Understanding the Necessity of Works in the Believer's Life in Light of Christ's Resurrection

    Dr. Richard Gaffin, in his graduate thesis and later republished in a book, Resurrection and Redemption, asserts that the Christian's justification is based on Christ's resurrection rather than Christ's death.  The (so far as I know) lone biblical support for this understanding is from the phrase “raised for our justification” in Romans 4:25.  Now I admit that I have not read the material in question (and in fact would be quite happy to find out that I am wrong in regards to it), but unless someone corrects my understanding, I will hold to my position (especially considering I have heard both advocates and opponents of the view say that is in fact what he argues).  Now this view seems clearly unbiblical to me.  In the first place it is based on an improper interpretation of the ambiguous word “for”.  The proper understanding is that “for” should be understood not as “to procure”, as in “raised to procure our justification” as Dr. Gaffin takes it, but rather “because” as in “raised because of our justification”.  Second, it ignores the massive amounts of scriptural support for Christ's substitutionary death being the grounds of our justification and the fact that “without the shedding of blood [not the resurrection of life] there is no remission of sin”.  But belaboring this point is not the point of this post.  If you want a serious refutation of Dr. Gaffin's position I would refer you to the late Dr. John Robbins lecture series titled The Justification Controversy found at TrinityFoundation.org.  Rather, my purpose is first, to articulate a proper understanding of the resurrection, and second, to relate that understanding to works in the believer's life.

    If then Christ was not "raised to procure our justification" but rather “raised because of our justification”, what does that mean?  Here “because” is denoting why Christ was raised.  And that why is “our justification”.  Because we have been justified (or the necessary and sufficient groundwork has been laid once and for all for all the elect, past, present and future), the necessary preconditions for that justification (namely, a perfect voluntary sacrifice being made) had to have been met.  Now since those preconditions were met (by Christ alone), and since one of those preconditions is perfect obedience and sinlessness, Christ was necessarily sinless and perfectly obedient.  And since within God's moral economy the wages of sin is death and the wages of perfect obedience is life, Christ, being perfectly obedient and without sin, had to be raised.  Not because it was necessary to procure anything (His death was sufficient for all of that), but because God is just, and eternal life is the just recompense for perfect obedience.  It had to happen, not as a necessary condition for our justification, but as a necessary result and implication of His sacrifice actually being acceptable and He therefore being perfectly obedient and without sin.  If this were expressed in a sorites it might go something like this:

For justification to occur, a perfect sacrifice must be made.
Justification did occur.
Therefore a perfect sacrifice was made.
A perfect sacrifice is a sinless one.
A sinless one is one who is perfectly obedient.
One who is perfectly obedient has earned the wages of perfect obedience.
The wages of perfect obedience is eternal life.
Therefore one who is perfectly obedient must receive eternal life.
Death is the antithesis of life.
Therefore if one who is perfectly obedient suffers death, he must be brought back to life.
Being brought back to life is resurrection.
Therefore Christ was resurrected because of our justification.
Or, as Paul said it “He was raised for our justification.”

    In light of the title of this post, I hope you have already made the correlation.  Christ's resurrection is a perfect picture of the real necessity of works in the believer's life.  A necessity that is a necessary result and implication, rather than necessary precondition, to truly believing the gospel.  In fact, it is as logically necessary as belief, for both are absolutely necessary (yes, I know that is redundant, but I am not sure everyone actually knows what necessary means).  One (belief) is simply on the left side of the equation and the other (works) is on the right side of the equation.  However, they are both part of the equation.  If you leave either out, it is a different equation.  Let us look at salvation in terms of faith and works algebraically:

    The common phrase “saved by faith alone” can be symbolized as Salvation ← Faith.  Now if you remember from algebra, whatever you do to one side of an equation, you have to do to the other, so let us subtract Works from both sides:  Salvation – Works ← Faith - Works.  That is, Saved without Works by Faith without Works.  Now this seems to contradict James' statement that “faith without works is dead”.  This initial formulation seems to imply that “faith without works is simply unhealthy” in that it is salvation without works, but still salvation.  Let us try adding Works instead: Salvation + Works ← Faith + Works.  That is, Saved with Works by Faith with Works.  But this seems to contradict Paul's emphasis of faith alone.  Perhaps our initial formulation of our statement “saved by faith alone” needs improvement.  The Roman Catholic doctrine is “saved by faith plus works”.  Formulated that is: Salvation ← Faith + Works.  But by subtracting Works from either side to find out what Faith alone yields we get Salvation – Works ← Faith.  That is, Saved without Works by Faith.  But this not only contradicts the biblical texts but seems to imply exactly what Catholics are trying to oppose, that faith alone actually does yield salvation, an unhealthy salvation perhaps, but still salvation.  Perhaps our friends of 500 years ago can be of assistance.  The historical Reformation formulation of Paul's statement, “saved by faith alone”, was not merely “saved by faith alone” but “saved by faith alone apart from works”.  Here we have Salvation ← Faith – Works.  Now, if we add Works to both sides to find out what Faith alone yields, we get Salvation + Works ← Faith.  That is Saved with Works by Faith alone.  Ah, now we are getting somewhere.  Our two equivalent statements, Salvation ← Faith – Works and Salvation + Works ← Faith, are alone where Paul and James (and all the other writers) are reconciled.  Yes, Paul is correct that salvation is by faith alone apart from works, but that is what we are saved by, not to.  Yes, James is correct that faith without works is dead, but that is faith without resulting works, not faith without works as the precondition to salvation.

    So we see that the Catholic emphasis on the necessity of works (evidenced by explicitly referring to works and putting it in the equation) is well founded, however they are poor logicians and do not understand that a necessary implication is just as necessary as a necessary precondition.  If one exist, the other must.  They think that because works must necessarily exist, they must exist as a precondition.  Likewise, the common “evangelical” emphasis of faith alone (evidenced by not putting works with faith in the equation) is well founded, however, they are poor logicians as well and do not understand that a necessary implication is just as necessary as a necessary precondition.  If one exist, the other must.  However, they think that because works do not exist as a necessary precondition, they need not necessarily exist at all.

    Both of these views, which are the predominant understandings espoused in“Christendom” today, are incorrect.  Works are as much a necessary reality as faith in the true Christian, however, works exist as necessary implications and faith alone exists as the necessary precondition of salvation.  Just as Christ had to be raised from the dead, a Christian must have works.  But just as Christ's resurrection did not procure the believer's justification, neither does the believer's works procure his justification.  And just as Christ's resurrection was a necessary implication of His act of justifying sinners being acceptable and having taken place, the Christian's works are a necessary implication of his act of being justified having taken place.

    I urge you, make sure you have a proper understanding of the relationship of faith, works and salvation.  There may be no doctrine more misunderstood and attacked than the one I have put forth above.  But there is none more foundational.  It is for all the marbles.  A proper understanding and acquiesce is salvation.  A wrong understanding is damnation.
   

My apologia for my koinonia

It seems that every single, single person I know (that is know well enough to warrant knowing about his or her romantic interests) is either on one end or the other of an unrequited, potentially romantic relationship, and some somehow find themselves on both ends. He is not into her, she is not into him, or for the very few who are somehow physically, emotionally and spiritually attracted to each other, there is some external force keeping them from being in a relationship. I imagine it may even be somewhat amusing to those not in it. But this is, at least at present and among my acquaintances, simply the way things are. Perhaps it is a reflection of our current culture and there may be insightful conclusions to draw from it, but I make no judgment on that. They exist, and therefore I want to think rightly about them. And this, these non-dating relationships of one-sided interest that I see so many people in, was the sole topic I originally intended on writing about. However, since reasoning through these issues, I believe that the convictions I have come to apply much more broadly than just this very particular group of people. That is not to say that I have taken specific guidelines to this particular group and applied them to a more general group. That would be an invalid argument, and exactly opposite of my method. Rather, recognizing that the Bible is admittedly thin in regards to specifically addressing this very particular relationship (non-dating, one-sided interest between a single guy and girl), I was forced to find more general principles that, since they applied to the larger group, necessarily applied to the smaller, sub-group. I sincerely hope that the reader will evaluate this issue with a heart in submission to the Word of God and a mind open to rational persuasion. Those are my only two weapons. It is unfortunate that those are held in such ill-repute these days and viewed as insufficient, but I will not adjust my method. If they are not sufficient for you, then there really is no point in reading further. But if you recognize the validity of logic as the means of correct thinking and the Bible as the inspired, inerrant and sufficient source of all Truth, then I wholeheartedly invite you to read on.

Since then my method, inferring from the more general, larger category to the more particular, smaller sub-category, is the, or at the very least a, proper method, the only questions remaining are, “What is that, or those, more general, larger category or categories?” and “What principles govern that or those more general, larger category or categories?” To the first, the answer is simple: relationships between any Christian man and any Christian woman. Whatever guidelines God, through His word, gives to govern all relationships between Christian men and Christian women must, by valid logical deduction, govern these non-dating relationships of one-sided interest between Christians as well. And while this is simple and may seem trite, it is significant and helpful because God has given us very clear guidelines regarding relationships between Christian men and Christian women. But there is actually at least one more even broader category that likewise governs the particular relationship of interest. And that is not just between Christian men and Christian women but between Christian and Christian. And this category likewise is significant and very helpful because God has also given us very clear guidelines regarding these relationships.

So then all that remains is to draw out the principles and guidelines God has given to govern all relationships between Christian men and women and between any and all Christians. And while this may not be exhaustive, in that perhaps there are particular guidelines regarding the particular relationship of non-dating, one-sided interest that would provide additional insight, we can rest assured that whatever truth is actually discovered is actually true and is actually applicable. What guidelines, commands, and examples God gives to all relationships between Christian men and Christian women, and between all Christians, likewise apply to non-dating relationships of one-sided interest. And because God is Logic and Truth, no particular command can or will contradict a more general command. So whatever truth we find in the more general, we can rest assured, by the strength of logic and God's character, is true for the specific as well.

So then, what guidelines, commands, and examples does God give to govern all relationships between Christian men and Christian women? Paul, in his first letter to Timothy, writes “Treat younger men like brothers, older women like mothers, younger women like sisters, in all purity.” (5:2). Of course there is the infantile argument that this is written exclusively to Timothy as a young pastor and has no bearing on the rest of us, but if the Bible is so contextualized then not only does this have no bearing on us, but none of the Bible has any bearing on us. I trust this is not the position of the reader. So then, Timothy, a man young enough to be told “let no one despise your youth” (1 Timothy 4:12) is to treat “younger women like sisters, in all purity.” And just for clarification, Paul does not say “treat younger women like sisters in Christ.” Christian men and women are brothers and sisters and mothers and sons and daughters in Christ. That is the reality. Had he said that it would not have meant anything because he would have been using the analogy to explain the analogy. In effect he would have said, “Treat younger Christian brothers like Christian brothers, older Christian mothers like Christian mothers, younger Christian sisters like Christian sisters, in all purity.” And while the Bible often tells Christians to act like who they are, the point here is not to tell them to act as they ought, but what that ought actually is. And that ought is familial.

Now some of you may know that I have two older sisters, but no younger sister. I also have an older and a younger brother. So I have every sibling relationship possible (older brother, younger brother, older sister) except one, younger sister. Partly, though not exclusively, due to not having one, I have always wanted one. In every other sibling relationship, at least from my experience and rationale, there is some point of contention. Between brothers, there is often such a competitiveness that it is hard not view each other as mortal enemies. If one triumphs, the other must have failed. And the rivalry between sisters may not come to blows quite so often, but it is often of a much more malicious nature. And then between an older sister and a younger brother, there is so much against the created order in this relationship that it is no wonder that the brother often rebels. He was not created to be ruled by his sister. He is, or intends to be, a man. To his mother, who bore him and brought him into the world, he can surrender an appropriate obeisance. But being run around and directed like a child by his sister, his genealogical equivalent, that is a degradation that few can tolerate, and perhaps none should. But then there is the older brother/younger sister relationship. Now certainly I do not mean all such relationships have been good. Some brothers are assholes and some sisters are idiots (and vice versa), but the relationship itself is, in my opinion, the most beautiful of all sibling relationships. Here there should be no room for competitiveness. What brother truly rejoices and finds glory in beating his younger sister in home run derby? Or what sister delights in seeing her older brother strike out and lose the game? Certainly some, just as a woman may forget her nursing child (Isaiah 49:15), but in no other sibling relationship is it so easy to seek the other's well-being. Certainly selfishly I would have liked to have had the respect that younger sisters often render older brothers, but more than this I would have liked to have been in the position of her protector, guide, and confidant. So when Paul tells Timothy to “treat younger women like sisters.”, this is the connotation I have. Not having a wife, nor son or daughter, and prior to having a niece and nephews, had I a younger sister, she would have been the most precious person in the world to me. Completely non-sexually, I would have wanted an incredible intimacy with her. If she were scared to take the scraps out to the ditch, I would have wanted to be the one she came and asked to accompany her. If she were nervous about having the lead in the school play and needed a guy to read the opposite part, I would have wanted to be that guy. If she wanted to go to New York and see the city, or take a road trip, but did not feel comfortable traveling alone, I would have wanted to be that guy, even more so than a sister, she asked to go with her. I would have wanted to be who she came to for guy advice. I would have wanted to be the one who warned her about guys (particularly the bad guys who appear good, like me). I would have hoped she would even seek my opinion and approval before dating a guy. But all of that is not to say that she could not have offered many things to me. I would have hoped that she might have taught me how to be more considerate, thoughtful, sympathetic and compassionate (Not sure how, when and from whom you learn those things, but I missed it.). Now do not misunderstand me. I am not the brother that I just described. With the siblings I do have, I was not and still am not that type of brother, and had I a younger sister I am sure I still would not have been. I am extremely selfish and prideful, and glory in asserting whatever superiority I may have. I very likely would have envied the attention a younger sister would have received and resented her lack of respect for me (though I very well might not have deserved it). But despite the fact that I am not nor would not have been this brother, that is still how I think a brother ought to be. My failures as a brother do not affect my definition of a brother or understanding of sibling responsibilities. This is still the connotation I have when I read Paul's exhortation to “treat younger women like sisters,”. But perhaps I am way off, and by “like sisters”, Paul means “very casually and superficially”. But until someone makes a valid argument then I will maintain that my connotation, while maybe kind of dorky and not at all descriptive of me as a brother, is not too far off from a proper prescriptive idea of what an older brother/younger sister relationship should look like. Now Paul does qualify the relationship with “in all purity”, as I have done above in maintaining that this is a completely non-sexual intimacy, but this in no way diminishes the type of older brother/younger sister relationship that I envision.

In writing this I have seen my own inconsistency. With most of my Christian brothers, certainly all of my closest ones, and even ones I only see once every couple years, I call them “Brother” and even end most phone conversations with them just like I end the phone conversations I have with my biological brothers: “Love you, Brother”. My biological brothers and I hug on every initial occasion of seeing each other, and I routinely hug my Christian brothers, despite seeing most of them at least weekly. And with my closest Christian brothers, particularly after a long absence, it is not just a hug, but a David and Jonathan embrace of total joy at seeing one another's face again. My biological sisters as well. I can not conceive of seeing either of my sisters and not embracing them and telling them I love them. And while we most frequently call each other by name, it is not strange at all to call them “Sister”. Certainly every phone conversation or parting ends with some form of “I love you.” This is in stark contrast to all of my Christian sisters. I only reluctantly hug any female within twenty years of my age and not biologically related to me. I only recently have begun to think of and try to treat one Christian sister actually as a sister, and I have never called her, or any other Christian female, “Sister”. Now by this I do not mean that I actually do love all of my Christian brothers (or biological brothers and sisters) as I ought. Certainly there is a discrepancy between what I say and the condition of my heart. But the fact that I have no problem saying things like this or behaving like this to everyone except my Christian sisters is revealing. It is not gender based, otherwise I would likewise be standoffish toward my biological sisters. Rather it is simply my own inconsistency and disobedience.

But that is not to say that there are no differences. There are. Growing up I did not go use the bathroom while my sisters were in there brushing their teeth, or go and brush my teeth while my sister was in there taking a shower, or take a step off the trail and piss in the woods with my sister walking right behind me. Those things I think might have been inappropriate. But apart from trivial things like that my relationships with them are very similar to my relationships with my biological brothers. Yet my relationships with my Christian sisters is drastically different from my relationships with my Christian brothers. It is as if I have interpreted the text as, “Treat younger men like brothers you love, older women like mothers who raised you, younger women not like sisters you love, but step-sisters you tolerate, in all purity.” And while perhaps amusing, it is not too far off from my attitude. But worse than this personal failing of mine, which would rightly be condemned, is what I perceive as the accepted interpretation which is not condemned. The more godly than I still seem to understand it to say, “Treat younger men like brothers you love, older women like mothers who raised you, younger women not like sisters you love, but casual acquaintances with whom there must always be some degree of sexual tension and never really honest, open, and heartfelt communication, so that there will be no temptation to impurity.” This is, while not explicitly stated, the general attitude that I believe governs Christian guy/girl relationships. In an effort to avoid the false, but widely accepted dating with intentionality toward marriage/emotionally-entangling, heart-damaging, non-dating dichotomy, rather than accepting the difficult but God glorifying alternative I am trying to present, the only alternative has seemed to be to have no relationship. But this is unacceptable.

So while there may be some difference between how one treats brothers as opposed to sisters and Christian brothers as opposed to Christian sisters, there is no difference in the way one ought to treat biological brothers and Christian brothers and likewise no difference in the way one ought to treat biological sisters and Christian sisters. Either the genuine love and relationships I have with my biological sisters is wrong and overstepping some unknown, supposedly biblical boundaries, or my superficial, standoffish relationships with my Christian sisters is wrong. I cannot see how it can be anything other than the latter. But do not misunderstand me. I am not merely asserting that you can make your Christian guy/girl relationships, dating or non-dating, into relationships of genuine sibling love. No, Paul did not leave this as a matter for Timothy's preferences. He, and God, commanded, “treat younger women like sisters”. I urge you to take serious thought to whether you do that, and whether you encourage, or discourage, others to do so. The fact that these ideas are, as far as I know, entirely unique to me (and a dear sister who has helped me reason through them), but blatantly biblical, makes me suspect that there are many who are in error regarding this issue.

But this, as conclusive as it seems to me, is not all. There are still the guidelines, commands, and examples that God gives to govern all relationships between any Christian and and any other Christian? And here there is far more than just one explicit command. This is in many ways an almost satisfactory definition of the Bible. Again, not exhaustive, in that the Bible is an historical account and also gives guidelines, commands, and examples for the relationship between Christian and non-Christian and between God and man, etc., but governing Christian relationships in general is certainly a significant part of God's revelation to man. But rather than simply saying, “Read the Bible and apply all those principles to your relationships, including non-dating, one-sided interest ones.” I will elaborate.

The church I am a part of has five core values. The centrality of Jesus Christ, Scripture, Christlikeness, One-anothering, and Mission. All of these I think are right on. The one-anothering specifically refers to the forty or so commands in the New Testament to “ blank one another”. “Love one another.” “Pray for one another.” “Encourage one another.” To a great extent, I believe making disciples, another point of emphasis of the church I am a part of, could be summed up by the one-anothers. Jesus commanded His disciples, and likewise us, to “Go therefore and make disciples...” (Matthew 28:19). How do we do that? By one-anothering them, and teaching them to one-another others. Yet, Christianity has seemed to interpret these one-another commands as men one-another men and women one-another women. I believe, though I am not certain, I have even heard that said. Certainly there are some specific references to women teaching women, and husbands teaching wives, parents teaching children, etc., but the one-another commands are generally, if not entirely, to Christians to one-another fellow Christians. Paul and the other apostle's epistles (literally “letters”) to the churches were most often read publicly, so the audience, both male and female would hear “love one-another” (Romans 12:10, 1 Thessalonians 4:9, 1 Peter 1:22, 1 John 3:11, 3:23, 4:7,11,12, and 2 John 1:5). And the man (or woman) hearing this, if he (or she) reasoned correctly, might think:

“I have the moral obligation to love. But who am I to love? The apostle said “one-another”. Who is one-another?” Looking to his right he sees a man. “Are you sir, one-another?”

“Yes, I am one-another, that is me, one, and not you, another. Therefore I am one-another.”

“Then I ought to love you.” Looking to his left he sees a woman. “Are you, madam, one-another?”

“Yes, I am one-another, that is me, one, and not you, another. Therefore I am one-another.”

“Then I ought to love you.”

There is no way, as far as I can tell, to exegete away the universality of these commands. Certainly you may condemn me for not obeying them, and some have done so , but I have also received it precisely for the times I have most well obeyed them. The relationship I most fulfill the one-another commands in is the relationship I most receive judgment on. The person who I most easily disciple and most readily seeks my knowledge and understanding, is the person I am told not to disciple. The person whose burdens I most willingly bear, I am told not to bear those burdens. This flabbergasts me beyond expression. I do not know whether to call it ignorant, dumb, wicked or something worse than my limited vocabulary allows. Again, it is as if Jesus' command has been interpreted, “Go therefore and make disciples of those of thine own gender.” Fortunately for all of you ladies out there, Jesus did not say or do that and neither did His disciples, otherwise no woman ever would have been discipled.

While there would certainly be great benefit in looking at all of the one-another commands and getting an exhaustive view of how Christians ought to one-another each other, I will just consider the greatest of them all, love. Now love was, for many years, a mystery to me. By that I mean I could not find a satisfactory definition that reconciled the biblical texts. On the one hand, in 1 Corinthians 13 Paul says that it is “patient”, “kind”, “not jealous or boastful”, “does not insist on its own way”, “is not irritable or resentful”, etc. This seems to imply that love is an objective characteristic/action (or non-characteristic/non-action), as opposed to the subjective feelings of “love” I have had for ex-girlfriends (in which I did and was the exact opposite of the being and doing Paul mentions). This makes it simple enough. Love is being and doing. But right before this, he had said “If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.” So then how can love be being and doing, when the greatest being and doing I could aspire to, giving away all that I own and even my body to the flames of martyrdom, is possible to do without love? I am not sure if it is a mark of my brilliance or stupidity that I am the only person I know who has so struggled with defining love, the most basic idea of Christianity. Either way, this was a huge dilemma for me. How can I love if I do not even know what love is? And how can I be a Christian if I do not love, the thing Christ said “by this all men will know that you are my disciples.” (John 13:35)? I hope you can see that this was more than a mere philosophical inquiry for me. It was the question of my salvation. I did at last come to understand that love was in fact right being and doing, but only right being and doing done from a right motivation (but this was basically just a borrowed philosophical idea of what makes an action good, right deeds done with right motivations). The right being and doing was fairly clear; the “patient”, “kind”, etc., that Paul poetically expounded on. But what was the right motivation? Of course the glory of God is the ultimate answer. But is that a disinterested, altruistic motivation, because that seemed impossible? I knew that I could not, not do what I wanted. I was, and am, a slave to my will. As much as I would want, I could not have God's glory as my aim at my own ultimate expense. And this is not unbiblical. The Bible is replete with statements and examples of the fact of self-interest (Ephesians 5:29 most clearly). So while I did clarify my lack of understanding, I still could not grasp what love was. Into this foggy cloud of musings came John Piper's book Desiring God to at last open my eyes to what and how that right motivation was and worked. The general idea of Christian Hedonism (though I now believe Christian Egoism is a better phrase) was certainly appealing and helpful, and I remember thinking that there were several other good points in the book, but Piper's definition of love was the treasure that I took from that book. He defines it as “the overflow of joy in God which gladly meets the needs of others”. Again, perhaps I am showing my ignorance and simple-mindedness, but that was incredibly helpful for me. Piper grasps both the internal and external aspects of love. It is being – gladly; and doing – meeting the needs of others; and rightly motivated – overflowing joy in God. This is love. This is what Jesus meant in John 13:34, the verse preceding the aforementioned one, when He tells the disciples to “love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.”

So now that I have defined the term, what does that look like? How were the disciples, and the disciples they would make, i.e., us, to “love one another”? Particularly in light of how Jesus qualified it with “just as I have loved you”. How did Jesus love the disciples? Earlier John recorded that “He loved them to the end.” (13:1). That is the temporal extent, “the end.” (whether “the end” can be considered an extent or whether it in fact means there is no temporal extent is an interesting philosophical question, but has little bearing on the end result). And only a few chapters later (15:13), He prophetically gave them the degree to which He loved them when He said, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” So then the extent is to the end and the degree is the greatest, i.e., to the death. This is how all Christians are to love all other Christians. And was not Jesus' life a perfect demonstration of having overflowing joy in God which gladly meets the needs of others? “[F]or the joy that was set before Him [He] endured the cross” (Hebrews 12:2) and met our greatest need in purchasing our redemption. He did it because the overflowing joy in God He had, has, and will have forever in heaven, was greater than the pain of death and bearing God's wrath in our stead. So just to reiterate the conclusion here: Jesus commanded His disciples, and likewise all Christians, to have overflowing joy in God which gladly meets the needs of others to the end and to the death. At this point I do not care whether you have done this (I know you have not), but is it clear that there is no limit to the love that Jesus commands? If it is not, then please spend some time pondering the love of Christ that we are to mimic and reread the above reasoning for applying that to you and I.

Honestly I believe that the above not only should be, but is, sufficient to set up the parameters to govern and the responsibilities to fulfill regarding relationships between Christians, including non-dating relationships of one-sided interest. There is no degree of love that is beyond the limits that Jesus has given us (some may say that love for fellow Christians that exceeds love for God exceeds the parameters given, but this possibility is ruled out by my definition of love being “overflowing joy in God”). And while I can hardly fathom how a Christian could disagree with the above in principle or in general, I know from experience that in practice and specifics, many will search for all manner of objections to discourage and even forbid such relationships. So I will attempt to preemptively address those objections.

The first objection is that these relationships, while good in principle, always turn out badly and are impossible in practice. This is wrong on at least two accounts. First, arguing for the impossibility of something is incredibly difficult. In fact if anything is impossible, it may be trying to prove that something is impossible. Simply because someone has not done something yet does not prove that he or she will not be able to do it in the future. Or even less likely, simply because someone has not done something yet does not prove that someone else cannot now or will not in the future do that very thing. Take every record ever broken. Every one was an instance of someone doing something that no one else in the world had been able to do up until that time. But obviously it was done, therefore it was not impossible, despite never having been done before. So the objection that a non-dating, one-sided interest relationship between a guy and girl being beneficial is impossible is, unless someone can provide a thus far unknown argument, mere asseveration.

Now there is, at least from the Christian presupposition that the Bible is true, a way to prove something is impossible. Since adultery is a sin, it is impossible to commit adultery and not sin. Since we are to “love God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind”, it is impossible not to “love God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind” and not sin. One can even make slightly more complex arguments. Since David was a king of Israel, and Absalom was David's son, it is impossible that Absalom was not a son of a king of Israel. One could even make a lengthy sorite with ten syllogisms, but it is doubtfully even this would be very profitable. So while it may not be impossible to validly argue for the impossibility of something, its uses are fairly limited. And regarding the issue in question, while I am no great Bible scholar, I have not, nor anyone else that I know of, made a valid argument for the impossibility of such relationships being God glorifying. But I am open to correction from the Word of God if anyone feels that they can exegete it from Scripture. But even if someone were able to construct this thus far unknown argument, this would still not be conclusive because of the second reason. That is, if it actually is impossible, that simply means the power of God is needed. “What is impossible for man is possible for God.” (Luke 18:27). At least my God. If your god is not my God then you are correct in your hopelessness, but do not try and limit my God.

Admitting the difficulty, if not impossibility, of trying to prove this as an impossibility, the objectors might resort to the objection that it is too difficult. I hope not, for that argument is even worse than the preceding one. But because I often hear worse arguments, it too will be discussed. First, degree of difficulty has nothing to do with the objective nature of sin. Some sins are very easy. I can, perhaps more easily than anything else in the world, lust after a smoking hot girl. In fact it is so easy that I have a hard time not doing it. Others are more difficult. It is beyond my reasoning abilities to conceive of a legitimate plan to embezzle one billion dollars. That sin would be very difficult for me to actually commit. The fact that something may be difficult says nothing about its morality and, alone, should in no way deter one from a set course of action. If anything we admire those who pursue some end despite the difficulty precisely because the difficulty requires determination and perseverance, both admirable traits usually, to a greater degree than something easy.

Besides the difficulty of something in no way being determinative of sin, can you not think of any examples and testimonies from Christians of difficult but worthwhile things? Like marriage maybe. I do not think I have ever heard anyone say marriage is easy, but nearly every couple I know has spoken of the difficulty of it. And yet they do not (or ought not) regret or forsake their marriage because of the difficulty. Rather, in the same breadth they speak of its difficulty and the great joy and rewards it brings. Or raising children? Think that is easy? Being a loving, yet firm, parent who, through much prayer and seeking of God, is wise enough to discern when to administer justice and mete out punishment and when to be merciful? Compared to those, both of which the general consensus is that they are worthwhile endeavors, having a non-dating, relationship between a Christian guy and girl that glorifies God seems like child's play. And more firm than the testimony of even the most respected Christians, is not this principle precisely what the Bible teaches? “Easy is the way of destruction, but narrow is the path and difficult is the way that leads to life.” While some sins are easy and some are hard, we can be sure that anything morally upright will be hard. Rather than being an objection to pursuing such relationships, this argument supports it.

Next, the objector may assert that “we ought to err on the side of caution.” To my shame I have even made this statement, hearing others make it, and thinking that it sounded very pious. But if we actually understand what the words mean, it is not only clearly unbiblical and to be blunt, quite ignorant, but explicitly sinful. The objection, as usually stated is “We ought to err on the side of caution.” The subject is of course “we”. The verb is “ought”. “to err” is an infinitive used as an adverb to describe what ought to be done. And finally “of caution” is a prepositional phrase modifying “side” of the prepositional phrase “on the side” which modifies the infinitive “to err” telling where one ought to err. (My grammar skills and sentence deconstruction are about 20 years out of practice so please correct me if I am wrong on any of the above points.) But really most of that is unnecessary. From a Christian perspective, any sentence that begins with “we ought to err” is blatantly unbiblical. When does God ever call us to err? Did He at some point lower the standard from perfection to slightly below? Since the Greek word for sin is literally “missing the mark”, we are basically saying we have a moral obligation to err to one side, i.e., miss the mark, i.e., we have an obligation to sin? Most emphatically, No! There is no excuse for disobedience. And while we will all fall short in many ways until glory, we ought never to aim at erring. Christ's perfect life is our model and God's holiness is our aim. Nothing less.

Yet still some may persist and say that I am advocating getting as close to sin as possible. Like the unmarried couple who wants to know what all they can do physically without technically having sex and sinning. But this is a false analogy. The goal of such a couple is sin. They want to act out their lust (which is the sin of adultery already) while maintaining a semblance of propriety. This is not at all what I am advocating. As is clearly stated above, the goal of all such relationships is obedience to God (in treating younger women like sisters and practicing the one-anothers). So then, rather than advocating getting as close to sin as possible, I am advocating getting as close to wholehearted, all-out obedience and Christlikeness as possible. It is those who forbid such relationships who are in fact advocating sin. In ignorance and sincerity I believe, but advocating sin nonetheless.

Another analogy often used to defend this position of caution is the idea of a cliff. Because of the danger of falling off a cliff, one ought not get too close to the edge. Better to enjoy the view from a safe distance. And while we all understand what this means, do any of us, besides those with acrophobia, actually do it? No, because we know that the best view is from right at the edge. Certainly we should not go running up to the edge willy-nilly, or play those stupid pranks about acting like you are pushing someone off, but with the proper precautions, we can all, even the acrophobe, enjoy the most majestic view of the Grand Canyon. So it is with relationships. While we can get a view, i.e., enjoy some degree of fellowship and friendship by setting up unbiblical boundaries, unless we are standing on the edge, i.e., practicing the one-anothers and treating one another filially, then we are missing out on not just a part, but an integral part, of God's creation that He has given us to enjoy.

At last relenting and recognizing that the position is untenable in and of itself, one might pit Scripture against Scripture and quote Paul in saying that we ought to “avoid every appearance of evil.” And he does, according to many translations, write that very phrase in 1 Thessalonians 5:22. But is that a good translation? Turn on your hermeneutical skills and evaluate it. Is it logically consistent with what is clear in the rest of Scripture? Do the implications of such a text line up with the rest of Scripture? Suppose one person believes eating meat is a sin while another believes that rejecting anything that has been received with thanksgiving is a sin. Certainly one could adopt situational ethics and abstain while with the one and partake while with the other, but what about when both are present? Is righteousness possible? But perhaps that is too trite an example. What about those who think it is evil to share one's religious beliefs? Ought I to obey Jesus and carry out the great commission, going into all the world and preaching the gospel, or ought I to obey Paul and avoid the appearance of evil by not sharing the good news of Jesus Christ? Or most clearly, since many people believe Christianity to be an evil in and of itself and responsible for many of the world's atrocities, ought I to believe in Jesus Christ and be a Christian, or ought I to denounce Him, since Christianity appears evil to some? And while that may seem too abstract or hypothetical, that a book entitled “Against Christianity” was written by a prominent professing Christian author and pastor asserting that very thing is evidence that it is in fact a relevant question. These are some of the irreconcilable (and legitimate) horns of a dilemma one comes to if one believes that we are obligated to “avoid every appearance of evil.” The only thing left to do is agree with the atheists and admit that the Bible is contradictory, therefore necessarily false, and we are “of all men most to be pitied.”

But before we abandon the Bible as our sole source of revelation, did Paul, the one who wrote the letter, hold himself to such a standard? Or Peter, or any of the other apostles? It is hard to conceive so when their entire ministries were full of imprisonments, beatings, and ultimately, deaths, for doing good that to the religious leaders appeared evil. It was precisely this persistence in doing the “appearance of evil” that they were killed for. But most importantly, did our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who without question abstained “from every form of evil” (which is the proper translation I believe), “abstain from every appearance of evil”? And the clear answer is not at all. One might make a stronger argument that Jesus sought to abound in the appearance of evil (while debunking the Pharisees' legalistic and superficial ritualism) rather than abstaining from it. He ate with tax-collectors, talked one-on-one with a Samaritan woman (about her sin of adultery no less), allowed His disciples to gather grain on the Sabbath, healed on the Sabbath, told people their sins were forgiven, and claimed to be the Son of God. While certainly none of these were evil, to many of the Jews they certainly appeared to be. But if the moral imperative is to “abstain from every appearance of evil”, regardless of the objective nature of the act, then we must be more holy than not just the Pharisees, but Christ Himself, because He certainly did not live up to Paul's standard. Here again, when carried to its logical conclusion, we see the absolute absurdity of this idea. And this is no fallacious slippery slope argument. If it is sin not to “avoid the appearance of evil”, then Christ sinned, we therefore have no Savior, are still in our sins, and are again, “of all men most to be pitied.” I reject that conclusion because I reject the premise. But if you assert that to not “avoid the appearance of evil” is sin, then you must, upon pain of being irrational, accept the conclusion.

Along these same lines the objector will appeal to the catch all “stumbling block” idea (1 Corinthians 8:9, Romans 14:13 and other places). By stumbling block, I mean anything that emboldens another to go against his conscience and do that thing that he or she believes to be sin. Now again, is this a universal command? Since the Bible explicitly teaches that “Christ crucified” is “to Jews a stumbling block” (1 Corinthians 1:23), it is not just difficult to conceive of, but impossible to reconcile, how we are to fulfill the great commission, i.e., preach Christ crucified, if we can never put a stumbling block before others. So then the command cannot be universal. Nor can it be used as a catch all, last appeal, “I do not like what you are doing, but can not show you how it violates the law of God, therefore it is a stumbling block, and you can not do it.” Rather, the command is limited to Christian liberty. And it is limited to actually being a “stumbling block”, not “might be a stumbling block”. Nor is it a once and done, in that, if something is a stumbling block, it will always be a stumbling block. Paul spends a fair amount of time in his letters addressing the issues that were stumbling blocks to correct the weak Christians' ignorance so that they would not remain in their ignorance, inaccurately judge their more mature brothers, and infringe upon others' Christian liberty. In fact, it follows that stumbling blocks should, since Christians are to be growing and being more conformed to the image of Christ day by day, be temporary issues. As evidence, the issue of eating meat sacrificed to idols is, from my experiences, not a stumbling block for anyone I have ever met, though it was in New Testament times. Paul does, in verse 13 of chapter 8 of 1 Corinthians, say that “if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble”, but I believe this is a statement of the lengths he would, and we should, be willing to go if necessary. But it is clear from earlier in the chapter (verse 4 “We know that an idol is nothing”) that he was not content to let this ignorance continue unaddressed.

There must also be a one to one correlation between the stumbling block. My doing something cannot be a stumbling block for you to do something else. My eating meat may be a stumbling block for you if it emboldens you to go against your conscience and eat meat, in which case we have both sinned. But my eating meat is not, and cannot, be a stumbling block for you to cheat on your taxes. Nor can my righteous friendship with a girl be a stumbling block for you to hire a prostitute. Nor can your God glorifying sexual relationship with your wife be a stumbling block for me to have sex with my girlfriend (if I had one). I am not saying no one can claim that some act of mine is a stumbling block for them to do some different act, but while they may claim this, they are simply wrong, do not understand the principle, and are seeking to excuse their sin and pass the blame.

But I do not at all want to discount the responsibility Christians, particularly those who consider themselves mature, have to avoid placing or being stumbling blocks to weaker brothers. But likewise I want to reiterate that those who accuse others of being stumbling blocks must recognize that they are weak and need to grow in their understanding. In fact I believe this is a good objective measure of one's strength as a Christian. If you are constantly forgoing your Christian liberties in consideration of your brothers, or find that your actions are often being judged by unbiblical, yet common, standards, then you are, at least in your understanding, fairly strong. If on the other hand you find that you are often judging another's actions based on your experiences, rather than the Word of God, or that others walk on eggshells around you, then you are, at least in your understanding, fairly weak. And you should not be content to be weak. In consideration for his weaker brother, the strong brother ought to be willing to forgo his Christian liberty. And likewise, in consideration for his stronger brother, the weaker brother ought to seek to grow in his understanding.

Now in all of my assertions above regarding what I believe to be prescriptions regarding relationships, I am not asserting that these relationships are immune to sin. But neither would I assert that marriage or parenting are immune to sin. Perhaps (and you will see how very simple a man I really am in this) the most brilliant thing I have ever said is “There is no excuse for disobedience.” That is the one thing my best friend growing up still quotes from me. And so it is. And these relationships I am advocating, simply genuine and familial/filial love, are no exception. If and when such relationships begin to cross the line into sin, they must be corrected. Or better yet, before sin occurs and temptation begins to show its ugly head, precautions ought to be taken. Be that sin physical, emotional or spiritual. But this admonition is not just for this one type of relationship. Guy/girl or same sex friendships must also be governed by this ultimatum. And even beyond friendships, if there is temptation (which there will be) in a marriage, parenting, business or any type of relationship then it must be fought against. In whatever way we are tempted, we must fight. To what degree we take precautions is dependent on how far one must go to not sin. But because we will be tempted does not mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater. But this is not a foreign concept to the Christian life. Can a person watch sports on TV? Certainly, so long as it does not cause one to sin. To what degree ought a person maintain the stewardship of the body? To a degree that is not sinful. Ought a qualified man pastor a church? Yes, so long as he can maintain his position without succumbing to the dangers of pastoring (pride, lording, etc.). So can I watch TV? Yes, but I do not think I should watch the Victoria's Secret runway show (by that I am making no judgment on whether you should or should not watch it). Can I workout? Yes, but it must not supersede the stewardship of my soul. Or universally, can and ought one to enjoy any and every part of God's creation? Yes, so long as it is not to the detriment of one's soul. So then, is friendship, particularly a guy/girl friendship, part of God's creation? So then ought it to be enjoyed? Yes and yes, so long as it is not to the detriment of either of their souls. And if it is detrimental then action ought to be taken to make the fulfillment of the commands beneficial.

In response to this someone may bring up that in no other relationship is the temptation towards sexual immorality so strong as in guy/girl friendships, and the Bible says “Flee from sexual immorality.” (1 Corinthians 6:18), therefore they ought be avoided. The example of Joseph, who fled in such a rush from Potiphar's wife that he left his coat, may be brought up from Genesis 39. Here at last we have an almost good objection. Almost, but not quite. From my experiences, which you may object to, the temptation towards sexual immorality is strongest not in guy/girl friendships, but in guy/girl dating relationships. At least within my experiences with Christians, I do not know of any non-dating friendships in which sexual immorality has occurred. Of course that does not mean that it is impossible, but it is in stark contrast to dating relationships. I imagine I would be hard pressed to find, even among pastors and seminary students, five dating relationships that did not have some measure of sexual immorality in them. This being the case, if the argument is valid, it would not be a prohibition against opposite sex friendships but against dating (of course it is not valid unless one equates “sexual immorality” with “dating”, and though common, as I have argued, they are not synonymous).

Also, in regards to the example of Joseph, there is much more to the story than just his fleeing. This is the danger of using descriptive literature (i.e., an historical account) prescriptively (i.e., to imply moral obligation); it often proves more than one intends. But if we are to take Joseph as an example, which some may object to, let us look at the story. I am speculating, but my guess is that Potiphar's wife was probably not your average woman. Potiphar was Pharaoh's captain of the guard (v 1). So Potiphar was not only a badass tough dude with power and position, he was close to Pharaoh himself. His wife would be in a position to be intimate with the queen. So Potiphar, for lack of a better phrase, had his pick of the litter. And my guess is that on his list of priorities, intelligence and domestic skills fell far below hotness and bed skills. If you have not picked up on the scenario I am painting, Potiphar's wife was a trophy wife. She was way hotter than probably anybody you know. Now bring in Joseph, “handsome in form and appearance” (v 7) who, “after a time his master's wife cast her eyes on [him]” (v 8). Again, if you have not picked up on it, Joseph was the glorified pool boy. So this young woman, a super hottie, marries this older guy because he is rich, powerful and friends with Pharaoh. But he is kind of a brute. Then the brute brings in this super handsome and ripped lad who has the golden touch. Everything he does is right. Every decision and judgment is flawless. His wisdom is mind-boggling. Even his master gladly submits all he has to his charge (v 6). And his character is unlike anyone she has ever met. And then, as if to drive her crazy, he seems to not even realize or pay any attention to the fact that she is a super hottie. This woman, used to having men fawn over her, who with a mere bat of the eyes could bend a man's will to her own, had no power over Joseph. Ladies, I think you deceive yourselves if you do not think that you, too, would have been tempted. You have never met a man of the caliber of Joseph. In the history of the world there may not have ever been a man so perfectly desirable. He fulfills every fantasy (at least as far as I can gather from my assumptions regarding women's fantasies). Now again, some of that is speculation. But the crucial facts are not. Joseph ran his master's house and his master's wife liked him. That is incontestable. So in the first place, Joseph allowed, if not put himself in such a situation. Secondly, that situation was such that Potiphar's wife was in a position to say “Lie with me.” (v 7). From her later accusations, this must have happened when they were alone together, but perhaps not alone in the whole house. Thirdly, after she tried to seduce him, he came back “day after day” (v 10) and put himself in that position to be petitioned again and again. (I find it surprising that I have never heard anyone elucidate these points.) It was not until she “caught him by his garment, saying, 'Lie with me.'” (v 12) that he fled. And he fled in such a way as to leave “his garment in her hand” (v 12). These points also are incontestable. So why did he eventually flee? Again, I must speculate, but my guess is that either he was at last tempted, or he feared inadvertently hurting her in stymieing her advances. But regardless, he fled and did not fornicate. Thankfully for myself and most of the men I know, no woman like Potiphar's wife will probably ever try and seduce us.

But what are we to do with this? We could judge him guilty of sin, but what sin? The sin of being around a woman who was trying to seduce him? The sin of not fleeing sexual immorality soon enough? The sin of not being wise? I believe all of these are ignorant and/or arrogant. How exactly is being an object of seduction lack of conformity to the law of God? Or how do we know he did not flee as soon as there was a temptation to sexual immorality? Or who, besides Solomon, is wise enough to justly condemn Joseph as unwise? With the word of God I think anyone has the ability to convict another of sin, but only the wiser (in regard to the issue in question) could condemn another as less wise. And how wise must one be to conform to the law of God? As wise as God, Solomon, Jesus, Paul? Or as wise as you? (Incidentally, this is the standard that I believe most people adopt when condemning someone as unwise. I do not think that is wise, therefore it is unwise. Since I have told you it is unwise, if you do it you are unwise. The fact that you think that it is in fact wise has no bearing, as I am the standard of wisdom.) It is my judgment that Joseph was wiser, more godly and more blessed than anyone, obviously including myself, I have ever met. I think the humble thing to do, rather than ignorantly and arrogantly judging what we do not know, is to submit to the text. And from the text we can see that it is not sin to be in such a situation, even with such a flagrantly ungodly super hottie. If I am not tempted, then I am not obligated to flee. But if I am tempted, then nothing should keep me from fleeing. This I want to wholeheartedly endorse. If you are sexual tempted then you ought to flee. If I am sexually tempted, I ought to flee. The biggest regrets of my life have resulted from my failure to obey this command. But far be it from me to impose what is tempting to me (a veritable sordid cesspool of filth for a mind) onto someone else. And while there are likely things that tempt me that do not tempt a more upright man, there are also almost certainly things that tempt others that have no allure to me. Again, it is only in great arrogance that one could say, “That tempts me, therefore it tempts you.”

As you may have gathered, I have some experience in this realm. I have been on both sides of the non-interested relationship, even simultaneously. When on the non-interested side, despite being strongly encouraged not to, I pursued, or allowed to be pursued, a deeper friendship. In hindsight I regret that I was not more active in that pursuit, but I did not have the understanding that I now do. But God is sovereign, and I now count that person as my closest friend. My relationship to her is the closest I have come to treating a Christian sister as an actual sister. I am almost semi-obedient in that one aspect of one relationship. I am extremely glad that I did not heed the universal counsel I received. Regardless of what happens in the future of this life, whether our friendship continues or ends, I thank God for what it has been. And I know that our sibling relationship is the supra-reality. It will never end. Your marriage will end. Even your biological fatherhood and motherhood will end. All relationships between believers are swallowed up in the supra-reality of our brother and sisterhood in Christ. In heaven I will not look at Bill Walters and call him father. God alone will be my father. You married men will not look at your wife and call her Bride. You will be Christ's bride. But I will forever call her sister and she call me brother. Those relationships, the eternal ones, are the ones we ought to be fostering. No wonder Paul says marriage is good but singleness is better (1 Corinthians 7:38). Why pursue a wife when that will last but a part of a vapor, merely a fraction of something infinitesimal, when gaining a brother or sister will last an eternity? (I have much to say on what is the legitimate reason for pursuing a wife, but that must wait.) In another relationship I left the depth of our friendship up to her and, for her own conscience's sake, she let the friendship die, and I bear her no ill will for that. Probably both of our consciences needed to be instructed in this area at the time, but again, God is sovereign and she is, as far as I know, a happily married mother now. In another, when I was the interested party, I was, perhaps, denied any type of real friendship (but that may merely be my perception). Now there are a plethora of reasons why someone might deny me friendship. I am, according to even my own standard, a sucky friend. Were a girl to say, “Seth, we can not be friends because you lack those qualities that make someone a friend. In the same way that you can not be a dog because you do not have the traits essential to being a dog, you can not be a friend because you lack those traits essential to being a friend.” I would have no rebuttal. And that is certainly a possible, and even plausible, explanation. However, I think it was the misapplication of the “guarding one another's heart” mentality. What I find very interesting about this phrase, which is quite popular, is that, so far as I know, it is unbiblical. Proverbs 4:23 is clear that you are to “guard your heart”, that is, guard your own heart, “for it is the wellspring of life.” And I exhort you to do this “with all diligence” just as Solomon exhorts you. Now Paul in Philippians 2:4 does command us "Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others." and in all relationships, that is a legitimate qualifier. But still I persist that these relationships, even between a single guy and a single girl of one-sided romantic interest, can exist with each party guarding his or her own heart and each looking out for the interests of the other.  Perhaps you can not do it at this time. I can not, at this time consistently, look at a hot chick in lingerie and not lust.  It is okay to admit your limitations.  But rather than again ignorantly and arrogantly judging and condemning those that can and imposing unbiblical sanctions on them, you should grow so that you, too, can be obedient in this area.

When I originally began writing this (many months ago), I was merely planning on defending my position. The near universal, and unbiblical according to my understanding, not just caution, but condemnation I received for my allowing of such relationships had led me to first, want to make sure I knew my own mind and was not in error, and second, make a universal defense that would keep me from having to make the same elementary points over and over again with every single person who wanted to jump to conclusions. However, as is often the case, the more I thought critically and wrote about it, the more solidified it became in my mind and the more proactive I realized I had to be. It was no longer a choice between flavors. I was no longer defending my preference for vanilla over chocolate and asserting that you have no right to tell me I should like chocolate more. Now I am not only asserting my right to these relationships, but my obligation to them, your responsibility to pursue them, and your ignorance and wrongfulness in discouraging me from them. The assertion that these relationships are unwise is tantamount to saying God's word is unwise, for it is from there, and there alone, that I derive the command to pursue them. Thus far the arguments for why a single guy and single girl ought not do this or that is not, “Thus saith the Lord. An unmarried man shall not disciple an unmarried woman.” or “Thou shall not spend time alone with a woman who is not thy blood or spouse.” but “Traditionally, it has not been good for a single man and a single woman to spend time alone together.” Screw your tradition. In trying to be Christlike, I have adopted His attitude and spurn your tradition and rebuke you for trying to make the law of God (“Treat younger women as sisters” and “love one another”) of no effect because of your tradition. Yes, you may give verbal assent to the proposition that as a Christian man I am to treat younger women as sisters, but strip the word “sister” of all of its meaning. Yes, you give verbal assent to the proposition that Christian men ought to love Christian women, but make love even more ethereal and unsubstantial than Hollywood. They, though they have no logical explanation for it, at least admit that it is something wonderful. You make it nothing more than a general well-wishing that I have even for the ant crawling across the floor. No, love is incredibly intimate, personal and tangible. It meets real needs. It has God as its source and manifests itself in many ways, for there are many needs. Sure it may be money for food and clothes, but is life not more than these things (Matthew 6:25)? Yes, more than these things, life is knowledge of the Truth and that Truth displayed in meeting the needs in those relationships God has providentially put us in. That need might be to feel valued, and giving up four free days to go on a backpacking trip might be the most loving and obedient thing a person could do. Or the need might be in helping a friend reason through a difficult issue with another friend or church practice, and listening and bringing the principles of the Word of God to bear might be just the reason that person was gifted with discernment. Certainly what constitutes a legitimate need can be discussed, but the Good Samaritan was not concerned with the nationality, religion or sex of his “neighbor”. No, he was concerned with meeting the need that God had providentially put in his path. And that, though I will fail, is my aim. I am not going looking for beaten people on the street. I am looking to meet the needs of the people God has put in my path. I have failed thus far.

To my brothers, whose struggles I know, who even I can sympathize with, I have given you no aid.  I, who have walked with (or perhaps been dragged by) Christ for more than a decade, have been content to watch you wallow in the gutter along side me.  Forgive me.  But this failing is not entirely new.  Many times have I been called to grow in this area.  But, ah, my sisters. Do I even know you? I have been as the priest and Levite and scurried to the other side of the road rather than attempting to assist you in your pilgrimage. Surely “robbers” have at times assaulted you. Have I even been such? Ah, forgive me, I am a wretched man. Are you in need of a brother? I am not good for much, but what abilities God has given me, I offer them to you. Will you be patient with my awkwardness? Will you also accept that there can be a relationship, a real relationship, between a guy and girl that has nothing to do with sex and manipulation, but rather genuine love like nothing most of us has ever known? A love that casts out fear and wants nothing more than to see in us all the perfect image of the Savior. I throw off the shackles of those who would say that loving you, and being loved by you, is toying with your heart. “There is no fear in love.” (1 John 4:18) and neither is there sin in love. In this alone, Satan has no power. Love is utterly foreign and unusable to him. He may fool us with his substitutes for it, but love, the biblical love I speak of, is perfect. That is why “God is love, and whoever aides in love abides in God, and God abides in him” (1 John 4:16). It is only when we stop having “overflowing joy in God which gladly meets the needs of others” and substitute for it overflowing joy in a person who gladly meets our needs that we fear; we the fear of loss of having our needs met and our wellspring of joy running out. But so long as we love, and God Himself is our wellspring, our joy can never run out and we can never fear. Too long have I withheld and reserved my love for someone who probably does not exist. But I do not offer the same love I gave to those few girls unfortunate enough to have at one time been called my girlfriend. A love based on nothing more than an unguided and unprincipled feeling. An “I love you” that would better have been translated “I lust after you”. As God is my witness, this is not some clever ploy to worm my way into your life and slyly win your heart. I make this offer under compulsion. The compulsion of my good and sovereign Master who bids me “love one another” and “treat younger women as sisters, in all purity”. I have suffered greatly by judging all women on the basis of their potentiality as a wife. I abolish that criterion and recognize you only as my sister. Will you accept me as your brother?

But this is no true question, for you must. You, dear sister, are as bound to love me as your brother as I am bound to love you as my sister. Despite your opinion of me, I am your brother. You must take it up with God if you do not like the children He adopts. I admit, some of us are crude in nature, but it is not because of who and what I am that lays this obligation upon you, but Christ and what He has done for me. But do you not feel and see that you, too, have suffered? The things you seek in marriage are not all to be found only in marriage. Certainly some things are, but I wonder if some women do not rush into marriage, crappy relationships and sexual immorality because they do not have a brother? You may crave emotional intimacy perhaps as deeply as I crave sex, but in this there is a difference. God has not forbidden the giving and receiving of genuine love outside of marriage. Sex, yes, He has wrapped up in the temporary covenant of marriage, but love, giving and receiving, even to members of the opposite sex, He does not merely permit but commands. It is not wrapped up, but thrown open in the covenant of life. Embrace the freedom that love is. Not only is there nothing to fear, but this is how to triumph over fear. One can never err in loving. I believe Hugo was right in writing, “To love another person is to see the face of God.” Will you join me in looking into His wonderful face by loving one another?

Tasting the smell of soft colored sounds

I am currently reading a book, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, which, though highly recommended, within the first couple of chapters I found myself in sharp disagreement with the author. Some may find that arrogant considering the author is J.I. Packer, a widely known and highly regarded theologian. But withhold your judgment for a moment and hear me out. While the book is primarily concerned with reconciling the Christian duty to evangelize with the sovereignty of God, before he tackles this he attempts to tackle reconciling the more general and age-old conundrum of man's responsibility and God's sovereignty. Prior to this he very ably demonstrates how concerning one's own salvation and prayer, every Christian knows God is sovereign. We do not believe we saved ourselves, nor do we pray as if God cannot do whatever He wills. Rather we are thankful to God because he, rather than we ourselves, has saved us; and we pray to God with petitions precisely because we believe He is able to fulfill them. This is for the most part very good, though not necessarily profound. But then he gets to the issue at hand, man's responsibility and God's sovereignty. He begins by introducing the terms antinomy and paradox. He defines these terms, which is helpful, and I will do so momentarily, but he does not define the more basic term, contradiction, which he uses to define these term. I assume he assumes everyone, including himself, knows what the term means, and it is therefore unnecessary to define it. In this, certainly regarding most people I know, and perhaps himself as well, I believe he is in error.

So before I give his definitions, let me define a contradiction. A contradiction exists when a proposition (or propositions) asserts that A is A and 'A (read “not A”) in the same way at the same time. A proposition is simply the meaning of declarative sentence: a subject doing something. By A I mean anything, and by 'A, I mean the exact opposite of A or everything besides A (Whether Packer means this I am not quite sure. Logically it seems he must, but he does not appear to. But if he does not, I do not know what he could mean.). But to the terms he does define, paradox and antinomy. He defines paradox as a play on words or a literal or apparent contradiction, but one that, upon deeper contemplation, can be satisfactorily reconciled. An example is Paul's statement “when I am weak, then I am strong.” While this may be a literal contradiction, when we understand that Paul is using weak in one sense (his own strength) and strong in another sense (God's strength) we see that Paul is not contradicting himself because he is not saying A is A and A is 'A in the same way at the same time. He is saying A is A (I am weak) and A is 'A (I am strong, i.e., I am not weak) at the same time, but not in the same way. Therefore it is not a contradiction. It is in fact a profound truth that is more arresting to our attention because of the paradoxical way in which it was stated (Whether this is a common or technical use of the term paradox is questionable, but since he has defined it as such we will use it as such.). An antinomy, however, he says is different. He quotes The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary which defines antinomy as “a contradiction between conclusions which seem equally logical, reasonable or necessary.” This is a satisfactory definition, but he then qualifies it by saying it should be prefaced with “an appearance of contradiction.” Ultimately he defines it as two principles (more appropriately two propositions), both of which one holds true but which cannot, in any way, be logically reconciled. There is an irreconcilable appearance of real contradiction here. He is clear in stating that this is not like a paradox in which there is no real contradiction. Here there is real contradiction. God has them reconciled and perhaps we will in heaven, but it would take more than mere “human logic” to resolve this contradiction. This is the real issue for discussion. Paradoxes seem to have been brought up merely for illustrative contrast. Antinomies are the real concept of importance. But before we go on to his explanation of the antinomy of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility, let us consider some necessary implications of antinomies.

If there is an irreconcilable appearance of contradiction in antinomies, how do we determine what is an antinomy and what is an actual contradiction? To all appearances they are identical. But not just to appearances, but since antinomies are irreconcilable, to the deepest and greatest amount of study, antinomies and contradictions will remain completely indistinguishable. The quick reply that antinomies are reconciled in the mind of God but contradictions remain contradictory even in His mind is unhelpful, since either we have the mind of God, in which case we, too, can reconcile antinomies, or we do not have the mind of God, in which case we still cannot tell which is an antinomy and which is a contradiction. In either case antinomies no longer remain, but only either reconciled, known truth or contradictions. This idea of irreconcilability also seems to reek of pride. Now, asserting that someone cannot reconcile a contradiction is not necessarily prideful, since by definition a contradiction cannot be reconciled by anyone. However, asserting that an antinomy exists, that is, two propositions are both true and cannot be reconciled, is, from the understanding of someone who is very prideful, very prideful. It is one thing to admit that two propositions appear as antinomies, and that I cannot reconcile them because of my own limited intelligence. That may in fact be very humble. But it is another thing entirely to declare two propositions as antinomies and that therefore no one can reconcile them. The only valid reason for doing so would be if in fact I am the smartest man in the world and anything I do not understand, no one can understand. There is no other justification for such an assertion. So while perhaps Solomon, Christ, and/or the Spirit inspired writers of the Bible could have said, “That truly is an antinomy.”, you and I, along with J.I. Packer, cannot.

But at last, to the point of this article, Packer's assertion that God's sovereignty and man's responsibility are antinomies. As defined above, basic to being antinomies, a contradiction must exist. Here, at the most basic level, the assertion fails. This I believe goes back to Packer's failure to define a contradiction. Had he defined the term we would have already known whether he actually knew what he was talking about. Since he did not, we were left to wonder. However, by asserting that God's sovereignty and man's responsibility are antinomies, i.e., there is a real irreconcilable appearance of contradiction, we see that he does not really know what a contradiction is. In the first place, contradictory statements must have a common subject. The A in, “A is A and A is 'A”, must be common. The two propositions “God is sovereign” and “man is responsible” have two subjects, God and man. In the second place, contradictory statements must have either opposite or mutually exclusive predicates. The two propositions in question have two predicates not at all opposite or mutually exclusive, sovereign and responsible. Therefore, these propositions are not, in any sense, contradictory. It is even less contradictory than if I asserted that the propositions Jack is a boy and Jill is a girl are contradictory. They at least have opposite predicates. The supposed dilemma at hand has nothing contradictory about it at all. So then, if there is no appearance or real contradiction, there can be no antinomy. That is it. The problem is solved. I may not understand how and/or why Jack is a boy and/or how and/or why Jill is a girl, but that does not mean they are contradictory or antinomies. This is not to say that we can never understand how and/or why some proposition is true (as I will momentarily assert how and why “man is responsible” is true), but simply because one does not know the how and/or why is not a justification for labeling them contradictory or antinomies.

But because a clear and simple logical explanation is insufficient for many people, and as an exercise to help the reader better understand what a contradiction is, I will elucidate further. Since I have asserted that the above propositions are not contradictory and therefore not antinomies, what is an actual contradiction regarding “God is sovereignty”? Since our initial proposition is “God is sovereign”, then “God is not sovereign” would in fact be contradictory. And with this, unlike the weak and strong Paul paradox above, there can be no time or sense qualifications to reconcile the two propositions. Because of the nature of God, His sovereignty is universal, i.e., it applies to all time and in all senses. Any and every statement at all in opposition to this is necessarily contradictory. To continue, what then is an actual contraction regarding, “man is responsible”? Very simply “man is not responsible” would indeed be literally contradictory. But here we must be careful. Even this seemingly very clear contradiction “man is responsible” and “man is not responsible” is only contradictory if we maintain that the two propositions refer to the same time and same sense. But the two propositions may very well both be true and non-contradictory if we qualify each statement with time or sense parameters. For example, that “man is responsible before God for the knowledge He has given him” but “man is not responsible before God for the knowledge He has not given him” are both true and non-contradictory. Likewise, that “man is responsible for what he has said” but “man is not responsible for what he has not said” may both be true and non-contradictory. Or temporally, that “man is responsible to pay back a debt when the debt is due” but “man is not responsible to pay back a debt before the debt is due” are both true and non-contradictory.

These examples are intended to impress upon one the strict nature of what a contradiction is. One cannot simply pick two statements that are incongruous (Not in harmony or keeping with the surroundings or other aspects of something) and say that they are contradictory. “That man is a murdering, stealing, wife-beating, rapist” and “that man gave his life to save mine” are certainly not congruous propositions, but neither are they contradictory. You may not think it is congruous of God to be sovereign and hold man responsible, but that is not contradictory. Nor, since God's ways are not our ways, is it inconsistent. But even this initial assumption of non-contradictory incongruity or inconsistency is a very superficial understanding of the matter.  Upon deeper contemplation I believe one will not only cease to find them incongruous or inconsistent, but perfectly logical and congruous and consistent with the nature of God. Because “God is sovereign” is true and He can do whatever He wills, “man is responsible” is not only not contradictory, but true precisely because God, being sovereign, has a right to hold man responsible despite man's inability to choose or live up to the standards God holds him responsible to. So rather than merely asserting that “God is sovereign” and “man is responsible” are two incongruous, but non-contradictory propositions, I am asserting that the latter is a necessary conclusion from the former. If you believe that “God is sovereign” is true, then you ought to, at the least, believe that “man is responsible” is a consistent and plausible proposition as well.

Where then does all this discussion and disagreement come from? Is it really as simple as all that? Truly I believe that a basic understanding of logic would resolve many, if not most, of the theological controversies that exist within the church today. And I believe the above should be sufficient for a great many people. It really is that simple. Their idea of a contradiction was incorrect. Now that they have a correct understanding, they can clearly see that there is no contradiction and therefore no antinomy between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. But admittedly even this will not resolve the issue for everyone. They may, more ably than most, construct an argument that goes something like this:

Man is responsible.

Responsibility is based on ability.

Therefore man is able.

Ability presupposes sovereignty.

Therefore man is sovereign.

Therefore God is not sovereign.

Therefore the propositions “God is sovereign” and a validly deduced conclusion from the proposition “man is responsible” are contradictory.

However, since the Bible is true, both contradictory propositions are true, therefore they are antinomies.

I think it interesting that the above argument is made more often by atheists than Christians, but the atheist simply has not rejected the validity or accepted the limitations of logic and does not hold to such an illogical idea as antinomies and so cannot accept the possibility of the last statement being true. But back to the actual argument. It is a correct form of argument very similar to a reductio ad absurdum. If the premises are true, then the conclusion is likewise true, but contradictory to something else that is held true (Of course the goal of a reductio ad absurdum is to force the rejection of the premise rather than to maintain both as true and make a claim for antinomies, but that is beside the point.). But are all of the premises true? If any one is not then the conclusion does not necessarily follow and the argument falls apart. In the sorites given above there are two premises, a conclusion that is taken as a third premise, a fourth premise, another conclusion that is taken as a fifth premise, and the final conclusion

Let us examine the argument somewhat in depth.  The first premise, man is responsible, has been assumed as a biblically based revealed truth. The first conclusion (or third premise), man is able, is validly deduced and therefore true if the first two premises are true. The fourth premise, ability presupposes sovereignty, seems true by definition, e.g., God is sovereign because He has the ability to do whatever He wills. Whatever one has the ability to do independent of anyone or anything else one is sovereign over. The second conclusion (or fifth premise), man is sovereign, likewise is validly deduced and therefore true if the premises are true. And the final conclusion, God is not sovereign, because of the nature of sovereignty, necessarily follows. But the second premise, responsibility is based on ability, is the crux of the argument. And while this is often true in human relationships, it is not necessarily true by definition, nor is there scriptural support for it. In fact the Bible makes the exact opposite claim. In the book Packer quotes the pertinent passage from Paul's letter to the Romans, but apparently misses the meaning of the text. In verse nineteen of chapter nine, it is precisely the assumption of responsibility being based on ability that leads the hypothetical objector to ask, “Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?” Or more apropos for the current discussion, “Why does He still hold us responsible? Who has the ability to go against His will?” To all of this Paul does not backtrack and say that he has been misunderstood. Rather he maintains that he has been perfectly understood: God holds man responsible for what he does not have the ability to do. But Paul goes on and rebukes the objector for questioning God and asking “Why have you made me like this?” or again “Why have you made me, or anyone, unable and yet responsible?” To this illegitimate, but natural, question Paul, not at all shrinking from the weight of the argument, reasserts God's sovereignty over all things, even the right to “make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use” completely without regard to the ability of the vessel. This again shows that not only are the two propositions, “God is sovereign” and “man is responsible” not contradictory or antinomies, but that because God is sovereign, He has the right to hold man responsible.

In conclusion, while there are mysteries in the Bible (why does God's will manifest itself as it does; in loving me, in sending Christ, in forgiving some, in damning others, etc.,?) and in the universe (is there something beyond the universe, what is the fundamental nature of matter, etc.,?), this, the supposed dilemma of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility is not one of them. He has revealed both truths to us through His word. They are not even apparently contradictory. Embrace them. Do not try and pit one against the other: they are not antagonists. You might as well try and taste the smell of soft colored sounds as discuss how to reconcile two non-contradictory statements. They may sound profound or poetic, but they are both nonsensical.