IS SIN COMPATIBLE WITH LOVE? Part One by Teresa Beem

What is Love?

St. Paul tells us that love is the perfect bond of unity. Colossians 3: 14 Yeah! I really love that! Love, love will keep us together.... (I sing in my head. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1G0sOA6hTg0) 

Unity! On of my favorite pictures of love is my family, including my dad and mom, all my brothers and sisters and their kids singing together at the family reunions. Such wonderful family unity. The gentle memories make me feel cozy and secure. My guess is that your memories of love bring happy, warm feelings too. For we know that love is patient and kind. I am comfortable with that kind of love! We all want that kind of love, don’t we?

Love certainly can be easy unity, smiles and pats on the back and affirmations that a person is terrific! But love is more than just happy feelings where we all get along. Love is more than just Phil Robertson’s slogan of “Happy, happy, happy.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWp1VOFQxKg

St. Paul also tells us that love is long-suffering and endures all things. Long-suffering: That’s not such a fun word. That means love isn’t always happy, happy, happy. Love must also be able to take the emotional punch of an insult and not returning a hostile word. Love is not only smiling, but calming yourself down and listening when you want to be heard. That means love suffers.

What else does the apostle tell us about love.

Love is not jealous. Love is not conceited. Love is not selfish. Love isn’t easily provoked, nor does it hold grudges. (Gulp.) That means that loving others often means pain for us. It means less of what I want. Putting my rights and even my needs, my comfort and my happiness after the needs and comfort and happiness of others. Love often has to be content with receiving the raw end of the deal. Nobody talks much about that kind of love.

The best news is that love is the greatest of all eternal things and it rejoices in the truth. So there is lots of good news when it comes to love. The bad news, to some, might be that love also behaves! (I Cor. 13: 5-13) Love abhors what is evil and clings to what is good. (Rom. 12: 9) For love practices righteousness. In fact, the apostle is quite clear, those who do not practice righteousness do not love (1 John 3: 10, Gal. 5: 13).

Love is known by its absolute obedience to God. (John 14: 23, 24, 31; 1 John 5:3, 2 John 1:6). For if you are not obedient to God, you really don’t know the full truth of love. So.... (sigh) love can be a lot of hard work. It doesn’t always feel good, or comfortable or even nice. Love labors. It is shocking to some to find out that love isn’t always natural, for sometimes we must pursue love and flee from evil! (1 Tim. 6: 11). 

So, are you liking love? (smile...not so much, huh?)

It is most uncomfortable in today’s world that loves requires such courage and self-sacrifice that we will not rejoice in unrighteousness. At first that seems to be no big deal. But in actual practice, that is truly tough love. To truly and completely love others, we cannot condone evil that we see in them. I cannot imagine anyone actually liking that part of love. Nobody wants to confront and make waves and get into an argument. Nobody wants to be disliked. So when controversy comes, they always remain silent.

There are of course times to discern when to keep silent and when to speak, but the reasoning of love isn’t that you are uncomfortable with confrontation. Love always thinks of others, not one’s uncomfortableness. So your basis to speak or be silent is the need of the other person, not his wants nor your wants. Loves means to speak when the person needs to hear truth, whether you or the other person will like it or not. Love means a lot more than just happy talk. Even angelic talk can be without love. (I Corinthians 13) And I am afraid I am seeing that a lot--people talking in order to make people feel good rather than speaking for their actual good. 

Nobody wants to be on the receiving end of love when you are hearing about your mistakes. That makes us feel judged and not loved. But we cannot trust our feelings on this one. Our feelings must be courageous not only to give that type of love but to receive it. And it goes both ways. If someone who loves us wrongfully judges us and tries to correct us, we have to be long-suffering and forgive them. They meant well.

However, there are those few people who actually seem to like pointing out other’s moral failures and that isn’t love either! Love doesn’t just lob truth at another person and then run away. Love means that if you do say something to another for their own good that you know will hurt them, you stay and endure the fires of their hurt with them. Love doesn’t abandon. Nor does love self-righteously go around handing out “truth” to make oneself feel good and rack up points with God. Love is about the other. Love serves.... (Gal. 5: 13).

Christ tells us that love demands heroism! (1 Thessalonians 1: 3). Love sacrifices its own life for others (I John 3:16, Eph. 5: 2). Love is manifested not in timidity but in power and discipline (2 Tim. 1: 7). And this is where many people’s love fails. 

MY TESTIMONY By Teresa Beem

That Saved A Wretch Like Me

Unconsciously swinging my little shiny shoes dangling off the pew, I drew on a scrap of paper or looked at "My Little Friend" children's magazine quietly waiting for church to be over. The adults assumed we weren't listening, and usually they were right. But I do remember my ears perking up when a speaker told a titillating comeback testimony of his enslavement to drugs, stealing and being "bad" with many women. The earnest story of losing job, home, family, friends and self-respect, having hit rock bottom, would always end with Jesus miraculously there to lift him out and turn his life around. 

These thrilling prodigal-son tales tempted us to live high drama sins so that one day we could stand in front of a spellbound audience reliving our exciting testimony for the Lord. In my preteens, when I began scrutinizing these testimonies, these entertaining come-to-Jesus experiences left me confused. I thought, “His rock and roll life is cool to listen to but his family is a mess." What I observed was a very wounded set of people around him: parents, wife, children. The truth was that the physical, emotional, mental and spiritual wreck this man had left in his wake was a Pyrrhic victory. 

No one seemed to wonder how his witness (or others with his type of testimony) might have been more effective if he hadn't been sprawled and wasted in the underworld all those years. We don’t want to think about the souls this man had mortally wounded and drug into hell with him so we turn up the volume of rejoicing because he was rescued.

That Saved A Stupid Wretch Like Me

This led me, as a teenager, to resent these miracle stories. I had grown up with the John Wayne, do-it-yourself rallying cry bleeding over into our Protestant spirituality. It may be the hard way to learn everything by personal experience, but dogonnit that’s the American way. I began musing, “Are we really so dumb, obstinate and blind that we can’t learn from others mistakes?” I knew that would save us enormous tragic and unnecessary pain.

When I asked my teachers and pastors why humans seemed to have to wallow in the slime before becoming smart and loving Jesus, they would respond that I shouldn’t ponder the unknowables. “Let’s just look on the positive side and be thankful that in the end these men did hit rock bottom because it brought them to the Lord.”

I didn’t buy it. It frustrated me that no one else saw how selfish and illogical it was for us to exalt the fatalistic idea that God’s best design is to temporarily abandon humans to their own self-destructive choices so that after their health and energy is spent, His redemption will seem good. 

My fervent prayers were to have such a sensitive heart that I would learn from other people’s mistakes and I wouldn’t have to be blind before I could see. I stayed in a mild panic during those teenage years, scrutinizing everyone’s life to extract wisdom to prevent myself from making mistakes. Then I grieved as I watched my friends fall prey to peer pressure, obsessing over rock music, experimenting with drugs, then promiscuity.

Through Many Dangers Toils and Snares

But, it was the 1970’s and Adventists were not immune to the drug culture however hard they tried. In the metropolis of Dallas, the Seventh-day Adventist Church my family belonged to, had carved out a little idealistic Mayberry environment with nice Aunt Bee teachers and Sheriff Andy Taylor leadership. 

Imagine my confusion juxtapositioning this sweet black and white picture with the drug and sexual revolution. I vividly remember sitting outside on the school steps awaiting my ride home when another sixth-grader walked up to me and awkwardly offered me a Valentine’s box of chocolates. Then with a boyish smile, he handed me a little love note. Sweet memory, right? Except that he was high on marijuana. Confusing. Confusing as an adult, but super confusing and scary as an Adventist child.

Then to make matters a hundred times worse, when I courageously resolved to speak up and “rat” on my friends, telling the adults that these kids were experimenting with drugs and alcohol, the parents, teachers, principles and pastors deserted their posts and their responsibility to the kids. They did nothing or rather it seemed to me they did nothing, for it got worse. Most adults turned their eyes from seeing the problem because they didn’t want to see it. They were uncomfortable confronting drugs, sex abuse, promiscuity.

Stupid Dangers, Toils and Snares

Nothing made a bigger and more lasting impact on my psyche than watching the adults fail to act to rescue my friends from being torn to shreds by the Devil. I never was a rebellious teenager except when I encountered shrug-your-shoulders fatalistic leaders. It was then alone that I felt enraged rebelliousness; for how could I as a kid find the courage to be shunned by my friends for confronting their destructive behavior and these grown ups cave in to fear? I made a solemn oath to myself that when I grew up, I would do something--at least say something.  

As an adult, I have tried to give these SDA leaders grace for I realize they had no way of coping. American spirituality had given no easy solutions to the problem. So rather than relentlessly pursuing a solution, the parents, teachers and pastor maintained an American twisted optimism that all would turn out well if they did nothing. They believed if they just “gave it to Jesus” and continue teaching them about the Sabbath and last days that these youth would have a miraculous turn around one day and return to the truth.

That type of faith, based on inaction, failed miserably. Most of my SDA friends from childhood have grown up with very tragic lives. Some have spent time in jail, had multiple divorces and are still seeking drugs, rock and roll and promiscuity. We are still awaiting that big come-to-Jesus moment.

And what is particularly painful is when I talk to Adventists about what I witnessed, they will meekly smile at me attempting to cheer me up with, “Well, it isn’t so bad. Many of these people have survived it and are living happily.” To my shocked ears that is tantamount to saying, “We shouldn’t be so negative about the Holocaust. Lots of Jews in America are doing well today. See, it wasn’t so bad.” 

Is that what Christ wants for people, to survive their lives? I am continually dumbfounded at such low expectations set for Christians. I went to school daily with these kids for years, I love them still and their lives are not fodder for Christian fatalism. I still have those love notes and the Valentine’s chocolate box. These souls should have been important enough for someone to put up a courageously fight. 

Yes, they could still come to Jesus and turn their lives around, but can we be satisfied with such eleventh-hour conversions? Entire lives full of heartache? Is that the best for which we can hope?

The Grace That Led Me Home

Then I became Catholic.

And now my world and outlook has changed. It has been a heavenly awakening that we are not fatalistically doomed to unending cycles of temptation and collapsing into sin. God never meant for us to have to aggressively suffer to overcome addictions, to help children overcome the devastation of our divorce, to have to remake our reputation so that people will loan us money or trust us again. We should not be resigned to walking with the Devil for our earthly education so that we can appreciate the goodness of salvation from sin. That may be the American way--our way--but that is not God’s way. 

The Catholic Church for two thousand years has passed on from the mouth of Jesus that we are good, very good. Under the stain of original sin, each of us still shines with the image of the Father and Creator. Christ conquered sin, therefore we are made for an abundant life and we can find it now. 

Our testimonies of Christ should be full of Christ, not our failures. That is why the Catholics focus on the Blessed, sinless life of Mary instead of the wretched life of Mary Magdalene. You don’t have to sin! You can, with the grace of Christ, make wise choices that will make your life gloriously happy and free of regret.

The Lord has Promised Good to Me

So how do we not sin? How do we avoid a lifetime of making choices that hurt ourselves and others?

Jesus said His burden is light and it is! Our burden is to obey Him through following the seven sacraments. The seven sacraments are the easy path to grow in holiness and righteousness, for they impart in us grace that will give us the courage to fight temptation.

Protestants (and most Catholics) completely misunderstand the very nature and purpose of these seven wonderful, merciful disciplines on the journey to sainthood.

The first sacrament, baptism, indelibly seals you with the Holy Spirit, erases the scar of original sin as you walk into salvation and the Kingdom of Heaven. The sacraments that follow do not save you, for you have been born again through the water and His Word! You are now within Christ’s sheepfold safe and secure.

Now, as child of God, you continue in the sacraments, not to earn salvation, but to avoid falling into the Devil’s trap of sin. For bad choices were never God’s desire to be the refining fire of our lives. The sacraments are the refining fire.

Christ desires to prevent sin, not just forgive it! Through the spiritual disciplines of the sacraments we become holy and thus become a powerful force for Christ in the world. It is not simply for our own happiness that we should escape a life miserably enslaved in sin, but to avoid wounding others. The sacraments empower us with grace to make good choices that our lives may be without regret and richly satisfying.

I grieve for Protestants who reject the sacraments as “traditions of men.” Rather than ungodly, ritualistic works, they are miracles wrapped up in little disciplines that make us holy.

  

Yea, when this flesh and heart shall fail

I am amply aware that some Catholics do hit rock bottom, even growing up in the church and participating in the sacraments, before they return to Christ. But that is not God’s preferred method of becoming holy. Perhaps that it is His back up plan. I am also aware that there are Catholics who partake of the sacraments and live like corrupt pagans and never seem to become holy.

However, I can assure you that the more sincerely and passionately you obey God’s sacraments, you will spend less of your life wounded and wounding those you love. You will spend less energy digging yourself and your family out of regretful choices. The burden of the sacraments are light compared to the unending failing struggles of dealing with selfishness, greed, lust, pornography addiction, promiscuity, abortion, divorce, rehab, loss of job, jail, etc. 

Do not misunderstand, the sacraments do not make you instantly perfect, but when you are following them daily and weekly and monthly they keep you close to God’s road and if you wander off, they will draw you back quickly. Those who disregard the sacraments often wander blindly for most of their life before they find the path God wants them on.

The prevention plan of the sacraments is far better than a rescue plan for sin. The life of the prodigal son is the Protestant way; the lives of Joseph and Samuel who grow up and remain faithful sons, are God’s way.

Do not think I am being too harsh on Protestants. For when I was a Protestant we had joyful, optimistic faith in God’s promise that one day He would dry every tear from our eyes. And that in Heaven after being there ten thousand years, we’d no less days to sing God’s praise for His amazing grace at saving a wretch like me. And as a saved Protestant I was eternally grateful for God’s forgiveness.

Now, as a Catholic, my Protestant confusion about the endless fatalistic cycle of sin is gone. My purpose in life is to be a holy saint in order that I may effectively be Christ to the world. And I am doing that through receiving the sacraments. 

Unity! One of Christ's Commandments by Teresa Beem

  Behold, how good and how pleasant it is 

For brothers to dwell together in unity! 

Psalms 133: 1

Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are. ....I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.

The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me. 

John 17: 11-23

I was raised in a church that preached that in the last days a false Christian ecumenical movement would arise and deceive many. Yet this same idea permeates several other fundamentalist churches who have prophecies of a one-world government led by the antichrist. If you do a search you will find many blog posts warn against “Yoking with Satan in Jesus‘ name” or “Ushering in the One World Religion!” 

These churches are very suspicious of other churches in the ecumenical movement. They wonder, “Are these Christians searching for power over us to deceive us?” They feel God would not want them to be united in any way with those who seems theologically incorrect to them. Some Christians don’t even want to try for unity because they think it impossible.

Yet, over and over the New Testament is clear that Christ wants unity, perfect unity among His followers. Your heart can feel the ache in Christ’s heart as He prayed for the unity of His disciples in the above text in John 17. Unity was strong upon his heart as he prayed in Gethsemane.

...”that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them.”

Christ warned against divisions when He said, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand.” Matt. 12: 25 

If we look at the Apostle’s writings we will find that often they wrote against those who would cause divisions in God’s household. 

Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. Romans 16: 17

Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ." Has Christ been divided ? I Cor. 1: 10-13

Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread. I Cor. 10: 16, 17

The works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality...hatreds, strife... dissensions, factions...about which I tell you in advance-as I told you before-that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians 5: 19-21

For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body... But now there are many members, but one body.... so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it. I Corinthians 12: 7-27 portions

Did we not walk with the same spirit? Did we not in the same steps?... For I fear lest perhaps, when I come, I shall not find you such as...animosities, factions, detractions, whisperings, swellings, seditions, be among you.  2 Cor. 12: 18-20

Scripture is very plain about disunity. It is not of God. In fact the goal of Christian love is unity. 

For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function, so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Rom. 12: 4, 5 

Be of the same mind toward one another ;  Rom. 12:16

For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall... so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.... for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. Ephesians 2: 14-22

Ephesians 4: 2 with all humility... being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. ... And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.  As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love. Eph. 4: 2-6, 11-16

[Note that in this text we find that it is in the unity of the body under God’s chosen leaders that we keep from falling prey to theological deception.]

In the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts. These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit. Jude 1: 17-19

Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient... to avoid quarreling...avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile. As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned. Titus 3: 1, 2, 9-11

Oh dear. What do we do now with the idea of a false ecumenical movement? It has been proven that God doesn’t want divisions among His Body and we are all to be unified, so how do we get to that without being pulled into a last day false unity? How can we identify a true Christ-approved unity from a false?

False Ecumenicism

If I were judging whether a ecumenical movement was false, I would watch to see if Christ is the focus and foundation. Are they preaching obedience to Christ and Him crucified or is it more about obedience to a charismatic or prophetic leader? Maybe they shun obedience to anyone, going to the other extreme and focusing on radical freedom and individualism rather than preaching to submit to God’s appointed leaders.

Maybe the ecumenical group’s goals would be more political than focused on Christ. Perhaps personal wealth and prosperity seemed to be more important than sacrifice and unselfishness towards others, especially the poor. Maybe they would say that there is no absolute truth, or if there is, there is no way of finding it. They would ignore scripture or create a new radically changed version of scripture. I might take another look at their authenticity if the movement was opposed to Christian history and tradition, bending to cultural standards and loosening morals. It would set low standards so that no one would be uncomfortable or worse yet, hypocrites. They would gain adherents from excessively emotional entertainment. And I would greatly worry about an ecumenical movement that tried and make Jesus “cool” and “hip.” If they teach love means total acceptance of what everyone wants to do and think and above all we must not judge what sin is? I would walk to the nearest exit. These things would send up red flags. 

True Ecumenicism

What would a true ecumenical movement look like? It would focus on Christ and the gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven. It would glorify God and rejoice in obedience to His will. It would teach fear of the Lord rather than fear of man. Its faith would bring us to humble repentance and its grace powerfully guide us in the journey of becoming holy. They would recognize scriptural authorities of Apostles and bishops as well as the infallibility of God’s Holy Word. They would search for truth outside of their own opinions and theological desires and uphold the values that historic Christianity.

The unity would encourage sacrifice for others. And that unity would bring us into the understanding that our enemies are not humans but the demonic powers of darkness. This unity would carry each others burdens, cry when others cry and rejoice when others rejoice. They wouldn’t be afraid of questions and be open to criticism. The people united in Christ wouldn’t be perfect and many will fail to keep the movement’s goals. Yet it would give the troubled soul peace and would exhort the indifferent soul out of its lukewarmness. If they teach love means total acceptance of the person but not of his sins, where love is patient, kind, hopes all things, endures all things? I would run immediately to sign up.

If You Were Taught To Demonize All Ecumenical Movements

Be careful not to quickly judge any ecumenical movement as false. Christ warned us that to attribute the devil to the doings of the Holy Spirit is blasphemy. 

While keeping your eyes open, not for hypocrites but for foundational red flags in the ecumenical movement’s goals, take a step of faith towards those who claim they are Christians. Listen to them with ears of love and with a heart of openness. Unity will take courage, faith and patience. We must diligently pray for these, for the Word of God records:

Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity. Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body; and be thankful. Col. 3: 14, 15

CAN PURSUING HAPPINESS MAKE US HAPPY? by Teresa Beem

God made us to be happy. I ask you with sincerity, not to respond with any assumptions that I do not think we should be happy. I am not ant-happiness, but rather quite the opposite. I believe happiness to be possible, in fact, I believe joy is promised to us by Christ. However, my point is to show that the Western worldview that we should pursue happiness has resulted in great unhappiness. 

First, for clarity sake I will define the word happiness. For the purpose of this exercise I will use my personal arbitrary definition of the Western (and more specifically American) idea of happiness as a momentary or prolonged feeling of comfort, satisfaction or pleasure.

This, of course is a philosophical piece of work and is not meant to reflect all anecdotal incidences but a general overall observation. 

Ancient Philosophies

There have been fleeting cults in ancient times that made happiness (or pleasure) the goal and purpose of life, such as the Hedonists, the Epicureans, the cult of Bacchus, etc. Hedonism taught that the greatest good was pleasure and the greatest evil was pain or suffering. So one should live one’s life pursuing pleasure and avoiding suffering. 

Epicureanism, a branch of hedonism, took a more pragmatic view and taught that discipline might not feel pleasurable at the moment, but would maximize one’s overall pleasure during life. They taught one should avoid gorging oneself at meals because pain might follow, and disciplining ones’ sexual appetites will maximize a lifetime of sexual gratification. While hedonism was the short sprint on indulging pleasure, the Epicurean took the marathon approach of: pace yourself. The goal is the same, maximize pleasure, minimize pain.

These cultural experiments in lifestyles utterly failed to bring the promised happiness, leading the great minds of all times to reject them. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle all agreed that happiness is the fruit of the hard labor of cultivating a virtuous life. In fact, it is Aristotle who plainly stated that you cannot reach happiness if it is your goal.

Because of human nature, this failing hedonistic philosophy is often recycled throughout history.  Whatever the good intensions of the founding fathers and their enlightenment ideals, the “right” to pursue happiness has resulted in turning America into a hedonistic culture. They rejected the great Greek wisdom and chose the failing philosophical systems which pursue happiness as the end goal. This proves that humans fall prey to the positivism which believes that we can improve on, and make a success of that which is intrinsically flawed.  

Religion and the Pursuit of Happiness

In a general sense, religions do not teach that one should pursue happiness. The Hindu religion which has helped inspire much New Age Western thought does include in its basic premise that pleasure is to be sought, but even within this framework, Hindus teach that one should do no harm to self, others and the environment.

Evangelical Pastor John Piper wrote a book in the mid 1980’s called Christian Hedonism, which has inadvertently inspired much of the prosperity gospel, gladly admits that man does and should pursue pleasure as it is the greatest good, but then promotes that God is the great pleasure-giver and go to Him for man’s ultimate expression of pleasure. However he wants to twist it, the Bible never insinuates, implies or states that one should seek pleasure. Quite the opposite. Christ tells us that the gospel requires a self-sacrificing obedience of faith. We are to take up our cross and follow Him. And then by doing this, He will bring us into the Promised Kingdom of milk and honey. Absolute and eternal bliss is found at the end of the journey. Our earthly lives are not for pleasure or comfort, but for learning obedience through suffering, just as Christ did.

If there is Suffering, There is No God

This false notion of a God-given “right” to pursue happiness has become a de facto assumption of Christians. An example of this is Houston’s fabulously popular preacher, Joel Osteen whose underlying assumption to his prosperity gospel is that it is not God’s will for us to be humble, poor, meek and or have to suffer. Western Christianity has adopted this hedonistic philosophy that pleasure is the highest good and pain and suffering is the gravest evil. 

This erroneous worldview has birthed a generation of atheists who believe that if there is suffering in the world, then there is no God. For if pleasure is the greatest good and the point of life, and suffering is our greatest sin, then a God who would allow suffering must either not be good or must not be great or omnipotent. And they reject God altogether than accept an all knowing and all powerful God who would not get rid of suffering.


Evidence Against the Pursuit of Happiness as a Philosophy

If the right to pursue happiness resulted in happiness, then America should give irrefutable evidence of this.

Yet statistics show that more than half of marriages end up in divorce and the United States has the third highest divorce rate on the planet. One fourth of all U.S. citizens use legal anti-depressants and a huge percentage use illegal drugs or alcohol in order to cope making the US and Canada a huge drug haven for the world. We have a very high suicide rate compared to other nations. America and Russia run neck and neck with the highest homicides rates. In a recent survey, citizens of the United Arab Emirates as well as Mexico, Panama, Costa Rica, Israel and many other countries were found to be happier than Americans.

Why Pursuing Happiness Is Irrational

There is little evidence that humans are up to the task of knowing what makes themselves happy. If you ask a child what will make them happy they might suggest living in the movie “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.” A preteen might believe he would be happy having no parents and getting to smoke and drink and drive. A hormonal teenager may think happiness is being famous and letting your sexuality run wild. (In fact a lot of adults think this too.) Yet, look at Hollywood. Fame and fortune doesn’t seem to have made a lot of entertainers happy. In fact, people tend not to be motivated by an independent concern for what will make them happy, but they will act in ways that will allow them to be accepted into a peer group, which may not ultimately result in their happiness but will knowingly sabotage it. 

Conclusion:

When I look at the news and statistics, as well as many people I know, I realize that something is wrong in America. Our pursuit of happiness has failed. To what degree that failure can be blamed on our philosophy is debatable, but I think the debate is absolutely vital in order to focus on solving the problem. 

The vast majority of human history has lived with the worldview that pursuing happiness does not result in happiness. Happiness had never been the goal, but in various forms happiness has always been seen as a result of living a virtuous life.

America has indoctrinated its citizenry into the worldview that they have a God-given right to pursue happiness. The predominate reason for the suffering I see in American families is that under the disguise of a Christian philosophy and worldview we substituted an Enlightenment one. This claim that God gives us the right to pursue happiness cannot be supported by history, nor by the Bible, nor in Christian theology. In most cases, we find absolute, self-defeating and opposite results.

I am not bringing this up as theoretical philosophy but for basic pragmatic reasons. We need to stop teaching and believing this because it is not working. And there is little evidence to suggest that continually repeating the experiment will yield better results. 

 The enlightenment was based on pure, humanistic, preservation and self-love. Christianity is based on self-giving and self-sacrificing. Christ, rather than encouraging His followers to find happiness in an independent-minded and self-centered system, commands us to sacrifice our selves, indeed even our very happiness to give happiness to others. 

 

Condoms are Evil. By Vericast's Tim Haines

Dr. James White and Theopneustos

I most readily understand nuances by comparisons. Such as: This is a grayish green rather than a bluish green when you put it up to blue or yellow. The white on the walls looks positively yellow when compared to the stark white of a sheet of paper.

So to help see potential weaknesses and strengths in Catholic or Protestant theology I listen to debates and theological radio call-in shows--often. Pretty much daily. 

If you do an internet search on Catholic/Protestant debates you will inevitable come across Alpha Omega Ministries run by Dr. James White. I think I have listened numerous times to most of his debates. His apologetics against Catholicism are most prolific online, but he is not the best Protestant debater. 

Not to judge his heart, but it does seem that Dr. White is not debating to bring clarity to the subject of theology. Rather his goal seems to be to “expose” Catholicism as an evil, anti-gospel message. His agenda is not to bring glory to God by respectfully listening,understanding and presenting truth, but to win a theological battle. 

Dr. White’s apologetics looks positively grayish-wrong when debating Mitch Pacwa, Robert Sungenis, Patrick Madrid or any of his Catholic opponents.

Dr. White (knowingly or unknowingly) uses verbal tricks that create the idea that he is the trusted authority, the expert, and his

opponent’s opinions cannot be trusted. He will accuse his opponent of using circular arguments as he is making his own. He will denounce his opponent of misrepresenting history when he is in actuality composing his own. He tries to make solidly Catholic early Christian Fathers and scholars and bishops (and even popes!) seem like they are closet Protestants born and enslaved in Catholicism eagerly awaiting the Reformation. While he is claiming we use history and the Bible inaccurately to support our own positions, he is busy twisting the same for his own purposes. 

Dr. White is notorious for setting a false premise and demanding that the opponent argue within that premise.
White will read some ancient document or obscure quote from a malcontent Catholic scholar and then demand that the Catholic apologist he is debating use that quote as an authority and the foundation of the Catholic arguments rather than something from the current official Catholic Catechism.

I must admit, White speaks with such confidence, and even logic that it seems he is right, when he is profoundly wrong.

That Which is Theopneustos

One of White’s continual mantras is that the sole and final authority for the Christian is “that which is theopneustos.” The Greek word means, “God-breathed.” 

White bases this upon the text where Paul is telling his protege Timothy that as a young bishop, he can look to scripture to help him lead the people because:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God (theopneustos), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.  2 Tim. 3: 16, 17

Scripture is God-breathed. An excellent and logical choice for one’s final spiritual authority-- "that which is theopneustos,” right?

But White’s demand that his ultimate and infallible authority, theopneustos, is not based upon what the Bible teaches. 

“Wait?” You say. “We just read that the scripture is God-breathed and perfect!”

My reply is: Absolutely. Catholics teach that the Bible is a God-breathed, infallible and a perfect authority. But look carefully at the text. It no where says or even implies that it is the sole and final authority. That is an addition to the text.

This idea of the Bible being the final authority because it is theopneustos is White’s own invented standard, his personal tradition. In fact, the authoritative, theopneustos God-breathed scriptures actually points to something else than itself as Christian’s final authority. Very weird isn’t it? But let’s back up for a Biblical overview.

Is God’s Old Testament Final Authority Theopneustos?

Let’s go through the Bible and see who is considered the authority for God’s people starting in the old testament. Passing up the tribal patriarchal examples, let’s go to Moses.

Then the LORD said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.” Ex. 7:1

Like God? That is, I would expect, the final authority. However, the text doesn’t call Moses a God-breathed authority. While one might make a good case that Moses was, it is not explicitly nor implicitly in the text.

Could an Israelite go up to Moses and show him scripture and kindly disagree with Moses’ interpretation of God’s Word and opt out of Moses’ flock to be a rogue sheep? Maybe this Israelite might even claim that since Moses wasn’t infallible or God-breathed he wasn’t the true final authority for Israel?

What happened if you spoke against or went against Moses? 

1. You got leprosy. 

When the cloud lifted from above the Tent, there stood Miriam--leprous, like snow. Aaron turned toward her and saw that she had leprosy; Numbers 12: 10

2. Or the earth opened up and swallowed you.

Eliab's sons were Nemuel, Dathan and Abiram. Dathan and Abiram were the same community officials who refused to obey Moses and Aaron. They were among the followers of Korah who refused to obey the Lord. Numbers 26: 9

and what he did to Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab the Reubenite, when the earth opened its mouth right in the middle of all Israel and swallowed them up with their households, their tents and every living thing that belonged to them. Deut. 11: 6 

This happened because they had not obeyed the LORD their God, but had violated his covenant--all that Moses the servant of the LORD commanded. They neither listened to the commands nor carried them out. 2 Kings 18:12 

Israel was given the God-breathed Torah that Moses heard and infallibly wrote down on Mt. Sinai but the final authority for Israel wasn’t the written word. Moses wasn’t theopneustos or infallible but he was the final authority for the people of God.

Please notice that Moses had such power he even loosened Israel’s divorce restrictions on his own authority. 

“Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.” Matt. 19: 7, 8 (See also Mark 10)

Joshua, the Judges (including Samson), King Saul, King David... These men were Israel’s final civil authorities, while the High Priests were the final spiritual authorities. Neither of which were theopneustos or infallible. These authorities were expected to teach and implement the theopneustos and infallible Torah. However, individual Israelites were not allowed to invoke their interpretation of Torah, no matter how sincere, and start a revolt and Reformation.


When Israel fell into corruption and idolatry, God didn’t blame it on the fact that the people weren’t going to scripture, but that the people had no authority. 

In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit. (Judges, 17: 6; 21:25)

Again and again, in the Old Testament, while the Torah was indeed God-breathed and infallible and readily available, God used fallible men to be the final authority for His people. And Christ used the same standard in the New Testament.


Is God’s New Testament Final Authority Theopneustos?


Jesus vilified the hypocritical Pharisees, but before that, He warned those listening to obey them. As corrupt as they were as leaders, these white-washed tombs must be obeyed because of their position as Israel’s leaders.

So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. Matt. 23: 3

Look at other fallible, not God-breathed but completely authoritative people in the New Testament scripture.

Parents:
Children must obey their parents as final authority. They cannot appeal to scripture to excuse disobedience. Eph. 6: 1-5, Col. 3: 20, I Peter 1: 14.

Husbands:
Wives are to submit to their husbands. Col 3:18-4:1, Ephesians 5: 24

Masters:
Slaves are to submit to their masters Eph. 6: 6, Col. 3: 22, I Peter 2: 18.


Government:
We must submit to our civic authorities. Rom. 13: 1, 5, I Peter 2: 13

I am not arguing for slavery, just making the point that throughout scriptures, authorities, even final authorities, were not infallible or theopneustos. Since God’s authorities in scripture were not necessarily infallible, why make that a prerequisite? 

Dr. White’s assumption that, “only that which is theopneustos” is our true and final authority just doesn’t stand up to critical examination, especially within the Protestant realm of sola scriptura. For nowhere in scripture does it imply that our final authority must be God-breathed.

Another premise that White may not necessarily say but imply is that anything theopneustos or God-breathed is necessarily infallible. Therefore, since the Bible is God-breathed it means it is infallible.

Yet not everything God-breathed was infallible.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Genesis 2: 7

We inherited original sin because of God-breathed Adam, so the idea of something being theopneustos must therefore be infallible is incorrect.

Our Final Authority is Not Theopneustos?

I can imagine some readers are aghast! “Are you kidding? Seriously are you saying that man is above that which is God-breathed? We are to look to a fallible, not God-breathed authority rather than an infallible, God-breathed one?” Of course that sound completely irrational! My point is only that it, as a premise, is not found in scripture. That’s the bad news for White. His premise is not Biblical. However, there is good news for all the rest of us.

In the New Testament God doesn’t pit the theopneustos and infallible authority against the fallible, not God-breathed man in the Old Testament--like Moses vs. the Torah.

In fact, our New Testament final authority is God-breathed!

Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so said , he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.  Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit , they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain , they are retained.  John 20:19-24

The Apostles were God-breathed. The Bible is God-breathed. We have both!

While White might argue that the Apostles’ were not technically theopneustos because that word wasn’t used in John 20 or anywhere else in scripture. It was only used in 2 Timothy in the context of scripture. (As if the word theopneustos itself had a special type of God-breathing in the Bible that wasn’t for the Apostles.) 

I would then reply that God also used a word to describe the breathe that He gave the apostles that he didn’t give the scripture. Emphusao is also only used once in all of scripture. Emphusao is also the breath of God in the context of the Apostles receiving the Hagios (Holy) Pneuma (Ghost).

The Greek root pneu was used in giving the Holy Spirit to the writing of the scriptures and to the Apostles themselves. The breath of God in scriptures is the theopneustos. The Apostles received the Hagios Pneuma. Pneustos = pneuma. Same thing! Same breathe of God.

Who did God place in charge?


The most important point of all is that Christ did not place the theopneustos of scripture as the final authority but the church.

If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Matt. 18: 15-18

No Bible at all in this scenario. The final authority is the church.


Notice also other texts that place enormous authority in the Apostles: 

He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me. Luke 10 16 

Remember the words I spoke to you.... If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. John 15: 20

Paul as an Apostle demanded obedience from believers and he was the one who wrote to Timothy that the Bible was theopneustos (God-breathed). Even with the idea of the written Word of God being vital, Paul never implies that the written word carried more authority than the God-appointed leaders.

....to submit to such as these and to everyone who joins in the work, and labors at it. I Cor. 16:16

If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. 2 Thess. 3: 14 (When writing this letter, Paul did not consider it scripture.)

The reason I wrote you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything. 2 Cor. 2: 9   

And his affection for you is all the greater when he remembers that you were all obedient, receiving him with fear and trembling. 2 Cor. 7: 15 

Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed--not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence--continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, Phil. 2: 12

Other New Testament texts that support men as authority:

Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you. Hebrew 13: 7 

Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; obey it, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you. Rev. 3:3

Dr. White is usurping and replacing who God put in charge (clearly attested to in scripture) with who he believes should be in charge, “only that which is theopneustos.” Why? Because it gives him an excuse for disobeying God’s appointed leaders. 

Protestants misunderstand God. They believe their only authority should be that which is infallible and perfect. The written Word is the only thing that comes near that. Flesh and blood is fallible and they don't like to be subject to anyone who can tell them they are wrong and at the same time be fallible themselves. Black little letters don't disagree with their interpretation. 

So, they come up with their man-made tradition that their authority must be infallible and theopneustos. But that is not Biblical. What they have missed is a great and wonderful gift to the church. The church leaders may not be personally infallible, but they are God-breathed.

Father Barron on Pope's Controversial Interview