I have recently been provoked to reassess my convictions on various things. This is good. Introspection and reconsideration are good. Willingness to be proven wrong are good. We either come out the other side more attuned to our convictions, or realizing that we were in error.

This is where I am, although I will not dive into specifics. At least not right now.

But at the same time as I am seeking the scriptures to better understand the way I ought or ought not live, I am also being challenge not to allow myself to read more into scripture than is really there. Personally, when I am thoroughly challenged in my conviction (particularly by a respected brother or sister), I will have the tendency to either produce the fault in myself and so win back their approval. Or, for my own conceit, find the justification for my conviction in scripture, whether it’s there to be found or not.

But reading in 1 Corinthians today, I’m challenged particularly by what Paul writes, using Apollos and himself as an example for the church.

1 Corinthians 4:3-5:

“But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.”

Paul has established that in spite of what others might say about him, his conscience is clean—however, that is not evidence enough in itself to to ‘acquit’ him of guilt. Rather, he explains that it is God who is the only one who can truly judge. For us this means God’s Word.

I find myself in a similar position to the one Paul describes here. Although I have a clean conscience, I cannot be confident on that alone. When I am challenged by a brother, I must accept that perhaps I have misunderstood, misread, or misinterpreted the only right foundation for a clean conscience.

But it’s in Paul’s next words that I’m particularly struck.

1 Corinthians 4:6:

“I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.”

Whether in vindicating myself, or in seeking another’s approval, I should be especially careful “not to go beyond what is written”. I must allow no part of myself to be sacred. Instead, faithfully seek God’s word to establish a right conviction—whether it find me affirmed in the area I was challenged, or find me convicted and repentant of some sin.

But all the while, I rest assure that God’s grace in the blood of Jesus Christ is greater than all and he will guide me to truth, eventually. And in that there will be glory and satisfaction.

The puritan, Ralph Venning (also the author of one of my all-time favorite books, The Sinfulness of Sin) wrote about the grandness of even the smallest sins committed by our leaders. I thought his phrasing was poignant and worth sharing tonight.

“We may occasion other man’s sins by example, and the more eminent the example, the more infectious it is. Great men cannot sin at a low rate because they are examples; the sins of commanders are commanding sins; the sins of rulers are ruling sins; the sins of teachers are teaching sins.”

I gather that Venning’s thought here is also, in part, why “not many” of us should “presume” to be teachers.

But for us in America, I don’t think the most obvious sins are the ones that are transmitted from leaders to congregations. No, those sins we recognize and usually scorn. It’s the more subtle, insidious ones that make it through. Failure to love. Failure to forgive. Failure to steward wisely, and others.

When our church leaders fail to uphold the ultimate worth of Jesus by their lifestyles and their public and private choices, they expand their guilt by permitting their congregations to do the same. Our elders approve the installation of a $10,000 decorative fountain in the atrium of the new church building; the congregation learns that there is no shame in a $40,000 mid-sized sedan, when a $12,000 used sedan would be more than sufficient.

A couple days ago I started reading a book by photographer Dane Sanders called Fast Track Photographer. The book attempts to help photographers better grasp the current climate of the photography industry.

While discussing education, especially as it applies to photography, he had this to say:

“In the era that’s quickly vanishing in our rear-view mirror, most of us defined professionalism based largely on time—how much time you spent paying your dues (historical time) and how much time you currently spend working [as a professional] (present time). Time was the defining element, and time used to be a reasonable measuring stick. But it isn’t anymore. Again, learning curves have flattened, due to new [technology] new software and new learning opportunities, among other things. It doesn’t take as long to go pro as it used to.”

Of course, Sanders is talking about going from amateur to professional photographer. As he describes, what it takes to become a professional is not what it used to be. Not necessarily less, just different.

But photography is based heavily on technology. It becomes an industry right on the edge of change. Among industries that change dramatically with technology, photography is high on that list. But as history has shown us, there is virtually no industry that is untouched by the technological advances of the last 30-40 years.

This has all gotten me thinking about the state of education and employment in general.

Photography, an industry that remains close to the cutting edge, has already almost completed an important shift: a photography degree doesn’t do too much for you as a pro. Many pros have no formal education at all. Learning mostly from the wealth of information on the internet, and their own hands-on experience.

The shift is starting to happen in other industries also. Hollywood has more “untrained” people than ever before. It’s also more more common for people to get hired as computer techs with no degree than it ever was before. Marketing, politics, sales, even religion, have an uncanny number of folk-professionals working in them.

It makes me wonder if the same shift that has happened in the photographic industry will happen in most other industries. In order to be hired, will mechanics need to go to trade school, or simply demonstrate the competency they gained from private learning? And, if things do pan out that way, what will that mean for our higher learning institutions? After all, with discipline and hard work, there’s virtually nothing to learn in a university that can’t be learned from lots of intuitive Google searches.

We live in an exciting time. It seems plausible to me that if technology keeps moving as fast as it has, there might be some folks with some very expensive, yet ultimately useless, degrees.

After a couple days of posting other things, I’m back to this topic. Stupidly Christianized stuff. Now, before everyone flips out, let me clarify something. I know that originally, most schools were a part of the religious institution (Of course, what wasn’t really?). Then it wasn’t until much later that they became a secularized system.

But, there isn’t anything intrinsically religious about education. Whether we obtain it formally or through a kind of osmosis, learning is something we all do. Christians and non-Christians alike. So, from my perspective, schools are something that are stupidly Christianized.

Schools

Obviously I haven’t taken survey of people all over the country (or world, for that matter), I only have a sampling from my own neighborhood. But, it would seem to me, that for all of the exasperating effort to keep Christian school kids in-line and/or in-the-faith, the results aren’t very impressive.

From small private grade schools, up through college, Christian education institutions are notorious for making a lot of bizarre rules aimed at keeping students from sin. Which in (at least) some cases are less about spiritual discipline and more about school pride.

When I was leading a small group of high school guys, I recall one student explaining that the school has a rule against students smoking cigarettes. Seems reasonable on school property, but this rule extended to all hours of every day. A student reported for smoking a cigarette would be suspended on the first strike and expelled on the second. But here’s the kicker, the principal explained the rationale—they don’t want parents of prospective students learning that there are smokers there.

Cha Ch’ing. The rule wasn’t there on spiritual grounds (something I would disagree with, but ultimately respect). It was there on financial grounds.

This is far from the most irrational of regulations though. Christian schools like to mandate all kinds of things. During a conversation a few weeks back, a student from an out-of-state Christian university explained that she wasn’t allowed to leave the campus, nor was she allowed to maintain friendships with the opposite sex. Some Christian schools even have rules about where men and women can walk in relation to each other (i.e., men and women must not walk side by side, but always one in front of the other).

Alcohol is another place Christian schools like place regulations. Some friends from down south were here visiting for a few days. We were sitting around a fire enjoying a conversation. Most of us were sipping wine or some other cocktails, but our guests had to decline because the school forbid the consumption of alcohol. Even in private, even in moderation. And again, the rationale was for the sake of school image.

Christian schools almost always include a Christian curriculum of some kind, but it’s usually far from adequate (or effective). I’ve met plenty of former Christian school students who only barely had a grasp on the Gospel, if at all.

To me, it all begs the question, “why?”

I understand some parents send their kids to Christian schools because it’s a superior education than their local public schools. But many Christian parents send their children to Christian schools for fear of the influence of public schools. Ironically, the students of Christian schools have a reputation for being even more wild then their public school counterparts.

The problem is that rules and regulations are not the Gospel’s method of sanctification. I can understand school-grounds rules. Such as proper grooming, uniforms or non-smoking rules. But many Christian schools extend their regulations into student’s personal lives. As if that was going to prevent students from sin. When in fact, creating many rules about things which students have the freedom in Christ  to do, only creates more opportunities to defile their conscience.

I find that it also begs the question of what is worse—students acting like they should, or students being what they should? Placing boundaries everywhere usually has only the effect of cleaning up the surface. But in a true Christian, freedom and grace coupled with Gospel truth, love, grace and accountability is more likely to affect the heart, producing real conviction. Sure, they may smoke cigarettes, but their heart might also burn for the lost—a thing for which they will have to trust God.

I also think that Christian schools are the source of some of the Church’s biggest criticisms. I have never spoken to a student of a Christian school who didn’t describe his or her classmates as “hypocrites” or “phonies” (although the wording varies). I speculate that this is a major source of contention for non-Christians. They went to a private Christian school growing up and discovered almost no one was real and hence, neither is the Church. Can you blame them, really?

For God’s people, Christian schools also seem to reinforce the false concept that we have to work for God’s favor. Even though the spoken and written teaching of the school may be different, the abundance of regulations drives this point home.

Finally, last but not least, Christian schools often fail to socialize students well. Entire parts of the church are left socially crippled and overly judgmental and sometimes awkward. A problem not impossible for God to overcome in their evangelism, but my hunch is that he allows their evangelism to suffer for it.

So, in conclusion…

I think that the idea of Christian schools, as we know them, isn’t such a great idea, often causing more harm than good. Although an educational institution run by Christians, aimed at spreading the Gospel and bringing about deep heart-seated transformation is another story. Although my bet is that these are few and far between—that is if they even exist.

I’m sure you’ve read the verses in the book of James that talk about the tongue. It is a “restless evil”, says James. He compares the tongue to many things. A tiny ‘spark’ that sets a forest on fire. A small ‘rudder’ that steers a whole ship. A ‘bridal’ in a horses mouth that can be used to guide it around.

James argues that the tongue, although it is small, is the source a great deal of trouble for man.

Every teaching I’ve ever heard on this verse gives a good deal of personal application. Congregations are to control their tongue and this is an excellent argument for that.

But I’m not sure that the congregation is really who James had in mind when he wrote this bit about the tongue.

Possibly for the first time, I noticed that another frequently quoted verse is actually a tiny piece of context that puts a whole new spin on James’ message about the tongue. The very first verses in fact. James 3:1-2:

Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body.

Why does James go directly from a word on teaching and teachers and the fact that every teacher make’s mistakes in his teaching into a discussion of bridling the tongue? I think it’s because the ‘body’ he talks about throughout the rest of the chapter is not one individual body who is guided by his own tongue, but the whole body of believers who is guided by the tongue of their teacher.

Not many should aspire to be teachers because all teachers make mistakes, and with many, many teachers comes many misconceptions and the church ends up ‘set on fire’.

Of course, I don’t think this is the only viable interpretation of this verse, but I think it makes perfect contextual sense. And perhaps it’s a concept churches who turn teaching authority over to small group ministries should consider.

Jeremiah 6:14:

They have healed the wound of my people lightly,
    saying, ‘Peace, peace,’
    when there is no peace.

The prophets in Jeremiah’s time had stopped preaching the word of God. Instead, they said the things that would bolster their esteem. They tickled the people’s ears with things they wanted to hear. “They healed the would lightly”.

Now, I know that Jeremiah’s time was a specific time in history and that we have to tread lightly over life applications from these pages. But I couldn’t help but see the parallel as I read across this verse.

The teachers, the prophets in our western church, many of them, have stopped preaching the Word of God. Or begun preaching it only in part—leaving the difficult or offensive topics and concepts untouched. Not just the prosperity-gospel church either. I mean many of the churches we attend on a weekly basis.

In the interest of creating a welcoming environment (and securing a mortgage payment), way too many preachers only teach the parts of the bible that can be understood without too much objection. And, without too much risk of scaring people away.

I can’t help but wonder whether or not God would say these same things to our church today that he said through the prophet Jeremiah in his day.

Growing up Catholic, I’m familiar with the mindset that believes Christians can and do ‘fall out of grace’, so to speak. That if we’ve done something bad enough, we’re in danger of Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf being ineffective. And so there is a need to do some spiritual patch work and yet again seek God’s forgiveness through Christ.

Even in parts of the protestant church where that’s really not the teaching, the mindset still definitely exists (at least on some subtle level).

After all, teaching on post-conversion repentance isn’t really on the top of most church’s list—although teaching vaguely about ‘repentance’ is. So it would seem to me that what we end up with is a whole slew of Christians under the impression that if they’ve screwed up hard enough they’re on the outs. That is until they make things right with some magic prayer of repentance. Although no one can be quite sure what that is so everyone just wings it and hopes they’re getting it right.

Okay, maybe I’m exaggerating the issue a bit. But for the sake of a point, it’s alright I suppose.

Hebrews 10:11-14 sets things straight:

“every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.”

Christians need to understand that the regeneration, justification, and propitiation brought about by Christ’s death on the cross and delivered through the conduit of our faith, are irrevocable.

Notice the change of tenses in verse 14. Yes, Christians are being sanctified, but we’ve already been perfected (in a way).

Following Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension, he didn’t go to some library style grace-renewal booth to divvy out renewals to the grace on sinner’s lives. He sat down at the right hand of God because what he’s done is done.

Continual repentance is crucial in a Christians life. But not because if he doesn’t do it, he’s losing his salvation, but because if repentance never comes, he probably never had salvation to begin with. It’s simply something Christians do. It’s who we are. We love God and when it comes to us that we have wronged and offended him, repentance just happens. Like juice coming from an orange when it’s squeezed—If no juice comes out, it’s probably not an orange.

So keep on repenting? Yeah, of course. We just need to do it remembering that Jesus’ work is done and the Father isn’t angry anymore.