New Thoughts: (08/21/15-08/23/15)
Such a brief passage, and yet, I find it has definite challenges for interpretation. Primarily, those challenges lie with the pronouns. For instance, Paul addresses this part to ‘you’, and ‘you’ is plural. That, I dare say, is one of the great mistakes of the English language: That we’ve left ourselves no means to distinguish between the singular and plural second person pronoun. Now, several translations and commentaries arrive at the conclusion that Paul speaks of the church as a congregation in saying God dwells therein. Personally, I don’t find the plural you sufficient cause for such an understanding. Perhaps there is a detail of Greek syntax that I do not understand sufficiently, but I would think that where Paul is addressing multiple individuals, the ‘you’ would be plural for addressing the individual situation or the congregation as a whole. Indeed, I could see an argument for supposing that it is the church as a whole which should be addressed with a singular ‘you’.
There is, after all, one church, whereas that church is composed of many individuals. Which is more suited for being addressed in the plural? Perhaps a comparison to 1 Corinthians 6:19 would help. There, the message would seem clearly to address the individual members of the church. “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?” The context and the verbiage make clear that this is meant of the physical body. Yet, the you is just as plural in this case as in our present passage.
Where else might we turn for clarification? We could try Ephesians 2:22. There, concluding another application of this idea of believers being built into a temple to God, Paul says, “In whom [Christ] you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.” The ‘together’ aspect of that leads me to perceive a congregational application rather than individual for that passage. Each individual believer is built upon the same foundation, but is ‘being fitted together’ (Eph 2:21), and ‘built together’. Peter’s imagery of believers as living stones being built up as a spiritual house (1Pe 2:5) would also tend to point us towards church as building, and individuals as construction material.
And yet… We have that promise of the indwelling Holy Spirit as a most personal assurance. We understand that the church of the New Testament, while it may gather in buildings specifically built for that purpose, does not consist in the building, but in those who gather there. The church of Christ is a matter of flesh, bone, and spirit.
I think we must conclude that there is a tension of meaning here. On one level, it is addressed to each individual, and on another level, it addresses the community as a whole. There is a personal warning, then, to those who continue in sin as if God’s grace left them free to do as they please. There is a more directed warning to those who would lead or teach the people of God, to take particular care of how they do so. As to the former, it may seem I am reading into the text what is not there, but I don’t think so. Granted, Paul has been addressing matters of factionalism, and that implies some leadership issues. But, he is nearing the end of that subject, and the next on his list concerns sexual sins of a most egregious nature. Knowing that, I’m inclined to think the ambiguity of these verses is quite intentional. That is to say, Paul means both: As individual and as a church, the same point holds: You are God’s temple, and don’t suppose He’s going to tolerate its corruption unpunished.
The second ambiguity, I’ll note here just to conclude the thought. The final clause, “that is what you are”, leaves one in a bit of a quandary as to its reference point. Is ‘that’ the temple of God, or is ‘that’ holy? I’m going to hold the exploration of this for later, but suffice it to say that the syntax is inconclusive, as ‘that’ is presented as an indefinite relative pronoun, which is to say that its point of reference is not specified. Arguably, it has no referent.
Let me return to the start. You are a temple of God. The term used here is naos. This is generally used of the inner sanctuary, as opposed to the whole of the temple complex. In the case of the temple in Jerusalem, it would be the Holy place, and the Holy of holies. In short, it is that portion of the complex where God dwells, and where only the high priest was permitted to go. In wider application, taking in the sorts of temples the Corinthians might be expected to be more familiar with, it would indicate that part of the temple where the image of whatever god it served was placed. I don’t think it would have been unique to the Jewish temple to suppose the presence of the god served. So, Paul’s added note of the indwelling Spirit of God would seem almost a redundancy. You are a naos. The image of God is in you. He is in you.
Let that sink in for a moment. God is in you. God! Now, this is not to be confused with that misguided, “god is in everything. Everything is God,” conception of spirituality. No, this is not an argument for pantheism, and does not grant us cause to worship this, that, and the other. It is not cause for ego, either. Look at me! I’m the image of God. Indeed, we should find reason for caution in even going so far as to say we are the only Jesus some people will ever see, as popular as that idea has become. We are not Jesus. We are not the image of Jesus – certainly not in anything near the same sense as He is the image of the invisible God, such that those who saw Him could say they had seen the Father. We are followers of Jesus. We seek, at least in our better moments, to live, love, think, talk, and act as He did, or as He would if set in our circumstance. We seek to be people of the Word, not merely subscribers to some fine philosophy, but true adherents, living according to the Way prescribed in the Word. We seek to live as people aware of that shocking truth Paul just pointed out: God lives in me!
Now, look to verse 17, before you get all giddy about that idea. God lives in me, and He will destroy the one who destroys His temple. If I am that temple, what does this say about bodily health? What does this say about thought life? What does this say about a continued propensity for sin? Think about this for just the briefest of moments, and it should set you to trembling. Combined, as it must be, with what preceded, that whole discussion of careful construction and works burnt up in the end, it’s a call to utmost care, this being God’s temple.
If we could but maintain a consistent and comprehensive recognition of this truth in mind, we should find ourselves incapable of sin! How could we? Here within us resides the purest essence of holiness. He is such that sin cannot withstand His presence, and must be consumed in the holy fire of His purity. And yet, in what is truly a mystery of God, He abides in the likes of us. And, as Scripture reveals, He willingly acts as our tutor, our aide, our legal counsel. He reminds us of what is written, pointing us to both Law and grace. He provides us with the words to say when godly counsel is needed by another, or when we are called to testify of Christ. He brings us awareness of our sins – how could He not? – and nudges us towards true repentance. He is the overseer of the work of sanctification in us. But, the fact remains: We are the temple of this most holy being.
We are that highly honored by our Savior. But, to borrow the phrase, with great honor comes great responsibility. His presence in us does not diminish His holiness or His power. He has not decided that for those He loves, anything goes. No! Listen, you temples of the Most High God: If any man destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him! Now, for a church under attack, that might sound like words of greatest comfort. For our brethren in the Middle East, I could see this coming as a major boost to their will to persevere in faith. But, that would be a misinterpretation of the message Paul is delivering.
The first and clearest application is to the leaders and teachers in the church. In that sense, this is continuing the thought of the previous passage. You builders, watch carefully how you build, lest all your efforts be found to be for naught, because God must tear it down in order to see it built aright. Now, it gets harsher. Be careful, because with your shoddy workmanship you are actually destroying God’s temple. When you teach error, it is not just constructing with straw such that your work must be removed. It is undermining the construction. It is defiling the temple you claim to build.
When you know of sin and falsehood in the practice of the sheep in your charge, and allow it to persist, you are likewise defiling the temple. By your permissiveness you convince the sinner that his sin is acceptable before God. You remove the call to repentance and grant that the church be built upon pillars that must totter and fall. But, it’s not your church to build. It’s God’s house. If we collectively are His temple, then what we collectively create is His concern, and He will not fail to correct it.
Now, looking around the landscape of Christian or purportedly Christian practice today, it might be hard to believe this true. After all, the perverse positions held by those in many a pulpit cannot possibly be squared with a true understanding of the Word of God. Many profess, proclaim and inculcate a Christ utterly foreign to He Who Is and yet insist themselves Christians. We see congregations wherein the open practices of those in the pulpit are such as the Scriptures insist should not be tolerated among the people of God. And those denominations that permit and promote such things continue on. We have purportedly Christian churches that happily proclaim that Christ is just one way to heaven among many. Apparently, they’ve never actually read the Book. We have most every heresy ever countered by the careful work of the Church being proclaimed anew from one sect or another. How is it, then, that Scripture can say God will destroy those who destroy His temple? How can He permit this state of affairs to persist?
I am reminded that for many long years the temple practices in Israel were permitted to be similarly corrupt. Arguably, it was happening most of the time. There was a reason that Israel needed her prophets, and that reason was primarily to bring both priest and layman back to proper worship of a most holy God. And for many long centuries, God let it go on. He would correct those willing to be corrected. He would take stronger steps when necessary. What, after all, was the purpose of the Exile, if not to correct and restore? But, what we see resulting from the period when Messiah walked the earth is a failing of the last chance. With His death, the people of God chose final rejection of God. God arguably accepted their decision, and demonstrated His acceptance with the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. You want out of the covenant? Done.
But, the greater reality, to which Paul points us in Romans, is that God remains faithful to His covenant even yet. There remains a remnant. There always has and always will. There will be a restoration of the Jews, if not in their entirety. What that will look like and when it will have transpired is not ours to say. But, it will transpire. God has said it. We need to realize that the same remnant perspective applies to our own day and age. Clearly, not all that passes itself off as Christian is Christian. Clearly, much of the Church has gone horribly, perhaps irrevocably astray. Judgment must come, for it has been earned a thousand times over. But, just as clearly, a remnant remains. It always has and it always will.
Even a minimal familiarity with Church history demonstrates that truth. The Church is overrun in one place, but the seed of the Church has already been transported to some further shore, where it has taken root and flourished. In time, the growth from this new planting will return to those places that have been destroyed, and the flower of the Gospel will bloom anew in those places. That is the history of the Church. And, it is the history of the Church because the Church’s history is His story. It is His doing. He who knows the end from the beginning knows perfectly how to preserve His perfect Truth against all assault.
It may seem to us that the forces of darkness prevail, but they cannot. The darkness cannot comprehend the Light. Our big issue is that we are temporal beings of short duration. To us, as youth, thirty years seems an eternity, and as we pass and even double that thirty year mark, ninety feels long. We expect change in the short term, but God is a long term God. He has eternity to work with, and our length of days is but a momentary blip on such a span of time. It may seem to us that error is permitted to prosper in the Church, but the Truth remains firm: God will destroy him who destroys His temple.
This may be akin to the challenge His people have always felt in seeing the wicked seemingly prospering while the righteous are ground down to dust. The parable of Lazarus and the rich man speaks to that point (Lk 16:20-31). Here on the one hand is a poor, but righteous man whose suffering and misery appear to know no bounds other than his eventual death. There is a man callous to his fellow man, surrounded by his life of wealth and pleasure, he gives no thought to the suffering right outside his own door. His life does not seem the least diminished for his lack of righteousness. Measured by the span of their earthly days, the lot of these two men would seem to demonstrate the height of injustice. But, that span is, as I said, a blip on the chart. Eternity remains to balance the scales, and they are balanced indeed. That one who suffered so in this life, and yet persevered in faith finds himself entered into an eternal blessedness, with all pain, all sorrow, all suffering and all sin once for all removed. That one whose life was so pleasant and full discovers that his negligence has earned him an eternity of utter emptiness and constant torment, longing to be restored to God and finding it declared absolutely impossible.
So, with His Church and those who tend to it for good or for ill. It may be that in this lifetime, those who hold fast to sound doctrine appear to struggling to maintain viability. They are struggling to maintain viability. Meanwhile, those promoters of heresy and every vile sin seem to grow and prosper. They do grow and prosper. It’s to be expected that a fallen and sinful people will greatly prefer a fallen and sinful church. It demands nothing of them and gives them a certain placebo effect as to their own guilt. The Way that Christ proclaims is narrow, and few are those who find it (Mt 7:13-14). Why should it surprise us, then, that the wicked seem to prosper and the righteous to suffer? I don’t say we should just accede to this reality, sit down in the dust and wait to die. But, it shouldn’t be a shocking thing to recognize. Sinners acting sinfully? What should shock and surprise us is the delightful event of a sinner coming to Christ, being delivered of those chains of sin and set free unto life. There’s a reason the angels rejoice over every soul that gets saved. It’s a marvel every time.
Now, to some degree, we make this passage comfortable by leaving it applying to the church at its congregational level. I say to some degree because we are all of us part of one church or another – at least we are called to be so. And, if we are not in leadership, we can lay the warning and the penalty to those who lead. It’s their fault, not ours. As something of an aside, I’ve actually known those who were taught to think that way, and actively promoted this as a reason to obey church leadership however misguided their direction. It’s the leader who will be held to account, not the follower, so the reasoning goes. Yet, we are constantly being called to hear and to see what the Lord says and where He directs. We are not granted immunity for having followed a poor leader. “We were just following orders” is no defense. It never has been. It never will be.
So, then, I say we must hear the warning of verse 17 on a most personal level. To the degree that we permit our sins to continue to have claim on us, we are defiling the temple of God. To the degree that we play the game of picking and choosing which parts of Scripture we choose to accept and which we ignore, we are defiling the temple of God. To the degree that we excuse ourselves without repenting, that we justify ourselves without seeking forgiveness, we are defiling the temple of God. To the degree that our actions serve to turn another away from faith due to our hypocrisy and faithlessness, we are defiling the temple of God.
There is a reason why sexual sins always seem to top the list of issues with which God is concerned. All other sins, we are told, remain external to a man, but the sexual sin, if you will, enters the temple. It seeks to introduce sin into the Holy of holies, and this cannot be permitted. If one thinks of the degree in which sex and religious practice were intertwined in that age, it’s no surprise that a holy God wants purity in this area first and foremost. Too often, the act of sex is itself an act of worshiping false gods. It’s no less true today, nor are the sacrifices made to those vile idols any less awful. But, this is only the most egregious offense. The fact is that all of our sins have the effect of defiling the temple.
As I say, recognizing that you are personally and individually a temple in which the Spirit of a perfectly holy God dwells should be terrifying. What a responsibility! What an impossibility, that I should avoid anything that might defile that temple. I can’t do it. I am left like Isaiah, saying, “Woe is me, for I am ruined! I am a man of unclean lips (unclean habits), and I live amongst the unclean (whose filth I cannot help but roll in), and yet my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts” (Isa 6:5). How much more terrible to discover this King, this Lord of hosts has taken up residence in you? He who can abide no least presence of sin is in you, a sinner. What must happen to you? Hear that warning again. I’ll take it from Wuest’s translation. “If, as is the case, anyone morally corrupts the inner sanctuary of God…”
Look! “As is the case”. It’s undeniable. We have, each and every one of us, acted and functioned in ways that defile the temple. We can’t help but do so, and yet that does nothing to mitigate the crime. How is it we are ever off our knees? How do we have time to do anything but cry out for mercy? Oh! God! I am undone. Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord (Lk 5:8)! Yes! But, no. Never, my God, depart from me, for better to be a gatekeeper in Your house for even one day than to spend eternity elsewhere. I would rather stand at the threshold of the house of my God than dwell in the tents of wickedness (Ps 84:10b). Cast me not away, O, God, but restore. Cleanse this wicked heart. Wash me once more in the purifying waters of Thy Word, that I may be as I ought to be. Far be it from me, My King, that I should ever give cause for the reprobate to blaspheme Your magnificent name.
It is a call to greatest care, for in truth we cannot command God’s Spirit to depart, and however much we may implore Him to do so, His obedience is to Himself. He has called us and we are His (Isa 43:1). That’s not going to change, for His is an everlasting love, an everlasting faithfulness. For the elect, the message persists: You may suffer loss for your shoddy work, yet you shall be saved (1Co 3:15). Why? Because it’s not about you. It’s about God.
It remains, true, though, that holiness is not an optional component in the temple of God. It is mandatory. Additionally, we must come to realize that this holiness is not just a matter of gross sins, or even the so-called respectable sins. It encompasses the whole of doctrine and practice. To build incorrectly, to adopt or tolerate beliefs that misrepresent God, is to defile this holy place. It is to render it no longer holy, no longer fit for the God it claims to serve. What do we do with this? On the personal level, it is necessarily a call to be careful what we hear, what we read, who we listen to. This is not just a matter of rejecting ‘the world’. It applies even more in those who come in the guise of preachers, teachers or leaders in the Church. These are the most insidious of influences when their instruction is not carefully rooted in Truth, for the lies come clothed deceptively. They are small things, as we have discussed in other parts of this study, which lead to destruction in their accumulation. But, being small deviations, they are harder to recognize at the outset. They require of us a greater degree of care.
For those of us who teach, and I must include myself here, whether any read these pages or not, the caution is all the greater. Not only do we have a responsibility to be careful of our own development, we also take upon ourselves a responsibility for everything we may contribute to another’s development. It’s not just the specifics of what we teach or write. It also consists in the example we provide in our lives. It consists in the example we provide when we’re not specifically trying to be exemplary. We must be seeking such consistency that the unintentional documenting of our lives does no more than to confirm what we are in our better moments.
I think of that article I found at one time from a student attending classes taught by my former worship director. The article had nothing to do with worship or church life at all. But, it described this student’s interactions with my friend, and his response to some situation in the student’s life. Some difficulty had ended and things had turned around to the good, and this man’s response, recorded there in the article, was, “Oh, praise God!” This was so typical of the man I knew from church, but it was pleasantly surprising to discover that he was the same man on the job. For many of us, there is a Sunday persona and another that we adopt for the workplace, perhaps another for home, and so on. We are chameleons attempting to fit our surroundings. It seems the right thing to do, to try and get along. When in Rome, and all that. Isn’t this what Paul was saying he did?
No, of course, it isn’t. It’s the flesh seeking to be comfortable and nothing more. We learn to do this somehow, whether it’s inherent in our makeup or learned from those around us, it is the common way of man. Some are able to escape the mold, and by and large, such people make us uncomfortable in their excessive transparency, don’t they? They are too honest for their own good, we may suggest. They lack in social graces, are so simple that they are bound to get hurt emotionally. We feel the need to help them. And yet, when it comes to faith, this is how we ought to be, isn’t it? There remains that matter of being innocent as doves and wise as foxes, but faith certainly belongs on the innocent side of that equation. We needn’t be so bluntly truthful as to be intolerable, but we are not to live as though we were ashamed of the Gospel. No! We should be proud of the God we trust, and we should be seeking to live such that we would have no cause to hide away our trust in Him for fear that we would bring shame to His name were it known we were His.
Holiness: It doesn’t just happen. It needs to be purposefully pursued and purposefully maintained. It is a full time job to keep the temple clean, and we dare not be slack in our labors. Think of the clear concern the high priest had on that one day of the year when he was permitted into the Holy of holies. The preparations were carefully observed, every rite and ceremony seen to. He would be clean. His robes would be carefully in order. The several sacrifices were made in their prescribed ways, the cloud of incense within was sufficient to keep him from seeing what he ought not to see. And even so, if the tales are correct, he would go in with a rope attached so that he could be pulled out by his brethren if something had been neglected and his presence in that holy place should be his demise.
Now, we have been granted immense privilege in this reality of being personal temples of the Holy Spirit of God. We have been granted immense privilege in that we have effectively unlimited access to that Holy of holies. But, this can lead to a deadly presumption on our part, to an unwarranted lack of concern as to how we enter that place and how we treat it. The formalities are not only neglected but despised. That would be legalism, we are pretty sure, and we are freed of that in Christ Jesus, so we need have no concern. We’re going to see Abba, Father. We’re not like mere citizens come to plead before His Eminence. Well, the truth is we are both. We are sons and daughters of the Most High, and at the same time we are mere citizens before His Eminence. He is Father, and even Husband, but He is also King of all kings, Lord of all lords. He is still Perfection and we are even yet exceedingly imperfect.
God will not tolerate the corrupter of His house. That, to me, remains a very personal and individual caution. You are His house, and you are responsible for its upkeep. If you are allowing deception to enter, or sin to pile up in the corners, it will do you no good to try and deflect the blame to your teachers. Even if it is true that you have been taught error, yet you have the responsibility in that you have accepted the error, and have done nothing to correct it or to provide yourself with better teachers. The construction of this house of flesh and spirit is not entirely a passive operation from our perspective. It’s more of a middle voice activity, impossible without God and yet of a nature that requires our personal effort and volition to align with His.
At the same time, God will not tolerate the corrupter of His people. That returns us to the teachers, the pastors, the elders. We can argue and debate over the particular distinctions that do or do not apply to those three roles. Let it be supposed that offices of prophet or apostle persist, and they can be added to this warning. But, let the church be exceedingly careful as to what offices it upholds, even as it takes care with all doctrine. Let it likewise be exceedingly careful of what it rejects, lest it set aside what God has not set aside. I would have to maintain that to withhold from the body that which is rightfully a part is just as bad as adding to it that which is not.
It happens that in recent weeks I have found myself put into the office of chairman of the elders of my church. Again, this is no passive thing in which I had no say. I accepted the responsibility, with however much fear and trepidation. I am still quite surprised to find myself here, and at most times, more than humbled by it. Look at the warnings! If you destroy the temple, God will destroy you. Take care, leader! It’s not just here, either. The concern God takes for the quality of His undershepherds, and the steps He takes to purge His people of those undershepherds who prove to be to their harm, are manifold and severe. The warnings to those who would teach are equally stark. You will be held to a higher standard, you who would instruct My people. Let not many seek that responsibility.
We have recently, as a board, been reconsidering the requirements Scripture sets upon those who would be elders. It should be enough to dissuade any man from serving. If perfection were truly required in every aspect of character required, no man could withstand scrutiny. But, of course, like the Law before it, the requirements, while entirely accurate in their description of the necessary character, are also given as an antidote for pride, and as a goad driving us always back to Christ. Apart from God, I cannot possibly be godly. Apart from God, I have no hope of fulfilling this office without setting myself subject to this dire promise: If you destroy My temple, I will destroy you.
This is something that should make me weak at the knees. Were I standing at this point, it might well be necessary to find a chair. It is a death sentence, is it not? It is inescapable. I know myself too well. I know how often I can pronounce one meaning to a passage only to find myself questioning my own conclusions the next day. I know my propensity to allow the sort of fanciful interpretation and application more common to some of my previous churches. I know, too, the awful necessity of getting it right, and not just understanding it aright, but living it. This office requires of me many things I hold as utterly uncomfortable and entirely out of character. Being something of an introvert, I am called to reach out to others, to care about them expressly rather than from the shadows. Being less than comfortable with confrontation, here I am set as an organ of church discipline. That is no welcome duty for any man, I should think. It is not that I stand here alone, but it makes little enough difference. Yes, I have the support of my brother elders, and they have mine. Yes, I have nothing near the burden the pastor bears in these regards. But, the burden, even shared such as it is, is great. Apart from God, it is impossible. To lead as we should, to shepherd as we must, is beyond us. I’ve not met a one among us who doesn’t recognize this.
But, it is rare that we bring before our eyes so dire a reminder of duty. If you allow the temple to be defiled, God will destroy you. You have accepted responsibility in accepting office. You have promised to shepherd and care for this people. You have become an overseer. The very word describes one with his nose in peoples’ business, but without being a busybody. It is your solemn duty to be aware of what’s going on in the lives of those you shepherd. It is your solemn duty to be the voice of correction if they are going astray.
That is hard enough when the issue is one of unrepentant, habitual sin. It is much harder when it comes to errors of belief or practice. Orthodoxy and orthopraxy are difficult things to handle, particularly in a church that upholds the right of conscience. These are not things that can be coerced or enforced, by and large, apart from some of the most egregious errors. Clearly, if one denies the deity of Christ, the Triune nature of God, the death and resurrection of our Lord, then we are going to have to take steps. But, if views differ on matters of how Christ’s return unfolds? If we have varied views of what it means that God is sovereign? Do these rise to the place of discipline? Probably not. If this one brings in some practices of dubious value, is it worth purging? We have those among us who are rather more enamored of the charismata than is necessarily warranted. We have those who are just as enamored of certain Old Testament practices and traditions. We have those who want to cling to Roman Catholicism together with their Protestantism. It seems rather an impossibility to me, but then, I was never a Catholic.
Which, if any, of these things rises to the point of requiring action? As to those outside our church whose ministries touch our people, what degree of care do we take? What degree of care can we take? Should we take? The airwaves are impossible to control, and however much we may pry into the development of our charges, we can no more manage their every input than we could with our own children. Cut off every avenue of outside input into the house, disconnect the cable and tear down the antenna. It won’t matter. Lies will still find their way in. Outside influences will still present constant issues. It’s not just children. It’s spouses. It’s fellow parishioners. It’s elders and pastors.
So we must first give constant attention to where we may need to take steps to guard the sheep – most likely against their present wishes. We must also give careful consideration as to how to guard, how to correct. The purge is most likely not the correct response. Demanding perfect unity of doctrine and faith is unlikely to work. We would become a church of one, and even then, we would likely discover disagreement with ourselves. We are called, particularly with the elect, to gentle correction, to seeking to correct the error in love. We cannot suppose that love calls us to allow error to persist. That is most unloving. Love, as the song notes for the wrong reasons, hurts. Being an elder in the house of God is going to hurt sometimes, because we must be disciplinarians when called upon to be so, and no discipline is ever welcome when it comes. The result may be sweet in time, but in that moment of correction, unpleasantness and more are almost assuredly going to be the experience.
I want to close this study out with something that came by from a young friend of mine serving as a missionary in his native South Africa. Discussing matters of racism still extent in his country, and not just between black and white, but also between tribes, he records the words of one of his co-leaders on the subject of handling racism. “The cross is the ultimate symbol of ‘rejected love’. To show solidarity with Jesus means to live out rejected love and keep trying despite the frustrations.” This applies equally well to the call to discipline and correct our charges. We knew it as parents to some degree. We shall know it in spades as undershepherds of our Rejected Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. But, He will uphold us in our work as we seek Him on our knees.
