GeorgePWood.com

Listen to The Daily Word online.

We all want to live in peace, but are we willing to do what peace requires? 

Several years ago, as a Christmas gift, my mother gave me a copy of a famous etching by William Strutt. It hangs in my office, behind my desk. The focus of the picture is a young child holding an olive branch. A variety of animals—both domestic and predatory—surround him. Titled “Peace,” the etching draws its inspiration from Isaiah 11.6: 

The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
and a little child will lead them.  

For many people, peace is the absence of conflict. This can be achieved through appeasement or strength. If you lock up your domestic animals in pens and hunt down and kill their predators, you will experience the absence of conflict. Governments—which, according to Romans 13.4, have the power of the sword—produce this kind of peace. 

But in the biblical worldview, peace is more than the absence of conflict. It is the presence of harmony. It is not keeping enemies apart but bringing them together as friends. It is the wolf living with the lamb without hunger, and the goat lying down with the leopard without fear. Such peace is not natural. It is supernatural. It is the gracious gift of God. 

And it is also the responsibility of the church, which consists of people who have been graced by God. Paul writes about the church’s responsibility for peace in Romans 14.19-21:  

Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall. 

In the overall context of Romans 14.1-15.13, Paul is teaching Roman Christians how to live with their differences over personal preferences. Some of the Roman Christians were Jews who had scruples about kosher food and Sabbath-keeping. Other Roman Christians were Gentiles who had no such scruples. These differences in religious, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds no doubt led to numerous conflicts, hard feelings, and wounded egos. Rome was a graced, but not necessarily peaceful church. 

Paul saw the way to peace through neither appeasement nor strength but through “mutual edification.” Edification means “building up.” I build you up when I keep your best interests uppermost in my mind and act accordingly. Mutual edification means that you do the same for me. If all of us would develop an edification mentality, peace—the presence of harmony—would be the result. 

That same Christmas, my mother also gave me a framed copy of a famous prayer by St. Francis of Assisi. “Lord,” it begins, “make me an instrument of thy peace.” Amen.

Listen to The Daily Word online.

How can we live in a way that honors God and earns the respect of our neighbors? Romans 14.13-18 shows the way.

Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

First, be nonjudgmental. Everyone makes judgments about spiritual and moral principles, what’s true and false, what’s right and wrong. But judging principles is not the same thing as judging people. And anyway, we should never judge anyone for his or her choices in matters of personal preferences.

But the Christian way goes beyond nonjudgmentalism, which can degenerate into indifference to the needs of our neighbors. No, we must be actively loving. That’s the second step in the Christian way. Paul describes active love in the negative terms of not putting “any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way.” Stated more positively, love removes obstacles. It smoothes the spiritual and moral path for others.

Third, be sensitive in matters of conscience. Paul has a very robust understanding of Christian freedom. There are many things—eating, drinking, etc.—that Christians are free to engage in or abstain from. They are matters of personal preference. But because of his commitment to nonjudgmental love, Paul urges us never to exercise our freedom if that would offend the conscience of another person. If you’re eating with a vegetarian, don’t order a rare steak. (Or if you’re eating with a carnivore, don’t be offended if he does.) Be sensitive to the scruples of others, even if you don’t share them.

Fourth, be mindful of others’ perceptions. Paul says, “Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil.” We all know Christians who have the right message but the wrong methods. I once saw a Christian woman standing on a street corner yelling the gospel at passersby. I was offended, and I agreed with her. I can’t imagine how many people that day disregarded the message because of the offensiveness of the messenger. Don’t be that person!

Paul concludes his description of the Christian way of doing things by saying, “the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” Wherever righteousness, peace, and joy are present, God will be honored and we will earn our neighbors’ respect. 

Listen to The Daily Word online.

Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God by Jonathan Edwards may very well be the scariest sermon ever preached in America. “There is nothing,” Edwards argued, “that keeps wicked Men, at any one Moment, out of Hell, but the mere Pleasure of GOD.” If that doesn’t scare the hell out of you, nothing will.

I mention Edwards because we don’t often hear sermons about hell anymore, or heaven for that matter. Perhaps in reaction to older preachers who talked about the hereafter too much, contemporary preachers instead focus on the here and now. And they’re right to do so. After all, that’s what the Bible itself does. It’s a misreading of the Bible to become so heavenly minded that we’re of no earthly good.

And yet, open the Bible to just about any page, and you’ll a reference to the final judgment. Consider, for example, Romans 14.9-12:

For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. It is written: 

“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,
‘every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.’”

So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

Paul brings together four issues here: First, the intention of God to judge the world, which Paul proves by quoting Isaiah 45.23. At the final judgment, “every knee” will bow to God in recognition of his right to judge us, and “every tongue” will offer an explanation of its life.

Second, Paul talks about the role of Christ in the final judgment. Christ died and rose again to offer salvation to all humanity. All who respond to him in faith will be given salvation as a gift. All who continue to resist him with sin will be given judgment as repayment. “The wages of sin is death,” Paul writes in Romans 6.23, “but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” In eternity, as C. S. Lewis pointed out, there are only two kinds of people. Those who say to God, “Thy will be done.” And those to whom God says, “Thy will be done.”

That’s the third point: the necessity of decision. Knowing that “we will all stand before God's judgment seat” and “give an account of [ourselves] to God,” what decision have we made about Jesus Christ: To submit to his will or persist in our own?

And that brings us to the final point: the impropriety of judging one another. “You, then, why do you judge your brother?” Paul asks. “Or why do you look down on your brother?” God is the Judge, not you or me. So, let’s leave eternity in his hands and concentrate on getting more people into heaven (and more heaven into people) right here and now.

My Worldview class spent its time preparing for Monday's test, so I don't have a lecture to post today.

Today is Friday the 13th. For a brief explanation of why this is considered an unlucky day, make sure to read this column by John J. Miller.

Listen to The Daily Word online.

The first question of the Heidelberg Catechism (1563) asks, “What is your only comfort in life and in death?” Answer: “That I am not my own, but belong—body and soul, in life and in death—to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ.” The idea that we belong to Jesus comes directly out of the Bible, and if you put that idea into practice, it will change the way you live.

Romans 14.5-8 clearly states the idea of belonging to Jesus: 

One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 

In these verses, Paul is continuing the argument he began at 14.1: “Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.” As I demonstrated yesterday, Christian nonjudgmentalism is rooted in a distinction between moral principles and personal preferences. All of us must make judgments about the application of moral principles. But we should not make judgments about personal preferences. How we use our freedom is between us and God, not between you and me. 

But our freedom of choice in matters of personal preference is constrained by two factors: First, as Paul puts it, “Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” Just because you are free to do something doesn’t mean that you should. Take drinking alcohol, for example. The Bible explicitly prohibits drunkenness, not drinking (Ephesians 5.18). In other words, sobriety is a moral principle applicable to all Christians, but drinking is a personal preference available to some Christians. Just because you can drink doesn’t mean you should, however. If your conscience tells you not to drink, and you drink anyway, you have violated your conscience. You have acted without being “fully convinced in [your] own mind.” 

The second factor constraining our freedom of choice is our relationship to God. Notice how often Paul repeats the phrase, “to the Lord,” in verses 5-8. Whatever we do, we should always ask what God thinks is best for us to do and what would bring him the most glory. To use the example of drinking alcohol again, remember that at the wedding in Cana, Jesus brought God the most glory when he turned water into wine (John 2.1-12). But John the Baptist brought God the most glory when he took a lifelong vow of abstaining from alcohol (Luke 1.13-17). 

Christian freedom, then, does not mean doing whatsoever we want to do. We belong to the Lord. No, freedom means doing whatever God thinks is best in a given situation.

 Listen to The Daily Word online.

As a pastor, I am often asked what the Bible teaches about some controversial moral issue. Occasionally, if I give an answer my questioners don’t like, they follow up with another question: Who are you to judge? It’s a good question, and I think I’ve got a pretty good answer. 

The who-are-you-to-judge question is usually rhetorical. My questioners aren’t inquiring into my spiritual, moral, or intellectual credentials to state an opinion on the matter. Instead, they’re hurling an accusation. “Who are you to judge?” really means “You are in no position to judge!” 

Regardless of my questioners’ rhetorical intent, I answer the question straight. Who am I to judge? A reasonably intelligent human being who knows the difference between principles and preferences. 

When it comes to moral principles, all of us should exercise proper judgment, discerning between right and wrong and choosing to do right. Morally principled people don’t dishonor their parents, don’t murder, don’t commit adultery, don’t steal, don’t offer perjured testimony, and don’t covet other people’s stuff, as we learn in the second half of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20.12-17). 

When it comes to personal preferences, however, all of us should exercise restraint, recognizing that on any number of issues, people can make different but equally valid choices. Romans 12.2-4 offers an example of the Christian’s freedom in matters of personal preference. 

One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 

For Paul, and for the Bible generally, it is a moral principle that we not judge people who disagree with us on personal preferences. Such judgmentalism is out of place. People are accountable to God for their personal preferences, not you or me. If you’re a vegetarian, don’t hassle me because I eat meat. (Jonah Goldberg once quipped, “If God didn’t want us to eat cows, he wouldn’t have made them out of steak.”) And by the same token, I won’t think you’re weird because you eat tofu. As Paul points out, whether we eat meat or veggies is between God and us, not you and me. So don’t judge! 

Unfortunately, our culture tends to conflate moral principles and personal preferences, especially when it comes to sex. When Woody Allen left his longtime girlfriend Mia Farrow in order to take up with her adopted daughter Soon-yi Previn, he justified his quasi-incestuous choice by saying, “The heart wants what it wants.” If he had murdered Mia Farrow, do you think anyone would’ve taken that as a reasonable explanation? 

When it comes to moral principles, use good judgment. But when it comes to personal preferences, the best judgment is not to judge at all.

This morning, in Worldview, I lectured on postmodernism. I have a lot of thoughts about postmodernism, not all of them well organized, as is clear from my lecture. I take Jean-Francois Lyotard's definition of postmodernism as "incredulity toward metanarratives" to be basically correct. But incredulity is a mood, not a worldview.

Download lecture MP3.

Listen to The Daily Word online. 

When I was in college, I had to win every argument I started. I loved being right and hated losing a debate. Because I was a very opinionated freshman, I started a lot of arguments my first year. I paid a huge social cost for my combativeness the next year. My friends didn’t want to argue with me, and since that’s all I seemed to do, they left me alone. I eventually learned that not every debate can or needs to be won. Friends live with differences of opinion. 

In Romans 14.1-15.13, Paul outlines a Christian perspective on how church members can live with their differences. The Roman church consisted of both Jewish and Gentile believers. Given their respective cultural and religious backgrounds, Jewish and Gentile Christians disagreed about many things. Paul mentions two of those disagreements: whether Christians should eat only kosher food and whether they should observe the Sabbath. Many Jewish Christians said yes, but many Gentile Christians said no. How could the church at Rome live with this difference of opinion? 

Paul answers that question in Romans 14.1: “Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.” Let’s work our way backward through this verse, starting with the phrase, “disputable matters.” The Greek word Paul uses is dialogismon, which is related to the word dialog. We might say that there are some issues in Christian faith and practice that we can legitimately dialog about. For Paul, kosher diets and Sabbath keeping were two such issues. 

But not every issue in Christian faith and practice is open for debate. In the early years of the church, some Jewish Christians taught that Gentile converts needed to be circumcised, keep kosher, and observe the Sabbath in order to be saved (see Acts 15.1 and 5). The Council of Jerusalem determined that this teaching was in error and that Gentiles did not need to become Jews in order to become Christians (Acts 15.6-35). The early chapters of Romans make the theological case for the same conclusion. That is what Paul means when he writes in Romans 3.28, “we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.” About justification by faith, there can be no difference of opinion. 

And yet, in the early church, many Jewish Christians continued to eat kosher and observe the Sabbath. They acknowledged the truth of justification by faith, but given their cultural and religious upbringing, they had scruples about food and calendar. Gentile Christians could have ridden roughshod over the consciences of their Jewish brothers and sisters, and forced the issue. But such is not the Christian way of doing things. Loving the weak is more important than winning an argument about disputable matters. So Paul commands us to “accept…without passing judgment.” When I teach my church’s new members’ class, I emphasize three things: On essential issues of faith and practice, unity; on non-essential issues, liberty; on all occasions, charity. That seems like an apt summary of Paul’s teaching here.

Today, in New Testament Survey, I continued my lecture on the Acts of the Apostle, responding to objections to Luke's authorship; discussing evidence for date, provenance, and purpose; and outlining the development of the book's storyline, taking Acts 1.8 as a programmatic statement.

Download lecture MP3.