The following are a few notes and comments I made from a sermon that is available to you online on the topic of “Put down your trumpet”. It includes some interesting points that I believe are worth noting. I hope you find it interesting.
42:45 – 43:16 – Does it matter why we do something? The speaker suggests yes because it “causes problems later”. Here is the Transcript from this timestamp:
“Does it matter why we do what we do or does it just matter that we do the right thing? Well I guess you could ask this in a number of different settings couldn’t you?
If you asked within a marriage to a husband or a wife does it matter what you do in a marriage or does it matter why you do it?
I think every husband and every wife would say of course it matters why my husband or why my wife is doing something. I don’t just want them to do the right thing I want them to do it for the right reason”.
“I think” – Note that this is not a fact. This is what the speaker thinks. Based not on reason but emotion. He begins to make a point about what a wife or husband would want. I suppose this is an attempt to translate it into something God would want. For example, “If a wife or husband acts this way then God would act this way too”. This is not a position supported by scripture [Is. 55:8].
“Right Reason” – The speaker refuses to define what the right reason is. Who has the boldness to define such a thing? What is the reason? We seldom take time to define the “right reason” because it would require some combination of biblical evidence and rationality – something we try to avoid in religion if we can. A biblical bit of evidence for this entire cited section is lacking. Not that the evidence is not there, but this is something to note.
What about some comments on rules and motivation?
43:21-43:53 – In a family does it matter why a mother and a father give rules? Does it matter why they discipline? Does it matter why they give their children structure? It certainly does. Because the wrong motivation can lead to to some wrong things occurring in that family. Within that same family, does it matter why children obey or does it just matter that they do what they’re told? Well, it certainly matters why – because if they’re not obeying for the right reasons then that obedience is certainly not what God’s looking for”.
Let’s analyze a few of the statements made here.
“The wrong motivation can lead to some wrong things occurring in that family”. I always enjoy when a speaker takes the following stance “Well if you don’t do it my way, then bad things will happen later. I won’t specify them, but they are things, and they are very, very bad”. It is very common for a speaker to take this stance when discussing sexual discipline. “Don’t have sex before marriage or baaad, very bad things will happen“. This may be true, but the fact that the “problems” are not specified and then the cause of those problems is not identified nor the progression from faulty motivation to negative outcome analyzed, this statement is relegated to opinion.
“That obedience is certainly not what God is looking for”. Well, then what type of obedience is God looking for? Again, what are the so-called “right reasons”? If these are not specified, the entire speech runs into problems because underlying motivation is a core tenant of the speech. But we cannot make assumptions about that topic. But because the speaker does not address the topic, we can only assume.
I also enjoy when people speak for God without BCV [book chapter verse]. If you are going to say God is or is not looking at something, you better immediately back it up with scripture or you are speaking in the place of God without authorization.
Again, this is a doctrinal matter when we start to talk about acceptable and unacceptable forms of obedience – and it demands a “God Said”.
Jeremiah 23:16 – “Thus says the Lord of hosts:
“Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you.
They make you worthless;
They speak a vision of their own heart,
Not from the mouth of the Lord.”
When it comes to our actions, it is possible to do:
- Good things for the bad/wrong reasons.
- Good things for good/right reasons.
- Bad things for the good/right reasons.
- Bad things for bad/wrong reasons.
These are the 4 possible permutations of this viewpoint. Perhaps there can also be combinations of motivations, which is an intellectually rigorous topic that will not be discussed here.
To analyze the motivations/intents etc. behind actions is of secondary importance as opposed to looking at the outcomes or actions themselves. This is not binary thinking – I am not suggesting that motivations do not matter at all. What I am suggesting is a hierarchy, where the actions themselves are primary and the intentions/motivations are secondary.
I understand that there is a delineation between the old and new laws of the Bible. While the old law focused primarily on the action of the individual, the new law focuses on a person’s attitude and inner person, their thinking center, in conjunction with their actions [because a person’s action will show his heart – Matt 15].
I’m not suggesting an OT style of what might be labeled legalism by the uninformed. At the risk of seeming to be a reductionist, I am suggesting that when a person’s intentions, motivations, attitude, or heart may seem to be opposing what he wants to do, as in temptation, it is his actions that are most important.
Does it matter if your intentions were good if you fail to resist temptation?
Does it matter what you were motivated by or the reason behind why you did something if you failed in the end? No, because at the end of the day you failed, you sinned.
On the other hand: what if I do what’s right despite my intention and motivations?
What if I hold on to righteousness by the skin of my teeth through vicious spiritual warfare [Eph 6]?
What if I’m very motivated to do what’s wrong yet I do what’s right anyways out of love for God?
Or what if I’m very tempted and have a strong desire to sin, but even though I’m not feeling the so-called “loving” emotion at the time, out of an obedient, action-based love for God I keep his commandments [John 14:15, 21]?
As you can see there are times when intentions or motivations are opposed to the righteousness of God and to the lives He requires us to live.
Nevertheless, it is primarily our actions that determine rightness. Actions again are primary while intentions are merely “a shadow of the thing, but not the very image of the thing”.
It perturbs Me when speakers come to moral conclusions without biblical evidence or logical sequencing of events. If someone dares to place a moral requirement on members of the church, he better do so with the explicit authorization of God as evidenced by scripture – the BCV.
It is critical to understand this point about the Bible, and about placing religious requirements on individuals, that each of those requirements has the authorization of the word of God.
Doctrinal matters demand a “God said”. Without “God Said” in conjunction with a logical argument, the religious requirements placed on individuals are relegated to the category of “Opinion”. Worse yet, they should be relegated to the category “doctrines of men”, which by biblical definition constitute vain worship [Matt 15:9]
48:50 – 49:04: “Beware of practicing your righteousness [that’s an entire category of good works that you and I might do publicly or maybe even privately]. Beware of practicing your righteousness – this is not the righteousness that that the Holy Spirit helps us develop in our lives that’s kind of inward righteousness, or the righteousness that God attributes to us when we obey the gospel.”
The speaker also makes a comment about inward righteousness that one develops inwardly with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Unless the speaker means that the Holy Spirit assists the individual through the word of God, then He has no evidence for his statement. Because the only way the Spirit works today is through the word of God. That is the only way the Spirit works that we have biblical evidence for [Heb 4:12, Eph 6:17] which means that all other alleged ways He is claimed to be operating are relegated again to the category of opinion.
If I do not have a book chapter and verse for what I believe, it is an opinion.
While there is nothing wrong with opinions, and we have to use discretion and logic regarding non-black-and-white issues in the scripture, we still have to be careful to not pass off our opinions as biblical facts.
50:14 – 52:25 – “When you give to the needy – did you see that? When you give to the needy. Not if. There’s an assumption being made here by Jesus. The idea of being generous to the poor and the needy, especially among God’s Own people is something that is all through scripture from beginning to end. You certainly find it commanded in the law of Moses and we don’t have time to list all of those passages, but Exodus chapter 23:10-11; Leviticus chapter 10:10; Deuteronomy 15:7-11; etc etc. The law commands generosity to the poor and needy in a variety of ways. The prophets reminded God’s people about the necessity of this in places like Amos chapter 2:6-7; Isaiah 3:14-15; Ezekiel chapter 16:49. We’re reminded of it in Proverbs in the wisdom literature Proverbs 14:31; Proverbs 21;13.
Jesus taught about it His teaching about it. Here he teaches about it in Luke chapter 6:37-38; Matthew 19:21; Mark 14:7. And you certainly see it in the life of the first-century Christian in the first-century Church, don’t you? We see it in Acts chapter 2; Acts chapter 4; James chapter 2:14-16; First John 3:17-18. So it’s an assumption that God’s people are going to give to the needy. And so when Jesus talks about this he’s not saying ‘you really need to be giving to the needy’ – they’re already doing that. In fact, even people who did not even believe in Jesus were practicing this. They were giving alms. They were giving to the poor and needy. That’s an assumption. We’re going to come back to that in just a moment but Jesus assumes that everyone’s doing this. The problem is their motivation they’re doing this before people in order to be seen by them”
Regarding point B on the PowerPoint: The assumption.
The speaker begins to talk about this passage, Matthew 6:1-4 and describes the fact that there is an underlying assumption that Christians will be giving to the poor and needy. Especially those of the household of faith. And I would agree with that statement.
What I don’t agree with is an Inception-style assumption within the assumption. So often you hear speakers today talk about the poor and needy and they’re often indirectly or even directly describing the people you might come across in the street or on highways. I have known of some speakers to even make it a point to suggest that you are neglecting a Christain duty if you drive past the panhandler on the highway. They then place some moral judgment on you based on how you view those people and what you do for those people.
Here’s the problem: these speakers have no idea if those people are actually poor or needy.
The assumption within the assumption is that panhandlers are actually poor.
But as I state frequently, those so-called poor and needy are often better off financially than most of the members of the congregation that are being shamed for not supporting those allegedly poor, needy people.
Panhandlers have a good business going, and they’re providing value to people who give them money. This is a point in and of itself and a side note that deserves further elaboration.
I’ve often wondered why panhandlers and loiterers receive so much money. I wonder this because my underlying belief has always been that if a person receives money he/she must be providing something of value in return. And what value are panhandlers providing?
This question disturbed me for some time until a potential answer became quite clear. People aren’t just giving these loiterers money. No, people giving money are purchasing the right to feel good about themselves. It’s Self-Interest.
They are purchasing a feeling of altruism. They are purchasing the freedom from the guilt they feel when they ignore those panhandlers.
Panhandlers allow donors to lift their spirits and feel morally superior to those who don’t mindlessly donate money. Not that everyone behaves or thinks this way after giving money, but it is a common theme among religious people.
Giving money to the allegedly homeless person provides you with the feeling that you are righteous. And that’s what you’re doing. You’re attempting to purchase righteousness.
It’s not about helping another person primarily, it’s about the emotional and spiritual elevation of the self with the secondary benefit of doing a good deed. Whether or not this is done on a conscious level is irrelevant – because this is based on an analysis of human nature. We are pleasure-seeking and pain-avoiding organisms. We seek to avoid the pain of guilt we feel when we drive by those people and seek the pleasure we feel from giving them money. It is an emotional proposition all the way around.
When it comes to the discussion on generosity, and being generous to people, giving of our means, it is important to note that this first extends to people inside the faith.
Being taken care of by religious people is first and foremost one of the benefits of being religious yourself. The religious community is a tight-knit community and they take care of one another. This is one of the benefits of belonging to a religious group – Other people will take care of you when you need it and you have a responsibility to take care of them when they need it. However, this benefit should not be blindly applied to everyone outside the religious community.
Obviously, as resources allow, people outside the community of the religious can and should be taken care of with the application of discretion, but not before the religious themselves have been taken care of – and certainly not without encouraging those people to join the religious community.
You can’t blindly provide people with food and expect them to join the religion. You are just training them to look for a handout.
If they’re getting all the benefits of religion without being a part of religion what is the incentive for them? People will respond to incentives.
55:29 – 55:54 – “What’s the compensation for that what are you going to get out of that? Well, that’s where Jesus says you will have no reward from your father who is in heaven. Later on the same passage, ‘they have received their reward’. In other words, the reward that you get [and there is one] but the reward that you get when you seek the praise of other people for doing good works terminates on itself. That’s it.”
Regarding point E: “Compensation”.
Indeed, everything we do has a reward. everything we do provides us with something or we wouldn’t do it.
Or it provides us the opportunity to even further maximize the benefit in the future of the process of delayed gratification. We as human beings respond to incentives – and this is a good point.
59:55 – 1:00:25 “But let’s move on to what probably is a bigger issue for most of us, and that’s the issue of motivation and sounding a trumpet. The Pharisees are a bold and extreme example of this, but I believe Jesus is encompassing every kind of hypocrisy that this would involve – right down to [listen to this] the secret desire to have all of our Good Deeds discovered and praised by other people.”
“I believe” – Again, what we have is a personal opinion stated without an accompanying “God said”. The speaker does not provide the BCV for this opinion. And he is again committing what I believe to be the intellectual crime of binding moral, and religious requirements on people without the requisite authority. That is not to say the authority for his statement is not in the scripture, but rather that he simply does not cite his authority here while binding a moral requirement on others.
“The secret desire” – The speaker makes the following Point by asking the crowd if we sound a trumpet before our good deeds. He then talks about the secret desire to be seen. I see this frequently in speakers, who condemn the very desire of a thing rather than the thing itself. And maybe that has merit. certainly, there are times we need to analyze behavior to eliminate it down to the very root which would be the desire. But overly demonizing the desire misses the entire point of what it means to resist temptation.
Temptation comes primarily from desire, we learned that in James chapter 1.
We are constantly fighting the desire, the want, the temptation [all synonyms] to do what’s wrong. How many times do we choose God out of loving obedience, yet our emotions and desires pull us toward sin? What would demonstrate greater love to God, that our desire is for Him and that we don’t desire evil at all, or that we have a strong pull towards sin yet out of love we still choose God? It seems to me the latter would be the most noble. Accidental goodness is not better than hard-fought righteousness.
There’s no honor, no nobility, in resisting temptation if we aren’t desiring to do what’s wrong.
That’s what makes it a Temptation in the first place. And if Temptation comes from desire, desire itself cannot be sin. Because we know from Matthew chapter 4 that Christ was tempted. Therefore, Christ was tempted – that means that Christ experienced desire. Do you think after not eating for 40 days that He desired to turn stones into bread and eat? Certainly. Was the desire itself a sin? If it was, we have no hope for salvation.
The discussion on desire and temptation is a linear path of logic that no one can deny. Therefore it is logically and morally incorrect to suggest that desire itself is a sin.
It’s not wrong to desire/want to do wrong. At times we have strange desires that pull us toward evil – but it is in our choices and our actions that we demonstrate that love to God.
There’s no nobility in doing what is right if there is no desire to do what’s wrong. It’s that war against nature that God demands – for he himself is a man of war [Exodus 15:3]. Therefore like Him, we should be people of war: at war with their own desires and temptations.
So when it comes to the alleged “secret desire to be seen” – it’s always going to be there because it will act as a temptation that must be resisted. Even the speaker himself will later acknowledge that it is human nature to want to be seen [1:04:17].
But what do we do with that desire? In other words, even the speaker himself acknowledges that it is the action following the desire that is the critical component of righteousness. We have the desire to be seen, and that’s true, but what do we do with it? What action do we take based on that desire? Do we give into it or do we fight? It’s in the fighting that we find righteousness – and as the speaker would suggest, and rightfully so, humility.
Again, I believe that this lesson was good overall. I just wanted to point out a few of the things that come out in these lessons.
