Christians Are A Bunch Of Hypocrites

"Are there any real Christians left, or is it all a racket?" the journalist asked.

She was referring to Ken Starr, self-professed Christian and president of Baylor University. Recently it came to light that Starr, former dean of Pepperdine Law school and prosecutor of Bill Clinton in the Lewinsky scandal, was part of the legal team that aggressively advocated on behalf of billionaire sex-trafficker and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Starr brought his considerable legal expertise to bear in obtaining a shockingly light penalty for Epstein, who had molested or trafficked in dozens of girls, some reportedly as young as 12. Starr didn't defend Epstein because he was some poor schmuck foisted on the legal profession by fair necessity ("If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you"), but because the predator pervert had a billion dollars. Money talks, and talks at such volume that at times it can shout down a man's conscience. It can enable a certain kind of man calmly to pad his bank account with the stifled cries of mid-teen sex slaves while still making it to church on Sunday.

You can understand how behavior so monstrously corrupt and so grievously incompatible with the word "Christian" might provoke a cynical journalist to ask if the whole religion is just a racket.

Coincidentally, the other day my lovely wife asked me how I might respond to someone who opposed Christianity on the ground that it was a faith full of hypocrites. I thought I'd write out an answer.

I acknowledge that, yes, without a doubt, the Christian church is chock-full of hypocrites. But, as a teacher of mine liked to point out, where else are you going find them?

If I were a villain, I wouldn't want people to regard me as bad (unless I were very callous indeed and heedless of all consequences). I'd want them to think I was a Christian! And the better I could fool people with minimal effort, the more delighted I would be with the deception. That is because if people trust you you can get away with more. But, contrariwise, I don't know any Christians who want people to regard them as criminals. Think about it. Hypocrisy is a vacuum funnel that only sucks in one direction. Wherever goodness truly congregates, evil people will race toward it just so they can camouflage themselves with its appearance. Of course there will be hypocrisy where goodness dwells! How could it be otherwise? Only goodness can provide a foundation for a hypocrite to stand on. Who - except as a joke - ever tries to impersonate evil? Here are some charges of hypocrisy that I bet you have never heard:

"Oh, he claims to be a White Power racist, but I tell you he's a total hypocrite. Secretly he adores Martin Luther King, and under the radar he mentors disadvantaged Black teens."

"He just wants everybody to think he's a pedophile. But he is such a hypocrite. In reality he's been faithful to his wife for years, and he's wonderful with kids."

"I know she portrays herself as a shoplifter, but let me tell you, that woman is a hypocrite. The truth is, she pays for her stuff, and she even gives back change when the clerk makes a mistake! Pffft. What a phony."

Do you see? Hypocrisy, by definition, is evil masquerading as good. It rightly provokes our indignation. But the very charge of hypocrisy ought to lead us to ask, "Why in the world was I expecting to find good - and expecting it so hard that I was outraged to find myself deceived?" In our hearts, I think we know that hypocrisy is a pestilent parasite that, at some level, requires a sound host. If the whole thing were one big parasite there would be nothing for it to feed on. We would never find ourselves angered or disillusioned.

If a person wants to belong to a faith tradition that is guaranteed never to be charged with hypocrisy, I recommend atheism. When an atheist embezzles, rapes or murders, no one ever cries out in shock, "Oh the hypocrisy! How could someone who denies the existence of God ever do such a thing? He can't be a real atheist." Sure he can. Why not? He could be a bad man, but he's not a bad atheist. His denial of a supernaturally imposed morality keeps him immune to the charge of hypocrisy no matter what he does.

You will find hypocrisy among Christians, just as you will find parasites in a living host. If you insist on living in an environment that is parasite-free, you will only be able to fulfill your dream by inhabiting a corpse. That is a cold place to live and die.

Do people who have never heard of Jesus go to hell?

Here is another question somebody passed along to me recently:

Does Christianity teach that people who have never heard of Jesus are going to hell?

I don’t think the Bible teaches that. Jesus said, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Matthew 5:8). He also said, “those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned” (John 5:29). In Acts 10:35 the Apostle Peter said that God "accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right."

People who lived before Jesus was born obviously never heard of him, and they didn’t all go to hell. For example it says in Genesis 5:24 that “Enoch walked faithfully with God.” Enoch lived thousands of years before Jesus. He didn't have a Bible, because it had not been written yet. He never heard of the 10 commandments or the covenant with Abraham. He knew nothing about the Old Testament kings and prophets and saints. But somehow he “walked with God,” and in due time God took him home. It has always seemed to me that there could be some modern-day Enoch living, say, in a remote jungle, who, though he knows nothing about Jesus, manages to “walk with God,” and God is merciful to him.

I’ve never met a Christian who said that all babies who die in infancy or all severely mentally retarded people go to hell because they cannot express faith in Jesus. We are saved through faith, the Bible says, but I think we instinctively and correctly understand this to mean that we who have the capacity to express faith are saved through it.

I do believe the Bible teaches that all people who are saved are saved through Jesus – whether they know it or not. Jesus himself said “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Peter said, “There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among people whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

The reason that salvation is only through Jesus is because he is the only one who paid the price for our sins. Even the best among us is still sinful. The Bible says, “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8). The Bible views sin as a debt that must be paid – and only Jesus, the sinless Son of God, could ever pay that debt. This he did by dying on the cross.

So everyone who is in heaven is there because Jesus paid his or her debt. Some will know all about that during their earthly lives, and others won’t find out who paid their way until they get to heaven.

I think of it kind of like an airplane carrying a load of sick, hungry, abused refugees from a place like Sudan to safety and abundance in the United States. Some of those refugees know that the plane was provided by the Red Cross, and they are grateful and cooperative, and they tell their fellow refugees about the organization that is providing for their deliverance. Other refugees have no clue. Some are babies, some are comatose, some have never heard of any kind of Cross. They just got on a plane that good people directed them to. All the refugees needed deliverance from the wretched conditions in their home country, and all who got to the United States arrived there on a Red Cross plane. But some were aware of their means of deliverance, and others not.

I believe that truly saved people want to do good. It seems to me that it is a good thing to be thankful to the one who provided our deliverance, and to do whatever we can to get to know him better, and to cooperate with him, and even to tell others about him. Many people in this life will never get the opportunities to do all that because they will never hear about Jesus, or they would not be able to understand even if they could hear. But if we do have that opportunity, it seems right to me to take advantage of it. It is kind of like a humble Sudanese refugee telling his fellow passengers, “Let me tell you about the Red Cross.”

Aren’t all religions just different ways to the same God?

I was asked for a response to the question,

Aren’t all religions just different ways to the same God?

There is a sense in which I think this is true. Nearly all religions tell people to be good. God delights in goodness. The Bible says, “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” (Micah 6:8).

People who commit to true humble goodness make the heart of God rejoice, and he responds favorably to them. Jesus said, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled” (Matthew 5:6). When people were uncertain about whether Jesus was teaching the truth, he simply challenged them to be obedient to what they knew to be right and good. He said, “Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own” (John 17:7).

C. S. Lewis (British scholar and author of The Chronicles of Narnia) was an atheist who became a reluctant Christian in his 30’s. He had not been looking for God at all. But he was looking for goodness. Later he came to believe that there was a connection between the two. He wrote, "[I]t is significant that this long-evaded encounter [with God] happened at a time when I was making a serious effort to obey my conscience. No doubt it was far less serious than I supposed, but it was the most serious I had made for a long time.”

I think that true goodness leads to God, and so we can applaud any religion’s attempt to urge people to be good, honest, kind, faithful, generous, courteous, selfless, and fair.

That does not mean, however, that every aspect of every religion is good and true and praiseworthy. That is just not the case. For example, I think most tender-hearted people who study the life of Mohamed will find it very disturbing that he married a six-year-old girl and consummated the relationship with her when she was nine.

If you say to a devout Buddhist, “We’re all worshipping the same God,” he or she will disagree with you. Buddhism does not believe in a personal, Creator God. Buddhism maintains that there is a karmic balance in the universe that evens out good and evil, but denies that there is any God or gods behind it.

Hinduism has many thousands of gods rather than just one. As with any polytheistic religion, I think you will find that some of the stories about those gods would indicate that they are not particularly trustworthy, and have no great love for mankind.

But rather than picking apart the flaws and shortcomings of every other religion in the world (I don’t have the knowledge or time!), I would just note this one thing that they all have in common. None of them tells me what to do about my sins and failures as a person. I know and believe the Bible message that no matter how good I may have tried to be (and honestly, I probably have not tried all that hard), I still have sins that separate me from a holy God and hinder his relationship with me.

The Bible says that Jesus took my sins upon him when he died on the cross (1 Peter 2:24). No other religion or religious figure ever did that for me. Nowhere else have I ever learned just how deep is God’s love for me.

Can A Christian Be Demon-Possessed?

Can a Christian be demon-possessed? I was asked that the other day, and my answer is below.

This is a question the Bible never asks, nor answers. But I think it would be helpful to look at what the Bible actually says about demons and the nature of their work.

First of all, the word “possessed”. Get rid of it. I do not believe it accurately reflects the Greek.

There are two words or phrases the Bible uses to describe a demonic affliction: “demonized” and “have a demon”. They mean the same and are interchangeable. The Greek word I translate “demonized” is simply the noun “demon” turned into a verb and made passive. And “have a demon” looks the same in Greek as it does in English. It is pretty straightforward.

The Bible goes back and forth as to which word or phrase it uses. For example, in Luke 8:26 it says that the man from the Gerasenes “had demons,” and then a few verses later in verse 36 it says that he “was demonized”. In John 10:20 some people accuse Jesus of “having a demon.” In the next verse some people say that he does not sound like somebody who “is demonized.” So there is no difference in the Bible between “having a demon” or “being demonized”.

I have heard some Christians maintain that a believer may be oppressed by demons but never possessed by them. This is not a distinction that the Bible ever makes.

The English Standard Version seems to try to make this distinction in Matthew 8:28 and Matthew 9:32. In Matthew 8:28 it says that Jesus was approached by two “demon-possessed men”. They were crazy and violent: “so fierce that no one could pass that way.” Jesus cast out the demons and the men were fine. Then in Matthew 9 the ESV says that “a demon-oppressed man who was mute” was brought to him. Jesus cast the demon out, and the mute man spoke.

Why does the ESV say that the men in Matthew 8 were demon-possessed but the man in Matthew 9 was only demon-oppressed? Presumably because the second man was not crazy or violent or speaking with other voices. His only problem was that he couldn’t talk. But the Greek text uses the same word of the mute as it does of the psychotic individuals a chapter earlier: “demonized”. And therein, I believe, hangs an important doctrine. Afflictions as distinct as psychosis and muteness were equally labeled demonic.

As I survey the biblical data it seems to me that where Western Christians would tend to separate afflictions into distinct categories (physical, spiritual, psychological), the Bible just smooshes them together. If we think a problem is physical we give it medicine; if psychological, therapy; if spiritual, exorcism. If a man hears voices and speaks in strange ones, that may be demonic. But if he has a curved spine, that’s just scoliosis.

But look at the hunchback in Luke 13. There it says that a woman at the synagogue “had a disabling spirit” (presumably a demon), and had not been able to straighten up for 18 years (verse 11). We might regard a bad back as something that results merely from injury or congenital defect. Can the devil curve a spine? According to Jesus he can. After Jesus straightened the woman out, he noted that Satan had bound her for 18 years (verse 16).

What about boils on the skin? We see that as an infection of staphylococcal bacteria. We may not see anything there of a spiritual origin or anything requiring a spiritual response. Just give it some warm compresses, antibacterial soap and maybe an antibiotic. But consider Job 2:7: “So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord and struck Job with loathsome sores from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head.” The devil did it, and he did it to a good man. Bacteria were just the means that the devil used to afflict Job.

But could the devil get into the mind or body of an apostle? As a matter of fact he did. It seems that St. Peter had himself a demon when he rebuked Jesus, telling him there was no way he would ever go to the cross. “Get behind me, Satan!” Jesus replied (Matthew 16:22-23). And St. Paul had an unspecified “thorn in the side” - presumably some physical affliction - that he said was “a messenger of Satan to torment me” (2 Corinthians 12:8).

The Bible also says that Satan entered Judas (Luke 22:3). But Judas appeared to welcome that.

It seems to me that the Bible indicates that the devil can do all kinds of things to us. He can curve our backs, irritate our skin, deprive us of speech, afflict us with seizures, give us really bad ideas (betray Jesus, keep Jesus away from the cross), put thorns in our sides, or turn us into flat-out raving lunatics. That is the world we live in, a world C. S. Lewis famously called “enemy-occupied territory”.

But that does not mean we have to cooperate with or willingly submit to any demon that wants to afflict us. The Bible says “Resist the devil, and he will flee from you” (James 4:7). A good example occurs in the lives of the disciples mentioned above. Peter resisted and Judas did not.

So back to the question, “Can a Christian be demon-possessed?” Get rid of the word “possessed” and go with the more biblical “have a demon”, and I think the answer becomes clear. Can a Christian have a demon? Sure. On any given day, God may give some demon permission to afflict your skin with boils, your back with curvature, your vocal cords with silence, your will with temptation, your mood with discouragement, or your synapses with incompetent neurotransmitters. Why should you be immune? You’re not immune, unless God chooses to give you the special grace of immunity in some particular area. I’m sorry if I’m bursting your bubble, but the fact is, people much better than you have been more sorely afflicted.

I don’t know how a demon might go after you. My demon gave me a bad knee for a year and a half. A friend’s demon told her that she was Jesus and that she should sacrifice herself. We’re both better now. But whether your demon is giving you a toothache or causing you to believe that you can control the weather, your basic response should look pretty much the same. Do these things:

Pray. Jesus told his disciples to pray, “Deliver us from evil,” and many scholars think that means, “Deliver us from the evil one” (Matthew 6:13).

Endure. Sometimes that is what you will have to do. Poor St. Paul got left with his thorn from the devil even though he prayed against it (2 Corinthians 12:7-9).

Get medical help. Paul told Timothy to take some wine for his stomach and frequent illnesses (1 Timothy 5:23). Maybe for you that “wine” is depakote or risperdal.

Get counseling. Proverbs 24:6: “You should wage war with sound guidance—victory comes with many counselors.”

Don’t sin. This is important. Demons love sin and God hates it. Isaiah 1:16-17: "Stop doing wrong, learn to do right."

Trust Jesus Christ. In John 16:33 he told his followers, “In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world."

Is The Gospel A Sales Pitch?

At church we were discussing reasons why Christians are reluctant to tell people the good news of Jesus Christ. One man said, "Sharing the gospel makes me feel like a salesman." We all knew what he meant - even the professional salesman in the room who responded by clearing his throat loudly. Of course, there is nothing wrong with sales as long as it is carried out with integrity and good will. But somehow, salesmanship at its purest, noblest, and most necessary seems to be an unworthy model for presenting Jesus. Sensitive Christians rightly recoil from it when trying to persuade people to follow Christ. We feel a check in our spirit when we find ourselves slipping into a mode which suggests that Jesus is a product and the potential convert is a customer. Why does that mode bother us?

One straightforward answer is to say that Jesus is a Person, not a commodity. He is King of kings and Lord of lords. To put him - however unintentionally, and even if only implicitly - in the same category as a diet plan that will help you shed unwanted inches is to diminish and blaspheme him.

But another objection to the sales model has occurred to me, and it has to do with the fundamental nature of gospel proclamation. I would like to introduce it with the following device:

You are walking down a sidewalk and you see a wallet flip out the back pocket of the person ahead of you and land on the pavement. The person walks on completely unaware that he has lost his wallet. What should you do?

A classmate informs you that he has a stolen copy of the licensing exam that you will be taking tomorrow, and asks if you want to see it. What should you do?

You see a child being attacked by a savage dog. No one else is around. What should you do?

Note that I did not ask what you would do. Only God knows that. You might be a greedy corrupt coward who would pocket the wallet, cheat on the test, and leave the child to be mauled. Or you might be a decent person and hopefully confident that in each case you would do the right thing - but find that, in the actual pressure of the moment, you become as morally weak as St. Peter on the night before Jesus was crucified. But I'm not asking what you have done or what you think you actually would do in such circumstances. I am making this easier by asking, "What should you do?"

There is another question, in each case, that I did not ask. It is, "What would be in your best interests to do?" That question elicits a different set of answers from the "should" question. In the first instance, it is in your best interests to pocket the wallet and delight in found cash. In the second, it is in your best interests to look at the test beforehand so you can ace it and move forward in your career. In the third, it is in your best interests to let that poor child fend for himself, because if you intervene, you yourself will get hurt, and probably pretty badly.

Let me head off the objection, "But it would still be in my best interests to do good because my selfish behavior might be found out, and then I'd be shamed, held accountable and penalized." I stipulate that, in these hypothetical circumstances, you know for a fact that you won't get caught. "But even if I never get caught, my conscience would trouble me, and since living with that pain would devastate me and leave me unhappy, I can still say that it would be in my best interests to do right." I answer, "Why let the voice of conscience trouble you? Surely by now you have learned how to silence that annoying little bastard. And if you haven't learned, it won't be hard for me to teach you. Here is lesson one: Acknowledge that it is in your best interests to free yourself from the shackles of irrational conscience. Our friend Nietzsche will help you absorb the sweet logic of this liberating truth."

My point is that a great chasm yawns between "I should do X" and "It would benefit me to do X." Sometimes those two things meet or happily coincide, but they never do so out of necessity. That is, they are not equivalent or derivable one from the other. They are not two ways of saying the same thing. Sometimes I should do what is clearly not in my best interests, and sometimes the thing that is in my best interests is something I really should not do.

Now a sales pitch is always an appeal to your best interests. That, at rock bottom, is what a sales pitch is. The salesman has his own interests as well, and they do not necessarily correspond with yours. (Mainly he needs to put food on his family's table.) But his best interests are not the basis upon which he tries to get you to buy his product or service. Only a desperate poor sap of a salesman says, "Come on, buddy, buy this, I gotta make quota here." If he is a good salesman, his focus will be on you and your need. He labors to convince you that whatever he has to offer will benefit you, and therefore well worth the money. If you don't buy it, it will be your loss. A sales pitch goes no deeper than that.

I maintain that the gospel of Jesus Christ is not, at rock bottom, an appeal to one's best interests. Since gospel proclamation has devolved in much of North American evangelicalism to resemble such an appeal, it seems to me the time has come consciously to resist that model. Now please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that there is no benefit to an individual who believes and obeys the gospel of Jesus. There is. Eternal life in the blessed presence of the Creator is a benefit that exceeds all reckoning. I am just saying that the foundation of gospel appeal goes deeper than self-interest - and so, so much deeper that matters pertaining to our benefit might almost be considered an afterthought, an add-on, a "What? Do you mean I get that too?"

The gospel is a statement that is true and a commandment that is right. (I defend at length the idea that this is the Bible's own understanding of the word "gospel" in two essays: "The Gospel's Hard Edge" [June 20, 2014] and "The Gospel Is Something You Obey" [June 22, 2014]). True statements and right commandments have this in common: they don't care (if I may put it that way) whether you benefit by believing or obeying them. They remain just as they are no matter what their effect upon you and no matter what you do with them. Your potential benefit cannot render a false statement true or an evil commandment good. Neither can your potential detriment impeach a truth or invalidate a just command.

Though we who proclaim the gospel must do so as graciously and as winsomely as we can, we must never forget that we proceed from a position of strength. Our gospel stands on the hard, unmoved and unmovable pillars of goodness and truth. Just as we would not feel it necessary to say to someone, "It would be in your best interests to save a child from a savage dog," so we need not say, "It would be in your best interests to bow the knee to Jesus Christ." (Again, it is in the person's best interests, but that is beside the point.) Moral imperatives stand alone and need no buttressing. It's, "Rescue the child!"; "Return the wallet!"; "Don't cheat!"; and, "Submit to Jesus Christ!" Truth likewise requires no support from self-interest. If I want you to believe that the circumference of a circle divided by its diameter yields a number that cannot be expressed as a fraction, I want you to believe that because it is true, not because it will do you any good.

To avoid slipping into the salesman mode that rightly repels all thoughtful communicators of the gospel, remember that - deep down - we are not so much pleading with people to buy as we are commanding them to bow. And we are proclaiming something true: Jesus Christ died on behalf of sinners, he rose again from the dead, and he reigns forever with absolute authority. The chief beneficiary of that truth is Jesus himself.

Both Son And Slave

I write to oppose some rhetoric that seems to be gaining traction in evangelical churches: the assertion that we who trust in Christ are children of God rather than slaves of God. Last week when the guest speaker at our church prayed he gave thanks that "we are sons and not slaves." My former pastor recently printed this rhetorical question from Tim Keller: "In all that I do, am I acting like a slave who is afraid of God, or like a child who is assured of my Father's love?" I have since discovered that quite a few Christians have appropriated and passed along Keller's question, and I think it merits a response.

I believe the source of the doctrine that we ought to regard ourselves as sons and not slaves comes from a misreading of Galatians 4 and Romans 8. Galatians 4:6-7 says:

And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

And Romans 8:14-16 says:

For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.

There it is. The Bible explicitly affirms that we are "no longer slaves" and that we did not receive the "spirit of slavery". Instead, we are offspring: we are children who call God "Abba! Father!" How clear can that be? And who am I to re-introduce the idea of "slavery to God" when Scripture has abolished it?

The answer lies in the context. It is a matter of what (or Whom) you are a slave to.

Romans 8:15 says that we are not to be slaves to fear. Literally in the Greek, "You have not received a spirit of slavery unto fear again." Galatians 4:3 says we are no longer slaves to the elemental spiritual forces of the world. (A few verses later in Galatians 4:9 Paul asks, "Why are you turning back to those weak and miserable spiritual forces? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?"). And in Romans 6:17-18 Paul writes that we are not to be slaves to sin: "though you used to be slaves to sin...you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness."

So some kinds of slavery are bad: slavery to sin, to fear, and to elemental spiritual forces. But some kinds of slavery are good. Paul speaks highly of slavery to obedience in Romans 8:16 and slavery to righteousness in Romans 8:18.

What about slavery to God? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

It is very, very good. In Romans 6:22 Paul writes: "But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life."

Paul called himself a slave of God repeatedly, using the Greek word doulos. See for example Romans 1:1: "Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God—". See also Galatians 1:10, Philippians 1:1, and Titus 1:1. (The Greek word doulos is often translated as "servant". But my Greek professor Murray Harris was surely right to insist that the correct translation is "slave". In English, a "servant" is someone who works for hire and is free to quit whenever he pleases and go work for someone else. A doulos had no such freedom. A doulos was bound to his master.)

Paul was not alone describing himself as a slave of Christ. James calls himself "a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ" (James 1:1). Jude likewise opens his epistle with, "Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ" (Jude 1:1). John writes that God sent his angel to "his slave John" (Revelation 1:1).

Nor was the term "slave of God" (or "slave of Christ") simply a self-designation. Paul calls Epaphras "a slave of Christ Jesus" in Colossians 4:12. Peter instructs his readers to "live as God's slaves" (1 Peter 2:16). Paul affirms in 1 Corinthians 7:22 that a Christian who is politically free is nevertheless "a slave of Christ".

We can go further. Jesus insists that his disciples regard themselves as slaves of God even when they have been perfectly obedient: "So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, ‘We are unworthy slaves; we have only done our duty.’" (Luke 17:10).

In a moving example of submission to God's will, the young virgin Mary responds to Gabriel's message in Luke 1:38 with, "I am the slave [Greek doule, feminine doulos] of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” The angel does not correct her. He does not say, "Mary! You're not a doule of the Lord - you're a thugater [daughter] of the Lord!" Mary had chosen the right word and had the right self-perception. What was right for Mary is right for us. We anticipate the day when, by God's grace, we will hear for ourselves the words he will say to every obedient subject: "Well done, good and faithful slave" (Matthew 25:23).

But how is our status of slavery to be reconciled with our status of sonship? Because indeed there are plenty of Bible verses that affirm us as sons and daughters of God. John 1:11: "To all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God." 1 John 3:1: "See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God."

The simple answer is that no reconciliation is necessary because we have dual status. We are both sons and slaves. It is comparable to the dual nature of Christ: he is both human and divine, and neither of his two natures negates or nullifies the other. Christian orthodoxy does not permit us to say, "Jesus isn't God, he's human", or, "Jesus isn't human, he's God." He's both, and Christians have been comfortable affirming his two natures for 2000 years.

So also must we be comfortable affirming our two natures as children of God and slaves of God. These two natures manifest themselves in two of the most common biblical words we use for Deity: "Father" and "Lord". We call him Father because we are his offspring, and we call him Lord ("Master") because we are his slaves. The Christian disciple utters no contradiction and feels no tension when he says, "God is my Master and I fear him, and he is my Father and I love him. He commands me as his slave, and he loves me as his son."

The danger of Keller's rhetorical question is that it invites us to smother our identity as slave with the pillow of our identity as son. "Child" and "slave" are set in opposition to each other, and it is urged upon us as a spiritual duty to make sure that "child" wins. I deny that this approach is biblical or helpful. When Keller asks, "In all that I do, am I acting like a slave who is afraid of God, or like a child who is assured of my Father's love?", I answer, "Both!" Jesus commands me to call myself a slave in Luke 17:10, and he commands me to be afraid of God in Luke 12:5 ("But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.") This fearful respect for God and humble self-regard as his slave lives side-by-side in the mind of the mature believer with a shining love for God and an exultant delight in being his child.

I think you will find that circumstances often dictate the appropriate mode of relating to God on any particular day. When life presents you with temptations to defy the will of God - to rebel, in attitude or action, against that which he has ordained - then it is good to think, following the example of the Virgin Mary, "I am the Lord's slave. I will do as he says, and I will accept what he gives." But when life grieves you with doubt and challenges you to despair, then it is good to think, "By his grace alone I am still a child of God. He loves me."

Please Subpoena My Sermons

A great hue and cry has arisen from some people in the Christian community over the fact that "the city of Houston has issued subpoenas demanding a group of pastors turn over any sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity or Annise Parker, the city’s first openly lesbian mayor."

I can't understand the outrage. What in the world is wrong with Christians who complain about this demand for their sermons? Such a subpoena should be a cause of rejoicing, not dismay.

I would to God that someone would subpoena all my sermons. I am not embarrassed about what I have said from the pulpit. As the Apostle Paul wrote, "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ" (Romans 1:16). I preach "Jesus Christ and him crucified" (1 Corinthians 2:2), and work hard to present "the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27). Nothing I have said in my sermons (there are a couple on YouTube), or written here on this blog, is meant to be private communication that must be shielded by law from nosy people. Good heavens - the whole point of preaching is that it is meant to be public. The more people who hear it, the better. The sorrow of any true servant of God is not that too many people listen to his message, but too few!

A preacher who believes what he says to be important and true wants everyone to hear it - friend and foe alike. I believe that those who feel differently have no business in the pulpit.

"But," someone might ask, "what if turning over my sermons to government authorities results in persecution?"

So much the better! Remember in Whose steps you walk. Jesus' preaching resulted in crucifixion. And his apostles, when they preached his gospel and were beaten for it, "rejoiced that God had counted them worthy to suffer disgrace for the name of Jesus" (Acts 5:41).

Preachers, make your sermons public or do not preach them. If those messages are ever demanded of you, give thanks to God, comply, and rejoice.