Matt’s Marvelous Mailbag seeks to provide marginally adequate answers to much better questions about politics, economics, social life, theology, or any potpourri you see fit to have answered. Send questions to mailbag.bereans@gmail.com.  

Not to flatter any of you, but y’all ask some mighty fine questions on a regular basis. Take a second to pat yourselves on the back. Seriously ‘A’s all around for the lot of ya. It makes my job significantly easier when the questions are this good. Ok, flattery over. On to the mailbag.

Q: Amy asks: “What should the individual’s role in the church be?”

A: Well, to a large extent, that question is up to you. The primary image we have for how the church operates is the body; some people are eyes, others ears, and we even have a couple of pinkie toes in there. When Paul gives that illustration, however, he doesn’t specify in great detail who is supposed to occupy which position; that is largely left to the members to figure out (just another one of the perks of Christian liberty). Are you a go-getter who has a desire to shepherd the flock? You may be called to be a pastor. Not a great fan of the limelight, but you know how to cook well? Make meals for those in less fortunate positions than your own. Love to sing or play music? The choir and orchestra may just have an opening for you.

Now, a couple of things I think are important to remember here:

1. Your role is not limited to the church building. One of the unfortunate frameworks that still persists in many Christian minds is this idea that the church is a place proper. No, no, no, no. I think C.S. Lewis had it more aptly in describing it as “spread out through all time and space, rooted in eternity, and terrible as an army with banners.” In contrast to the Old Testament days of Israel, God’s kingdom is significantly more mobile nowadays. Don’t misunderstand me, I think people ought to count themselves blessed if they have a physical building for corporate gathering, but don’t let that unity of place subsume the underlying reality. Much good can happen inside the church, but much more should be happening outside it. Most of the real work occurs in the conversations we have with those around us, the burdens we bear for those who are suffering, and the general acts of charity we display. It seems to me that Sunday morning is primarily for the refreshing and the refocusing of the soul and therefore, if I may speak with a Chestertonian twist, should ideally be the most reasonable thing we do all week — a momentary respite from our battles where heaven and earth join hands, heaven to bestow and earth to receive another anchor in that blessed, eternal rest.
2. Note the correct assumption in the question, namely that each individual Christian has a role. Your role can appear in a myriad of ways. I’ve got one friend who plays video games with friends from work, and that opens up an opportunity for him to share the Gospel. Is that a legit role? Absolutely, but it’s still a role. ‘Lazy Christian’ is an oxymoron. Whatever you do, do it to the glory of God, but for heaven’s sake at least do something.

Q: Amy also asks: “How does the church dynamic change if our knowledge of Scripture surpasses what’s being preached?”

A: I’ve had many conversations with people who have expressed this kind of sentiment, and I get it. There is nothing wrong with preaching the basics, but hearing John 3:16 every week does tend to leave out those who are hungry for more. I’ll just say it, there are some messages that I get little to nothing out of, and I take comfort in the fact that C.S. Lewis felt the same way at times. There are others, of course, who give 110% attention to every message. My grandfather was that way; the man would take notes on anyone’s message, and I do mean anyone. Age 12 Matthew once preached a very rudimentary message on Job to his grandparents and parents in our living room, and my grandpa took a page, I repeat, a fully detailed page of notes. Simply put, both types of people exist.

At the end of the day, though, your growth is a matter between you and God. Pastor Joe and Reverend Mike can help, but the onus is ultimately on you to till your own soil in preparation for the Spirit’s working. I understand the frustration of feeling like the messages are stuck on the merry-go-round of the fundamentals, but that’s just the way it’s going to be sometimes. Be a Berean and study the Scriptures on your own, and, if there’s a message that doesn’t really do it for ya, that’s fine. Pastors have hard enough jobs as it is; give them grace when it happens.

Q: Amy finally asks: “What’s your opinion on observing the Sabbath?”

A: Do it. Take the rest. It’s Biblical, logical, and wise.

Q: Imperator Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus asks: “What actions or lack thereof would make a deity *not* good? Specifically for you, is there anything the Judeo-Christian god could do or refrain from doing that would be considered “bad”? If the answer is “nothing”, then whatever definition of “good” you are working with is unfalsifiable and meaningless. If the answer is not “nothing”, please share what actions, or lack thereof, if taken by the Judeo-Christian god, or any other deity for that matter, you would consider to be “bad” or “not good.”

A: I am bound to say thanks to Marcus Shera for his helpful insight on this question. Thanks, Marcus. More to the point, this isn’t really a new or even hard question for Christians. It’s just the Eutyphro dilemma, and the answer for Christians is that God fully embodies and is the standard of morality from whom all goodness flows, so of course he can’t do anything ‘bad.’ That would be entirely inconsistent with His very nature. It’s a ridiculous proposition. If I may be blunt, your line “…whatever definition of ‘good’ you are working with is unfalsifiable and meaningless,” is simply nonsensical to a Christian. It’s equivalent to asking “…is there anything a rock can do that would make it a fish? If not, your definition of rockiness is meaningless.” It might be if God was capricious and inconsistent, and you can believe that if you want to. But that’s not who God has revealed himself to be at all in Scripture, which is of course our basis for comprehending in our feeble way the unknowable God who alone is qualified to graciously reveal himself to us. Yahweh is the unchanging standard, and he has revealed his standard to us through the Scriptures in concrete, actionable ways, so I simply reject your contention there, which admittedly will probably put us at an impasse.

I will credit atheists with many insightful critiques, but the morality question is not one of them. What standard would you substitute? “Man is the measure of all things” doesn’t solve the ‘good’ or ‘bad’ problem in the least (unless you’re willing to be a utilitarian), and it reeks of pride to me. Then again, how can you even know something is prideful in the first place without an objective standard? By what standard could you even call God ‘good’ or ‘bad?’ Do you have full knowledge of any one situation? Can you hold the entire web of global justice together in your mind? Can you stand outside of time and see things in the eternal now?

Obviously, the answer is ‘no,’ and the whole point of questions like those are to drive a person to humility before the Creator. You may not believe in a Creator, but that’s a separate question. If you believe the Creator is real, the default response is humility before him. If we believe God is just, good, and all-knowing/all-powerful, then there really isn’t another option beyond humility.

Q: Nathan asks: “Ted Cruz’s beard. Up or down?”

A: Well, as a bearded brother myself, I can only offer my heartiest two thumbs up to Mr. Cruz. Hopefully it sparks some measure of bearded resurgence in our politics. I take my bright spots where I can get them.

Q: Nathan also asks: “Thoughts on this article?”

A: It’s painful to me to see people give increasing license to destroy themselves in whatever manner they choose. I think many people assume conservatives recoil at things like this simply because it’s unnatural, but, while that may be part of it, I think the deeper issue is the repulsion towards watching people wreck their lives. It’s the same sentiment that drives Christians to call the nations to repentance or a doctor to warn a man that he is going to drink himself to death if he doesn’t stop or a mother to stop her child from sticking metal objects in the electrical outlet. That’s not an easy thing to do, but it is the right and loving thing to do.

Q: Nathan finally asks: “Thoughts on the Cohen testimony?”

A: I think my bit from the recently published Bullington Diatribes basically sums them up. I remain unconvinced that all of this is going to lead to anything noteworthy once it’s all said and done. It’s good political theater and gives more fodder for Democrats to use, but I doubt it will pan into anything actionable. The Republicans control the Senate (so Trump isn’t going anywhere), and I don’t think House Democrats truly want the spectacle of impeachment unless they have something more concrete than “he said vs. he said” comments.

Q: The Right Honourable Arthur Henderson asks: “Joe Biden’s family is reportedly on board with a presidential run. Do you think the country will be?”

A: I actually have to eat a bit of humble pie on this one because I didn’t think Biden would pull the trigger. I know he hasn’t technically declared yet, but all signs point to it at this point. So, with that being the case, allow me to set up another potential embarrassment for myself. Were this 2016, I think Biden would have a very good chance of winning the Presidency; alas, this will be 2020 when it all comes to a head. The problem for Biden right now is that the Democratic party has let its radical wing run wild, which makes the path to the nomination tougher for Biden unless he is also willing to move left. At some point, all Trump will have to do to win reelection, regardless of the nominee, is sit back and point out the extremism of the Democrats. Ultimately, I think Biden has missed his moment.

Q: Arthur also asks: “How do you think Trump’s work on North Korea is turning out, both strategically and electorally?”

A: Electorally, we’ll have to wait and see. I doubt this issue is foremost in the voters’ minds (then again I doubt the relevant electoral knowledge of most voters), but again we’ll see. Strategically, I have some commendations and concerns. The nuclear tests have stopped for the time being, which is a plus, though historically speaking that could just be a temporary reprieve that ends the moment negotiations break down. I’m also glad Trump didn’t spring for a deal for the deal’s sake at the last summit. That being said, I am not fully convinced that we should be negotiating with North Korea or, at the very least, giving Kim Jong Un the dignity and legitimacy of having the President next to him in pictures. Kim is a thug, and he doesn’t deserve to be recognized so flowerfully by the President as he is. I understand that’s how Trump negotiates, but it is a really bad look for the President. Regardless, we are past that option, and we’ve got to make the most of our situation. Keep the pressure up on North Korea, and, if they are not willing to denuclearize, keep walking away from the table and turning the screws until they get the message.

We’ll call it a wrap there for this week. There are a few other questions I have in store, and we’ll get to those next week along with whatever other mullings and musing y’all have for me. ‘Til next week, friends.