*Some Peripheral Issues to the Covenant Explanation
I started the paper out by saying that the covenant has been a source of some confusion and hurt in the past. Here
are five issues that have caused confusion. I (Jeff) am offering an explanation that I think may further the discussion
and help us approach resolution and closure.
How come some areas of the covenant seem to be more emphasized than others in CCF talk? (example: drunkenness
vs. not going to dpms/church on Sundays)
Those who point this out are right. And it saddens me. For some reason, sins of commission seem to get pointed
out more than sins of omission. Perhaps part of the reason why this happens is b/c most of us are guilty of the same
sins of omission.
But there is one helpful distinction that serves to clarify the issue. Let’s take the example of DPM attendance vs.
drunkenness. In the case of the former, a student may have a reasonable excuse to not attend DPMs (i.e.
unavoidably incompatible class schedule). In the case of the latter, there is no excuse that I am aware of for
drunkenness. You see, the list of behaviors in which we are “supposed” to engage are hard to regulate sometimes.
In fact, much to my chagrin, this list has grown smaller and smaller over the course of time precisely because of the
difficulty in regulating this. We require less training and fewer commitments of our leaders now than we have in the
past.
But back to the point… This paper proposes that each disciplinary case be considered independently. A case-bycase analysis is the only way, in my mind, to ensure that we do justice to everyone’s widely varied situations. So,
yes, sometimes it appears that some things get talked about over others. But this is hardly our hope. Please
understand that your leaders work hard to, on the one hand, not be police watchdogs, and on the other, maintain
holiness. If you can come up with a universal scheme for taking care of this situation, I’m sure we’d all be very
eager to implement it.
So I broke one part of the covenant. Why confront me when people break other parts of the covenant all the time?
In logic, this complaint is called a “red herring.” It’s a distraction from what is really important, but, on an
emotional level, the complaint seems important enough and we turn our attention to it. Cornelius Plantinga,
president of Calvin Theological Seminary, calls it “Conniving.” In his book, Not the Way It’s Supposed To Be: A
Breviary of Sin, he recalls the Kitty Genovese incident. In this incident, Genovese is stabbed in open view of an
apartment complex three times over the course of thirty-five minutes. Neighbors did nothing. Plantinga writes:
Interviewed afterward, conniving residents admitted, sometimes sheephisly, “I didn’t want to get
involved,” or “I didn’t want my husband to get involved.” One mumbled that he had been too tired to call
police and had gone back to bed... When asked why within the safety of their own homes or apartment
they should be afraid to make a (perhaps anonymous) call to police, they gave meaningless answers. (pg.
183)
People are unwilling to face injustice or sin. Especially when it is their own. They would rather focus on something
else. I have two responses:
1.
2.
Actions have consequences. When dealing with sin, we must focus on the main thing. Certainly there are
many such “main things” which we could focus on. I propose that the main thing is holiness, both for the
individual and for the people of God. So, in order to treat a brother or sister as a part of the family of God,
in fact, to treat them like an adult, we must hold them accountable for THEIR actions.
“Doing” and “not doing” are two different things. This claim may prove a littler more controversial. Let
me illustrate. Notice on the covenant two sections regarding behavior. One involves “Behaviors in which
we will engage” and the other “We will abstain from…” These two sections are equally about holiness, but
are different in the way we understand them.
a. Suppose a person forgets to go to DPMs one week, or perhaps they miss Large Group. It would
be quite difficult to convince anyone that they do not “engage” in those behaviors.
b.
On the other hand, if a person gets drunk, or commits some act of sexual immorality, it would be
quite simple to ascertain if the person has failed to “abstain.”
There is a bright-line distinction here that only a “red herring” would attempt to blur.
Who should step down?
I have advocated for a case-by-case evaluation of every instance of covenant breaking. This is the only way to
ensure we treat people as individuals. However, this question of who should step down is one that begs for a general
“rule” of sorts. I hesitate to give one. Nonetheless, let me venture an explanation.
Four things happen when the covenant is broken:
1. One’s relationship with God is compromised. Having made a vow on paper (assuming one did so), the
leader that breaks the covenant breaks a promise made before God, who holds us accountable to our word.
2. One’s relationship with his/her peers is compromised. The community of leadership is girded by the
common understanding that leadership is a high calling and requires holiness. When one demonstrates by
his or her actions that this is not true, the community of leadership must decide whether to lower its
standards and allow the person to remain in leadership, or maintain the standards and ask the person to step
down from leadership.
3. One’s relationship with the fellowship is compromised. As discussed earlier, CCF student leaders lead in
holiness. When one breaks the covenant, one fails to lead in holiness. I am not claiming that one can never
lead again. Simply, that one has failed to do so according to the minimum standards in the covenant that
they signed. I would be hard pressed to any longer see that person as a leader in holiness. Rather, I would
see them as needing to be lead in holiness for a time.
4. One’s self-discipline is compromised. The leader who breaks the covenant now faces the above three
realities. This is enough to throw anyone into a tizzy. But when sin invades a right relationship or
covenant, a leader needs time to reorient his or her life toward the pole star of the Gospel and holiness. I
would never assume that a student who commits an act of sexual immorality would be able to “snap to” in
the following days. My concern for individuals would mandate that care for them includes time away from
the responsibilities entailed in leadership.
In my view, any one of these reasons is enough to ask a leader to step down.
Isn’t this kind of legalistic? Aren’t we called to holiness only by God’s Word?
This use of the word “legalistic” is truly misapplied. That is, it’s an inappropriate use of the term. It’s like saying
that a wedding ceremony is legalistic, or that any ceremony at all is legalistic. In fact, taking vows before the Lord
in ceremony is a regular part of the Old and New Testament. This is the very nature of the covenant – taking a vow
before the Lord in the company of witnesses.
Consider the covenants of the Old Testament:
Noahic (Gen. 6:18; 9:8-17); Abrahamic (Gen 15 and 17); Sinai (Ex. 19-24:11); Phinehas (Num. 25:10-13); Davidic
(II Sam. 7); New Covenant (Jer. 31).
God himself creates LEGAL and binding contracts with his people. The New Testament understanding in the books
of Hebrews and Galatians is that we are not free from the Old Covenant administered by Moses, just that there is a
new mediator – Jesus Christ.
(Now we’re getting into some complicated theological waters. If you want to tackle the issue of legalism, you need
to look into “Jesus as the fulfillment of the Law” and what that means for believers. I commend to you David
Holwerda’s Jesus & Israel: One Covenant Or Two?)
In short, we are free from the laws of Moses, only because Christ is our substitute (see Setting the Bar High…).
We, however, have been become bondservants (or slaves) to Christ because we were purchased by him! You are
not your own, and you are not eligible to do as you see fit (doing so would be like reliving Genesis 3 and 11!). John
17 requires that the community of God’s people serve God and each other in the strength that Christ provides and in
the power of the Holy Spirit. The cry “LEGALISM!” does not free us from our obligation to one another or to our
need for accountability. This obligation and this need are present everywhere in the New Testament (and I daresay
the whole of canon).
Who are we to judge?
If this is the question on your mind, you have been influenced by moral relativism. If this is the case, I refer you to
Paul Copan’s book, “True For You, But Not For Me:” Deflating the Slogans That Leave Christians Speechless (pg.
48-52).
Sadly, moral relativism has ruled the minds of many churched people today. I have two responses.
1.
We judge because we can. The deficiency of the relativist argument isn’t in its substance. It’s in the fact
that it’s an argument at all. Let me explain:
If you say, “everything is relative.”
I would ask, “are you absolutely sure?”
Relativism collapses in on itself. It’s rationally untenable. Any rational creature is making judgments
about right and wrong all the time. For CCF leaders, then, we must make judgments according to God’s
system of justice and holiness… which leads me to #2.
2.
We judge because we must. Asians and Asian Americans have a difficult time confronting situations
where they must pass judgment on another’s behavior – especially when sin is suspected. I think that in my
time in InterVarsity, I’ve only seen it done once or twice in CCF. Furthermore, students that I disciple or
hang out with encounter supreme difficulty when confronting others on issues of holiness. All sorts of
things run through our heads:
Who am I to judge? What will they think of me? Will I lose their friendship? I’m a sinner too!
I’m not immune to these debilitating thoughts. But to pursue holiness, righteousness and justice in inner
city Detroit… in the slums of Calcutta… in the boardrooms of corporate America… in relationships with
family or friends… we must all do the same thing: “Do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your
God” (Micah 6:8b).
Our concern for the gospel and for the people of God rises, indeed, it towers above our fear. Our love for
our neighbor pangs, indeed, it burns away our hesitation. So much so we grow “strong in the grace that is
in Christ Jesus” (II Timothy 2) and we become free to pursue God’s holy mission.