitments to individualism too powerful, its treatment of authority too irreverent, and its craving for innovation too intense to tolerate religious practices that call believers to repeat the same word or songs with little room for creative expression” (17).

Distrust's Thicket & the PCA

If distrust produces a thicket ( as Anne Snyder depicts it), then the question institutions and those serving them must ask when facing distrust (as many are) is:

How should the institution disentangle itself from distrust’s thicket?

I believe the institution should move downward, and I explain why HERE. While the article’s focus is the PCA, the concepts apply to any institution.

PCA on a Slippery Slope?

Mike Philliber has given some helpful background on why the PCA sits strong when it comes to concerns regarding a slide leftward, especially when compared to other denominations.

He notes two things:

1) The 10 Commandments with explanation are a part of our constitution.

2) Our high view of the Bible when compared to other denominations. For example, one denomination considers the Word of God an “authoritative witness to Jesus Christ in the Church universal, and God’s Word to you.” This latter language gives plenty of wiggle room to sidestep certain aspects of the Scriptures that one finds inconvenient. The BCO language, on the other hand, rightly calls the Scriptures “the only infallible rule of faith and practice.”

You can read Philliber’s post HERE.

12 Reasons Why Liturgy Matters

From the beginning, worship at King's Cross Church has had a liturgical shape; some love it, some have left because of it, and some are growing to appreciate it. I remain convinced that our liturgy is a simple (yet powerful) frame for worship and discipleship. Matthew Wilcoxen, rector at St. John's Anglican (Sydney), tweeted the following 12 reasons why liturgy is important. I thought his reasons (succinct and clear) were worth sharing…

Wilcoxen says:



1) Liturgy makes the entire service a rehearsal of the gospel. We acclaim God’s kingdom, we confess sin on bended knee. We hear significant portions of the Bible. We confess faith. We pray for the world. We receive the embodied sign of God’s grace at the table. We are sent out.

2. In an age of expressive-individualism, liturgy is especially counter-cultural (hence the discomfort). We have been told that what matters is the expression of our unique selves. Liturgy, by contrast, is a practice of *conformity* to Christ and to his people.

3. Liturgy is highly participatory and embodied, and makes space for everyone to be involved, whether they are young or old, educated or uneducated, neurotypical or not, rich or poor.

4. Liturgy de-centers the pastor and their personality and their great (or not) preaching. It can help to create a church culture that isn’t a cult of personality. And this is way better for everyone (including the pastor!).

5. Liturgy is highly missional. When secular people take the leap to come to church, they are looking for something transcendent and beautiful. They hope the church can offer them something different than the disenchanted world around. Liturgy helps provide this.

6. Liturgy can help people be carried along even in times of doubt or dryness. They may not be able to pray entirely from a place of spontaneous expression at that point, but the church prays for them and they pray with the church.

7. Liturgy is great for kids. They get to use their voices and their bodies. They end up memorizing prayers and creeds that have been prayed for centuries. It is highly catechetical.

8. Liturgy helps us learn to keep time in a new way. The observance of the church’s calendar helps us in a small way to order our lives not only around the financial year or our next holiday, but around the life of Christ.

9. Liturgy connects us with the church through time and around the world. When we confess the Nicene Creed, pray the Lord’s Prayer, and receive the Lord’s Supper, we are united with God’s people throughout space and time.

10. Liturgy allows some space for contemplation, something that is sorely lacking in our contemporary society and in most of our personal lives.

11. Liturgy trains us in reverence toward a God who is holy, holy, holy, which is essential to a deeper experience of joy and wonder at who He is and what He has done for us.

12. Liturgy is not cold or stiff, but has ample space for warmth and emotional expression in the transitions you use, the way things are said, the songs you sing, etc.

3 Reasons I am Against the PCA's Overture 15

(Note: The PCA’s General Assembly passed Overture 15, which would be added to chapter 7 of the Book of Church Order (BCO). The Overture is now before presbyteries, requiring a 2/3 vote to pass. Below are three reasons why I plan to vote against the Overture.)

Overture 15 reads:

Men who describe themselves as homosexual, even those who describe themselves as homosexual and claim to practice celibacy by refraining from homosexual conduct, are disqualified from holding office in the Presbyterian Church in America.

I am opposed to Overture 15 for three reasons. The Overture is unclear, conflicts with the widely-agreed upon AIC Study Committee Report on Human Sexuality, and short circuits our call to exercise pastoral care and wisdom when considering office holders in the PCA.

Reason #1: Overture 15 Is Unclear 

Overture 15 clouds rather than clarifies the issue it seeks to address. One commissioner exposed the ambiguity with a simple question. He inquired:

I am curious how the authors interpret the words “men who describe themselves as homosexual” in 7-4. Would this prohibit men who experience same-sex attraction from candidacy regardless of whether they identify, celebrate, or promote their sinful attractions? Or is the word “describe” being used synonymously with “identify”?

The minority chairman answered:  

I will tell you what my view and my understanding of the language is and what I believe that of the minority is… It is my view that this language… would not serve to disqualify a man who merely experiences same-sex attraction. The question is: someone who says, “I am a homosexual,” or, “I’m gay,” would be prohibited. I think it’s a question of how you relate to your same-sex attraction. Someone who has repented of same-sex attraction, who has denied it, who is seeking to mortify it and does not claim it as a way to describe himself is the difference.

The minority chairman continued by explaining that the language of “describe” was selected because of confusion surrounding “identity” language. While I agree that identity language is problematic (for the reasons the minority chair explained), it seems to me “describe” is even more confusing. For example, a person can describe themselves in terms of ongoing sins and struggles at times, but if such a description is subordinate to their self-understanding as Christian, then it is not only allowable but biblical (E.g., Paul describing himself as chief of sinners in Timothy in 1 Timothy 1:15).  

What if a presbytery takes a different interpretation than the view of the minority chair? What if a presbytery understands the “describe themselves as homosexual” language to refer to anyone who recognizes the experience of same-sex attraction? There is nothing to keep one from interpreting the language in that way. The fuzziness around the term “describe” poses problems for consistent implementation and could be interpreted in such a way that any admitted experience of same-sex attraction would be grounds for disqualification from ministry. This interpretation of Overture 15 would have a chilling effect that could encourage concealment, not confession, of sin.

Reason #2: Overture 15 Conflicts with AIC Report

Not only is the language of Overture 15 unclear, it also conflicts with the AIC Study Report on Human Sexuality.

The Study Report says:

In practical and plain terms, the issue of terminology is more likely a matter for shepherding in wisdom, and not in and of itself grounds for discipline.

The Study Report recognizes a “range” of meanings for terms “like gay and gay Christian” (and we might add “homosexual”). The report notes that the usage of these terms is a “matter for shepherding in wisdom.” Perhaps in certain circumstances describing oneself as a homosexual or gay Christian is grounds for discipline or disqualification from office (while the Study Report is concerned with any Christian using such labels, the ordinand or ordained pastor is certainly included as well). But the Study Report correctly recognizes the complexity of such terms and their usage, and invites pastors into a more difficult but loving process of exercising wisdom and leadership. Whereas the AIC Study Report correctly notes the complexity and range of terms and invites pastors to wade in with wisdom, Overture 15 seeks to deal with the complexity in a span of 3-4 lines of text (the meaning of which is not entirely clear).  

Reason #3: Overture 15 Short Circuits Wisdom

Which leads to the primary reason I am opposed to Overture 15. I realize those in favor of Overture 15 are growing weary of claims that the language of these Overtures is unclear and confusing or that the Overtures conflict with the AIC Study Report. I believe there’s a fundamental point to be gleaned from this.  

I spent nearly a decade as an administrator in private Christian schools. Anytime there was a crisis or challenging situation, there would be talk at the board level of crafting handbook language to help guide leadership for similar situations that might arise in the future. I always resisted these proposed additions because the more difficult and complex the situation, the less helpful handbook language would be for handling similar issues in the future.

What those complex situations called for was not the management of policy but something more challenging and taxing: leadership and wisdom (again, “shepherding in wisdom,” as the AIC Report describes it). Some of the most difficult challenges I faced as a school administrator were best dealt with through prayer, reflection, interviews, countless phone calls and meetings, and more prayer. Exhausting work, but exactly what leadership requires. The trend in education (and other spheres) is toward the management of policy and the fruit of this trend are zero-tolerance policies, the kind of policy that suspends (or worse) an elementary student for jokingly pointing a finger in gun-like fashion at a classmate.  

For church leaders, the managing policy approach is appealing, for it is a greased track compared to the slower, rocky and arduous path of wise leadership, but leading is what we have been called to do. The management approach doesn’t properly consider the factors that make the difference in these kinds of decisions: an understanding of the context and circumstances and exercising wisdom accordingly. I appreciate the desire for biblical and confessional fidelity that undergirds this Overture, but I worry that drawing our attention to a few lines of text will distract us from the important work of considering context, intent, meaning, and so on. The strength of the BCO is that it guides, but does so generally, asking pastors to do the heavy lifting of shepherding in wisdom. Moreover, the issues at hand regarding human sexuality that Overture 15 seeks to address are too complex for a few lines of text to properly address.

Let’s trust our biblical polity and our ministers to lead in wisdom. The pieces are already in place: we have the Scriptures, the Westminster Standards, and the Study Report, all of which are clear about God’s design for human sexuality, so let’s send forth our ministers to do the hard work of examining office holders with care and wisdom and not short circuit those things.

PCA's Failed Overtures 23, 37: Some Context Ahead of the 49th GA

Note: the following is an excerpt from an email that I sent my church on February 11, 2022. This was just before Overtures 23 and 37 failed to receive the needed votes in order to pass. I am posting it now ahead of the PCA’s General Assembly next week (June 21-24) because it provides important context and links to positions for and against the failed overtures. No doubt this topic will be discussed at GA and for those just now coming into the conversation, I felt this email might help frame things ahead of GA (especially the links provided).

About 5% of my work over the course of a year is given to denominational work. We are members of the Presbyterian Church in America (the PCA). As the name implies, we follow a presbyterian form of church government. Each church is connected to churches in a region. The elders ("presbuteros" in Greek) from these churches form the presbytery. Our presbytery is called Hills and Plains (it includes churches from NW Arkansas, Oklahoma, and SW Missouri). There are around 90 presbyteries in the PCA.

One question our denomination (like every denomination) is wrestling with relates to human sexuality. Our denomination universally embraces the historic, traditional Christian understanding of human sexuality: marriage is between one man and one woman and sex should only occur in the context of marriage. Though our sinful instincts may resist this view, the Christian understanding of human sexuality is best for flourishing communities and children especially.

The PCA developed a helpful report outlining human sexuality giving special attention to homosexuality. It's a well-written document. You can read it HERE (and if you'd like a companion video to the report, you can see Tim Keller and Kevin DeYoung's commentary on the report HERE.).

Our denomination is considering two additions or overtures (click HERE to learn more about the overtures) to the Book of Church Order related to the question of homosexuality and those struggling with same-sex attraction. It seems our denomination is nearly split on these additions. I am against the proposed additions and will be speaking against them tomorrow morning before the presbytery. Following a debate style presentation, our presbytery will vote whether to add these additions or not.

There's plenty of background to all this and in an attempt to avoid overloading this email, I will simply point you in the direction of articles and resources for reading up on it, if you so wish.

Jon Payne provides a case for the overtures HERE.

David Coffin provides a case against the overtures HERE.

As I said, I am with David Coffin on this one. Put simply, the overtures are unclear and redundant (and therefore unnecessary). The Scriptures and the Westminster standards (see Q139 of the larger catechism, for example) are clear that homosexuality (among many other sexual sins) is a sinful departure from God’s design and plan for humans. I do not believe the BCO needs this added language, especially since the language’s interpretation is currently contested.

Suffering

Sooner or later, we will encounter suffering. Sometimes suffering comes as a drip (perhaps just a low-level, nagging fear or sense that something isn't right) and other times suffering hits us with the force of a battering ram. Folks within our congregation have experienced profound loss recently. And the world is watching the suffering that comes when the “nations rage” (Psalm 2) as events in the Ukraine unfold.

When suffering comes our way, it's natural to wonder what God is doing and why, and if he's even there. The Psalms are loaded with examples of the people of God crying out to God in the midst of their suffering.

In times of suffering, I am often reminded of this reflection from the late John Stott.

Stott says: "I could never myself believe in God, were it not for the cross. The only God I believe in is the One Nietzsche ridiculed as 'God on the cross.' In the real world of pain, how could one worship a God who was immune to it? I have entered many Buddhist temples in different Asian countries and stood respectfully before the statue of the Buddha, his legs crossed, arms folded, eyes closed, the ghost of a smile playing round his mouth, a remote look on his face, detached from the agonies of the world. But each time after a while I have had to turn away. And in imagination I have turned instead to that lonely, twisted, tortured figure on the cross, nails through hands and feet, back lacerated, limbs wrenched, brow bleeding from thorn-pricks, mouth dry and intolerably thirsty, plunged in Godforsaken darkness. That is the God for me! He laid aside his immunity to pain. He entered our world of flesh and blood, tears and death. He suffered for us. Our sufferings become more manageable in light of his. There is still a question mark against human suffering, but over it we boldly stamp another mark, the cross that symbolizes divine suffering." (from The Cross of Christ, 326-27)

When suffering comes our way, while we may have questions, we know God is not far from us.

Have you lost a loved one? A child? God did - his one and only son was brutally murdered. Have you suffered injustice? Jesus did - he underwent a bogus trial and was wrongfully convicted. Have you been mocked and stripped of your dignity? Jesus was - he was stripped naked and a crown of thorns pressed upon his head. Have you suffered betrayal? Jesus was betrayed with a kiss. Have you endured unbearable physical pain? Jesus was flogged beyond recognition and pinned to a tree.

When we suffer, God is near. He understands. He's not removed from it. Questions remain regarding our own suffering, of course. But when we look to Jesus we see that suffering is followed by glory; being brought low is the path toward exaltation; death is followed by resurrection; what looked like defeat was victory.

In other words, the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus gives us a template for understanding suffering both near and far. Like the disciples huddled and hiding on the Saturday following Jesus's death we wonder what God is doing, but take heart, Sunday is coming! Resurrection is around the corner. And this future resurrection will wash away the tragedy of the sufferings of the present. Paul says: "I consider the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us" (Romans 8:18).

Thoughts on School Choice

As Oklahoma considers legislation that would bolster school choice, I was reminded of this article I wrote seven years ago while living in Iowa. While Common Core seems like a distant memory, I think the heart of the argument for school choice still applies.

Here’s the conclusion:

“{Better school choice] legislation would…create the framework for substantive educational reform, but would leave the actual reforming to the individual schools. As parents have more choice in selecting where their students attend school, schools must “up” their game in order attract families (evidence suggests that public education benefits from school choice programs). In particular, this legislation would bolster the efforts of faith-based and other private schools. One of the reasons the Common Core has been so contentious is because education, even purportedly neutral public education, is inextricably connected to deeper questions about meaning and purpose. The proposed ESA legislation recognizes this reality and accommodates parents with varying religious and philosophical perspectives to select the education that aligns most closely with their own views. Such legislation would demonstrate to the nation a better way forward for education, especially education in an increasingly pluralistic context.”

Read the rest HERE.

Thomas de Zengotita on Times Square

Below is an excerpt from Thomas de Zengotita’s Mediated (written in 2005). You might say the arrival of smartphones has put “Times Square” in our pocket, making his observations even more pertinent today.

“Take the new Times Square, everybody's favorite icon for the virtualization process, because that's where what is happening in the culture as a whole is so effectively distilled and intensified. All the usual observations apply - and each observation contributes its iota to muffling what it was intended to expose, including this one, my little contribution, which consists of noticing how everything in that place is aimed. Everything is firing modules, straight for your gonads, your taste buds, your vanities, your fears. But it's okay; these modules seek to penetrate, but in a passing way; it's all in fun. A second of your attention is all they ask. Nothing real is firing, nothing that rends or cuts. It's a massage, if you just relax and go with it. And why not? Some of the most talented people on the planet have devoted their lives to creating this psychic sauna, just for you.

And it's not just the screens and billboards, the literal signs; it's absolutely everything you encounter. Except for the eyes of the people, shuffling along, and the poignant imperfections of their bodies; they are so manifestly unequal to the solicitations lavished upon them. No wonder they stuff themselves with junk - or trying to live up to it all, enslave themselves to regimes of improvement. The flattery of representation has a downside, as we shall see - for the flattered self is spoiled. It never gets enough. It feels unappreciated. It whines a lot. It wants attention.”

(from Mediated: How the Media Shapes Your World And the Way You Live in It, 21)