The Importance of Integrity vs. Compromise and Political Power-Plays

January 4, 2017November 25, 2017Kirk E. Miller

Integrity matters. If you want to serve as a testimony to Christian ethics, then you’re actually going to need to hold them, and that means holding them with consistency. Hypocrisy and double-standards will effectively serve to mute your witness.

It’s hard to cry out against a sin in one instance when, in another instance, you’ve excused, blown-off, or chosen to overlooked that sin.

What if the sort of “power” and influence Jesus intended for his followers wasn’t one of ends-justify-the-means ethical compromise and political power-plays, but witness to a “revolutionary”-like ethic like that of Mt 5-7, with all the integrity, lowliness, and self-sacrifice involved therein (5:13-16)?

Many advocate ethical compromise for the sake of “the greater good” (or “the lesser of two evils”). But what shall it profit the church if it gains a whole election but loses its witness? What if the church’s witness is the actual means of its impact?

RECOMMENDED: Can the Religious Right Be Saved? by Russell Moore

January 4, 2017November 26, 2017Kirk E. Miller

This was an excellent lecture. Russell Moore, as always, nails it.

Access the video here.

Access a full transcript of the lecture here.

Can the Religious Right Be Saved? Presented by Russell D. Moore from First Things on Vimeo.

Goodreads Review of Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views by H. Wayne House

January 1, 2017November 26, 2017Kirk E. Miller

Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views by H. Wayne House
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Good, substantive discussions (minus Richards, see below).

Laney provides a great survey of the texts, although I wish he had engaged the main “issues” more.

Heth is on point. Superb scholarly work here. (Note: Heth later changed his view, so lots of respect for this guy given his willingness to go where he thinks the text leads despite the sacrifice involved — his previously scholarly stand, e.g., his contribution here.)

Edgar is a juggernaut of destruction, ripping other authors and arguments to shreds. He’s good; but his tone is unfortunate. He also succumbs to building lots of straw man and frequently overstates his case. (Laney and Heth rightly take note of this.)

Richards… Oh, Richards. I don’t know how his piece made it past the editor. How did this guy get invited to contribute to this project? He only cites two sources… two endnotes! (compare that to Heth’s 106 endnotes). Seriously. Horrible exegesis. Loads of eisegesis.

He basically argues (and this is no exaggeration) that all divorce and remarriage is wrong, but people can do it anyway and we shouldn’t judge since that’d be legalistic. … Antinomianism would be a better title for his position!

Besides Richard’s though, lots of good stuff here.

(The following evaluation of each author’s contribution is not necessarily reflective of whether I agree or disagree with their position, but is based on the quality of their contribution, regardless of whether I agree with them.)

View all my reviews

Goodreads Review of Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the Bible: A Fresh Look at What Scripture Teaches by Jay E. Adams

December 22, 2016November 26, 2017Kirk E. Miller

Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the Bible: A Fresh Look at What Scripture Teaches by Jay E. Adams

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Content — good.

Tone — could be improved at points, particularly when dealing with those with whine he disagrees (typical Jay Adams).

Sometimes a little simplistic in its handling of things.

Sometimes the opposite: stances were so, “If this, then that… If this, than that… If this, then…” (etc.) that things felt several levels removed from the text itself, and one began to feel suspicious of their legitimacy.

But, all in all, an impressive little treatment — cuts through a complex issue with a lot of clarity (even if being in danger of a little over-simplicity at times).

View all my reviews

A Final, Clarifying Remark About My Stance on Trump, Evangelicals, & the 2016 Election

November 13, 2016November 25, 2017Kirk E. Miller

Some evangelicals are saying, “The election is over. What’s done is done. There’s nothing we can do about it now. Besides, maybe he won’t be as bad as you thought. Let’s see what happens.”

If that’s you, I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood folks like myself from the very beginning.

Large swaths of evangelicals defended and/or excused Mr. Trump’s moral corruption and damaging rhetoric — his racism, misogyny, degradation of the handicap, dismissiveness of sexual assault, inciting hatred towards immigrants, prompting fear and callousness towards refugees, etc. Regardless of what type of president Mr. Trump turns out to be, that still happened. That can’t be undone.

You see, for some of us — at least as much as I can speak for myself — our outcry against evangelical support of Trump has never been centrally about the electoral contribution of your vote Tuesday, as if we had some political agenda that now becomes moot after the election (“What’s done is done”). Nor has it ever been about “providing a solution” to a dilemma we never claimed to be addressing in the first place — the nomination of two generally unlikeable candidates.

Our primary concern is and always has been the spiritual condition of evangelicalism, about the church’s witness, integrity, and faithfulness to truth. And that’s something that obviously transcends the election itself. The 2016 election didn’t create (and therefore conclude) the concerning state we now see; it merely exposed it.

Kirk E. Miller

Scripture, theology, ministry, and everything in between.

Worldview & Culture