Josh Benner

Category: Ethics

  • Sermon: You reap what you sow – Galatians 6:6-10

    You reap what you sow. It’s one of the principles by which God has ordered his creation. It’s true for a student, it’s true in our marriages, it’s true at the office. You reap what you sow. Most importantly, it’s true in the life of our faith. If we are sowing into a great relationship with God, we will reap a harvest. If we aren’t sowing, we will reap a harvest of a different kind.

    Sermon manuscript

  • The greatest danger to the Church

    The greatest danger to the Church

    There are 300,000 churches in America.

    There are many wonderful churches that boldly proclaim the gospel and faithfully teach the Bible every week. There is no perfect church in the world, because every church is full of members who are imperfect people.

    I think that the biggest issue the American church faces today is related to truth and love.

    Love that undermines truth and truth that doesn’t practice love. I’ll briefly explain what that means.

    Love that undermines truth 

    Love is important. The greatest command in scripture is to love God and to love people. God is love.

    But some churches can emphasize love to the point where it undermines truth.

    For instance, there is a temptation in some Christian circles to consider the love of God and reason that: “since God is love, his love extends to all people, whether or not they believe in God and whether or not they want or accept his love.”

    God is love. But that is just taking a slice of the character of God and acting as if that’s the whole pie. God is love. But he is also just, and righteous, and holy. He judges, he has wrath towards sin. God has all of those qualities at all times.

    God is love. But the idea of love is not only exclusive to what our culture defines love as.

    We tend to value acceptance and tolerance as what it is to love. And it’s true that God meets us where we are, but Jesus doesn’t save us to keep us the same. God is a perfecting God. We sin. We sin so much that we needed a savior, and the gospel is not a message that teaches us that we’re ok and we should just keep doing what we’re doing. We need to live for God and pursue him.

    Making love purely about acceptance and tolerance is not the full Biblical scope of what love is. And so it undermines the truth of scripture. And it runs the danger of undermining the inerrancy of scripture (taking the Bible as practical wisdom rather than the infallible word of God). And this view runs the risk of undermining the gospel itself.

    Assuming that love and  demand for justice are mutually exclusive.

    I observe this being the great risk in more liberal denominations.

    Truth that doesn’t practice love

    I think this is more of a danger in conservative and evangelical circles. We place a high value on the scripture and theology. And well we should because both of those are hugely important.

    But we can get so preoccupied with having the right answer that we lose sight of actually living out what we know. This is very similar to the failure of the Pharisees in the gospels. They were very well studied and trained in theology, but they missed the heart of the message.

    It can be easy to know the right answer but it’s difficult to live it out in practice.

    Truth and love. It comes down to belief and practice. We need both.

    Thanks for reading! If you liked this post, please share and subscribe!

    Originally published May 9, 2018

  • Accountability isn’t judgmental, it’s Biblical: why the church needs standards

    Accountability isn’t judgmental, it’s Biblical: why the church needs standards

    Over the last few weeks, Jerry Falwell, Jr had a very public suspension from Liberty, during which time he revealed an affair his wife was having. Falwell resigned, then said he didn’t, then resigned again, bashed the university. This was the culmination in a long series of personal and moral failings from Falwell.

    But what’s interesting when a prominent Christian has significant moral failings exposed, is the excuses I see online. I see comments on news articles and blogs where people will ask “and you’re perfect?” “I guess you never sin?”

    Ironically, that is a self-defeating proposition. Judging people for having moral opinions is in fact a moral opinion where you’re being judgmental!

    But what’s more, the idea that it’s somehow especially loving, or pious, or enlightened to show indifference to sin is not a Biblical idea.

    Just for quick reference:  if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness (Galatians 6:1). As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear (1 Timothy 5:20). My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins (James 5:19-20). Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another (Proverbs 27:17).

    We should be gracious. We should want to see people repent and restored. We should want to see broken people’s lives changed.

    But we should not ignore sin. Because when we do, we allow predators to run roughshod in churches and Christian organizations under the guise that that’s “loving.” It isn’t. It’s not loving to the sinner who needs people who love them and care enough to point them to truth and righteousness. And for powerful people, it’s not loving to others in their ministry or organization who can suffer and be victimized by unscrupulous morals and sin.

    Yes, there needs to be grace and forgiveness, but there also needs to be accountability. And sometimes there need to be consequences for a person’s actions. Leading churches, ministries, Christian organizations is a sacred privilege, not a right.

    What about “not judging?”

    A person might say but what about where Jesus says: “Judge not, that you be not judged” (Matthew 7:1)? And doesn’t he also say “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?“(Matthew 7:3)

    But just a couple of verses later, Jesus also says “first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:5).

    Given the numerous Biblical passages which talk about pointing out sin and restoring sin, and encouraging people to personal holiness, the point of that verse isn’t that you should never have a moral opinion (which isn’t possible). The point isn’t about having a constant disposition of judgment, self-righteousness, comparison to others, and looking for faults. It’s not a command against thinking that immoral behavior is bad and that people (especially professing Christians) should live to a higher standard.

    Thanks for reading! I’d love to hear what you think, and don’t forget to subscribe!

  • Liberty to have independent investigation in wake of Falwell resignation

    Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

    This week, Liberty University announced an “independent inquiry” into the university’s former president.

    I remember will Bill Hybels resigned from Willow Creek, a megachurch in suburban Chicago in the wake of sexual misconduct allegations. I remember earlier this summer when Menlo Park Presbyterian Church in California announced an independent investigation into there former pastor in the wake of massive failures of leadership when he allowed one of his children (who had admitted sexual attraction to minors) to continue working with the youth program.

    Liberty will do an independent investigation. But they had let Falwell run roughshod and embarrass the university time and again. Even before last month’s explosive reports about multiple affairs from Falwell’s wife and allegations that Jerry Falwell was very much aware of the affairs, he had done several things which should have led to the university removing him from leadership.

    For Falwell, the independent investigation will be “a thorough investigation into all facets of Liberty University operations during Jerry Falwell, Jr.’s tenure as President, including but not limited to financial, real estate, and legal matters.”

    Obviously there’s nothing wrong from learning from mistakes. But in the wake of scandals in the evangelical world, the “independent investigation” seems to be the flavor of the month.

    The basics of what goes wrong in these situations aren’t great mysteries. You have highly influential leaders who help to raise or maintain the high profile status of a church (or institution). And because of the charisma and skills (and ability to generate revenue) of the leader, they largely go unchecked.

    Instead of organizations needing to do independent investigations as damage control, what churches and Christian colleges need to do is to do the right things in the beginning. In other words: have systems to keep leaders accountable

    People are sinful. That should never be a surprise. But that’s why Christians need other Christians. Knives sharpening knives. You need leaders who are accountable and where there are honorable people who know them and who know their struggles. You need people who love the leader. But who don’t excuse or look away from, or justify sin. That isn’t love. What you need is people who love the leader enough to where they can speak into difficult situations and point out patterns of sin in the hopes of bringing restoration. And you need it an an environment where those friends can lovingly confront the leader without being punished or harassed for it.

    Without that, many more independent investigations will be needed, because the sinfulness of the human heart isn’t going away.

    I think about many of the popular evangelical leaders who have fallen from grace in recent years. For at least some of them, I do wonder how different things could have been had they been surrounded by people who cared enough to sometimes say the difficult things.

    In 1948, as he was coming to national prominence, Billy Graham and his close ministry associates signed the “Modesto Manifesto” where they had the forethought to hold themselves to a set of standards regarding sexual morality, finances, interactions with local churches, and publicity. Part of what developed from this meeting was the famous “Billy Graham Rule” where Graham would not travel with, eat lone with, or spend time alone with a woman who was not his wife.

    Their agreement worked as non of those men was ever legitimately accused of a moral failing.

    And certainly the greatest set of standards for Christian leaders is found in the Bible.

    Titus 1:6-9 says:
    if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. 7 For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. 9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. 

    1 Timothy 3:1-7 says:
    The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. 

    While Falwell wasn’t a pastor, nevertheless, those would have been good standards to still demand from the president of America’s largest Christian university.

    Thanks for reading! Don’t forget to subscribe!

  • The virtue signal of all virtue signals: liberals compare themselves to heroes of all past generations

    Last week, legal scholar and philosopher Robert George had a thought-provoking series of Tweets on how people today would have responded to historical events had they lived through them.  

    George says: 

    “I sometimes ask students what their position on slavery would have been had they been white and living in the South before abolition. Guess what? They all would have been abolitionists! They all would have bravely spoken out against slavery, and worked tirelessly against it. Of course, this is nonsense. Only the tiniest fraction of them, or of any of us, would have spoken up against slavery or lifted a finger to free the slaves. Most of them—and us—would have gone along. Many would have supported the slave system and happily benefited from it.”

    It’s easy to look back at history and assume we would have been righteous. There’s a meme I’ve seen on online that says “If you’ve ever wondered what you’d do during slavery, the Holocaust, or civil rights movement, you’re doing it right now.” 

    Here’s a key difference for the social justice warriors of today. The popular culture supports you. There’s no pressure, or risk, or persecution to protest or be a social media activist. The media supports you, Hollywood supports you, athletes support you, academia supports you, and big corporations support you.  

    People want to compare this to the Civil Rights movement. Many of the protests and sit-ins were unpopular in public opinion from that era. The movement came at a cost. Where’s the cost in sharing a meme?

    To quote again from George, he gives a good ethical test for how we would have truly responded in previous eras: 

    I respond by saying that I will credit their claims if they can show evidence of the following: that in leading their lives today they have stood up for the rights of unpopular victims of injustice whose very humanity is denied, and where they have done so knowing: 

    (1) that it would make them unpopular with their peers, (2) that they would be loathed and ridiculed by powerful, influential individuals and institutions in our society; (3) that they would be abandoned by many of their friends, (4) that they would be called nasty names, and (5) that they would risk being denied valuable professional opportunities as a result of their moral witness. In short, my challenge is to show where they have at risk to themselves and their futures stood up for a cause that is unpopular in elite sectors of our culture today.

    This is an important distinction. When we act like we would have been leading the charge in previous eras, when we want to say that we would have been virtuous in previous eras, we need to consider the context of that time and the cost of our beliefs. Because there’s little real cost in the current climate. For instance, when people want to talk about this as being similar to how they would have responded to the Holocaust consider that during the Holocaust and the Third Reich, almost 80,000 Germans were executed for being part of the resistance. People paid the ultimate price to stand up against Hitler. Where’s the cost in a hashtag?  

    People want to compare this to how they would have responded in the Civil War. 360,000 soldiers died for the Union. That was roughly one percent of the entire U.S. population at the time. Men paid the ultimate price to preserve our nation and end slavery. Where’s the cost in telling people a bunch of books they should read or in watching a documentary?  

    People want to compare this to the Civil Rights movement. Many of the protests and sit-ins were unpopular in public opinion from that era. The movement came at a cost. Where’s the cost in sharing a meme?  

    In the civil rights movement, they protested against actual systemic racism. Today social justice warriors fight against inequality which they say is the result of current systematic racism, and there are people who want to compare the two eras as being moral equivalents. 

    When people want to compare their efforts today to past social movements, it’s showing an ignorance of history and it’s also showing delusions of grandeur. Progressives like to believe that everyone is immoral except for them and that they would have been righteous at all times.  

    We judge people form the past because they don’t adhere to our current standards. And when I say current, I mean that literally. Current as in today because the standards of progressivism are an ever-moving target. There weren’t serious efforts to defund, or dismantle, or destroy the police a year ago. There weren’t major popular efforts to tear down monuments five years ago. There was not a major war on our history ten years ago. But progressives continue to shift their values and they fight a culture war where there is no grace or redemption given to past people who did not perfectly adhere to these standards of today while progressives allow themselves to continue changing what matters and what’s right.

    Thanks for reading! For more posts, don’t forget to like, share, and subscribe!