Skip to main content

A Thought on Heroes

A thought: 

    Every time we really look into the lives of our heroes, one truth emerges--they are imperfect.  Whether they're athletes, musicians, religious leaders, or even Bible characters, our leaders all share the fact that they are human, and, accordingly, they were flawed (except Jesus, of course).  They all have character weaknesses that went along with their character strengths.  They have sins with which they struggle. 

    This is actually a good thing.  Mentors and heroes that are perfect are much less useful to us.  We need to have real people to look up to, not illusions of grandeur. 

    There is a common issue, however, that I've noticed results when we discover our heroes' flaws and sins.  We tend to excuse our own sins.  We see that even great men/women were sinners, and so we allow ourselves to copy their sins.  "It can be that bad," we think, "after all, so and so did it."  Our heroes, instead of lifting us up, then grant us license to sink down.

    Instead of license to sin, these flaws should motivate us to rise above such flaws.  David's sins were recorded, not so that we could copy him, but so that we could avoid similar behavior. 

    We should be humbled by the fact that great men have fallen.  Seeing righteous men and women sin should not soothe our consciences, but should put us on guard.  If men so mightily used of God and sanctified by Him could sin, even a man after God's own heart or the meekest man on earth, then certainly you and I can and will fall.  This should inspire us to guard our hearts, eyes, mouths, etc. 

    In the end, it is a good thing to look up to others who have been successful and faithful.  It is a good thing to draw courage and faith from how God worked in their lives.  We must, however, use this history in the right way.  We must not condone our own sin by remembering theirs.  We must use their struggles with sin as ammunition in our own spiritual battles.    

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...