Presuming Grace

R.C. Sproul:

I wonder if we really are amazed by grace? I think we express more amazement at God's wrath than at His mercy. We've come to the place, I think, in our religious thinking where we assume that God will be merciful, that God will be kind, that God will be gracious, and so we're not surprised whenever we experience His kindness. . . .

One of my favorite illustrations about the dilemma that we face with respect to understanding God's mercy goes back to the early days of my career as a teacher in college and seminary. One of my first teaching assignments was to teach 250 freshmen a required course on "Introduction to the Old Testament." Here I had 250 students assembled in a large lecture hall, very uncomfortable, trying to communicate with so many students at one time. I had to print up in advance the requirements for the course because I'd already learned, very quickly, that college students are all budding Philadelphia lawyers. You have to "dot your i's and cross your t's" to make sure that the assignments are clearly set forth. I gave them a published syllabus and told them what their requirements would be. I said, "We have three very small papers, book report type things, that are required during this semester. The first one is due at noon on September 30, the on second October 30, and the third on November 30. Now here's the way it goes: I want these finished, on my desk at 12:00 noon on the appointed times unless you are physically confined to the hospital or the infirmary or there is a death in the immediate family." We had to spell out all this sort of thing for the college students. I said, "Does everybody understand the assignment?" They said, "Oh, yes indeed."

So, September 30 came around and 225 of my students brought their papers in and presented them dutifully at the proper time. 25 of these poor souls had failed to complete their assignments and they were scared to death. These were freshmen, just making the transition from high school and they were in a posture of abject humility. They said, "Oh Professor Sproul, please don't give us an 'F' for this grade." I had told them that if they didn't get their paper in on time they would get an "F" for that assignment. They said, "Please give us some more time, give us one more chance." They were begging me for grace, for mercy. They wanted an extension. I said, "Okay, I'll give you an extension. But don't let it happen again. Remember the next assignment is October 30. I want those papers on time." They said, "Absolutely. They will be there."

October 30 came around. 200 of my students came and put their term papers on my desk. 50 of them were now assembled outside in terror because they hadn't planned their time properly, and were not prepared. So once again these students came to me pleading. They said, "Oh Professor, we didn't budget our time properly. It's mid-term, we have so many assignments all coming in at the same time, so many pressures, it's Homecoming. Please give us just one more chance." They begged me with earnest faces and I was a soft-hearted guy and I said, "Okay, okay. I'll give you one more chance, but don't let it happen again." You know what they did? They began to sing spontaneously, "We love you Prof. Sproul, oh yes we do." So I was the most popular professor in the school for 30 days.

But 30 days later the third paper came due. This time 150 students came into the classroom with their papers prepared and the other 100 came in as casual, as cavalier, as you can imagine. They didn't have their papers, they weren't worried in the slightest, and I said to them, "Where are you term papers?" They said, "Hey Prof, don't worry about it. We'll have it for you in a couple of days, no sweat." I stopped them right there in their tracks and I took out that dreadful little black book and I took out my pen and I said, "Johnson, where's your term paper?" He said, "I don't have it Professor." So I wrote an "F" in the book. "Greenwood, where's your paper?" "I don't have it, sir." I put "F" in the book. What do you think was the response of those students? Unmitigated fury. In one voice they called out, "THAT'S NOT FAIR!"

I said, "What was that? Johnson, did I just hear you say that's not fair?" He said, "Yes, that's not fair." He was furious. I said, "Okay. I don't ever want to be thought of as being unfair or unjust. Johnson, it's justice that you want?" He said, "Yes!" I said, "Okay, if I recall, you were late the last time, weren't you?" He said, "Yes." I said, "Okay. I'll go back and change that grade to an 'F'." So I erased his passing grade and gave him an "F." I said, "Is there anybody else that wants justice?" Nobody wanted justice. Do you see what has happened here? The first time they were pleading with me in utter, pathetic humility, and I said sure. The second time they begged. By the third time, not only did they begin to assume mercy, but they began to demand it. They assumed now that I was obligated to be gracious to them.

Friends, that's what we do with God.

(HT: Dane Ortlund)

The New Scarlet Letter is H

(via Kevin DeYoung)

Here’s a good piece by Matthew J. Franck in the Washington Post on the ubiquitous role of the “hate card” in debates over homosexuality and gay marriage.

The upshot:

Marginalize, privatize, anathematize: These are the successive goals of gay-marriage advocates when it comes to their opponents.

First, ignore the arguments of traditional marriage’s defenders, that marriage has always existed in order to bring men and women together so that children will have mothers and fathers, and that same-sex marriage is not an expansion but a dismantling of the institution. Instead, assert that norational arguments along these lines even exist and so no refutation is necessary, and insinuate that those who merely want to defend marriage are “anti-gay thugs” or “theocrats” or “Taliban,” as some critics have said.

Second, drive the wedge between faith and reason, chasing traditional religious arguments on marriage and morality underground, as private forms of irrationality.

Finally, decree the victory of the new public morality – here the judges have their role in the liberal strategy – and read the opponents of the new dispensation out of polite society, as the crazed bigots of our day.

Read the whole thing.

What if Mary and Joseph had our technology?

Christianity is War

Yes, there is a mean, violent streak in the true Christian life! But violence against whom, or what? Not other people!

It’s a violence against all the impulses in us that would be violent to other people.

It’s a violence against all the impulses in our own selves that would make peace with our own sin and settle in with a peacetime mentality.

It’s a violence against all lust in ourselves and all enslaving desires

• for food
• or caffeine
• or sugar
• or chocolate
• or alcohol
• or pornography
• or money
• or the praise of men
• and the approval of others
• or power
• or fame.

It’s a violence against the impulses in our own soul toward racism and sluggish indifference to injustice and poverty and abortion.

Christianity is not a settle-in-and-live-at-peace-with-this-world-the-way-it-is kind of religion. When Jesus said, “the truth will set you free”, he didn’t mean without a battle. He meant that truth would win the war of liberation in the soul.

Christianity is war. It is a declaration of all-out combat against our own sinful impulses. The apostle Peter said, “Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul”. To become a Christian is to wake up to the reality that our soul – the eternal joy of our soul – is at stake. Therefore, Christianity is mortal combat for true and lasting joy.

- John Piper, When I Don’t Desire God: How to Fight For Joy, 102-103

Who Needs Marriage?

TIME Asked the Question — Do You Have an Answer?

Al Mohler opines: http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/11/29/who-needs-marriage-time-asked-th-question-do-you-have-an-answer/

December Book Giveaway (and it's a good one)

Christmas Bonus: Sign up at Zach Nielsen’s blog to win several good books from Crossway.

Touching Sensitive Areas, or TSA For Short

Doug Wilson on the latest non-sense sweeping the nation--the TSA demanding we temporarily lay down our liberties in order that they can protect... our liberties.

Yeah, right.

And if the day comes when terrorism is eradicated, do they ever intend to give them back? I thought not.

Read what Wilson has to say:

Here are some points to keep in mind as the controversy about the TSA wends it way through our various news cycles and perhaps, let us hope, into a bill in the new Congress.

1. It does the old heart good to see people get riled up with government incompetence and . . . what's the word I am looking for? Nincompoopery, I believe that's it.

I do not say this as one who believes that the radical Muslim threat is tiny. I think that I actually take it more seriously that our government does. If they were worried about terrorists, they would be looking for terrorists, and not for my nail clippers. Their procedures are risible, their hubris astounding, their reasons justifying that hubris minimal, and their folly incandescent.

To illustrate: Remember the first phase of this imbroglio where the government had to back down -- back when they were running pilots through their drill? They were checking pilots for excessive amounts of shampoo in insulting ways, right before said pilots sat down in the cockpits of the big, flying bombs? The takeway lesson here is that if you want us to believe that you are taking the war on terror seriously, you have to stop fighting it like idiots.

2. We are being told that we must surrender some of our liberties because we are in a war on terror. I see. And when is this war likely to end, and will we, or our grandchildren, or great grandchildren, get our liberties back at that time? Ah, I thought not. The war on Eastasia goes on and on and on, or so the Ministry of Truth informs us. Perpetual war justifies perpetual sacrifices, does it not? And when we have become accustomed to the sacrifices that perpetual war requires, which apparently amounts to a willingness to be herded instead of governed, and Eurasia eventually conquers our beloved Oceania, will they encounter a freedom-loving people, prepared by the long war for some real resistance to the invaders? Ah, I thought not. You cannot fight a genuine long war by making your people docile. You can, however, fight a charade war that way.

The conservative case for just war, as opposed to the national-greatness case for it, is clear. Identify the enemy, declare an objective, make sure the objective is just, achieve that objective, and get the heck out.

Some might object that my invocation of Orwell above is overblown, but if Orwell were to come back now, what do you think he would be more shocked by -- the number of cameras all over the UK or the number of people who had read his book and yet did not see any connection?

3. It appears that it was more important for the TSA to not let any protests get traction than it was to catch bad guys this last Thanksgiving holiday. I read that a bunch of the new scanners were not in use, and therefore opting out of them would not cause newsworthy dislocations. And speaking of opting out, I would suggest that any travelers who are concerned about this issue should opt out -- if you get the pat down, you know exactly what you are getting, and can serve as a witness of the whole transaction. But if somebody off in another room is getting his jollies by looking at your daughters, you have no idea and cannot serve as a witness, except as a witness to the general degrading spectacle. Also, if you opt out, I would have a small slip of paper that you can hand to the person who hunting on your person for threats to our nation's liberties. It should read something like:

"My need to travel should not be taken as my consent to the unconstitutionality of warrantless searches of my person and my possessions. I am accepting this process under protest."

And you should make sure your phone is set on record.

4. Informal survey: from family traveling this week, it appears that the number of travelers was unusually light for the days just before Thanksgiving -- partially full flights, and that kind of thing. I would be interested to hear if anybody else had a similar experience or not. And I am sure somebody can figure out how to get the raw numbers on many people flew last Wednesday, as oppposed to previous years. It would be interesting to discover if the opt-out protest was not successful because a large number of people opted out of flying at all.

5. So then, let's talk about political correctness and sexuality for a moment. As it stands, the ladies are patted down by women, and the men by men. Could we agree then, that lesbians and homosexual men ought to pat down nobody? They can't pat down members of the opposite sex without a badge saying, "It's okay, I'm homosexual," and they shouldn't be able to pat down members of the same sex for obvious reasons. Now this is the moment in the discussion when your opponent draws himself up to his full height, and says, "This is outrageous. These are hard-working, trained professionals and . . ."

"Trained professionals, you say?"

"Yes," they say.

"Nothing sexual about it?,? you ask.

"Nothing whatever," they reply.

"Okay," you answer, "let's have everybody pat down everybody then. Trained professionals, you know."

"Oh, we couldn't do that. It would be upsetting to the sensibilities of too many travelers."

Right. Like you care about that.

6. Not satisfied with having their panties in a wad, they are now trying to help us rearrange our panties. There needs to be a way for a civilized people to say, "Back off, perv," and not have to then worry about being frogmarched out of the airport, and fined for maintaining your decency.

7. This issue has legs, and this is a good reason for writing about it. If it has legs, then one of the things we can do to make air travel dignified again is to make sure it keeps those legs. Tell stories, circulate stories, write about it. Like here, for instance.

8. Why are the supposed great lions of civil liberties silent about this? Where is the ACLU? [Update: I stand adjusted on this one. See comments.] When the Bush administration wanted to have computers analyze cell phone chatter under the Patriot Act (which Obama extended), there were howls from the predictable quarters. So when the Bush administration wants to analyze that great heap of ones and zeros that constitutes a sludge pile of inviting cell phone data, they go nuts, but when the Obama administration wants to go through our skivvies, they fall silent?

And just for the record, I don't like Republicans without warrants anymore than I like Obama without one.

9. Extend the logic for this lunatic way of fighting terrorism, and see how you like it. In a free society, crowds gather in more places than in airports. And when they gather, they are vulnerable to anybody with a bomb, an automatic weapon, or a canister of poison gas. Make a short list -- malls, football games, concerts, etc. If the TSA imbecility is sound with regard to airports, then the first successful attempt on life at some public event (as was attempted a few days ago at a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland) will necessitate nude scanners and pat downs at city squares, subways, bus stations, train stations, basketball games, etc. When they are done securing our liberties, we can all rest easy. The radical Muslims can never get at our liberties now. We don't have them anymore. Our liberties are in a box in a TSA warehouse, along with 10,000 nail clippers.

So if such security measures are not consistent with life in a free society on the ground, then they are not consistent with life in a free society in the air. We need to do something differently. As in completely differently, and I don't mean changing the color of the TSA uniforms. We need to spend all that money on hunting terrorists. We should be looking for certain kinds of people, not certain kinds of objects.

10. You cannot reason with bureaucracies. You can only stand on their oxygen hose, which I suggest. The new House can defund the TSA. They are going to be looking for areas to make budget cuts anyway -- two birds with one appropriations measure. So to speak.

But the reason why politicans hate to do things like that is because covering your rear end is expensive -- as your doctor could tell you as he is ordering a bunch of unnecessary medical tests because tort reform has not yet occurred. Politicians in this case don't want to defund the TSA just in case someone afterwards highjacks a plane with a weapon cunningly fashioned out of three pair of nail clippers. And then his opponent can say that the incumbent voted against the Transportation Safety Administration. This is the kind of thing that makes politicians wake up with the night sweats. And so what they want is not security for you, but plausible security theater for themselves and their campaigns. Always remember that this is very expensive security theater, and not security.

So this is why politicians will usually cast a courageous vote only when three hundred thousand people are holding their hand, and patting the back of it. Let's help them out.