About the middle finger

 

Some have found it hard to understand why I would write a critical piece about Doug Wilson and the New Saint Andrews (NSA) ad.  They don’t understand what all the fuss is about, particularly when there are so many other battles being waged.  They genuinely appreciate Wilson’s ministry, and if they weren’t necessarily thrilled with the middle finger they also don’t mind overlooking the occasional glitch.  And besides, none of us are perfect.  Haven’t we all been sinfully angry at times?  Haven’t we all said things we shouldn’t?  And don’t we all - or at least most of us - watch movies (and television programs) where coarse language is used?  So why get so worked up about one ad?  


Here I want to clarify something.  And I think its important.  But first, a little background. In this season I have found myself often saying, “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?  I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 7:24)!" Like John Newton I find myself more and more convinced of these two great truths: “I am a great sinner, and Christ is a great Saviour!”  So, I would like to use this blog a little differently than I have in the past.  Before it was too much about the sins of others and not enough about Christ.  I certainly don’t regret all that I wrote.  In fact, I believe many of the things written needed to be said.  But I am weary of polemics, and I have come to loathe censoriousness - particularly when I find it in my own heart.   My first love is Jesus, and in the future I would like to write more about Him.  You can hold me to that.  


And yet, instead of writing about Christ, I find myself critiquing a Christian college and a brother in Christ. The truth is, I didn’t want to do this, and I wouldn’t have if the matter were different. Had Wilson (or another NSA official) been caught in private sin, I wouldn’t have addressed it publicly. Had one of these men been seen using a disrespectful gesture, I would have remained silent. So why speak up now?


I wrote because I saw in the ad a message being communicated with the Church - and by extension, the world - that I believe is an affront to the gospel.  Seeing it circulated and discussed (and even applauded) on the internet I felt I needed to say something.  I don’t know the Moscow men, but I fear they have become distracted and forgetful.  


I think this happens to us all at various seasons in our lives.  First, we become distracted and wander away from our first love (Revelation 2:4).  We become fascinated with dogmatics, polemics, issues, debates, controversies and sometimes also the pleasures of this world.  It is easy amidst the chaos and confusion and trouble in the world to take our gaze off of Jesus.  We become passionate about good things, but those good things are not the best thing.  We become busy like Martha and forget what it is to sit with delight at the feet of Jesus.  I am not suggesting anything about the prayer lives of these men.  I couldn’t possibly know.  But when our message becomes something other than Jesus Christ and Him crucified, it can only mean one thing.  We have (to one degree or another) left our first love.


Second, we forget the heart of the gospel.  What is it?  It is the love of God for sinners.  Octavius Winslow said, "The stupendous fact that Christ loves us - loves man, sinful man - admits us to the secret of all that He has done, and is still doing, for man." How many of us find our hearts resonating with the hymn writer who said,


I stand amazed in the presence

  Of Jesus the Nazarene,

And wonder how He could love me,

  A sinner condemned, unclean.

 

How marvelous! How wonderful!

  And my song shall ever be:

How marvelous! How wonderful!

    Is my Savior’s love for me!


Isn’t it marvelous?  Isn’t it wonderful?  That He should love you?  That He should love me?  This is why He came, this is why He died, and this is what constrains Christians as they go to a lost world and say to sinners (like themselves), “look and live!”  If our fingers are pointed, they are pointed to Him!  


How glad we are that He didn’t come for the righteous… for then we would have no hope.  No, He came for the unrighteous.  He came for sinners.  And so, if we know what it is to be loved by Jesus and saved from sin, our message to lost sinners ought to be written over with love.  I know we need to be careful not to simply go around announcing to callous sinners that God loves them.  But surely we need to be even more careful of the opposite extreme.  For if the love of Christ - for them - no longer constrains us, and if we no longer remember mercy, compassion, and tenderhearted kindness, we are no better than the Pharisees, who themselves were strangers to grace.  


I remember a chapter in a book on evangelicalism called “Pulpit of God’s love.”  I have misplaced the book, but the title itself speaks volumes.  I can’t help but think, “what if it weren’t?”  What if the pulpit were made into something else? Where would I be?  As I have said elsewhere, my problem with the middle finger ad isn’t merely the vulgarity (though I do find Wilson's use of terms like 'c**t' and 'fudgepacker' deeply troubling and inappropriate).  My problem is the message it conveys.  Whereas the gospel is glad tidings of great joy, the middle finger conveys anger and hate.  I know that God hates sin, but what I find amazing is that Jesus didn’t come to condemn.  He hates sin, and yet what wonderful unspeakable love and compassion for sinners! 


And can it be that I should gain

An int’rest in the Savior’s blood?

Died He for me, who caused His pain—

For me, who Him to death pursued?

Amazing love! How can it be,

That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?


Speaking of Christ weeping over Jerusalem, Robert Law wrote, "This heartbreaking compassion over the lost that are not found because they will not, is the climax of all Divine sadness." He then added, "This is the innermost meaning of the Gospel of Christ: the love of God is love that wants us, not a mere benevolence that pours down its gifts upon us form an infinite altitude, but love that seeks us with patient, unforgetting desire, love that lives in our lives, the love of God that can never be satisfied until it find us in our finding Him."


In a book about the person of Christ, B.B. Warfield said that “The emotion which we should naturally expect to find most frequently attributed to that Jesus whose whole life was a mission of mercy, and whose ministry was so marked by deeds of benevolence that it was summed up in the memory of his followers as a going through the land ‘doing good’ (Acts 10:38), is no doubt ‘compassion.’ In point of fact, this is the emotion which is most frequently attributed to him.”  This, he says, is what we "naturally expect."  Surely, then, our lives and our words should be marked by the same. 


One thing I have always appreciated about the Moscow men is their zeal for the kingdom. But zeal is not without its pitfalls. In the 19th century William Plumer wrote a book titled, Vital Godliness: A Treatise on Experimental and Practical Piety. In a chapter on zeal he offered the following valuable advice: "Sometimes zeal is contentious, and so betrays its spurious nature... No darker sign can attend a religious profession than a cruel, supercilious, denunciatory spirit. 'Bless, and curse not.' 'As we have opportunity, let us do good unto all men.' 'In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves'... Genuine zeal is 'the wisdom that is from above,' and 'is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.' Jas. 3:17. True zeal... wars not after the flesh. It rejects carnal weapons. It is full of courtesy, candor, and kindness. It forbears. It forgives. It pities. It yields to reasonable arguments and suggestions. It is not obstinate. It hates malice. It loves mercy... It is ready to contend earnestly, but not bitterly, for the truth... Its glory is to glorify God. Its happiness is to make others blessed... It weeps over human wickedness. It rejoices in all truth, in all goodness."


Edited September 15, 2024

Popular posts from this blog

The Church of God & Ray Tinsman

  I have been asked repeatedly about our connection with the Church of God (COG) in Aylmer.  When the questions first started to come I had never spoken to Henry Hildebrandt and knew very little about his church.  In the weeks and months that followed I spoke with Henry on separate occasions and in person. At that initial meeting with Henry I asked him a series of pointed questions.  I was concerned.  I was glad his church was open, but I had heard rumors of heresy and cultish behaviour and wanted to hear it from him.  Ordinarily I might have dismissed a group like his outright. But the COG Aylmer was one of the very few churches in Ontario that remained open through the lockdowns, and I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. So, I asked him about his view of Scripture, his view of salvation, his understanding of the person and work of Christ and so on.  And I came away mostly satisfied.  There were clear differences between us, but on the main points it seemed as if we agree
Read more

A retraction

Over the course of the last year, I have had plenty of time to privately reflect on what transpired through 2020 and 2021, and I have concluded that on some points I was in the wrong.  I have decided to address those things here.  Some may disagree with what I have concluded, but I write here first and last for Him. First, I believe I was sometimes overly harsh and severe in my writing.  I have since removed several blog posts, which I now believe lacked grace and char ity.  I still believe the churches should have remained open through the lockdowns, but I wish I had written with a better understanding of my own heart and a more charitable view of my brothers in Christ.  I was appalled by what I saw in those days, but in my zeal to speak the truth I sometimes lacked compassion and grace.  Second, when I was wronged by colleagues in the ministry I had a choice.  I could have covered what I believed to be sin, but I chose instead to expose it to the public.  I wrote about some of it on
Read more

On Baptism

Image
[Edited May 2024] For 12 years I enthusiastically subscribed to the Westminster standards.  I signed my copy of the Solemn League and Covenant , I taught my children the catechisms, and I prayed earnestly that they would grow up to subscribe in full to the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF).  For much of that time I was convinced that given enough time I could persuade any Baptist of the error of his ways.  I even went so far as to tell some Baptists brothers that withholding baptism from their children was sinful.  I grieved when Presbyterians became Baptist; and if you had told me of a man who had gone from being a Baptist to a Presbyterian only to become Baptist again I would have felt embarrassment for him.  Sounds more like a ship “tossed to and fro” (Ephesians 4:14) than a man.  But here I am writing to say that I am that man.  Even four months ago I was certain I would always be Presbyterian.  But after a period of prayer and intense study I have concluded that I was wrong.
Read more