Bonhoeffer discusses the similarities between the questions of the rich young man (Matt 19:16-22) and the lawyer's questions that form the introduction to Christ's teaching in the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-29). One of the similarities that the author points out is that each (the young man and the lawyer) were using moral difficulties (i.e. moral dilemmas) as a means of evading the obvious call to obedience (and therefore the call to faith).

So long as God's law was seen to be ambiguous, neither of these men felt obligated to simply do what God said. What God had said was in question, and so obedience could be delayed until the questions were answered. And so long as one could keep asking questions and perpetuate the ambiguity, one could continue staving off the clear call to obey.

Bonhoeffer does a masterful job at peeling off the veneer and dealing with the realities laying just beneath. It struck me as I was reading that this is part of the genius of post-modernism. Accentuate ambiguity, and thereby the call to action might be delayed indefinitely.

 The classic example of this is Brian McLaren's call to the church for a moratorium on judgment respecting the issue of homosexuality. So long as we are confused about the issue, there is nothing to obey. We are not responsible to "do" because we don't know what we should do.

McLaren is simply the most convenient and obvious whipping boy for  ambiguity. But he is not the only one. For the very instant that I raise the issue with McLaren (and it should be raised!), the Holy Spirit raises the issue with me. It's very convenient not to witness, when I am "confused" about how best to witness. It is easy to dodge being loving when I am uncertain about the best way in which to do so. Ambiguity allows me to sit on my hands, which is what I really wanted all along. Bonhoeffer comes along and pulls the EasyBoy out from under me.

Nuts. . . .

So. . . umm. . .  how 'bout them Cubbies ? [Oh, sorry, baseball is over. I forgot.]

Disheartened this morning? Don't forget Daniel 4:17. Go read it, and then make sure you are participating in the Gospel of Christ. Have you recognized your hopelessly sinful condition? Do you fear God's righteous judgment? (You should!). Have you trusted Christ as the only sacrifice for your sins, and confessed Him as Lord, believing that God raised Him from the dead?

Jesus Christ will return. Will you meet Him as Savior, or Judge? Until you get this right, nothing else matters. . . .

While reading Cairn's volume on church history I noted that one of his observations on the Renassiance was that the Scriptures began to be studied through the lens of human reason, rather than the lens of God's authority. He was not saying that scholars of prior ages did not use reason. Rather he was saying that in the Renassiance, reason began standing as judge over Scripture. It was part of an overall thrust that displaced God from the center of man's thinking, and replaced Him with man himself. Man was becoming the measure of all things.

Anyway, I was struck this week with the thought that the Truth and Certainty debate, from the Post-modern side (i.e., there is no certainty) is little more than a throwback to the Renassiance approach to the Scripture. The Post-modernist has rightly rejected modernism, and wrongly resurrected medieval Scholasticism. How else can we explain that Biblical certainty must be understood in classical philosophical terms, rather than terms of divine authority?

If so, why? How? How is it that you of all people have understood the mystery of God in Christ when countless billions have missed it completely? What makes you so smart, or so special, that you would believe with absolute, metaphysical certainty something lampooned as fantasy by the intellectual world in which you live? Sam Harris has a delightful phrase in his book, The End of Faith. He calls theology "ignorance with wings." Delightful in its imagery, but wrong in its import. Why or how have you managed to believe something so many modern intellects dismiss as totally moronic?

The answer to this question is crucial to understanding the Certainty debate. Let's start by looking at some Biblical evidence. Consider these verses which assert an intellectual truth about fallen man.

Romans 1:18-19 (NASB) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

Romans 1:25 (NASB) For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

1 Corinthians 1:18 (NASB) For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 2:14 (NASB) But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

2 Corinthians 4:3-4 (NASB) And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

These verses say that fallen man finds the knowledge of God so obnoxious that he actively suppresses it, exchanges it for a lie, considers it complete foolishness ("ignorance with wings"), and it is veiled to him. These statements have at least as many intellectual consequences as they do moral. Given such a bleak situation, how can anyone confess Christ as Lord??

To my Christian friends:  if you are thinking that the above verses refer to "them" as in "them bad guys versus us good guys" you are flat out wrong. This was YOU! This was YOU! And me!

So, I repeat my question. How on God's green earth did you go from the situation outlined above in which you considered the Gospel to be complete foolishness, to the intellectual position of considering the Gospel to be nothing less than the manifest power of God?

How did you do it? Was it just a matter of education? Are lost folks stupid? No. Certainly not. "We are no better than they" as Paul affirms to his Jewish brethren of the Gentiles. The answer is simple. You could not do it, ever, no way, no how. You could not make the switch. It was impossible for you. Period. End of story. There is NONE who understands, there is NONE that seek God (Romans 3:11).

The answer is that God sought you. God certified Himself to you. God sovereignly, mystically if you will, impressed upon you the truth of His nature and His Gospel. He did it. You did not. Your entire response to the Gospel was conditioned upon God first doing a work in your heart.

2 Corinthians 4:6 (NASB) For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

In other words, the fact that you believe the Gospel is only because God sovereignly changed your mind. That is, the infinite God who has exhaustive certain knowledge of all things sovereignly burned into your heart the certain knowledge of Himself. That's precisely what the promise of the New Covenant is all about:

Jeremiah 31:33-34 (NASB) “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. “And they shall not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

If you study Mill's definition of Certainty (see the post prior to this one), you will find that within that definition there is actually room made for certainty apart from exhaustive knowledge: "In this state, the knower has exhaustive, definite evidence for the truth of one’s belief, or has some other guarantee of the indubitability of the belief (e.g., Cartesian “clarity & distinctness”)." [emphasis mine.]

I submit that God's work of regenerating us and stamping onto our hearts the knowledge of Him and the love of Him and the truth of His Gospel are in fact that "other guarantee" which provides the Christian's certainty of the truths of God and His Word.

Obviously, the above does not provide blanket certainty for all things (otherwise there would be no disagreement between true believers over any point of theology). Nor does it eliminate the truth that faith and knowledge grow over time. But it does argue for a certain set of knowledge about which absolute certainty can be had. It remains to better theologians than myself to work out the details.

But may I respectfully suggest to Cedarville University: you might have avoided much, much heartache if you had made it the province of the Bible Department and your resident theologians to work out a definitive, Biblical statement on truth and certainty, rather than allowing your philosophers to take the lead.

[This is the final post on the Cedarville Situation. I have a two message series on the Cedarville Situation that is available. If you are interested, contact the church office.]

Certainty (Being Certain): A logical/metaphysical state in which the knower possesses 100% justification for a true belief. In this state, the knower has exhaustive, definite evidence for the truth of one’s belief, or has some other guarantee of the indubitability of the belief (e.g., Cartesian “clarity & distinctness”). In this state, no future evidence could count against one’s belief, and thus, doubt about that belief is no longer possible. In this state, one’s knowledge is literally infallible and indubitable. [From Dr. David Mills paper entitled, Definitions of Key Epistemological Terms, and Implications for Christian Faith]

Over the last several posts I have looked at the concept of Truth and have tried to argue for a far more restrictive understanding of Truth in an absolute sense, far more restrictive than is employed by our culture, including our Christian churches and colleges. In these final posts regarding the Cedarville Situation, I want to suggest a more biblically faithful understanding of Certainty than is commonly accepted.

On first look, the status of philosophical certainty does seem impossible for a finite creature to attain. The basic problem is this: if I am to be certain about a proposition, I need to be capable of testing that proposition against every conceivable related circumstance, for all time. In the definition above, this is what the words "exhaustive, definite evidence" mean. This demands, effectively, an infinite process of demonstration. Being a finite, time-constrained creature the attainment of true philosophical certainty would seem to remain an impossibility for me.

For example, suppose that I assert that "all black jelly beans taste like licorice." Leaving aside the problem of definitions, in order to be philosophically certain of my assertion I would have to sample every single black jelly bean ever made in every inhabited place of the universe for all time. This is impossible. Hence, the attainment of the status of philosophical certainty regarding any truth statement is impossible. The best a human being can do is have a relative degree of assurance regarding his beliefs.

From a philosophical standpoint, given the definition of certainty, this conclusion is inescapable. There are a plethora of implications attending this conclusion (implications which are normally ignored). In a godless, truly secular world there can be no certainty about anything. In fact, it would be hard to maintain that there is any true knowledge. Nor is meaningful speech really possible (because there are no sure anchors of meaning). Which means that the entire pedagogical process of teaching and learning would be an exercise in futility (or oppression), because the "knowledge" imparted would be of dubious real value. Knowledge and truth would be the province of power brokers, not scholars ("its true because I say its true!"). Knowledge and truth become weapons of oppressors rather than tools of enlightenment.

What a surprise! This is precisely the world the academic post-modernist envisions! Truth is cultural. Knowledge is power. The assertion of particular narratives over others is oppressive, little more than an arrogant power struggle.

As is the case with all frauds, there is a sufficient element of truth in this schema to convince or confuse many. Knowledge and truth claims can and have been used as instruments of oppression. The former Soviet Union, North Korea, China, and Cuba all demonstrate how something labeled as truth (in this case, the dogma of communism) can be used to fearfully oppress, abuse, and ultimately destroy a people (and its culture).

In the U.S., behold that modern bastion of enforced political correctness, the university. There is no better example of the use of knowledge and truth as oppressive instruments than the academy. Speech and thought control pervade campuses, classrooms, discourse, and publishing. Genuine debate is stifled. Ideas deemed dangerous are banned from discussion. The force and oppressive power of individual professors in the classroom, the denial of tenure, publishing, and peer review, etc., are all employed to ensure that only approved ideas are considered. Concepts such as Intelligent Design, the objective existence of a personal God, the exclusivity of truth, American exceptionalism, political conservatism, the justified use of military force, the moral import of homosexuality, etc., are dismissed as intellectually moronic and therefore unworthy of debate, despite the fact that towering intellects of centuries past have not only entertained but owned such ideas.

Reformed theologians have long understood that the possibility of genuine human knowledge and meaningful speech are both contingent upon the real existence of a God who speaks and knows. It is no coincidence that having jettisoned God, true knowledge and real meaning in speech are now up for grabs in the intellectual world.

Next: why certainty is in fact possible to a finite creature.

The answer as Jesus (through the pen of John) would have us see it is not one to which philosophers would necessarily ascribe. Truth for the philosopher was something that was changeless, something that was not mere appearance or illusion, or something that corresponds with the facts. Each of these notions contains helpful elements, and yet they all remain in the realm of principle.

Jesus identified truth as a Person, namely, Himself: "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (Jn 14:6). In saying that He was claiming more than simply being truth personified. He was saying that He in His essence was Truth in its essence.

(By the way, note that John makes the same radical break with philosophy in his identification of Jesus as the divine Logos, the Word. The Greeks taught the Logos as the rational principle of the cosmos. John teaches the Logos as a Person, a divine Person: Jesus Christ.)

The gist of my point is this: in its ultimate essence truth is not a thing. It is not merely a property, or attribute of reality. Truth is a Person: Jesus Christ.

This definition solves and creates some problems. It solves the problem brought on by the Correspondence Theory, in that reality is no longer posited as ultimate. It creates problems, as noted by Darby, in that our use of the word "truth" can signify vastly different things. We can be speaking of Ultimate Truth, as in "Jesus Christ is God", or a more garden-variety truth such as "I am writing this post on Sunday" or "The earth is the third planet from the sun."

The distinction above is precisely what is ameliorated in the foolish dictum "All truth is God's truth." Ignoring this distinction is part of what causes so many problems in the truth and certainty debate.

I wonder if perhaps it would be helpful to propose a definition of truth (truth of the former kind, not the latter) like this: "Truth is that which adequately corresponds to the revealed Person, words, or works of God." This statement has the advantage of anchoring the idea of Truth where it belongs. It has the disadvantage of being a notion that is totally foolish to the secularist.

Hmmm. Maybe that's not such a bad idea: "But the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him..." 1 Co. 2:14, NASB.

Are the following true statements?

"One of the best predictors of juvenile behavior is the young person's sense of self-esteem. A proper self-love leads to a lower incidence of teen pregnancy, teen violence, and teen substance abuse."

Psychologists have for years promoted the idea that healthy self-love leads to healthy lives. This observation has become received truth for Christian psychologists. Using the dictum "all truth is God's truth," Christian pastors, psychologists, youth workers, and social workers have bought the self-esteem teaching lock-stock-and-barrel.

It certainly sounds reasonable. For years we have been told that there are studies which demonstrate the truth of the statement. And indeed, if reality is ultimate and God is not, there is no real defense against it (other than to do more studies). Truth ceases to be something special, something Godward, and instead is viewed as the product of men's efforts and observations. Truth becomes what we say it is, rather than what God says it is. And if all truth is God's, then when we call it truth, it is automatically God's. Hence, man defines truth and God must acquiesce.

Back to our opening question. Would you like to hazard a guess as to how many theories of human personality, human development, etc, have been based upon the received truth of self-esteem? How many books have been written or sermons preached on it? Or perhaps what percentage of "Christian" counselors and pastors have been trained in such notions? Perhaps the figure is close to one-hundred percent. It has even found its way into theology, with at least one pastor/theologian seriously proposing that sin should be defined as an inadequate sense of self-esteem.

All truth is God's truth, right? There is just one problem. The balloon has finally popped on the comfortable bubble of self-esteem. Psychologist Roy Baumeister of Florida State University has been blowing rather large holes in the concept for several years now, and has probably destroyed it beyond repair (Baumeister actually studied the studies that were done, and found them quite flawed). Unfortunately, it will take years for the news to get to the church and Christian colleges.

Many would not have believed me about the death of self-esteem if I had merely cited Scripture. Admittedly, one reason they would not have is because the Christian peddlers of the idea have baptized it with Scripture without concern for context or proper hermeneutical principles, and so it might appear to some as simply a battle between two differing Bible-bangers.

But I cited Baumeister to demonstrate that the dictum "all truth is God's truth" does not coexist with Scripture in a subordinate fashion, it instead swallows it up (the phenomenon is called technically, 'integration'). What serious reader of Romans 3:10 and following would have ever bought into the self-esteem notion unless persuaded by the fact that psychological studies had proven the concept of self-esteem, and since all truth is God's, the self-esteem teachings must be God's too?

If truth is that which corresponds to reality, rather than something different (perhaps, transcendent?), then what we are left with respecting truth is nothing more than man's observations, judgments, and interpretations pertaining to reality. These become  ultimate. Hence, man is the ultimate arbiter of truth. In a fallen world with fallen interpreters whose hearts rage against God, I'd say that Truth might take a beating. Might even get hung on a Cross.

So what about the truth of self-esteem? Was it true in the decades of the sixties through 2000, but now it is no longer true? Since all truth is God's, has God changed now that the self-esteem teachings are being debunked?

All truth is God's truth? Really?

Perhaps we had better ask, What is truth?

However it is fundamentally flawed, in precisely the same way that Descartes' classic answer to skepticism ("I think, therefore I am") is flawed. Both formulations are ultimately useful only in a godless universe.

In both cases, something other than God Himself occupies the position of being ultimate. According to the correspondence theory, the truth of God's existence becomes a feature of reality. No thinking Reformed theologian should ever accept that sort of formulation. In truth, reality (inasmuch as we humans experience it) is a feature of God's existence. Reality is, because God is. Swap those terms, and you have something more ultimate than God.

Descartes has the same problem. He makes himself the ultimate arbiter of his own existence. In other words, mankind is able to make ultimate judgments about truth and existence. Descartes subtly (and I think unintentionally) removed God from the center of all things, and placed man there. His dictum would have been true if he had instead said God thinks, therefore I am, or better, God is, therefore I am. Such a formulation makes man's existence contingent upon God's, and therefore reflects the truth of the matter.

Both of these two observations are significant. When we have traded away the ultimacy of God in order to be collegial, or in order to dialogue with friends or colleagues who may not believe in God, we have given away the store and are not only standing on their turf, we are positing a universe that does not in fact exist.

Cedarville is not alone among Christian institutions who have made this fundamental error, and is due no special opprobrium because of it. We can thank the debates over post-modernism for finally bringing to light a basic flaw in Christian philosophy that has polluted our understanding of truth for several centuries.

Next: some of the goofy results of getting truth wrong...

The traditional answer to that question is known as "The Correspondence Theory of Truth" which states that a proposition is  true if it corresponds to reality. At least for a time, that seemed to be the position espoused by Cedarville as evidenced by Dr. David Mills' brief paper on the topic entitled Definitions of Key Epistemological Terms and Implications for Christian Faith. This paper was at one time available on Cedarville's web site on the Truth and Certainty resources page. I am unable to find it there (or anywhere else on Cedarville's site) any longer, so I can not speak to whether or not the school has changed or refined their understanding of truth, or if perhaps Mills' definition was one of several competing ones.

In any case, the Correspondence Theory of truth proves to be inadequate. It suffers from the same flaw as Descartes famous solution to the doubt of one's own objective existence: "I think, therefore I am."  Both ideas posit something contingent as though it is ultimate, which is a great error. More on this in my next post.

    I myself originally posted a rather bombastic position. After further reflection, I withdrew my post and I'm glad I did. It was not helpful and did not speak to the core of the situation anyway. I do have some observations to make about the situation, and I believe that they are helpful and can contribute to a proper perspective.

   First, let's get to truth-in-advertising, as they say. I do have a pony in this race. Two of my kids have completed four years at Cedarville. My youngest daughter has completed her freshman year there. She probably won't return, but that decision has nothing to do with the Truth and Certainty debate (it's a financial decision - CU is priced for people who live in a different zip-code than I do - she can no longer afford it so we are looking to the competition).

   I do believe that Cedarville has some problems in their position. I do not believe that they are heretical. I would not, at this point, withdraw my kids for doctrinal reasons although I would keep a close eye on the situation.

   The problems that I do perceive seem to be a result of allowing the Philosophy department rather than the Bible department define the nature of Truth (more on that in my next post), and how Truth is acquired. This is a huge failure for a school that desires to be biblical. It opens the door for all sorts of mischief. The school can coast by virtue of inertia for some years and remain largely within orthodoxy, but unless the situation is straightened out the trajectory is not good.

    The Bible department should have been all over this. And by the way, the main problem is not Certainty, but CU's definition of Truth. It has a fundamental flaw. The Certainty issue is a much more minor corollary that arises from staking out a philosophical, rather than a biblical, position.

    More on that in my next post (which will occur hopefully sometime before 2013 - stay tuned, but don't hold your breath). . .

 

This I can say: CU, its administration and faculty in particular need our prayers.

All of which means that you and I need to learn godly wisdom so that we might be sharp and useful tools in His hands. If someone came to you asking questions about the Bible, about salvation, about God, about wisdom for living life in a fallen world, or about the hope that is in you, Christian, would you be ready? According to 1 Peter 3:15, we do need to be ready.

The book of Proverbs is a finely tuned library of wisdom for living as God's people in a fallen world. The book opens with a statement of its intended purpose (Proverbs 1:2-4), and then moves forward to a basic plan to help the reader accomplish this purpose (Proverbs 1:5-6). This introduction ends with the basic theme of the book in Proverbs 1:7: "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction."

There is no point in going any further at all in our quest to become wise people who are useful to God if we do not possess the proper fear of God. The proper fear of God involves a profound recognition of His perfect holiness, coupled with a deep sense of our own failure and sinfulness (see Isaiah 6:1-7 for a great illustration of these two parallel dynamics). Seeing God's holiness and our sinfulness should drive us to the Cross of Christ, begging for mercy. Only through the blood of the Cross can our sin be forgiven (1 Cor 15:1-4; Gal 3:13; Hebrews 9:22, 26; 1 Peter 3:18; Rev 1:5). When we believe the testimony God has given of His Son (1 John 5:9-12), repenting of and confessing our sins, turning in faith to Christ (Romans 10:9-10, 13), we are forgiven and given eternal life (1 John 5:13). Only at this point can we begin to think about being a tool in God's hand. Prior to this point we are under the judgment of God (John 3:18) and are characterized as being dead in our trespasses and sins (Ephesian 2:1-10).

If we want to be wise people who will be useful in God's hands to serve others and worship Christ, the book of Proverbs is a great place to begin. It is a rich book for parents, children, employees, employers, and those involved in government.

Proverbs has 31 chapters. Perhaps you might consider, each day, consulting the calendar. Whatever day of the month it is, read that chapter (on the tenth of the month, for instance, read Proverbs chapter 10). Make this a life-long habit, Christian, and God will add wisdom to your life as you obey Him.

In both accounts the role of faith is prominent. It is belief in Jesus' healing power that drives both to Jesus (Jairus, v 23; the woman, v 28). Both are told that faith is a decisive factor (Jairus, v 36; the woman, v 34). In both accounts, healing is forthcoming (Jairus' daughter was actually raised from the dead, v 41-42; the woman, v 29). In both accounts, the Greek verb sozo appears (Jairus, v 23, 'she will get well'; the woman, v 28, 'I will get well'; see also v 34). The common use of sozo frequently indicates the meaning of physical healing, with no spiritual subtext. However, this is also the verb used when spiritual salvation is the clear meaning (such as Romans 10:9, 13). Its use in this story is at the very least suggestive, that the reader is to find more than mere healing in response to faith in Christ.

Can you imagine what Jairus thought when he had finally found Jesus, persuaded Him to come, and had started on their way to his home, only to have the woman with the flow of blood delay them? In Jairus' mind, time was of the essence. His daughter was dying. He knew that Jesus could heal. He probably did not know that He could, or would, raise the dead. He had this one shot for his daughter who was at death's door.

We fast-forward the story, because we can read the whole thing in sixty seconds. We know how it is going to turn out. Jairus did not. There was no fast-forward for him. He experienced every agonizing second of the delay as Jesus scanned the crowd, looking for, . . . what? Someone who had touched Him? You're kidding! You are surrounded by a crowd, they're all touching you! Let's go, let's go, let's GO! My daughter is DYING!

But the delay stretched from seconds to minutes. Jesus finally finished dealing with the woman, and as He was ready to resume His (slow) progress toward Jairus home, a messenger appears. "Your daughter is dead." Freeze-frame here. Press Pause, not Fast Forward. You're Jairus. What do you do?

Probably dissolve into grief. What will you (or perhaps, did you?) do if and when you are confronted by such news? There is no fast-forward on grief! For all Jairus knew, it was over, finished. His daughter was dead. The messenger certainly thought it was over: "Don't trouble the teacher any longer." No need for a healer now. No, we need the undertaker, not a healer.

Jairus was crushed. We can see that fact in Jesus statement, "Do not be afraid." Can you imagine the if onlys that are coursing through Jairus' mind at this point. Probably the same ones in Martha's and Mary's minds in John 11:21 and 32: "If you had been here, my brother would not have died."

If only I had found Jesus sooner! If only that crowd had not been surrounding Him! If only that woman had not stopped Him! If only He had hurried!

There are many other interesting details in this double account, but I want to tease out just one application. Here is a simple lesson from this pericope: disappointments are divine appointments. Jairus was crushed with disappointment and grief at verse 35. What he did not know was that Jesus had a divine appointment with his daughter to glorify His heavenly Father by raising her from the dead. Even though you and I know that Jairus' grief lasted no longer than it took for them to walk to his house, Jairus did not know it at the time.

I want to suggest to you that for Christians, disappointments are in fact divine appointments. We know that God is sovereign (Daniel 4:35), that He is good (Psalm 119:68), and that He has committed to working all things together for our good (Romans 8:28). He is relentlessly forming us into the image of Christ (Romans 8:29, Philippians 1:6) by the events, and yes, the disappointments of our lives.

Jairus did not get to see Jesus heal his daughter. Instead, he got to see Him raise her from the dead! The divine appointments behind our disappointments will not always be so obvious, nor will they necessarily follow in such quick succession. They will not always be what we ourselves wanted or desired. They will often be accompanied by pain. They will often require a quiet, submissive heart. But they will always be there, and they will always be better than our desires, because these divine appointments will always bring glory to God. Disappointments are not pointless, nor are they random. They are divine appointments.

All this stuff I have been blogging about the church is actually going somewhere. [To pick up the thread, see here, here, and here.] Are you offended yet, by my posts regarding the priority of the Church? No? Let me try again... Yo! Young singles, out of high school. I'm talkin' to you! Yo! Young couples, I'm talkin' to you! Read carefully, because I may actually say something that has the potential to impact your life.

Let's wrap up this consideration of the Church by talking about. . . . classical physics. If you are in your late teens to early thirties, let me invite you to consider the humble lever. Now, let's not get too deeply into levers, such as talking about mechanical advantage and what classes of levers there are (for purposes of this illustration, it is, by the way, a 'first class' lever to which I refer). I am more interested in the phenomenon regarding the differing distance either end of the lever moves. If you are a real physics geek, you'd probably call that 'displacement'.

Perhaps a drawing would help. Your life, young person, is represented by the solid black line below; the lever. The length of the line represents the total length of your life. The fulcrum, or blue triangle, represents where you are right now in your life. If your life is going to be say, seventy five years long, then the fulcrum in the drawing is positioned about where you are at age twenty. You are regularly making decisions, as a twenty-year old, represented by the long black dotted line. These decisions change the course of your life in ways you can not now see. Just a tiny decision that changes your life pattern (the blue dots) as a young person yields a huge change at the end of your life (red dots).

 What I am trying to say is that decisions made as a young man or woman or young couple, leverage the course of your life in huge ways, ways that are not immediately apparent to you. One of the decisions that has the most dramatic impact on your life is your choice of obedience (or disobedience) to the Word of God, particularly as it speaks concerning your relationship to the local church. That decision will have a huge impact on your life.

Being committed to a local community of believers will impact your growth in Christ, your growth in personal holiness, and will influence every other decision you make. It is likely to be the decision that determines whether or not you stay married. It will probably be the decision that has the most impact on how you discipline your children (and therefore has gargantuan impact on their lives). It will impact your commitment to financial responsibility. The list is endless.

And if you are curious, and want to know what the impact is of waiting until you are at the other end of your life to get right with God regarding this matter of the church (ie, fulcrum way over to the right), just ask an older individual or couple who came to Christ late in life, or who got serious about Christ later in life, what their regrets are. Bring a chair with you, and get settled in, because they will have a long list of bad decisions, broken relationships, kids (and grandkids) who have nothing to do with God, personal habits that destroyed their health, wasted their money, squandered their time, etc. Ask them about the agony of watching their children and grandchildren perpetuate the same bad decisions, and live the same godless life. Ask them about the sorrow they feel, knowing that they themselves set the pattern of ignoring God that their loved ones are now imitating.

And then put yourself in their shoes. There is nothing particularly good about you that will somehow magically protect you from the same tragedies, if you reproduce the same disobedience to God in your life. Your parents' faith will not protect you anymore than their lack of faith will damn you. You are responsible to live your faith, not theirs.

But enough about levers. Let's think about inertia. Inertia is that property of mass that resists changes in motion or direction. When you establish habits, you are establishing a personal inertia that will tend to resist change (positive or negative). When you have set a life-pattern, a habit, of disobedience to Scripture in the area of your relationship to the local church, don't think that particular sin can be easily broken. It has a certain inertia. And since you have set a direction in your life that is committed to rebellion against God's Word, Christian (?), don't think you can confine your rebellion to the matter of your commitment to the local church. This rebellion will sooner or later show itself in areas such as unfaithfulness to your spouse, or his/her unfaithfulness to you, your inability to resist life-dominating sins, and more.

By the same token, if you establish inertia moving in the direction of obedience to God's Word in the matter of your church relationship, obedience becomes easier in every other area of your life. Not only are you establishing a habit of obedience, but you are rubbing shoulders with others who can help you, pray for you, fellowship with you, comfort you in trial, advise you in trouble, etc. You can begin serving God in both disciplined and creative ways. You can begin giving of yourself to others.

Bottom line? If you can not be convinced to obey Hebrews 10:24-25 simply because it IS GOD'S WORD, perhaps a pragmatic vision of the long-term consequences of this most serious area of disobedience will draw you up short, young person. It is a matter of cause and effect. The cause of disobedience to God will have effects, negative ones, that you can not now even imagine. Before you find yourself bearing BOTH the trauma of suffering, and the guilt of knowing it was self-inflicted suffering, repent in this matter of disobedience to God as respects your relationship to that which He "purchased with His own blood," the church.

Find a good local church, join it, and become committed to both attending there faithfully and serving there passionately. Its a good investment in your future. The sin of disobedience in this area can not be sugar-coated or excused or overlooked. And it has potentially devastating impact. For the love of Christ, go to church.

I don't much care for weight-lifting, as all who see me can readily testify. No one will ever mistake me for Arnold Schwartzeneger. Consequently, I have not formed a relationship with a local health club. Why? Because I don't care for exercise. Again, I am revealing my heart, by not joining a health club. At this point in my life, I put no priority on that, though I probably should. But there is a huge difference between recognizing what I should do, and having a heart desire to do it.

Your involvement and relationship with a local church, or your neglect of the local church, is revealing your heart. There is no way around this. If you are not an active, contributing, serving, diligent member of a local church it can only be because you have found something better to do with your time, resources, and commitments. This reveals your heart. It also goes a long way toward revealing the true status of your relationship with God, or lack thereof.

People who love God, love what God loves, and God loves the church. He has revealed His heart by purchasing the church with His precious blood (Acts 20:28). But it is very questionable as to whether people who do not love what God loves, love God Himself either. If you really have a relationship with God at all, then you will pursue a relationship with a local church. It reveals your heart.