The Fencepost

After 10 years as a Southerner, I’m still not a true Country-music convert. But when I hear an artist I like on the radio or TV, I’ll usually stop and listen. As a musician, it’s quality and craftsmanship that gets my attention regardless of genre – for the most part. This is the case recently with The Band Perry, of whom I really can’t get enough. Their pure sound and winning stage presence makes them one of the best new Country groups out there.

A pure sound is a label I’d also attach to Vince Gill. He’s an unabashed Country artist in a field known for pop crossovers. That didn’t stop him, however, from partnering with Sting in the most recent episode of CMT’s Crossroads series. And really, can you blame him? Would anyone turn down the opportunity to perform with one of the most successful and respected rock musicians of all time? I’ve been a fan of Sting since high school. When he and his band stopped at the (old) Arco Arena in Sacramento in 1987 during his “Nothing Like the Sun” tour, I was there. His Ten Summoner’s Tales is easily one of my top-10 favorite albums. So when I saw the billboard for this Crossroads episode on West End a few weeks ago, I went straight to my U-verse iPhone app and set my DVR.

The show didn’t disappoint. Essentially, it was Gill and his band, with Sting inviting longtime guitarist Dominic Miller to join them. There was the usual “you sing some of my songs, and I’ll return the favor” set list. Something about Sting singing Country songs has an undeniable appeal. Likely it’s because Country is at heart a storytelling musical genre, and Sting has always been a storytelling songwriter. Case in point: Witness these two sharing the vocals on Sting’s “Shape of My Heart,” and marvel at Sting’s comfort level crooning along to Gill’s foot-stomping “Don’t Let Our Love Start Slippin’ Away.” These two artists could launch a joint tour tomorrow and do quite well.

Crossroads’ mingling of music performance with backstage banter is part of the show’s appeal. It was once exchange in particular that caused me to find writing this post necessary. Following a commercial break, Sting took up a smallish acoustic guitar and began to sing “Amazing Grace” in a fairly low key. Gill observed, grinning like a school kid. Sting commented on the old song’s origins in a man’s personal redemption from a lifetime of sin. And then the conversation took an unexpected turn. Please pardon my attempt to approximate the dialogue from memory.

Sting: “I grew up in church. I’m thankful that my parents exposed me to it. I used to love the music, to hear the old songs. But I would have to call myself an agnostic. And the meaning of that word is ‘I don’t know.’ I find myself drifting from it.” At this point there is an uncomfortably long pause, especially for a TV show. Breaking the silence, Sting places a hand on Gill’s knee and (jokingly?) says to his partner, “Convert me.”

An iconic, internationally acclaimed, superstar swings wide the door of religious introspection. This is the sort of opportunity evangelists dream about. Sting is no slouch in the intellectual department either. He’s one of the most well-read, astute rockers there ever was. His song lyrics drip with literary references that make you wish his albums were packaged with a pocket encyclopedia. So a sixty-something mega-star invites you to share the reason for the hope you have. What do you do?

Here’s what Gill did.

“You know, I don’t think ‘faith’ means being sure about anything. A lot of people think that because I married Amy (Grant) that means I believe the same things as her. I think that as long as I’m a good person and I treat other people right, I don’t have to worry about connecting all the dots and following all the rules.”

Pause the recording. Allow that to sink in. Watch the opportunity start slippin’ away.

Here’s the contradiction broadcast via cable: A worldly rock star seeks comfort and hope from a spiritual Country star who has none to offer. Check your local listings for show times.

This conversation replayed in my mind for days. I thought about all the things I would have said, all the things I wished Gill had said. But then, it really amounts to all the things I wish Gill actually believed. You can’t give away what you don’t already have. And more than anything I’m struck by the assumption I held myself that Vince Gill was secure in Christian faith for reasons about which I’m not really certain and can’t adequately explain.

Here’s the contradiction broadcast via cable: A worldly rock star seeks comfort and hope from a spiritual Country star who has none to offer. Check your local listings for show times.

Epilogue: Contrary to what Gill says, “… faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1 ESV)” Despite what either of them say, “… these are written so that you may believe [know] that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31). Furthermore: “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life” (1 John 5:13). And finally: “… we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life” (5:20).

What Sting searches for and Vince Gill isn’t certain about is a faith of assurance and a hope that is certain. I can’t honestly assert that I wouldn’t have failed miserably had Sting asked me such a point-blank question with national television cameras rolling. I do know, however, that God will be found by those who diligently seek Him (Jer. 29:12-14) and that He rewards those to whom He grants faith to believe He exists (Heb. 11:6).

But that’s just it. There’s faith, and there’s belief. They go together – just like Country and Rock.

Amazon is having a pretty sweet sale on Kindle books, now through July 27. They’re calling it “The Big Deal.” Clever, no?

Of course, you can visit the main page and browse to your heart’s content. There are titles in every category, ranging from 99 cents to $3.99. But since this blog is theologically oriented – for the most part – I thought I’d point out some of the interesting titles in that department.

Note: All the titles I’ve listed are sale-priced at $2.99.

The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment, Tim Challies
I place this one first on my list because it was my favorite book of 2010. Read my brief review of this book, including a bit of background on why I purchased it. Challies helped me see discernment from every angle, including the most important view of its potetial dangers and misuses. I led a study group using this book last year, and hope to do so again in the near future. Any Christian who wants to know more about discerning between truth and error should buy this book right now.

The Archaeological Study Bible (NIV), Walter Kaiser & Duane Garrett, eds.
An incredibly good deal on a great resource. This title normally lists for around $50. Walter Kaiser, whose textbooks I’ve read in Old Testament courses, is one of the general editors. From Amazon’s description: “Full of informative articles and full-color photographs of places and objects from biblical times, this Bible examines the archaeological record surrounding God’s Word and brings the biblical world to life.”

The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel
One of the best and most thorough apologetic works on the historical and biblical Jesus you will ever read. Scholarly, yet compelling in its investigative approach. This book was instrumental in leading two of my family members to Christ.

Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith, Rob Bell
Now, why would I link to this early work by the man who made a case for subtle universalism with Love Wins earlier this year? I cannot recommend Bell as a trustworthy preacher. But I also can’t formulate an informed response to his written work without actually reading it. I purchased this title to do just that, as an exercise in discernment.

Stuff Christians Like, Jon Acuff
Acuff is one of the most consistent Christian bloggers on the web. By that I mean he knows his message and his audience, and he always writes according to both. This collection of his best work pokes fun at modern American Christianity in a way that highlights our idiosyncrasies without resorting to irreverence. His success as a writer, and his move to Tennessee to join Dave Ramsey’s crew last year, show what can happen when a person sticks to his message and his calling.

Has Christianity Failed You?, Ravi Zacharias
I wonder just how many hours I’ve spent listening to Zacharias via Christian radio or podcast, revelling in his unmatched intellect and wit, and thanking God we have such a treasure in defense of our faith. Zacharias is never one to back down from difficult questions, and this book answers one of them from multiple angles, with gentleness and grace.

The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith, Peter Hitchens
Brother of “new athiest” Christopher Hitchens’ spiritual journey provides a stark contrast against his own. Learn more about the culture of nihilism that pervades Western Europe, and how wrestling with the same questions in a different way led Peter to embrace Christ even as his brother has rejected Him.

The Evangelicals, Christopher Catherwood
This book’s title intrigued me, as I assumed it was likely a hit piece from a liberal publisher. Wrong! Crossway’s apparently little-known book published last year by this English author bears recommendations from Mark Dever and Collin Hansen. Catherwood’s goal in writing it was to help others understand what the label “Evangelical” truly means according to its historical trajectory, using both cultural and political touch points.

A while back I wrote about pet peeve verses of mine – Bible verses that people like to use out of context, usually causing them to mean something they shouldn’t. We writers tend to take our words seriously, and often we expect others to do the same. Perhaps my taking God’s words so seriously is part of my makeup – what makes me have a bent toward written communication. I think that people generally mean what they say, and that it’s been human nature through the ages to represent real thoughts using real words.

The Bible isn’t any different, despite its divine origins. The books of the Bible were written by real people using words that comprised real languages. They communicated their thoughts using the words of their times so that their readers would understand their meanings. In our age, we have the burden of understanding the cultural contexts in which the Bible’s words were written so that we can understand what they should mean to us today. The alternative of this approach is to allegorize the biblical text, inserting alien meanings that suit our cultural preferences or expectations. This is bad interpretation that has led to immeasurable misunderstandings and even heresies over the past centuries.

The root of all heresy is a general mistrust of the Bible, which is essentially mistrust of God. When we choose not to believe the words of Scripture – words strung together in phrases and sentences, or mere words themselves – what we in effect say to God is, “I don’t believe you really meant what I’m reading here.” Or, “I don’t believe what is written here is really your thoughts.” You’re saying it’s untrue, that it’s falsehood. You’re calling God a liar.

Whether or not you approve of a certain word in the Bible is both irrelevant and immaterial. John MacArthur has made this abundantly clear in his most recent book, Slave: The Hidden Truth About Your Identity in Christ. That “slave” has such a negative stigma in modern culture should not hinder us from discovering why it is a primary motif to describe the believer’s relationship with God through Christ. It’s our duty to submit to the Bible’s authority on this, otherwise we risk distancing ourselves from Scripture’s rich and eternal truths.

Last week I had an enlightening encounter with a popular blogger, Randy Elrod, who lives here in Middle Tennessee. His post’s title caught my eye because he used the same “pet peeve” phrase I had used. I’ll leave it to you to read the post for yourself. You’ll see that Elrod lumps the word “lost” in with the rest of his list of “mistakes.” In other words, to use the word “lost” to describe a non-Christian is somehow a “mistake,” as if somehow centuries of reference to God’s clear description of the unsaved is now a mistake.

It may be difficult to find the comments I exchanged with Elrod, so I’ll summarize here. Calling an unsaved person “lost” is not a mistake, but an act of deference to Christ, who used the term Himself. In Luke 19:10, in response to Zaccheus’ new faith in Christ, Jesus declares that He has come to seek and save the lost. Contrary to Elrod’s remark, the use of the word “lost” here is not simply King James English. Check any reliable modern Bible translation – NASB, ESV, HCSB, NIV, NKJV – and you’ll find “lost” used to translate the Greek verb apololos, which can mean either “to lose” or “to destroy.” Keeping in mind Jesus’ three parables about lost things in Luke 15, it’s much more likely He meant the former. Even the loose New Living Translation uses “lost” here. Even The Message uses it!

So, for Elrod to ask in his post, “Where did that phrase come from anyway?” belies a certain ignorance regarding the biblical text. But he then proceeds to apply four words of his own to critique Jesus’ use of “lost” to describe non-Christians. And I really do mean to suggest that he has criticized Jesus, and not merely modern Christians, for using this word. We need to apply fair and equal logic to Elrod’s words in response.

1. Is the word “lost” derogatory? Not at all. To call an unsaved person “lost” is not to criticize or be disrespectful. It’s an accurate description of the person’s state. In relation to Jesus the person truly is lost, and our Good Shepherd intends to find that person as any good shepherd would find a lost sheep. What is disrespectful is suggesting that Jesus made a mistake in His word choice.
2. Is it archaic? Again, the word apololos meant the same thing to Jesus, Luke, and all people who spoke first-century Greek that our word “lost” means to us today. Non-Christians are still lost in the 21st century. Their position before God has not adapted to the times.
3. Is it degrading? You know, when I get lost trying to drive to an unfamiliar place, I do feel humiliated. But that humiliation comes from a realization of my true state. Pretending I’m not lost isn’t going to get me to my destination. If we worry so much about a non-Christian’s emotional reaction to their lostness we aren’t going to get very far in sharing the gospel with them.
4. Is it alienating? Wow, that’s an amazing choice of words, Randy. Really. Do you realize that you used a word that Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, himself used to describe unbelievers in Ephesians 2? Speaking to the Gentile believers in Ephesus he wrote, “remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12 ESV). Separated, alienated, strangers, having no hope … what kind of unwelcoming language is that? It’s the truth, that’s what it is.

We don’t have the luxury of deciding which words in the Bible fit our modern sensibilities. We can’t vote by committee, like the Jesus Seminar did in the 1980s, casting their colored marbles to choose which New Testament words really belonged there. The words of the Bible are fixed, immovable, and unchangeable. They are the very Word of life that give new birth to the dead in sin, new hope in a sure salvation, and new purpose in proclaiming its truth to a dying world.

The words over which Randy Elrod has placed himself as authority are the very words that our Lord used to draw him to Himself and make him into a new creation in His image. The pot has turned to the potter to ask why he doesn’t have handles. The sheep that was lost has bitten the hand that rescued him.

I was lost, but now I am found.

If you haven’t placed your faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, you too are lost. But you’re welcome to come to Him at any time, repenting of your sin, confessing Him as Lord and Savior, and thereby being found. That’s the truth. If you don’t like the way the words sound, you’ll have to take it up with the Shepherd.

Today is Ash Wednesday, the first day of Lent or the Lenten season, or as it is much less commonly known, “quadragesima.” I didn’t know that myself until I looked it up. The Latin word describes a forty-day period, during which Roman Catholics have historically abstained from certain foods, or even most foods, in preparation for Easter Sunday, the holiest day on the Catholic calendar.

For the past few years I have increasingly heard the question asked, “What are you giving up for Lent?” I have also observed more and more people mentioning their personal Lenten observations on social media outlets, particularly Twitter and Facebook. Just today, a vice president at Thomas Nelson publishers posted on his personal blog his own observations about the importance of Lent and what it provides one who observes this fast. Random side note: He attends the same Orthodox Church where my family picks blueberries every summer. Really good blueberries!

I must confess a level of confusion surrounding the increasing number of Protestants, or non-Catholics in general, who seem to be adopting the Lenten fast each year. My understanding as a Protestant is that with the Reformation of the 16th century there exists a schism between those who commune with the Roman Catholic church and those non-Catholic Christians who do not identify with the church in Rome. We Protestants do not recognize the bishop of Rome as the head of the church, pray to saints, venerate Mary, pray the Rosary, confess our sins to a priest, or attend Mass. What, then, is the point – the value – of observing a Catholic fast?

According to the above-linked blog post it is to “put on the Lord Jesus Christ,” in reference to the verse at the end of Romans 13 following Paul’s instruction in chapter 12 to offer our bodies as a living sacrifice. The tense of this “put on” should be understood to mean continually, with no specific reference to any one event, and so would seem to argue against a single, annual observation.

And there is another passage by Paul that at first seems to contradict this one: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Galatians 3:27 ESV) The tense here is similar, but this time it is indicative instead of imperative. Paul means something has happened to believers, and not that believers have something to obey. He’s saying that Christians are identified by their baptism into Christ rather than by any adherence to the Law. In the Romans passage, our continual putting on of Christ is to be understood in contrast to the fleshly person’s continual submission to the slavery of sin.

Neither of these passages have anything to do with observing a ritual fast. In fact, not many verses later after Gal. 3:27 Paul wrote,

“So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God. Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? You observe days and months and seasons and years! I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain” (4:7–11, emphasis mine).

And to the church in Colosse:

“Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind,” (Col. 2:16–18)

“If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations — “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used) — according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh” (20-23).

In Christ, we have been set free from observances, expectations, and demands that come from religious obligation. There is no need to follow such practices, as they have no power to make us holier or “closer to God.”

However, we cannot judge those believers who, in their individual consciences before God, choose to observe a fast. Paul’s admonition to the Corinthian church was to do all for the glory of Christ, whether they ate, or drank, or did neither. If a Christian desires to observe Lent, or any regular fast, he or she has the freedom to do so. But I find it presumptuous to think doing so would somehow make a person a “better” Christian. Even worse, I’m concerned that most Protestant believers don’t even understand the reasons behind the Lenten fast and how it is tied to Catholic theology.

If you are Catholic and you disagree with my assessment of these matters, please let me know in the comments section. But as I understand it, Catholic theology teaches that one must attain to the level of total justification before God. This is why the Church holds to the doctrine of purgatory as a necessary period of personal expiation of sin after physical death. We Protestants believe that we were declared legally and totally justified before God at the moment we were saved by grace through faith. We cannot do any work of our own to bridge the gap between us and God.

Now, if you are a Protestant who observes Lent, let me ask you this: Do you believe that your forty-day fast is justifying you before God? Because that’s what Catholics believe it is doing for them. Their theology naturally leads to that conclusion. To deny one’s self certain indulgences – or even necessary nutrition – for a period of time is a means of sanctification, not in the way of a Protestant reflecting the image of Christ, but as a way to continue the process of attaining perfection.

Lent is an essentially Roman Catholic event, one that even Catholics admit has no historical basis in Apostolic Christianity. The encyclopedia at Catholic.org says that Lent didn’t appear in any regular form until after the Council of Nicea – in the fourth century. It’s an event the Church encourages their faithful to observe along with all the other practices that make Roman Catholicism distinct from Protestantism. To separate Lent from the Catholic calendar and apply it to a Protestant understanding of Christianity is ultimately a shallow and ineffective attempt at pietism, and more likely than not is due to ignorance of Catholicism’s most essential theological teachings. I strongly urge those compelled to practice this fast to search the Scriptures humbly and honestly before deciding to make Lent part of their lives.

Note (added Feb. 21, 2012): I re-read this post one year after originally writing it. Please know that my views on the Protestant’s approach toward Lent has not changed. Yet I do think I must make more clear my desire not to offend or discourage those Christians who desire to observe this fast out of the convictions of their consciences. As I stated earlier in this post, we are free from observances as it pertains to justification. But Jesus did teach His disciples, “When you fast …” regarding their religious practices. The question is not one of fasting as a legitimate outworking of the Christian’s life, but one of its ultimate purpose and value.

Christian, by God’s grace you are free, and it is for this freedom that Christ set you free from sin (Gal. 5:1). So, fast as a free citizen of God’s kingdom, not as a slave bound to a man-made ritual.