I had heard this second-hand, but when I finally listened to the sermon, it seemed worse than I initially thought:
[Sermon on the holiness of God] Now at this point, I know, maybe some aren't happy and maybe the question is, "well, look pastor, where is the grace and all this? I mean, where is the grace? It just feels too rigorous it feels too daunting. Maybe you're saying yes, I don't really want to feel like Peter who pulled up the net." Well,
I want to say something. The grace is in the hot coal. Isaiah said I'm cut off. I don't think this was his conversion. I don't think this was his original call. What was it? I'm beginning to wonder if it was his prideful mouth. That he came to understand was indeed a prideful mouth, but regardless whatever it was the angel takes from the altar the burning coal. What is that? It's the consuming wrath of God on that altar takes the coal from the altar and touches his lips and says, "you are forgiven." Now what's that all about? Well, let me paint it the way I've been painting it for the conference. You have this indescribable incomprehensible and immeasurable God, and you have man, and there is a great distance between you a chasm between the two. And that coal upon the lips of that prophet was but a taste of what it would cost, in a vision mind you, of what it would cost to bridge that gap. He was invited into the experience in that vision, into the experience of what it was to experience the wrath of God that would bring forgiveness and it seems to be that because at that point we find Isaiah ready to pursue holiness and what Isaiah understands is that he cannot accomplish this atonement in and of himself.
While this scene is very gracious, and indeed, even the coal is gracious. The problem is the description of the experience of the coal. This pastor makes explicit that Isaiah is invited into the "experience of what it was to experience the wrath of God". That is quite scary. Keep in mind that Isaiah is saved at this point. This is not the beginning of his prophetic ministry. Not only that, Isaiah has just confessed his sin and repented, and after that, the coal is taken and touched to his lips.
1) I believe this is sacramental. In the sacraments, we do not "participate" in the sacrament, but we commemorate and recognize, in a tangible way, what is symbolized. That is to say that baptism is not participation in the cleansing of sin, but recognition and commemoration of the cleansing. Communion is not participation in Christ's death, but commemoration of his suffering for our sakes. This is important, in this respect, because we cannot cleanse ourselves, and we cannot atone for ourselves, we can just be reminded of that work which is done on our behalf. So, saying that Isaiah was suffering the wrath of God in a real sense in his spirit in a vision first suggests that somehow man can atone for his own sin.
2) Remember that Isaiah is saved. Isaiah suffering God's wrath after he is saved and has specifically repented suggests a God that is not the one portrayed in the Bible - one ready to forgive and remove our sin far from us. For example, the RPCNA Book of Discipline says, (Ch 3:3) "If the sinner confesses and repents, there must be forgiveness and reconciliation, and the matter shall be closed. You have won your brother. Such closure may include counsel or censure appropriate to the circumstances." So, if God is forgiving Isaiah, why would he insist on burning his lips off first? I think this is part of the justification for overly harsh discipline - both parental and church. The lesson has been learned, but the parent still has to "punish the crime". One of the best things I've read about discipline is that the discipline comes before the message. That is, the purpose of the discipline is to help the child hear and understand the message. That is different than what we hear in RP circles, and this is probably justification for that. Discipline in RP circles is more about letting a child stand before an open window into the wrath of God - exactly what we see here in this interpretation, and probably the idea of the "appropriate censure".
3) The pastor later says, and I agree, that this is a commissioning of Isaiah for ministry. I think it is gracious and sacramental - a comforting sign that the wrath of God has been satisfied, not in burning Isaiah's lips, but already in the sacrifice of Christ, and Isaiah's lips are cleansed, not because they were cauterized in the heat of the coal, but because, again, symbolically, the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing repentance and restoration. It is like simultaneously participating in baptism and communion. He's being comforted, not spanked, after he is instructed and brought to recognize his own sinfulness.
4 comments:
It is extremely sad that so often biblical counseling leaders and elders on the one hand will nitpick with punitive discipline, often in areas where they should be showing a lot more grace, but on the other hand they won’t show back bone and let life consequences for one’s abusive sin run its course, instead choose to sweep under the rug serious issues. Oyvey!!
It's sad, but easy to explain. The abuser is typically the one with power in the situation, and the victim is typically weaker. When the church chooses to flex its disciplinary muscle, who is the more likely target? The powerful one who will fight back and divide the congregation or leave and cause economic trouble, or the weak one who will find others unwilling to side with him in opposition to the church, or who will leave with no economic impact?
And that is assuming that the church has not already dismissed the complaint out of hand. One of the major problems with Biblical Counseling is the inordinate focus on anger. The victim is righteously angry at being victimized, but BC will always challenge the victim to "reframe" their situation, and through the reframing, the anger becomes the evidence that the victim is holding on to unhealthy anger and sin.
It doesn't pass the "Jesus" test. Would Jesus have been praised by BC counselors in driving the abusive moneychangers out of the temple, or would he have been told that his obvious anger was unhealthy and wrong and that he was bitter and unforgiving? If BC cannot discern between the two, then it will be damaging to righteously angry victims.
So very true. Biblical counseling so often conflates forgiveness with relationship. Biblical counseling more often than not only exasperates the problems, as you rightly pointed out in some of your other blog posts here.
There is zero biblical mandate that we must be in relationship with those who have consistently been toxic and abusive to us. One of the problems is that biblical counseling‘s premise is all wrong. Their premise is that always and forever what must occur is restoration of a relationship. This is completely false and not biblical. Sure, where possible it’s good for a restored relationship to take place, however at times a parting of the ways is the wisest thing.
This is the classic making a bad situation worse that so many sessions, elders and supposed biblical counselors habitually fester. They will claim wholesale piously.....” Well reconciliation is what everything is all about, after all that’s what Christ did for humanity“”!
Too many Christians get on the treadmill of wasting so much of their lives because of these leader’s messiah complex.
Not terribly surprising... from Chapter 2 of the Book of Discipline:
"1. If a member sins against another person, or if a member sins and this sin
becomes known to another member of the church, the person sinned against
or aware of the sin should go privately to the sinner and confront him.
2. If the sinner repents, there must be forgiveness and reconciliation, and the
matter shall be closed. You have won your brother."
The first definition of "reconcile", according to Merriam-Webster, is to restore to friendship or harmony.
So, the RP church already has it in mind that two parties in any sin matter, must first seek forgiveness and repentance, then must seek a restoration to friendship. I've seen and heard many times people, sessions, etc., be commanded to "reconcile" when they have significant unresolved differences.
I think this is another example where the RP church simply doesn't get it. If someone molests my child, and is forgiven, there can still be no reconciliation. That person must never be returned to a position where they can hurt that child. That person, even if a bona-fide believer, has permanently given up the right to be in the presence of children.
A pastor who commits adultery should be deposed, whether by his own action, or by the action of the church, and that pastor can never be reconciled, in the sense of being restored to his office.
It's not surprising that the church gets this horribly wrong and many victims are forced to be face-to-face with their abuser, all in the name of "reconciliation", and when they don't "reconcile", the tables are turned and they are called hateful, angry and bitter.
Post a Comment