William Petruzzo

A few days ago I posted on the topic of being persecuted because of our own righteousness in Christ illuminating the self-righteousness, and thus unrighteousness, of the unbeliever. Today, I came across an interesting example of a similar idea.

John 12:10-11:

“the chief priests made plans to put Lazarus to death as well, because on account of him many of the Jews were going away and believing in Jesus.”

Lazarus was sick. Something Jesus knew about. Jesus allowed Lazarus to die so that he would have the opportunity to be undeniably glorified in the miracle of Lazarus’ life. Jesus called Lazarus from death into life and so Lazarus was a walking testimony to the Christ Jesus. For this, the Pharisees made plans to kill Lazarus as well. Why? Because of his association to our Lord and the powerful testimony he carried with him. The powerful testimony he actually was!

Truthfully, we are not much different. All of us were “dead” in our transgressions and apart from any power of our own, Jesus commanded us from death into life. Now, much like Lazarus, we are a walking testimony to the risen Christ who has given an everlasting righteousness. A righteousness that shows the world what its righteousness really is: filthy rags.

It seems that the point is the same, an unbeliever can never find truly be comfortable in the presence of a true believer. The Cross of Christ is offensive and those exposed to its light will be offended.

A friend of mine and I were just getting ready to call it a night when we decided that we were in the mood for a movie. We decided a thriller of sorts was in line for the evening, so we made our way to the Redbox and rented P2. You may never have heard of it. It certainly didn’t win any awards or anything.

The gist is basically a young woman is working late on Christmas eve and while trying to leave is captured by a parking lot security guard who has a sick obsession with her. You can imagine where the movie goes.

Through the course of the movie the security guard attempts to win the woman’s affection in some less than conventional manners. For example, killing one of her coworkers who she had an altercation with. He’s obviously deranged and a murderer, among other things.

By the end of the movie, the woman has managed to turn the tables through a series of pretty clever decisions. She’s been through quite a lot. Been drugged, handcuffed, locked in the trunk of a car, crashed a car, tazered, and bitten by a dog. Finally, she has her assailant handcuffed to a car which is leaking gasoline. He’s now unarmed, blind and nearly unable to walk. But he’s still crazy, and can’t understand why the woman won’t have anything to do with him.

As she walks to safety, he gets upset and calls her an unsavory name. In her anger, she turns and lights the car on fire which burns her attacker alive, and she walks out into the street.

For the record, if I had the choice again, I would likely choose not to watch the movie. It was simply too much gore and not enough suspense.

But, my emotional response to the movie’s ending reminded me of some scripture.

Romans 12:19 says:

“Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, " VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord.”

The movie painted the picture of one individual as being pure, good and righteous. 100% victim. Obviously, in real life that doesn’t exist. But in a movie the ideal can. Then, opposite her, we have one who embodies, selfishness and evil. He was a murderer and the entire movie the viewer wishes he would come to justice.

But, in the end of the movie when she burns the man alive, I got a glimpse into the meaning of that verse. Her opponent was incapacitated and completely subdued and defenseless. When she killed him, she liquidated her righteous standing as established in the beginning of the movie. She no longer fulfilled the ideal that was painted for her. She too was a murderer and was equally deserving of a fiery death as he was.

When we intentionally execute revenge when we have been wronged, we join our injurer in his camp of unrighteousness. We become guilty of the same sins as him. Although it feels good to press revenge, the truth is, we are descending into unrighteousness and it will always produce adverse and often painful results.

That also reminds me of a tidbit of scripture which I read this afternoon and although the context isn’t a perfect match, I still think it applies:

1 Peter 2:20:

“For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God.”

A subtle, but popular trend in Christian evangelism today is the idea that prosperity is the means by which we can communicate the genuineness of our religion to unbelievers. I only know this because of my stint in youth ministry. It’s never said like that, but it’s communicated between the lines.

I can remember long discussions about the importance of dressing hip. Being strong, assertive, confident yet still "humble". We’d make no big deal about spending money frivolously on things that just weren’t all that important, like interior decorations, late night fast food and gas. Tons and tons of gas. All because in a covert way, it said one thing:

"I have it all together. God has (I have) it all taken care of. And, if you believe this, this is how orderly and nice you’re life will be too."

I’ve often had conversations with people about the absurdity of that idea. Historically, it’s just not effective. In fact, I’m betting it’s more destructive than anything else. I mean, when our behavior ultimately causes people to focus on us and not on God, all we do is create our own little religions that quickly die out. In fact, when was the last time you can think of that getting a new car really really caused your heart to flutter and your mind to move to worship?

Probably never. I mean, I’m sure you’ve been thankful. As have I. But realistically, it’s not generally prosperity in our lives that really moves us to worship. So, if prosperity in our lives barely moves us to worship God, why the heck would prosperity in our lives move anyone else to worship?

I’ve always argued from the point of the martyrs. How so often hardened soldiers and opponents of Christianity would be melted and converted at the sight of a martyred disciple. But tonight, something else dawned on me.

Jesus himself gives a great example of this very thinking:

Luke 23:47-48, immediately following Jesus’ death on the cross, while is body still hung there:

Now when the centurion saw what had taken place, he praised God, saying, "Certainly this man was innocent!" And all the crowds that had assembled for this spectacle, when they saw what had taken place, returned home beating their breasts.

It strikes me that people are hardly ever, if ever, moved and changed at the sight of a Christian’s prosperity. But almost always, at least, impacted at the sight of a Christian’s love and faith, in spite of disparity.

In more ways that one, Jesus’ proved that to us.

I’ve been slowly reading Albert Mohler’s Atheism Remix. He just introduced the figures that he’s dubbed the “four horsemen of the New Atheism” and now he’s gone into introducing their ideals. And, their disdain for religion, specifically Christianity.

Closing his address of their ideals, he says this:

“…the New Atheists argue that religion itself must be eliminated in order to preserve human freedom. Freedom is the one great good for these secularists, and thus any restriction on human freedom is by definition wrong. In their view, humanity can never be free if the authority of God and church are not overturned. Thus, there is a moral impulse behind their ambitions—as is true of all revolutionary movements. And make no mistake—the New Atheism does represent a revolution.”

There’s such great irony in their use of the word freedom.

These secularists claim that religion limits freedom. They call it bondage. They call it evil and something to be eradicated. But, there’s a deep gap in logic there. Does this ideal person, totally free, have the freedom to place himself in the “bondage” of religion? Or is that person failing to exercise their freedom? But, for the Christian, he has the freedom to believe, because God has given him the grace to do so. But, he also has the freedom not to believe, although none will reject that grace.

Looking at the argument objectively and logically, who really has more freedom?

I won’t say too much here, because I don’t think a conventional review of this book would either be adequate or appropriate. But there are three things I would like specifically to bring up.

1. The theology John Piper’s of Desiring God is not gimmicky and it’s not a fad of Christianity. It’s just plain biblical. Frankly, it’s simply biblical theology, with a slightly different packaging. It’s the staple and the life force of some of history’s great saints and it would be foolish to ignore it.

2. If at any point we undermine and neglect the message Piper brings forth in Desiring God we dishonor God, and we cheat ourselves.

3. Few books rely as heavily on biblical reference and citation as this one.

I have only a small handful of criticisms.

Piper has subtitled this book Meditations of a Christian Hedonist. As poignant a subtitle as that may be in light of scripture, in this circumstance it mostly just threatens the reader’s confidence in the message.

Piper spends a good deal of time in the beginning of the book explaining that Christian Hedonism isn’t a new thing. It was the faith of steadfast saints before us as well as the church fathers. That is a strong point, not easily discredited. Unfortunately, coining a new term makes it seem new and shiny and thus less credible. I had trouble with the term the whole way through the book. Being Christian Hedonist simply means being a biblical Christian, then just call them Christians.

I think this is a point Piper and I are simple going to have to disagree on.

My second criticism is what seems to be Piper’s inclinations to extremes. For example, in a chapter on suffering, Piper argues that Christians must suffer. That we must choose to suffer. A point and bible believe Christian will have difficulty arguing against. However, Piper’s inclination is to the extremes in that situation. Torture, martyrdom and such. While these circumstances are certainly reality for many Christians worldwide, they aren’t for much of his audience.

He does spend a short bit to explain that suffering is a broader scope than simply the physical extremes, but not enough time. So unfortunately, what may be communicated is that real suffering is only in those extremes. Or worse, that perhaps we should seek out those extremes. That’s not the case. When called for the sake of the Gospel, we ought to tread boldly into situations where those extremes are possibilities, without fear of them.

I think Piper would agree with that, but it’s a bit unclear in his writing.

However, these criticisms are minor and the benefit held in the pages of this book far outweighs them. I have to recommend this book to everyone. It’s a bit long and the style takes some getting used to, but it’s worth it.

I thought tonight I would post a simple reminder from Jonathan Edwards, one of the great fathers of the Christian faith. He says, quite frankly:

“The way to Heaven is ascending; we must be content to travel uphill, though it be hard and tiresome, and contrary to the natural bias of our flesh.”

I ought to remind myself regularly that this life as a follower of Jesus, and all that it contains, is an upward motion. Like climbing a mountain, it is not easy. But also, like recreational climbing, this ascent is to be deeply enjoyed.

A few days back I finished Samuel Bolton’s puritan classic, True Bounds of Christian Freedom. In the world of puritan literature, this one was definitely among the easier to read.

In this work, Baxter’s aim was to make clear what it means to have Christian “freedom” and where exactly the law falls into the equation. There is a certain sense of ambiguity throughout the church as to the answer to both of those questions. Some will claim their freedom over all kinds of things they shouldn’t, while some who ought to be free to live in move are paralyzed for lack of understanding their true freedom in Christ.

In nine chapters and 224 pages, Baxter endeavors to thoroughly answer each of the following questions:

1. Does our being made free by Christ free us from the law?

2. Does our being made free by Christ deliver us from all punishments or chastisements [from God] for sin?

3. Is it consistent with Christian freedom to be under obligation to perform duties because God has commanded them?

4. My Christ’s freedmen come into bondage again through sin?

5. Is it consistent with Christian freedom to perform duties out of respect for the recompense of the reward?

6. Does the freedom of a Christian free him from all obedience to men?

Each chapter, Baxter thoroughly and a biblically makes his case for the answer of each of these questions. Some of the questions appear somewhat elementary, but even still Baxter makes some valuable, encouraging and challenging points.

I enjoyed this book at some times more than at others. There were parts that became overwhelmingly dry, while others seemed rich with metaphor and content that kept my mind turning over different thoughts. There was at least one time in this book where the information contained completely lit up my understanding of life, sin, death, Jesus and atonement and then subsequent freedom. It made the interlocking nature of the two covenants become very clear and there connection to each other was no longer hazy. The five or ten pages alone that produced that understanding made the book worth the read.

I really think that Christian freedom is something that is not well understood in our churches today, but needs to be. We have it saturating so much of our Christian multimedia and conversation, but most of the time it doesn’t produce heart level bondage to righteousness, as it should, but instead acts as an unjust ease of conscience on men and women who wish to go on sinning.

I think this book has a great deal of encouragement and challenge to offer the church today, but may not be the most accessible to average readers. While it is easier than a lot of classic literature, a lot of the wording will probably be lost on people. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who feels their understanding of law and freedom is deficient, but be warned, you’ll have to stay committed to the book in order to benefit from it.