Truth In These Days

Pastor Heath Lambert takes the biggest story in the news each week and evaluates it in an intentionally biblical and Christian way.

Truth In These Days is a society podcast hosted by Unknown Host, with 51 episodes on record and a Required Pod Score of 80.

Unknown Host hosts Truth In These Days, a society show with 51 episodes published.

Our AI reads these to draft pitches. Use them as grounding for a pitch that cites a real guest and a specific topic.

• 

  Truth In These Days

  The Cold Hard Truth About Iran

  Sep 25, 20267 min

  The Cold, Hard Truth about Iran Developments in the Conflict with Iran In the last week, there have been several developments in America’s unpopular conflict with Iran. President Trump returned early from Camp David to the White House, and Benjamin Netanyahu made a surprising return to Israel. Both President Trump and the president of Iran have made statements in New York at the meeting of the United Nations. And, in recent days, President Trump has said that he is in a “deciding mode.” It is impossible at this point to know how this conflict will end. What is certain is that Americans in general are growing tired of the conflict in Iran, which they never really supported in the first place. The Cost of the Iranian Conflict Americans are unhappy with the Iranian conflict because of its tremendous costs. Americans do not want to pay the costs of an ongoing conflict that puts American lives at risk on the other side of the world. Americans are also uninterested in disrupting their comforts at home by paying increased costs for things like gasoline. No American wants Iran to be a global threat. Neither do they appear eager at this point to pay the necessary costs of eliminating that threat. But this situation is more complicated than a mere verdict of approval or disapproval allows, and Americans would do well to remember that. There is Always a Cost Americans need to remember that we live in a sinful world where there is a cost to absolutely everything. For 50 years, American governments have been at odds with the Islamic Fundamentalist regime in Iran. The Iranian regime is committed to violence, has often resorted to terrorism, and would, if it could, develop a nuclear weapon they would be happy to use against the United States, which they consider to be the great Satan. In responding to this threat, American presidential administrations typically intervene with financial pressure. Until Donald Trump. The calculation of President Trump is that the threat Iran poses is too great to be overlooked and that the United States must at least try addressing the threat with force. The political cost Trump is currently paying is exactly why previous presidents have avoided it. The question, however, is not whether we will pay a cost, but which cost we will pay. Right now, most Americans consider the costs of this conflict to be undesirable. But since everything comes at a cost, we should consider the cost of allowing Iran to develop as a threat. This cost ought to be particularly apparent following the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks. In the months after those attacks, Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush had to answer hard questions about whether they did enough to avoid those attacks. Both men were in possession of intelligence that the al Qaeda network was planning a large attack with the potential use of airplanes. Both Bush and Clinton argued strenuously that their intelligence was not specific enough to stop the 9/11 hijackings from happening. The point is that there were people willing to hold those leaders accountable if their inaction in the short term created an overwhelmingly painful cost that might have been prevented. We need to remember this in the conflict with Iran. For decades, American presidents have had much clearer knowledge of Iranian nuclear ambitions than anything we ever possessed about the terror plans of al Qaeda. Our increased knowledge about Iranian intentions forces a reckoning about which cost we are willing to pay. Are Americans willing to avoid paying the cost of discomfort today if that requires paying the cost of a nuclear attack tomorrow? These are the calculations that are before the American president. Any president must make these calculations knowing the responsibility they will bear if their unwillingness to pay costs in the short term leads to worse costs in the long term. Some Conflict is Intractable Americans also need to remember that we live in a sinful world where not every conflict is winnable or easily so. This reality makes the decision to use force against Iran even more complicated. No decision to use force is a guarantee that our engagement will be easy, quick, or even ultimately satisfactory. This is not a problem with any particular president, but with the hard reality of life in a sinful world. In such a world, the challenges to winning a conflict with Iran are considerable. On the one hand, there is the nature of the enemy. Iran is governed by Islamic radicals who are not interested in being accepted on the global stage. This means the normal carrots and sticks of international diplomacy are nearly worthless in this situation. On the other hand, there is the nature of what an unqualified victory would require. In order to declare absolute victory in Iran, the United States would have to project a massive amount of power on that side of the world well beyond what any American would support. Meanwhile, it is not necessary for Iran to come close to defeating the American military. All they need to do is stay in the fight. Understanding that everything has a cost, and that some problems are not solvable, can help us respond to Iran. It is easy to evaluate the conflict in Iran using the same tired political grid we are accustomed to these days, where those who support President Trump trust him and give the benefit of the doubt, while those who hate him use it as another evidence of his incompetence and unfitness. Christians have a higher calling than this. First Timothy 2:1-2 says, “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions . . .” Our responsibility as Christians is not blind support nor blind hatred of any president. Neither is our responsibility to think we have better ideas about how to handle complex problems after watching a few hours of watching news or scrolling social media. Our first responsibility is to pray. We need to pray for President Trump. In a world where there are always costs, we need to pray that God would give him the wisdom to pay the right ones. In a world where some problems are intractable, we need to pray that the current conflict would not be one of them. Regardless of your support for or opposition to President Trump, it will be a blessing to all of us if he can succeed and terrible if he fails. So, let’s pray for him. These realities remind us that the conflict throughout history can only finally be conquered by Jesus Christ. The world’s one true King, who is alone the Prince of Peace, promises he will end all conflict and place his enemies under his feet. But the promises to do that will be fulfilled on the last day when he brings history to a close. Only on that day will all conflict end. If you’re watching, listening, or reading to Truth in These Days, that day is, apparently, not today. That means we are all living in a world full of heavy costs where no important victory is easy or even always possible. So, we need to pray. We need to pray for this conflict. We need to pray for our president. And we need to pray, come quickly, Lord Jesus.

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  Truth In These Days

  Common Grace and Extrabiblical Information in Biblical Counseling

  Sep 18, 202621 min

  Common Grace and Extrabiblical Information in Biblical Counseling Heath Lambert Counseling Confusion ​One of the hallmarks of contemporary counseling debates is the repeated tendency of those who disagree with biblical counseling to egregiously misrepresent the position of biblical counselors. It is common for people with advanced degrees and prestigious academic posts to fail to accurately present the views of biblical counselors on common grace, extrabiblical information, and the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture. Biblical counseling opponents make many accusations, but an accurate demonstration of real error has not been a characteristic of contemporary critics. Even though biblical counselors have been repeatedly clear about their convictions, they are regularly corrected for things they do not believe and exhorted to embrace positions they already hold. Critics persist in claiming that our view of sufficiency is not historic, that we reject extrabiblical information, that we deny common grace, and are biblicistic and simplistic. Critics who advance these false charges break the ninth commandment, advance confusion instead of clarity, frustrate the search for truth,slander their brothers in Christ, puff themselves up with pride, and repeatedly violate Christ’s Golden Rule. ​Victims of this mistreatment can do little to stop it. But we can redouble our efforts to clarify an issue of great significance. As important as it is for our opponents to represent us honestly, it is also important for biblical counselors to be clear that our position raises important questions that must be repeatedly answered. The biblical counseling position is unfamiliar in a secular world that defines problems in therapeutic terms. Worse, our position is unfamiliar in a theological context full of ministers contaminated by that therapeutic mindset and trained to think of doctrine in merely systematic categories and not in the pastoral and practical categories so familiar to our fathers in the faith. Though the biblical counseling movement has been clarifying these issues for our entire existence, recent mischaracterizations are a strong reminder that our work of shining the light of truth on these matters must continue. I would like to do that here by summarizing the biblical counseling position in two sentences. ​It is the nature of the case that no summary can say everything. Summaries always need expansion, explanation, and elaboration. But summaries help in surveying large and complex matters. In a counseling debate where misrepresentation and misunderstanding are common, a summary of the biblical counseling position in two sentences helps us to how basic essentials fit together and avoid excluding important matters. Here is a two-sentence summary of the biblical counseling position in plain English. The Biblical Counseling Position in Two Sentences Because God gave Scripture to his people to address life’s problems, Christians shouldtrust the Bible to provide all the resources necessary for the ministry our culture calls counseling. Because God filled the world with immeasurable information, his people are privileged and required to know this material without using it as a replacement or competitor with the resources in Scripture addressing counseling issues. I will elaborate on those statements in what follows, but this is a faithful summary of the biblical counseling position for anyone honestly looking for one. The first sentence summarizes our view of Scripture. The second sentence summarizes our view of information outside Scripture. If you are committed to biblical counseling, you understand and embrace those two statements. If you are not committed to biblical counseling, you do not understand or do not embrace at least one of those statements. Critics of biblical counseling advance opposition against something in those two sentences. Regarding the biblical counseling view of Scripture in the first sentence, recent criticsmake statements limiting God’s Word to a few tame and heady categories, and claim the Bibledoes not address all the different kinds of problems people face in a complicated world. The biblical counseling movement has been absolutely prolific in responding to this objection for fifty years. I responded most recently in my essay, The Comprehensiveness of Scripture and The Contemporary Counseling Conflict. ​Regarding the biblical counseling view of information outside Scripture summarized in the second sentence, critics are, perhaps, even more strenuous. Opponents typically accuse biblical counselors of refusing to embrace the information affirmed in the second sentence. They erroneously argue that our beliefs about sufficiency exclude an embrace of extrabiblical information. In fact, there is nothing about an embrace of the information inside Scripture that makes it impossible or unnecessary to embrace information outside Scripture. Let me make this clear with three clarifications. Biblical Counselors Embrace Extrabiblical Information for Biblical Reasons First, it needs to be clear that biblical counselors embrace extrabiblical information for biblical reasons. To see this, we need to understand that extrabiblical information is all the countless pieces of data that fill the earth and our experience with knowledge. It is a massive category of very different material. Some of this extrabiblical information is positively delightful, like the existence of my glorious granddaughter, Hazel. This is the kind of material I mean when I say that extrabiblical information is our privilege to know. Some of this information is absolutely essential, like the treatment for type 1 diabetes, or where to find the food you need to survive. Not all extrabiblical information is of equivalent necessity, but some of it is required to live life. As we continue to flesh out our understanding of extrabiblical information, consider a few more categories in this massive class of material. Some extrabiblical information is true, like the fact that the state bird of Florida is the northern mockingbird. Other pieces of extrabiblical information are not true, like the mistaken belief of some that the state bird of Florida is the flamingo. Other kinds of extrabiblical information are disputed. Some of the disputes, like the causes and consequences of global warming, are because of ignorance, and others, like the ethics of sex outside marriage, are disputed because of morality. Still other pieces of extrabiblical information vary according to relevance. The fact that The Pickwick Papers was Charles Dickens’s first best-selling novel is just as true as the fact that the United States is over $40 trillion in debt, but the two pieces of extrabiblical information are not of equivalent relevance in any given context. All pieces of information, whether true, false, debated, relevant, or irrelevant, exist in the massive category of extrabiblical information. Everyone admits this information exists, including biblical counselors. ​One reason biblical counselors admit extrabiblical information exists is because of the teaching of Scripture. In the very first words of divine address to the human race, God indicated the existence of extrabiblical information in Genesis 2:16 when he pointed Adam and Eve to allthe trees in the garden, only two of which we read about in Scripture. The Israelites possessedextrabiblical information about the specific houses where they could find Egyptian wealth in Exodus 12:36 when they plundered the country before their escape from bondage. Solomon demonstrates extrabiblical information of the false ways to pursue life in a fallen world in Proverbs 14:12 when he talks about the way that seems right to man. Isaiah’s encounter with the holy God is perfectly preserved in Isaiah 6:1-6, but all the information he had about it was extrabiblical until he wrote it down. Jesus endorses the existence of extrabiblical information in Matthew 6:26 when he tells us to “Look at the birds” and in Matthew 6:28 when he tells us to “Consider the lilies.” Peter affirms the existence of extrabiblical information like flowers and grass in 1 Peter 1:24-25 when he says that those things fade but the Word of God endures forever. You get the idea. One reason extrabiblical information is required is that it is impossible to understand the sufficient Scriptures without it. ​The Bible does not only teach the existence of extrabiblical information but requires Christians to use it. James 1:19 says, “Let every person be quick to hear and slow to speak.” The Bible requires extrabiblical witnesses so that every charge might be established on the evidence of “Two or three witnesses” (Matthew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1). The Bible warns against the foolishness of ignoring relevant extrabiblical information in Proverbs 18:13, “If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame.” The Bible requires the use of extrabiblical information. Biblical counselors believe it is impossible to obey the sufficient Scriptures without first receiving a tidal wave of extrabiblical information. Biblical Counselors Embrace Extrabiblical Information Even Though It Is Tainted ​Second, it needs to be clear that biblical counselors embrace extrabiblical information even though it is tainted. In the earlier summary of extrabiblical information, I made clear that the material is an untidy jumble of true, false, and debated information. That mixture of information exists because of human weakness and wickedness. Human weakness means we are finite and frail and lack God’s exhaustive ability to know everything there is to know. Human wickedness means that sin distorts all information as it is presented to us and received by us. Some false extrabiblical information is presented to us as true, and some true extrabiblical information is received by us as false. The frustrating reality of human weakness and wickedness makes it a challenge for people to interact with and understand extrabiblical information. But human weakness and wickedness does not defeat the ability of people in a sinful world to perceive and present accurate extrabiblical information. In his common grace, God preserves the ability of all people to receive and share information. Common grace is all the good gifts God gives to his people even if they have not experienced the saving grace of Jesus. Just one place in the Bible that mentions this is Acts 17:25, which says of God, “He himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.” “Everything” is a comprehensive category including all the good gifts God gives to people. Just one of those gifts is the clear and accuratethoughts of people. ​Belief in the Bible leads biblical counselors to embrace the truth of common grace. We believe the doctrine makes it possible for unbelievers to swim in the sea of extrabiblical information and come to know information accurately. But we must be careful. It is not the function of common grace to negate all the weakness and wickedness of human beings. Though human beings can know true information, common grace does not guarantee the accuracy ofknowledge in any given instance. Determining whether a piece of extrabiblical information is true and grounded in common grace, or is false and so a result of life in a fallen world, is farmore challenging than some wish to admit. This challenging situation is an important point of conflict between biblical and the clinically informed counselors. When clinically informed counselors consume information from the world of secular therapy, they have a tendency to label that extrabiblical information as important and relevant and organize it under the banner of God’s common grace. Biblical counselors tend to think that such judgments are, among other things, too hasty and like to point out that secular experts often strenuously debate the accuracy of information that less-informed Christians carelessly embrace. When clinically informed counselors characterize the concerns of biblical counselors as a rejection of common grace, they misunderstand the position of their opponents and the very nature of the doctrine of common grace. Common grace does not justify all claims generated out there in the world. It is a theological explanation for how some claims that come from the world could be true. Before we can place an element of extrabiblical information under the banner of common grace, we must first do the hard work of establishing that the information is accurate. Extrabiblical Information Must Never Substitute for or Compete with the Bible Third, it needs to be clear that extrabiblical information must never substitute for or compete with biblical information. My two-sentence summary of the biblical counseling positionmakes two assertions about extrabiblical information. The first assertion states that biblical counselors embrace extrabiblical information. The second assertion states that no information found outside Scripture should ever be used to replace or compete with information found insideScripture. This is a source of much confusion for biblical counseling opponents, so it is important to proceed carefully. It can be helpful to think about the relationship of biblical information and extrabiblical information in three categories. The first category has to do with extrabiblical information that absolutely is not found within Scripture. The existence of the planet Neptune, for example, is in this massive category. The second category has to do with information that is addressed both inside and outside the pages of the Bible in complementary ways. Since “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1), we can affirm that the existence of God is one example of this kind of information. Of course, the information about God found in the pages of Scripture is different than the information about God found in the created order, but both are true and not in conflict. The third category of extrabiblical information competes with biblical revelation. In this category we are talking about information generated by people that is specifically corrected by information contained in the Bible. An uncontroversial example of this kind of information is the nature of salvation by grace through faith in Christ. Any piece of extrabiblical information that would replace or compete with this biblical claim must be rejected. This third category is where the debate is between biblical and clinically informedcounselors. Biblical counselors agree with our clinically informed brothers that there is much information about counseling and the human condition to be found outside Scripture. But this information is not admissible in authentic Christian ministry because the Bible has uniquely and authoritatively addressed how to care for God’s people in a way that disqualifies any otherproposed intervention. We believe God has told us the insights and interventions we need for counseling care, that he has not invited us to receive input from the world, and to receive such input inevitably replaces or competes with God’s instructions in Scripture. This position is unique in a counseling world where secular approaches dominate efforts to care for people. But it is not unique in the broader world of Christian ministry and theology. Consider two relatively uncontroversial examples. The first example comes from the world of preaching. Those of us committed to expository preaching believe when we stand to preach, we have a command to deliver the pure milk of God’s Word. No faithful preacher would ever consider mingling the words of Scripture with the words of man. This conviction does not mean expository preachers reject the existence of extrabiblical information and the doctrine of common grace. Preachers consume countless resources outside Scripture: biblical commentaries, books on ancient Near Eastern customs, other preacher’s sermons, and books by liberal theologians. We search for sermon illustrations in everything from Russian novels to Western research experiments, we watch documentaries, and we read texts about sermon delivery and rhetoric. We are not only privileged but required to consume information like this. We bring all that information to the preaching task and may even mention some of it. The sermon itself is an instance of extrabiblical information! But faithful preachers know that the point of the extrabiblical information is not to communicate the extrabiblical information, but biblical truth. It is not that extrabiblical information is never used or never comes up, but that it never forms the content of Christian preaching. That role belongs exclusively to Scripture. When biblical counselors consume extrabiblical information but refuse to substitute it for the biblical content of counseling, we are functioning like faithful expository preachers. The second example comes from the world of worship. Those of us committed to the regulative principle believe God has told us how he should be worshiped and think we should not impose human principles on divine instructions. A commitment to the regulative principle does not mean there is nothing to learn outside Scripture. Most of us have been powerfully impacted by extrabiblical information in the dramatic arts and know its powerful impact on the human soul. Yet no one committed to the regulative principle argues this information is the foundation for including skits in Christian worship. We believe that, information outside of Scripture notwithstanding, God has regulated the content of worship in Scripture. Biblical counselors believe God has regulated the interventions in counseling ministry and no amount of extrabiblical information or common grace insights create a reason to add to it. We hold to a counseling equivalent of the regulative principle. When biblical counselors embrace extrabiblical information but refuse to use it to replace or compete with biblical information, we are doing in the discipline of counseling what faithful Christians do all the time. Where We Disagree I hope these clarifications can help correct some of the recent mischaracterizations. Biblical counselors affirm the existence of extrabiblical information in the world. Biblical counselors affirm the necessity of extrabiblical information in the world. Biblical counselors affirm the doctrine of common grace. Anyone who says this is not true is either terribly confused or intentionally dishonest. There is no debate in the contemporary biblical counseling movement about any of these matters. The contemporary debate is over how much confidence we can have that the doctrine of common grace ensures the accuracy of human knowledge in specific cases. The debate is about whether secular efforts at counseling care are more defined by the doctrine of God’s common grace or by the corrosive impact of sin on human thinking. The contemporary debate is about whether any knowledge, however accurate, should ever substitute or compete with the Bible in the ministry of the Word. These are the central and crucial matters, but too many opponents of biblical counseling have been unwilling to engage them, choosing instead to debate matters where there is no disagreement. The contemporary conflict is a debate regarding our doctrine of the Word of God. Biblical counselors believe the scope of Scripture’s sufficiency includes the issues that are addressed in counseling ministry. Clinically informed counselors disagree that Scripture intends to address everything biblical counselors claim and so seek help from secular thinkers. Clinically informed practitioners believe counselors must mine the extrabiblical information from secular psychology in search of common grace insights to add to counseling ministry. Biblical counselors believe such a mandate is found nowhere in Scripture and to undertake it without biblical warrant is to mistreat the Bible, common grace, extrabiblical informa

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  Truth In These Days

  Islam in America 25 Years After 9/11

  Sep 11, 202610 min

  Islam in America 25 Years After 9/11 Heath Lambert September 11, 2001 On the morning of September 11, 2001, I was living on the North Shore of Boston and was getting ready to leave my apartment for the day when a friend called and said, “Turn on the TVright now.” I did as ordered, and watched aghast as the iconic World Trade Towers were swarmed in smoke and flames. My roommates and I forgot about any existence outside of the images on our screen. For hours, we stared in shock and watched as more planes crashed, the towers collapsed, thousands fled into the streets of New York City, and our bloodied nation took its first steps to make sense of the tragedy. The attacks of September 11 served as the introduction of most Americans to the Islamic faith. It was a pretty scary initiation. As we learned terms like radical Islam, Al Qaeda, and jihad, we became fearful of this foreign faith that seemed so committed to destruction. That fear cut both ways. If most Americans were fearful that Muslims wanted to destroy our way of life, mostMuslims were afraid of being lumped together with the terrorists who perpetrated suchreprehensible acts. In that environment of fear, most Americans could not have predicted what has happened to Islam in America in the quarter century since the devastation of 9/11. The story of Islam in America is one of incredible growth. Since 2001, Muslims have increased their presence in the United States from no more than a few million to around five and a half million, mostly through immigration. Because demographics are electoral destiny, this increase in population has translated to victory at the ballot box. In 2001 there were zero Muslims in the U.S. House of Representatives. Today there are five. These five are all liberal democrats, which is fairly incoherent from the standpoint of Islamic theology—but we will have to save an analysis of that for another time. The point today is the growth of Islam in America. To be clear, Muslims are still tiny in demographic terms. They only occupy about 1% of the American population and the voting members of Congress. Still, their numbers have tripled in the 25 years since 9/11. That is breathtaking progress for a period of time that began with Islamic fundamentalists perpetrating the greatest act of terror in American history. On the 25th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, it is right for Christians to think carefully about Islam. We can do this in at least two ways. Islam and The Truth The most important thing Christians must say about Islam is that it is a false religion worshiping a false god. The Islamic Confession of Faith, the Shahadah, says, “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger.” Such a statement is not only incompatible with biblical Christianity, but also completely untrue. In Scripture, God reveals himself as one. Deuteronomy 6:4 says, “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one.” But the Bible also makes clear that this oneness is a complex unity where the one God exists in the three persons of Father, Son, and Spirit. This biblical reality of the Trinity, while notoriously difficult for finite people to grasp, is made repeatedly clear throughout the Bible. Islam absolutely denies this reality so basic to Scripture. Islamic teaching makes clear that the Trinity is not true, and that Allah is defined by a simplistic unity. This denial of the truth means Allah is just as false a deity as Baal in the Old Testament or anything in the Hindu pantheon. Since Allah is not the real God, it is impossible for Muhammad to be his messenger. Islam worships the false god, Allah; they follow a false prophet, Muhammad; and they obey a false revelation, the Qur’an. To be clear, Muslims make the same charge of error against Christians, and so it is simple truth-telling to say we disagree. We need to be honest about this, but that honesty does not need to happen with a harsh and unloving spirit. Christians are called to love Islamic people. Anyone who has received the saving grace of Jesus understands we have no boast over any other person separated from God. Every Christian has received the same divine mercy we share with others. We must lean into relationships with ourMuslim neighbors, pray for them earnestly, and extend our love and compassion to them. One manifestation of this love is a commitment to telling the truth that the only God who exists is revealed as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and that Jesus was telling the truth in John 14:6 when he said, “No one comes to the Father except through me.” Islam and Culture As Christians, we are not only concerned about Muslim people, but also about the impact of Muslim influence on our society. We are called to be salt and light to our entire culture, which requires us to think about the strength and health of our larger society. This means Christians must think carefully about the impact of Islam on culture. Culture is always downstream from worldview, religion, and morality. Ice freezes into the shape of that which molds it, and society always takes the shape of its dominant worldview. American society has looked the way it has for centuries because of the miraculous influence of Christianity in the founding and shaping of our country. As the dominant worldview of our population changes, it will bring inevitable societal change. Today, the threat to that cultural change is radical secularism far more than radical Islam. But on the 25th anniversary of 9/11, Islam, while still a minority religion in America, is not isolated and is not in decline. Islam in America is ascendant. This means that Christians in particular andAmericans in general must think about the ramifications of growing numbers of Muslims in our society. We do not have to guess as we do this, but only need to look to Europe. In recent years our neighbors across the Atlantic have been dealing with massive problems posed by swells of Islamic immigrants. The European culture closest to ours is the one in the United Kingdom, which has only lately begun to reckon with the culture-redefining nature of mass Muslim immigration. Since 9/11, the Muslim population in the UK has increased by more than 150%. London, the UK’s largest city, is now estimated to be more than 15% Muslim, and Birmingham, the UK’s second largest city, is more than 30% Muslim. Birmingham has had several Muslims serving in the office of Lord Mayor since 2001, and London has had a Muslim mayor since 2016. While the Islamic influence in the UK has been growing, Christian influence has deteriorated. The long, slow decline of churches in the UK has been matched by rapid growth in the number of mosques. Across Great Britain, the sound of church bells is increasingly replaced by minarets shouting the Muslim call to prayer. While Christianity declines in the United Kingdom, it is not so much becoming less religious as it is becoming increasingly Islamic. A Christian Response As an American and a Christian—but mostly as a Christian—I believe everyone ought to have the freedom to choose their own religion—even if that religion is false. Also, as an American and a Christian—but mostly as a Christian—I think we have the responsibility to think carefully about the impact of worldview and religion on our entire culture. Western societies have spent a generation overlooking the fact that Islam always brings massive change to host cultures. It is never wise to ignore facts. Americans should acknowledge that the people you allow into your country ultimately reshape the composition of your country. When we make electoral decisions about who we entrust with power and immigration decisions about who lives in our country, those decisions are never isolated. They always work to create a certain kind of society. When we make these decisions, we need to remember the simple fact that a growing influence of Islam will lead to very different cultural outcomes than what we have known thus far in America. The UK has a head start on us in this change, and Americans ought to ask whether they are ready to deal with the same cultural revolution the British are facing. 25 years after the terrorist attacks on 9/11, I think the greatest surprise is that the mayor of New York City is a Muslim. Regardless of what you think about it, that is something no one would have predicted on that horrible September morning two and a half decades ago. When Zohran Mamdani took the oath of office as mayor of that great city, it was the first time in American history a person elected to that office placed his hand on the Qur’an. Mayor Mamdani did not place his hand on the Qur’an because that book has anything to do with the founding of the United States or the development of New York City into one of the most significant metropolitan centers on the face of the planet. When the mayor took his oath on the Qur’an, you can be sure he was not thinking about influence from the past, but about his hopes for the future. If Muslims are thinking about how their religion should influence our society, then, on the 25thanniversary of 9/11, at the absolute least, Christians ought to think about it too.

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  Truth In These Days

  The Comprehensiveness of Scripture and The Contemporary Counseling Conflict

  Sep 4, 202633 min

  The Comprehensiveness of Scripture and The Contemporary Counseling Conflict Heath Lambert Oceans, Ponds, and the Biblical Counseling Movement The first ocean I ever saw was the one in the field behind a barn in my small hometown of Kentucky. You might have tried explaining to me back then that there are no oceans behind any barns anywhere in the state of Kentucky. It would have been a waste of time. That wonderfulbody of water was filled to the brim with brown water, was way bigger than any other onearound, and, unlike the city pool, you could swim in it for free. That meant my friends and I usedit for relief from the intense heat and humidity of Appalachian summers. If you have never had the pleasure of pond swimming, you simply cannot imagine all you are missing. Let me help you apprehend the wonder of the experience. A successful swim requires entering the water at a run followed by a quick dive to the deep part in the middle where you can tread water. Such a maneuver is necessary because of the sludge layer at the floor of the pond. Standing in this sludge is technically possible, but not recommended. Once you place your feet down there, you slide into the sludge up to the middle of your shins before you hit bedrock. After your feet are firmly planted, they begin to be nibbled by numerous little critters that science has not identified yet. It is important to keep your feet out of this sludge if you want to avoid serving them for lunch. If this description of pond swimming fails to match your idea of relaxation in the water, you need to consider a crucial fact. The glory of pond swimming is not found in a long and leisurely swim. It is found in the emergency need for relief from the sweltering heat on a summer afternoon. The relief the pond offers does not come from entering the water. On hot days the temperature of water in the pond is dramatically hotter than the temperature in the summer air and can be, in August, a few degrees hotter than a nuclear explosion. The relief from summer heat offered by pond swimming comes only after you exit the water when the summer breeze hits your wet body. Now that can feel pretty good. But you have to enjoy it fast. After the water evaporates, it leaves behind several kilotons of dirt and minerals on your body. You discover quickly that the same stuff making the pond brown is now doing the same thing to you, and it makes your skin feel tight, sticky, and, honestly, a little gross. Relief from this new problemrequires a rinse with the water hose, which is also required in order to be granted permission to re-enter your house. Some may wonder why it is not best to just skip the pond, enjoy the hose, and avoid all the grime, sludge, and the foot-eating critters in the pond. I do not have time to address these concerns. The point is that there is nothing quite like the joy of pond swimming. I grew up loving that pond behind the barn as well as a few others I got to swim in. While I was growing up, I knew a handful of people who visited the ocean. They would describe to me its vastness, its beauty, how refreshingly cool it was, and how wondrous it was to be carried along by the waves. Sitting with no shirt or shoes as brown pond water dripped off my body, I would listen curiously, quite unable to grasp what they were saying. What could be so great about the ocean in comparison to the brown pond behind the barn? The Contemporary Counseling Conflict This essay is ultimately about how the relationship of the ocean to that pond has a lot to do with the current conflict in the contemporary biblical counseling movement. In this conflict, two different groups exist. On one side is a group of counselors I have called The New Integrationists in an attempt to identify a new crop of leaders pursuing the familiar project of integration. This group of men and women typically style themselves as clinically informed counselors. As a mark of kindness and respect, that is how I will generally refer to them throughout this essay. On the other side of the conflict are a group of counselors who refer to themselves as historic biblical counselors, classic biblical counselors, or, simply, biblical counselors. Understanding the conflict between these two groups requires understanding a crucial reality. That reality is that in this contemporary conflict, neither side is saying anything very new. The back-and-forth of debate consists of very old arguments being rehashed for the umpteenth time. On the biblical counseling side, the very old argument, articulated for over fifty years, isthat the Bible is the sufficient resource to guide counseling ministry and does not require the addition of secular resources. David Powlison described this core conviction of biblical counseling when he said, The scope of Scripture’s sufficiency includes those face-to-face relationships that our culture labels “counseling” or “psychotherapy” . . . The problems, needs, and struggles of real people—right down to the details—must be rationally explained by the categories, which the Bible teaches us to understand . . . We have much work to do to understand and to articulate the biblical “model.” But we don’t have to make it up or borrow from models that others have made up as ways to explain people. That is just one quote from one leader, but it is important to understand that it represents theconvictions of everyone committed to biblical counseling. When he wrote those words, Powlison was the uncontested leader of the biblical counseling movement. The remarks were a transparent disclosure of his convictions, which were made even more obvious by the title of the article, “The Sufficiency of Scripture to Diagnose and Cure Souls.” His quote from that article was one of many that I used in my doctoral dissertation, where I made the argument that—though many differences existed between Powlison himself and Jay Adams, the founder of contemporary biblical counseling—the two men had the same view of the sufficiency of Scripture. My doctoral dissertation was written under the supervision of Powlison and was later published as a book, The Biblical Counseling Movement After Adams, to which Powlison wrote the foreword. The point is that this one quote is a very obvious demonstration of Powlison’s convictions, which reflect the beliefs of the larger biblical counseling movement. On the other side of the contemporary counseling conflict are those identifying as clinically informed and who disagree with that core conviction of biblical counselors. Clinicallyinformed counselors believe the Bible is a wonderful book that stands in authority over the counseling task, but that it is not the only resource that should control counseling concepts or contribute to counseling methods. Such practitioners have adopted the longstanding position thatit is important to mine the resources of psychology for insights and interventions that can augment counseling ministry. Clinically informed counselors are not monolithic. Just how necessary it is to augment Scripture with outside resources depends on which clinically informed counselor is talking, but all of them believe it is at least valuable, if not absolutely essential. These are the very old arguments being repeated in a new setting. The central difference between the opposing sides comes down to vision. Biblical counselors look at Scripture and see a massive resource full to bursting with help for people facing trauma, heartbreak, addiction, anger, crippling anxiety, doubt, mistrust, abuse, confusion, and every other problem under the sun. Clinically informed counselors simply do not see the Bible this way. Of course, they think Scripture is wonderful, authoritative, foundational, and helpful. But they do not see all the realities that those of us in the biblical counseling movement see when we look at the pages of Scripture. This difference in vision is a source of pain and heartbreak to me. Before God, I want clinically informed counselors to see what biblical counselors see. That is why I am writing these words. In this essay, I want to try to expand the biblical vision of those who do not yet see as clearly as they one day will. The disagreements are sharp these days, but my prayer is that clinically informed counselors will begin to see a wonderful reality that, to biblical counselors, is clear as crystal. I want to do this by talking about the doctrine of the comprehensiveness of Scripture. The Comprehensiveness of Scripture ​When all is said and done, the conflict in the contemporary counseling movement is a debate about the Word of God. That makes it essential to focus on Scripture and pay attention to what theologians call the attributes of Scripture. The most common way theologians do this is by talking about the four perfections of Scripture: authority, necessity, clarity, and sufficiency. Biblical counselors have had much to say about these perfections, but the focus of the movement and of the contemporary conflict has been the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture. The solution to the contemporary conflict is found within this category of sufficiency in the doctrine of the comprehensiveness of Scripture. Let me begin by explaining the relationship between the sufficiency of Scripture and the comprehensiveness of Scripture. ​The doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture has an expansive scope. In my book, A Theology of Biblical Counseling, I talk about four categories within the sufficiency of Scripture,including: progressive sufficiency, completed sufficiency, formal sufficiency, and material sufficiency. The focus of the counseling debate has not just been the sufficiency of Scripture broadly considered but has been a peculiar emphasis on the material sufficiency of Scripture. ​When theologians talk about the material sufficiency of Scripture, we are talking about the actual contents of the Bible. Debates about the material sufficiency of Scripture are debates about the subject matter that Scripture intends to address. The orthodox Christian understanding of this matter is that the Bible tells us everything we need to know from God about any topic. A focus on the material sufficiency of Scripture raises a crucial question. If material sufficiency means that we have all the divine words we need from God, then just how expansively does his Word address the problems in living on the table in counseling? The answer to this question is found in the doctrine of the comprehensiveness of Scripture. ​The biblical counseling movement has often addressed the comprehensiveness of Scripture. One of the central ways this issue has been discussed is in making clear that Scripture is a comprehensive resource, not an exhaustive one. I am aware of no person in the biblical counseling movement or anywhere else who has made a serious argument that the Bible is an exhaustive resource, including every detail on every piece of information it is possible to know. Such a claim would be preposterous. The only exhaustive resource in existence is the mind of God himself. Biblical counselors have not argued that Scripture addresses all of life by being exhaustive. We argue that it addresses all of life in the only way possible, namely, by being comprehensive. John Frame is helpful in defining the comprehensiveness of Scripture as, “The relevance of all Scripture to all of life.” He says this means God’s “Truth covers all human life.” God, he argues, intends his “whole Word to apply to the whole world.” He warns that “The comprehensiveness of Scripture rules out attempts to limit the scope of biblical revelation.” Frame’s teaching on the comprehensiveness of Scripture is important for several reasons. First, Frame is a theologian of the first order respected across denominational lines as one of the most faithful teachers in our generation. Second, Frame has earned great respect in the counseling world from both biblical and clinically informed counselors. That respect is important because Frame’s language about the biblical doctrine of comprehensiveness is the same language that clinically informed counselors identify as biblicistic, extreme, simplistic, and unthinking when biblical counselors say the very same things. John Frame is absolutely not open to suchcharges. Frame’s teaching on biblical comprehensiveness is important because the foundation of the clinically informed project is built on the belief that Scripture is limited in scope and the doctrine of comprehensiveness is not true. If John Frame, faithful Christian theology, and classic biblical counselors are correct that there is no limit to the scope of Scripture, then there is no reason to mine clinical resources to fill in assumed gaps, and the clinically informed approach is bankrupt. But this brings us back to the problem of vision that I spoke about before. The doctrine of the comprehensiveness of Scripture, so plain to theologians like John Frame and so uncontroversial to biblical counselors, is precisely what clinically informed counselors do not see. In what follows, I want to persuade Christians in the counseling world that the Bible addresses all the various realities that counseling addresses by demonstrating the comprehensiveness of Scripture in four ways. God Is the Agent of Comprehensiveness ​We all know information is important. It is so important that we are living in a world of hyphenated labels that counselors use to demonstrate how much information they have. Some want to be trauma-informed. Others seek to be clinically-informed. In such a world, Christians committed to the sufficiency of Scripture must be absolutely clear that there is nothing wrong with being informed about almost anything. Counseling is a discipline based on knowledge that requires information and wisdom in order to do it well. In such a discipline, we are eager for helpful information. The central issue concerns where we believe we find the best, most reliable, and most comprehensive information to do that work. ​In such an information-dependent world, every faithful Christian knows the most important source of information is God himself. This is because it is God alone who knows things that no other person could possibly know. 1 Kings 8:39 says, “For you, you only, know the hearts of all the children of mankind.” 1 Samuel 16:7 says, “The Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.” 1 Chronicles 28:9 says, “The Lord searches all hearts and understands every plan and thought.” Psalm 139:16 says, “Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.” Psalm 147:5 says, “Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure.” Proverbs 5:21 says, “A man’s ways are before the eyes of the Lord, and he ponders all his paths.” Matthew 6:8 says, “Your Father knows what you need.” Matthew 10:30 says, “The hairs of your head are all numbered” by God. Romans 11:33 says, “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” Philippians 4:19 promises, “God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus.” Colossians 2:3 says in Christ, “Are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” Hebrews 4:13 says, “No creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.” ​There are many more examples that could be added to that brief sample of God’s knowledge of the people he has created. Just these few indicate what all faithful Christians will uncontroversially affirm: that God as creator and sustainer is the only potential source for comprehensive knowledge about people and their problems. Too many people out there are far too eager to reject the biblical counseling position. They celebrate when they encounter almost any argument against the biblical counseling position on sufficiency and comprehensiveness. This is terribly out of place. Any Christian who would reject the comprehensive sufficiency of Scripture for counseling ought to do it slowly, reluctantly, and with a broken heart. If God has not revealed his knowledge of people and their problems to us, then there is no other way to get it, and we should weep rather than rejoice. The only possible path to comprehensive knowledge of life is through God who made it and exists as sovereign over it. ​​ The Promise of Scripture Is the Guarantee of Comprehensiveness ​The possibility of Scripture’s comprehensiveness is grounded in its author, who is the only Person who could create a resource that provides every bit of information people need to know about life, the troubles we face while living it, and the solutions we need to confront those problems. The divine authorship of Scripture does not absolutely guarantee Scripture’s comprehensiveness, however, since the fact that God could give his people a resource that comprehensively addresses everything in life does not necessarily mean that he has given such a resource or that Scripture is the resource where he reveals that information. The only way to know what God intended to accomplish in Scripture is to read the divine claims within it. ​When we pay attention to those claims, we find that God repeatedly declares his intention to provide a comprehensive resource that addresses every problem we face and provides every solution we need. The biblical revelation is so overwhelming on this point that it is hard to know how to fit information that could fill many volumes into a brief section of a short essay. As a starting point, I will focus on a few observations from just one chapter in the Bible. ​Psalm 119 is one long, sustained exaltation of the words of the Bible. One reality the Psalmist repeatedly praises about Scripture is the comprehensive way it addresses all of life. Consider eight statements from the Psalmist about the comprehensiveness of the Bible. Throughout all your life, God promises to guide you with his Word (Psalm 119:105). God declares that he has been candid with us in his Word about problems we face in life (Psalm 119:100, 104, 130). God says the Bible functions like a counselor sharing wisdom with hurtingpeople (Psalm 119:24, 130). God says that he gave his people the Bible as a guide for how to avoid the many problems in life (Psalm 119:3, 9, 175, 176). God encourages us that when we are enduring pain, suffering, and trauma, the Bible is the place where we can go to receive his comfort (Psalm 119:25, 28, 50, 71, 92, 107, 143). God promises that there will never come a time in life when the teaching of Scripture will be irrelevant (Psalm 119:44, 112). God assures that when life inevitably brings disappointment, fulfillment is available in the Bible (Psalm 119:93, 116, 154, 156). God makes clear that the very best resources on earth face crucial limitations, but not Scripture (Psalm 119:96). Again, this is just one chapter in the Bible that repeatedly emphasizes the doctrine of the comprehensiveness of Scripture. There are many other places (e.g., Psalm 32:8, Proverbs 6:20-23; Matthew 4:4; Luke 11:28; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; James 1:22-25). ​The point of all this is that the God who alone is able to provide a comprehensive resource addressing every issue in life has repeatedly told us that he has given us this resource in Scripture. Christians must take God at his Word on this and approach the Bible with trust and confidence. There is simply no warrant in Scripture for the assumption on the part of contemporary integrationists that there is something lacking in the content of Scripture that requires Christians to be clinically informed. The promises in Scripture require us to approach the Bible with assurance that it is comprehensively relevant to the panorama of human problems.Those statements are authoritative words in the s

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  Truth In These Days

  The Tragic Case of Lindsay Clancy

  Aug 28, 202614 min

  The Tragic Case of Lindsay Clancy Heath Lambert A Complete Tragedy For weeks, our entire nation has been riveted by the tragedy of Lindsay Clancy. The tragedy began in January of 2023 when Clancy, overwhelmed, medicated, and clearly in distress,strangled to death all three of her children: Callan, Dawson, and Cora. Her husband, Patrick, arrived at home to discover his three dead children and his wife laying in the yard after attempting suicide by cutting her wrists, neck, and jumping from the second story window. Clancy survived the attempt but remains paralyzed from the waist down. Now, over three years later, she is on trial for the murder of her children. The trial is not a dispute about whether she took the lives of her children, but about whether she should be held criminally responsible for the act. The verdict in the case will determine whether she is sent to prison or to a mental institution. The trial happening in a Massachusetts courtroom is also happening in the court of public opinion and is dividing the nation. Millions have extended sympathy to Clancy and expressed outrage that such a troubled woman is being tried at all. Millions of others have expressed that no struggle Clancy faced can possibly make her anything other than a murderer of her children. Everyone can agree that this entire situation is an unmitigated disaster. Three children are dead at the hands of their own mother. The life of that mother has been permanently altered with paralysis, a potential lifetime of institutional confinement, and the guilt of what she has done. There is also a husband and father whose entire family was yanked away from him in the most tragic of circumstances. If we can all agree that this is a tragedy, there is much disagreement about the specific kind of tragedy it is and what, if anything, can be done about it. Five categories can help us respond to the tragic case of Lindsay Clancy. The Limitations of Psychiatry One reality unfolding in this drama has to do with the limits of psychiatry and psychiatric care. In spite of the fact that Clancy was being treated by credentialed professionals, and in spite of the fact that she was clearly in distress, the people tasked with caring for her were not able toprovide crucial help. Earlier this year, Clancy’s husband filed a wrongful death lawsuit against some of her doctors alleging her condition worsened after they began treating her. When a psychiatrist’s patient kills three people and attempts to kill herself, at the very least we must be willing to consider that this was a failure of care. Another limitation of psychiatry exhibited in the Clancy case is the conflicting expert testimonywe have witnessed in the trial. The prosecution in the case has called expert psychiatric witnesses claiming that Clancy absolutely knew what she was doing and must be held responsible. The defense has called different psychiatric experts claiming she absolutely did not know what she was doing and definitely must not be held responsible. Such opposite conclusions about central issues clearly demonstrates limitations in the modern discipline of psychiatry. The obvious limitations of psychiatry on display in the Clancy case do not mean there is no legitimacy to psychiatry, that it is the only discipline with professionals who disagree, or that Clancy’s case was not complex. The point is that in our contemporary culture people have tended to extend a level of optimism and authority to psychiatric care far beyond what the discipline deserves. Modern psychiatry is far more experimental and uncertain than most understand. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that average and untrained people looking at this situation from the distance of media reportshave the same kinds of disagreements about the case as the professionals possessing intimate knowledge of the details of the situation and being called as supposedly expert witnesses. In our professionalized society, people with problems tend to assume that those with extensive training and advanced degrees are able to solve their problems with drugs and other treatments that are standardized, formulaic, and uncontroversial. It is no slander against psychiatry to admit this is not true. Psychiatrists are like anyone else. They are finite and fallible people operating out of a very specific worldview who possess limitations, blind spots, and prejudices. They do their work in a discipline with more mystery and unanswered questions than we typically acknowledge. The tragic case of Lindsay Clancy is a caution to our entire culture to view these well-intended professionals with far more caution than we often do. The Complexity of the Human Body Another factor we must consider in evaluating the Clancy case is the incredible complexity of the human body. Clancy’s trial raises difficult medical and biological questions. This complexityis basic to the courtroom battle we read in the news of the case. Clancy’s defense is not that she did not end the lives of her children, but that she possessed a diagnosable condition and a level of physical distress that removes the criminal responsibility for her actions. The argument from the prosecution is that there is no medical condition she faced that could eliminate her criminal responsibility. The Bible’s teaching on the human body helps Christians think clearly about this matter. Consider two strands of biblical teaching on our bodies which form the entire context of our existence as members of the human race. First, our bodies are wondrous creations of God and gifts from him to us. The gift of these bodiesallows us to experience every reality we encounter in life: the taste of food, a loved one’s touch, the sight of a beautiful sunset, the sound of a worship song—every gift we receive from God is mediated through his gift to us of our bodies. Second, in the sinful world in which we live, our bodies are weak. The Bible teaches this in places like 2 Corinthians 4:16, which says of our “Outer self is wasting away.” In this broken world, the good gift of our bodies is constantly breaking down and failing us: we get the flu, neurons misfire, our eyesight degrades or becomes non-existent, our auditory equipment gets weaker, our muscles ache, our heads ache, our backs ache, we fracture bones, sprain muscles, and confront midlife spread. All of our bodies are constantly weakening to the point that they ultimately cease to function, and we die. We can all agree that such physical weakness is on display in the tragic case of Lindsay Clancy. Years ago, I edited a book with Stuart Scott called Counseling the Hard Cases. In that book, I wrote a chapter about postpartum psychosis and my experience of caring for women with struggles like Lindsay Clancy. One reality I discussed in that chapter is the overwhelming physical weaknesses a new mom can confront. The physical exhaustion from no sleep and the strain of constant care for other needy people combined with enormous hormonal realignment are hard enough without the increased trouble that comes from the side effects of medication. Few conditions on earth rival the physical challenges faced by new moms. These realities are more than enough to stoke our compassion for moms like Lindsay Clancy facing tremendousbodily weakness. Biblical Teaching on the Human Heart The Clancy case also forces our awareness that the Bible teaches human beings have more than a body, but also possess an inner aspect known variously as a soul, spirit, or heart. The Bible does not just reveal the existence of this aspect of humanity but teaches the priority it has in guiding our existence. In Proverbs 4:23, Solomon says, “Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life.” In Mark 7:20-23, Jesus says, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.” That teaching from Jesus on the heart is significant. Without diminishing the weakness that our physical bodies always add to our existence, Jesus is clear that sin and defilement do not come out of the body, but out of the heart. Jesus’s long list of sins that come out of the heart highlightssome of the terrible realities on display with Lindsay Clancy: evil thoughts, murder, wickedness,and more. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who made the body, says we may not blame our misdeeds on our bodies but must admit that sin comes from wicked hearts separated from God. That is true, even when the case is tragic like this one. The Bible and Responsibility The Bible always places responsibility for our actions, not on the kind of bodies we have, but on the kind of hearts we possess. This principle does not remove every difficulty or answer every question. Biological problems in the brain can make it hard, if not impossible, to think clearly, to remember accurately, to see, speak, hear, and move. But none of those terrible challenges in a fallen world absolves someone from responsibility after they take an action. Biblically speaking, we are always responsible for what we do. To say it another more obvious way, whenever someone does something, it is always that person that did it. There is simply no way for us to think biblically or to function as a society if we create a category of actions that people take, but for which they bear no responsibility. We should be quick to admit that we can hold people responsible and still be compassionate. We can say, both, that someone faced overwhelming and regrettable circumstances, and, that theystill did something wrong for which they must be held to account. Lindsay Clancy deserves our compassion: she was facing overwhelming physical and situational challenges, her health care providers did fail her, her life will never be the same again. But Lindsay Clancy’s difficulties are only one side of this tragic case. The rest of the story is that three beautiful children were killed as the air was squeezed from their precious bodies. Someone is responsible for those deaths, and Lindsay Clancy is the only candidate. As a society, we must be clear that the intentional execution of innocent children is a line we must never cross, and whenever anyone does, they must be held responsible regardless of the difficulties they were confronting. Our judicial system has ways to assign varying degrees of responsibility for crimes. Our legal code makes distinctions between first- and second-degree murder, manslaughter, accidentaldeath, and wrongful death, just to name a few. The difference in these crimes all takes account, not merely of the crime itself, but of the circumstances that led to it and the motivations behind it. As a society, we can be careful in how we weigh responsibility, without refusing to assign italtogether. The Importance of Guilt The reason there is so much cultural debate on all this is not ultimately about the imperfect discipline of psychiatry or confusion about whether the body or the soul is in the driver’s seat of our decisions. The central issue the tragic case of Lindsay Clancy is only revealing is that we are a culture that does not understand guilt. One side of the cultural debate is afraid the legal system will refuse to assign guilt, and the other side is afraid they will be too enthusiastic to assign guilt. The fact of the matter is that Lindsay Clancy is guilty. Her guilt may be complicated by various factors, and she may share that guilt with others, but as the one who took the action to kill her children, her guilt is beyond dispute. The fact that our culture does not understand how to think about this guilt means we need more exposure to the person and work of Jesus Christ, who alone helps us know how to think about guilt in ways that address all the concerns. The Bible teaches that human beings are far more guilty than most want to admit. We are not just guilty of horrible crimes that can make the headlines or send us to prison. We are guilty of secret sins that no one knows but us. We are guilty of things we have done, of thoughts we have had, of words we have spoken, and—Lord, have mercy—of countless good things we should have done, but left undone. The Bible teaches that for that guilt we all face a future dramatically worse than a lifetime confined to a wheelchair and a federal penitentiary. We all face a lifetime separated from God in hell. But the Bible also teaches that Jesus came to pay for that guilt through his death on the cross, and that when we name our guilt and ask for mercy, we receive forgiveness. 1 John 1:8-9 says, “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” This passage teaches the way God himself extends compassion to guilty people. Guilt is not addressed by pretending we are not responsible for the bad things we have done. Guilt is forgiven when we confess it and trust Jesus to cover it. After we receive divine forgiveness, we may still endure penalties and consequences in this life. But when this life gives way to eternal life, we will know nothing but joy, bliss, and peace in a world of unending delight. Lindsay Clancy has pled not guilty to a crime everyone knows she committed. As I record these words, it is too early to tell if a human court will pronounce her guilty or not guilty. But in the eyes of the heavenly court, her guilt is an objective fact. Her only hope is to plead guilty as charged to the Judge of heaven and earth. When she does, she has the guarantee of a full and complete pardon from the Lord Jesus Christ. That guarantee is not only available to Lindsay Clancy. It is available for everyone on earth. That means it is available to you.

  ListenShow Notes

Recent guests on Truth In These Days. Study who booked and why before you pitch.

Based on semantic analysis of episode topics and host coverage, this show is a strong guest fit for executives in:

Industry fit is computed by PitchCentric using vector embeddings of the show's episode catalog.