Putting Words In His Mouth
Sermon
God's Top Ten List
A Prescription For Positive Living
Standing in the express line at Shop N' Spend can test one's soul, especially if the person just in front of you has 46 items over the limit and wants to use a check but forgot to bring the driver's license.
So it's not uncommon to scan the tabloids to see how Oprah is doing on her diet, or if our Congressman has been messing around with somebody, or why our favorite sneaker corporation says it's okay to pay five cents an hour to eight year olds in Haiti, or when JFK or Elvis appeared at the mall in Newport Beach to tell us when Jesus is coming back.
But here's a line that really caught my attention the other day: "Will shaving against the grain make hair grow back tougher?"
I've learned three things about bald guys: (1) you never know for sure; (2) they always carry combs; and (3) anything written or said about hair captivates them.
Of course, the hair line appeared just below this question: "Does eating chocolate give you zits?"
Those are the kinds of thoughts that help pass time in traffic jams at Shop N' Spend's express line.
Actually, those lines are on the cover of Sue Castle's The Truth About Old Wives' Tales (1997). And when the checker decided to call for the manager to get clearance for the licenseless checkwriter in front of me with 46 items, I decided to pick it off the rack and buy it.
Parenthetically, I know men tell old guys' tales. You know those fish size and golf score and Bruce Springsteen "Glory Days" stories. But this book was about old wives' tales.
The author began:
On a news show the other morning, in response to one guest's remark, the host asked, "Is that true, or is it just another old wives' tale?" Why is the received wisdom of the ages so often dismissed in such a cavalier manner? Are all old wives' tales automatically thought of as nonsense? ... Are all old wives' tales just so much superstitious nonsense, or is there much more to them than that? Is there a grain of truth to any of them? ... Join me now in a fact or fiction mission of some of the best known old wives' tales.
It's important to know true from false.
Just after being ordained, I moderated my first session meeting at the First United Presbyterian Church of Parkesburg, Pennsylvania. After outlining a renewal program for the sleepy little church, an elder looked at me and said without charity, "Are you crazy? We aren't going to do any of that!"
Ah, the simple joys of ministry.
Not long after that, I visited Viola Hawk. She was an elder. She asked me to baptize her Scottish terrier.
Aside from being one of the first clues that our denomination is in a serious theological crisis, it also taught me that it's important to know true from false.
But how can we know the difference? Specifically, how can we know the will of God?
God's people have always understood his will within the context of the example of Jesus, the Bible, the Church's confessions, and the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit.
Jerry Kirk, President of the National Coalition Against Pornography and former senior pastor of Cincinnati's College Hill Presbyterian Church, explained it this way to me: "We are called to be and do everything our Lord has called us to be and do as exemplified in Jesus and explained in the Bible."
The Confession of 1967 is precise:
Confessions and declarations are subordinate standards in the church ... subject to the authority of Jesus Christ, the Word of God, as the Scriptures bear witness to him. No one type of confession is exclusively valid, no one standard is irreformable. Obedience to Jesus Christ alone identifies the one universal Church and supplies the continuity of its traditions.
In other words, any creed or deed that contradicts God's will as exemplified in Jesus and explained in the Bible even if it comes from the church or people who claim to be God's must be rejected. But any creed or deed that conforms to God's will as exemplified in Jesus and explained in the Bible must be embraced by the church and people who claim to be God's.
It's the only Christian thing to do.
Knowing God's will -- knowing the difference between true and false or knowing the difference between autosuggestion and the Word of God -- is what God's third commandment is all about: "You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God" (Exodus 20:7).
Essentially, this commandment prohibits ascribing anything to God or assuming anything about God that is not consistent with the example of Jesus and witness of the Bible. To attach God's name (i.e., his being and character) to anything that is not true within this confessional context breaks the commandment.
John Bright, the renowned Old Testament scholar who taught at Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, Virginia, was a guest professor at Princeton when I was there. I took his course on Isaiah and remember the gravel-voiced legend saying, "God is holy, holy, holy. He's not just holy or holy holy. He is the thrice-holy God. He is holy, holy, holy. No one nor thing is as holy as God. He is supremely holy!"
He went on to tell us that is why absolute reverence must accompany the invocation of his name. That's why G-D language -- "Well, I'll be __________!" or "God __________ you!" -- is forbidden. That's why saying anything less than the truth about God as exemplified in Jesus and explained in the Bible is "wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God." That's when God's name is taken in vain.
John Calvin commented on the commandment this way (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1536):
It means in brief that we are not to profane his name by treating it contemptuously or irreverently ... We must ... diligently observe the three following points: First, whatever our mind conceives of God, whatever our tongue utters, should savor his excellence, match the loftiness of his sacred name, and lastly, serve to glorify his greatness. Secondly, we should not rashly or perversely abuse his Holy Word and worshipful mysteries either for the sake of our own ambition, or greed, or amusement; but, as they bear the dignity of his name imprinted upon them, they should ever be honored and prized among us. Finally, we should not defame or detract from his works, as miserable men are wont abusively to cry out against him; but whatever we recognize as done by him we should speak of with praise of his wisdom, righteousness, and goodness. That is what it means to hallow God's name.
I was tricked into a debate on a very controversial moral issue about ten years ago in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. The pastor of a neighboring church was at odds with his session and most of the church members over the issue. It was getting very nasty in a Christian kind of way. So he called and asked if I'd come and talk to the session, expecting me to explain that it's possible to disagree agreeably. I guess he picked me because I liked him while thoroughly disagreeing with him on just about everything, including the issue. He knew I'd tell folks that it's okay to disagree on everything as long as they agree on Jesus. Belief in Jesus, after all has been said and done, is the bottom line of church membership -- the glue that keeps the church from falling apart.
When I arrived for my informal chat with the session, I noticed the parking lot was jammed. I guessed there was a Weight Watchers meeting or something. So I parked in the lot of the neighboring bagel shop. I stopped in and bought a bagel. I wasn't really hungry but I thought it would be kind of fun to walk in with a bagel -- if you know what I mean.
Anyway, my fellow pastor greeted me as I approached the door and said, "Change of plans. I decided to open up the meeting to the whole congregation. We can have a little debate."
The place was packed. Tape recorders and notepads were all around. I spotted a reporter from the local newspaper.
And when my friend began reading from a prepared document, I knew that I had been set up.
My friend spoke eloquently. Unfortunately, he didn't say anything about the issue that was remotely related to Jesus or the Bible.
So I stood up and said:
My friend has done an impressive job of twisting the Bible and our Reformed heritage to fit into his personal agenda and ideology. But back in seminary, we called this tactic eisegesis, or putting into the Bible what isn't in the Bible. Our task is exegesis, or taking out of the Bible what is in the Bible. It's like Hans Küng said in On Being a Christian (1974), the church's agenda must be "to discover what is permanent ... originally meant, before it was covered with the dust and debris of 2,000 years ... This is not another gospel, but the same ancient gospel rediscovered for today!"
When my friend respects the example of Jesus within the context of biblical revelation, I'll listen. But for now, his opinion is opinion. It has nothing to do with our Christological, biblical, confessional, or even constitutional heritage. He's just making up stuff to reinforce an ideology masquerading as theology. I'm afraid my friend is putting words in God's mouth.
I wasn't very eloquent. But I believed what I said.
No, I believed what God said or revealed in Jesus and the Bible.
As happens in most debates in the church, some folks who took my friend's side really began hating me in a Christian kind of way.
I'll never forget one particularly peeved woman who stood up and waved a finger at me screaming, "What if God made them that way? What if they can't help themselves? What if they have no choice? Who made you the master of morality?"
A little younger and a lot bolder, I replied:
First of all, I don't write 'em. I just read 'em. Sorry, but I didn't make up this stuff. And I'm a little hesitant about contradicting Christological and biblical revelation.
Second, morality is not a matter of what feels good. Moral responsibility has nothing to do with learned or inherited behavior. Just because someone learned behavior doesn't make it right. Just because someone inherited behavior doesn't make it right. For example, I've got this defective gene in me that makes me want to smack you upside the head right now. But that gene and feeling don't make it right.
True and false are not determined by anyone or anything but God through Christological and biblical revelation.
Of course, maybe you know more than God has revealed.
Maybe you feel comfortable in the role of correcting God's judgment.
Christians have a Lord and a book. If you don't like it, that's not God's problem or the church's problem. That's your problem.
It's not for us to put words in God's mouth. We're a little too human for that.
It's for us to take God's word and pray and work to make it a part of our lives.
I was in a tennis tournament about fifteen years ago. I was playing doubles. I blistered an ace right down the middle. One of our opponents yelled, "Out!" My partner at the net turned around and said to me, "God knows."
God knows. So do we. It's all very clear in Jesus and the Bible.
One more thing: The greatest truth about God is his love for us. In what Martin Luther called "the Gospel in a nutshell," Jesus said, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him" (John 3:16-17).
So those folks who say this is the anti-G-D commandment are right. We don't say, "Well, I'll be _______________!" or "God _______________ you!" We say, "Well, I'll be saved!" and "God bless you!"
That's the only way to use his name.
So it's not uncommon to scan the tabloids to see how Oprah is doing on her diet, or if our Congressman has been messing around with somebody, or why our favorite sneaker corporation says it's okay to pay five cents an hour to eight year olds in Haiti, or when JFK or Elvis appeared at the mall in Newport Beach to tell us when Jesus is coming back.
But here's a line that really caught my attention the other day: "Will shaving against the grain make hair grow back tougher?"
I've learned three things about bald guys: (1) you never know for sure; (2) they always carry combs; and (3) anything written or said about hair captivates them.
Of course, the hair line appeared just below this question: "Does eating chocolate give you zits?"
Those are the kinds of thoughts that help pass time in traffic jams at Shop N' Spend's express line.
Actually, those lines are on the cover of Sue Castle's The Truth About Old Wives' Tales (1997). And when the checker decided to call for the manager to get clearance for the licenseless checkwriter in front of me with 46 items, I decided to pick it off the rack and buy it.
Parenthetically, I know men tell old guys' tales. You know those fish size and golf score and Bruce Springsteen "Glory Days" stories. But this book was about old wives' tales.
The author began:
On a news show the other morning, in response to one guest's remark, the host asked, "Is that true, or is it just another old wives' tale?" Why is the received wisdom of the ages so often dismissed in such a cavalier manner? Are all old wives' tales automatically thought of as nonsense? ... Are all old wives' tales just so much superstitious nonsense, or is there much more to them than that? Is there a grain of truth to any of them? ... Join me now in a fact or fiction mission of some of the best known old wives' tales.
It's important to know true from false.
Just after being ordained, I moderated my first session meeting at the First United Presbyterian Church of Parkesburg, Pennsylvania. After outlining a renewal program for the sleepy little church, an elder looked at me and said without charity, "Are you crazy? We aren't going to do any of that!"
Ah, the simple joys of ministry.
Not long after that, I visited Viola Hawk. She was an elder. She asked me to baptize her Scottish terrier.
Aside from being one of the first clues that our denomination is in a serious theological crisis, it also taught me that it's important to know true from false.
But how can we know the difference? Specifically, how can we know the will of God?
God's people have always understood his will within the context of the example of Jesus, the Bible, the Church's confessions, and the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit.
Jerry Kirk, President of the National Coalition Against Pornography and former senior pastor of Cincinnati's College Hill Presbyterian Church, explained it this way to me: "We are called to be and do everything our Lord has called us to be and do as exemplified in Jesus and explained in the Bible."
The Confession of 1967 is precise:
Confessions and declarations are subordinate standards in the church ... subject to the authority of Jesus Christ, the Word of God, as the Scriptures bear witness to him. No one type of confession is exclusively valid, no one standard is irreformable. Obedience to Jesus Christ alone identifies the one universal Church and supplies the continuity of its traditions.
In other words, any creed or deed that contradicts God's will as exemplified in Jesus and explained in the Bible even if it comes from the church or people who claim to be God's must be rejected. But any creed or deed that conforms to God's will as exemplified in Jesus and explained in the Bible must be embraced by the church and people who claim to be God's.
It's the only Christian thing to do.
Knowing God's will -- knowing the difference between true and false or knowing the difference between autosuggestion and the Word of God -- is what God's third commandment is all about: "You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God" (Exodus 20:7).
Essentially, this commandment prohibits ascribing anything to God or assuming anything about God that is not consistent with the example of Jesus and witness of the Bible. To attach God's name (i.e., his being and character) to anything that is not true within this confessional context breaks the commandment.
John Bright, the renowned Old Testament scholar who taught at Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, Virginia, was a guest professor at Princeton when I was there. I took his course on Isaiah and remember the gravel-voiced legend saying, "God is holy, holy, holy. He's not just holy or holy holy. He is the thrice-holy God. He is holy, holy, holy. No one nor thing is as holy as God. He is supremely holy!"
He went on to tell us that is why absolute reverence must accompany the invocation of his name. That's why G-D language -- "Well, I'll be __________!" or "God __________ you!" -- is forbidden. That's why saying anything less than the truth about God as exemplified in Jesus and explained in the Bible is "wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God." That's when God's name is taken in vain.
John Calvin commented on the commandment this way (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1536):
It means in brief that we are not to profane his name by treating it contemptuously or irreverently ... We must ... diligently observe the three following points: First, whatever our mind conceives of God, whatever our tongue utters, should savor his excellence, match the loftiness of his sacred name, and lastly, serve to glorify his greatness. Secondly, we should not rashly or perversely abuse his Holy Word and worshipful mysteries either for the sake of our own ambition, or greed, or amusement; but, as they bear the dignity of his name imprinted upon them, they should ever be honored and prized among us. Finally, we should not defame or detract from his works, as miserable men are wont abusively to cry out against him; but whatever we recognize as done by him we should speak of with praise of his wisdom, righteousness, and goodness. That is what it means to hallow God's name.
I was tricked into a debate on a very controversial moral issue about ten years ago in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. The pastor of a neighboring church was at odds with his session and most of the church members over the issue. It was getting very nasty in a Christian kind of way. So he called and asked if I'd come and talk to the session, expecting me to explain that it's possible to disagree agreeably. I guess he picked me because I liked him while thoroughly disagreeing with him on just about everything, including the issue. He knew I'd tell folks that it's okay to disagree on everything as long as they agree on Jesus. Belief in Jesus, after all has been said and done, is the bottom line of church membership -- the glue that keeps the church from falling apart.
When I arrived for my informal chat with the session, I noticed the parking lot was jammed. I guessed there was a Weight Watchers meeting or something. So I parked in the lot of the neighboring bagel shop. I stopped in and bought a bagel. I wasn't really hungry but I thought it would be kind of fun to walk in with a bagel -- if you know what I mean.
Anyway, my fellow pastor greeted me as I approached the door and said, "Change of plans. I decided to open up the meeting to the whole congregation. We can have a little debate."
The place was packed. Tape recorders and notepads were all around. I spotted a reporter from the local newspaper.
And when my friend began reading from a prepared document, I knew that I had been set up.
My friend spoke eloquently. Unfortunately, he didn't say anything about the issue that was remotely related to Jesus or the Bible.
So I stood up and said:
My friend has done an impressive job of twisting the Bible and our Reformed heritage to fit into his personal agenda and ideology. But back in seminary, we called this tactic eisegesis, or putting into the Bible what isn't in the Bible. Our task is exegesis, or taking out of the Bible what is in the Bible. It's like Hans Küng said in On Being a Christian (1974), the church's agenda must be "to discover what is permanent ... originally meant, before it was covered with the dust and debris of 2,000 years ... This is not another gospel, but the same ancient gospel rediscovered for today!"
When my friend respects the example of Jesus within the context of biblical revelation, I'll listen. But for now, his opinion is opinion. It has nothing to do with our Christological, biblical, confessional, or even constitutional heritage. He's just making up stuff to reinforce an ideology masquerading as theology. I'm afraid my friend is putting words in God's mouth.
I wasn't very eloquent. But I believed what I said.
No, I believed what God said or revealed in Jesus and the Bible.
As happens in most debates in the church, some folks who took my friend's side really began hating me in a Christian kind of way.
I'll never forget one particularly peeved woman who stood up and waved a finger at me screaming, "What if God made them that way? What if they can't help themselves? What if they have no choice? Who made you the master of morality?"
A little younger and a lot bolder, I replied:
First of all, I don't write 'em. I just read 'em. Sorry, but I didn't make up this stuff. And I'm a little hesitant about contradicting Christological and biblical revelation.
Second, morality is not a matter of what feels good. Moral responsibility has nothing to do with learned or inherited behavior. Just because someone learned behavior doesn't make it right. Just because someone inherited behavior doesn't make it right. For example, I've got this defective gene in me that makes me want to smack you upside the head right now. But that gene and feeling don't make it right.
True and false are not determined by anyone or anything but God through Christological and biblical revelation.
Of course, maybe you know more than God has revealed.
Maybe you feel comfortable in the role of correcting God's judgment.
Christians have a Lord and a book. If you don't like it, that's not God's problem or the church's problem. That's your problem.
It's not for us to put words in God's mouth. We're a little too human for that.
It's for us to take God's word and pray and work to make it a part of our lives.
I was in a tennis tournament about fifteen years ago. I was playing doubles. I blistered an ace right down the middle. One of our opponents yelled, "Out!" My partner at the net turned around and said to me, "God knows."
God knows. So do we. It's all very clear in Jesus and the Bible.
One more thing: The greatest truth about God is his love for us. In what Martin Luther called "the Gospel in a nutshell," Jesus said, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him" (John 3:16-17).
So those folks who say this is the anti-G-D commandment are right. We don't say, "Well, I'll be _______________!" or "God _______________ you!" We say, "Well, I'll be saved!" and "God bless you!"
That's the only way to use his name.
