the songs of moses

Today when I was driving to the store I noticed a sign along Edwards Road that said “Railroad Crossing Closed.”  I drove the next couple of miles and found out that the railroad crossing was closed.  Go figure.  So I followed the 2 cars in front of me in a half “K-turn” to head back from where I had just come from, only consoled by the fact that there were 2 people in front of me and 3 people behind me who apparently didn’t understand what the sign “Railroad Crossing Closed” meant also.

As I drove an alternate route through the backroads of Taylors I laughed at myself for my stupidity–the sign said exactly what it meant and yet a combination of curiosity and disbelief convinced me to try that route anyhow.

Now, I don’t mean to sound like an over-zealous pastor who seeks to find a spiritual application to all of life’s happenings.  And yet, as I drove away chuckling at myself, I began to think of the consequences of not following road signs.  Having to turn around on a sparsely populated, blocked off road is really no big deal–just a minor inconvenience.  And yet road signs are used to alert us of much more hazardous conditions–like randomly stopping lanes on major roads (don’t you love driving in South Carolina?).  Or maybe one of those red signs that say STOP to alert you that people may be about to crash into the side of you if you are not careful.  Signs are huge and colorful for a reason–to let us know that they are there.

Signs are used to help us avoid danger.  Let me clarify this:  I am not advocating that we use “signs” to represent avoiding things that could lead to sin.  Lest anyone think I am saying that you should never hold hands with your boyfriend so you don’t end up having sex before you are married let us rethink this analogy.  I do not avoid every road that has a stop sign or a sign to alert me of a lane ending–they just help me to know that there is danger ahead so the appropriate action can be taken when the need arises.   Signs work much like the wisdom given to us from those who have been there before us, helping us avoid actual danger when the need arises.

Experience is a great teacher–a totally blocked off railroad crossing brought significant meaning to the phrase “Railroad Crossing Closed”–and yet learning from someone else’s mistakes at times is a whole lot easier.  So perhaps, instead of disbelieving what the transportation department of Greenville has to say, it may be better just to heed the signs.

Paul begins his first epistle to Corinth by levying the light of the Word against the divisiveness of the Corinthian church. He teaches them about the supernatural power of the gospel and how God uses different people to bring about the growth of his church (3). He then gives them a core exhortation concerning the extent of their teaching: “do not go beyond what is written”(1 Corinthians 4:5-7). Paul exhorts the Corinthians to not go beyond the truths of God’s word, dividing over the thoughts of Apollos as opposed to Cephas. This teaching should be instructive for how we relate to other denominations and true believers who disagree with us. If there is a true heart to submit to Scripture and to live out the gospel, then there can be great unity around those central elements of Christianity, even if other large items like baptism or the Lord’s Supper may be differed upon. Furthermore, this exhortation should sink home for every preacher as a plea to preach the thrust of God’s word, not use God’s word to support what a preacher may want to say.

The claims of God’s sovereignty in scripture are indisputable. However, many people struggle to reconcile the doctrine of God’s sovereignty with their conception of God as a loving being. For God to choose some and not others seems unfair and unloving to many. What is more, it seems even more unjust if God condemns people for opposing Him, but they never had an option to do otherwise if He ordained their actions. We like to think of God choosing to love Jacob through no merit of his own, but we do not like to think of His choosing to despise Esau on the same grounds (9:6-13). God chose to love Jacob and despise Esau even before they were born, and God hardened Pharaoh’s heart to oppose God (9:6-18). Sovereignty is a difficult doctrine, and much of humanity shrinks from it. As theologians we should realize this and be very intentional and gentle in our presentation of God’s truth to foster the growth of the whole body (Ephesians 4:15-16).

However, as followers of Christ we do not have the option to shrink from what the Bible teaches, and in Romans 9 Paul deals with this question of the ages: “Why does [God] still find fault? For who can resist his will” (9:19)? Paul answers his question by echoing Job and undercutting humanity’s right to ask such a presumptuous question of its Crafter: “Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this’” (9:20)? Humanity has no more right to object to its design than a chamber pot has a right to protest to its potter of its ill use (9:21).

In one sense, Paul does not answer his question entirely. He does not explicitly solve the problem of evil and its origin or explain explicitly how a loving, good God can both create and send to Hell. However, Paul does redirect our focus away from such paradoxes back to our response. He drives home the fact that the universe revolves around displaying God’s glories: “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory” (9:22-23)? Paul refocuses our attention on the glory of God and His display of patience, power, and mercy within His design. Both wrath and mercy display God’s glory. In the words of C.S. Lewis, “He is good,” but “He is not a tame lion.” A believer may find aspects of God’s sovereignty unsettling and confusing, but a humble student of Scripture will trust that God’s infinite wisdom and goodness is better than our finite imaginations. Perhaps we the finite will never fully comprehend the infinite, yet we can still respond appropriately as Paul did, worshipping and marveling even as we try to know the deep things of our God.

It seems to me that there is a missing view of Israel’s relationship to the church.
• Dispensationalism views Israel as receiving the covenant promises of the OT alone, with the church having distinct promises.
• Premillenialism views both the church and Israel receiving various parts of the covenant promises.
• Postmillenialism and amillenialism see the NT applying the promises of the OT to the church in a primarily spiritual, intensified way. Literal promises will be fulfilled in the New Heavens and Earth.

•But where is a view that does not focus on the church? It seems from Romans, that Paul argues for the church being something of a subset, a single branch of the tree that is Israel. It strikes me that the above views are a bit ego-centric/ecclesia-centric to how God relates to us, when Romans seems to present the church as riding only on the coat-tails of the initial promises to Adam, Noah, Moses, David, and Jeremiah. This should floor us with the grace of God, and it also profoundly simplifies things.

There is one people of God, those that believe His promise. For millenia that people was Israel, and all who would believe came to her and submitted to her law. Gentiles became Jews in order to live out their faith (ref. Rahab, Ruth et al). Ironically, many of the physical descendants of Abraham became pagan. Now, the Nations who never sought God have been formally grafted into Judah to enjoy her New Covenant. All by faith, believing Jews stand beside believing Gentiles, but all related to promises made to the true (believing) children of Abraham.

Last week I began a new job.  The kind of job where you come in for your first day with all of your paperwork stating that you had a doctor look at you and tell you that you were not dead and that you don’t have TB.  The first thing they do is take this paperwork.  Second, they send you out to be the caretaker of a group of children that know you know nothing and will do anything to exploit this fact.

One of those types of jobs.  But this just wasn’t any group of children.  These are children living at a children’s shelter until someone can take them home—be it their parents, an aunt or uncle or a foster family.

So I was dropped into day 1 of work, ready to change the world and fix all the problems I could possibly encounter.   After 8 full hours of trying break up fights, figure out what to do with all these bored children, and put down minor insurrections about bedtime, I headed home, grumpy, tired, and defeated in my quest of world changing.  After kissing my husband goodbye at 7:30 that morning I came home at 10:30 (did I mention my hours were 2-10 at night…) I to a husband who was already asleep.  Feeling rather sorry for myself, I cried myself to sleep.

And got up the next day to the same routine.  Looking ahead at my schedule I wasn’t sure how I was going to manage to do this for 6 days straight (while still working my 2 other part-time jobs).  With some days better than others, I moved on, becoming increasingly more disillusioned.

So I did the logical thing—I called home to my mommy.  Well, actually this was not simply an emotional response.  With 20+ years of educational experience ranging from raising 4 children to running a school, my mother is a wonderful asset to any question about dealing with children.  And, she is my mother after all.

Her words were encouraging and rebuking.  She assured me that being a grown-up wasn’t easy and wasn’t always fun.  She gave me her love and pity for my difficulty.  But, she reminded me, that it isn’t all about me.  I have a job that gives me a chance to show God’s love to children who probably have never seen that before.  I have the chance to make a difference in the lives of children who are hurting.  Each day I go in, ready to be disobeyed, disrespected, yelled at, whatever.  And each night, I can go home, forgiving those who have done wrong against me.  And the next day I can go in ready to show love again.  I was no longer the victim of my job.  I am the privileged one who gets to impact other in some small way or another.

Equipped with this new perspective, I headed into work that night and was disobeyed, disrespected, and yelled at.  And now, it didn’t seem to matter so much.  I still gave consequences for wrong actions but I could see past these kid’s behaviors to see kids who needed to have God’s love shown to them.  What a refreshing change from the perspective of being the victim to that of being a giver.

This summer I found myself sitting alone in the woods and as I sat down on a log that day to eat my lunch feeling physically tired and emotionally drained. Perhaps out of the highly ingrained habits from my childhood I bowed my head over my peanut butter sandwich to “say grace.” Sensing I was alone, I decided to pray out loud for my food. But that day I didn’t just pray for my food. I talked to my Father about my exhaustion. I told my struggles in a very real way. I saw God displaying His glory that day as the sunbeams in the distance danced between the trees. I was overcome by His greatness. Of His awe-inspiring glory. I wanted to worship Him. But I was sitting alone in the woods. I tried to sing but my voice hurt and I couldn’t think of the words to any songs. I wanted to express my honor to Him with words of adoration but none came. So I sat for a moment, overcome with a desire to worship God but not knowing how. Then I looked down at my well-blessed lunch and in an act of worship I ate my sandwich, basking in the glory of my Savior and lifting my heart in worship to Him.

This is the nature of sandwich-eating worship. Worship is not simply singing with people at your church on Sundays (though this is a form of worship). Worship is so much more. According to the Oxford American Dictionary, worship is “the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity.” So many Christians, myself included, try to create a separate category of actions that are “expressions of reverence.” Yet, throughout all of our different relationships, we hardly can say one set of actions convey our love or concern for others. A man does not only show his wife of his love by saying “I love you” once a day and remembering their anniversary. He can (if his motive is pure) show her his love by going to work daily to provide for her needs. He can show his love by putting his dishes in the dishwasher for her even if she never realizes. He can show her his love in a myriad of way not directly related to pedantic “expression of love.” In much the same way, we as the children of God can express our reverence for Him though our lives. Nothing is to be left outside the realm of worship other than sin, as long as the action is dedicated to expressing to God His worth.

This realization can have a profound impact of the lives of believers. There is no longer a division between the sacred and the secular. All of life is worship. All of life is God’s. Every mundane task so often forgotten becomes a “channel of adoration.” It is then we can extol His glory in our acts of sandwich-eating worship.

I have recently encountered a philosophy that I will never adopt: “You will always be under authorities that you disagree with, so learn to live with it.” Though in some senses this statement holds true in a fallen world, the spirit of resignation that it carries affronts my idealistic mind. Could the Lord place me under authorities that I disagree with my whole life? Most definitely. Could the Lord use me as an agent of change and an initiating force toward renewal? Most definitely, and the Lord seems to delight in such redemption.

To have to choose between redeeming something that is flawed and being content with how it stands is a false dichotomy. Contentment consists in a realization that God is in control of any situation and will work that situation for His glory and my sanctification for His glory. Our hearts respond that therefore a situation is good. We become content, even though the situation seems obnoxious to our fleshly passions.

Redemptive passions for a fallen world should pervade our lives as followers of Christ, passions that decry our current fallen state and long to see all of creation submit to Christ its master. We should long to see God’s kingdom expand on earth in any way that He graces us to work for His glory. I firmly believe that I can be content at Bob Jones (or any other authority that wields its power poorly) while still having the Spirit lead my heart to react against its injustices and long for a day when we will submit to perfect leadership. Even leadership must strive to conform to Christ’s likeness, and one of my dearest dreams is to one day become an encouraging instrument of God for such change.

I decided that I wanted to preserve these, but as a category rather than a page

Laurelisms

1. “Tommy, are you checkin’ me out?”

2. “That sounds funny doesn’t it?”

3. “Gerry!”

4. “‘Urbs’ is such a fun word!”

5. “This tense is easy. You take the stem, you stick a “bra” on it, and then you add the normal endings… what, what’s so funny?”

6. “Maximus!”

7. “Augustine, could you please demonstrate for the class why “manus” is a very feminine word?”

And our favorite retorts…

1. “I feel MASCULINE today!” – Gerry
2. “Frankly, girls make me uncomfortable.” -Gerry
3. Drowning in an attempt to translate some Augustine, “This doesn’t make any sense at all. This guy must be a democrat.” -Gerry

Cookisms

1. Dr. Cook: “Is it wrong to turn a stone into bread? Well…”
Bzzzzzzzzzz “What is that?”
Student: “A blower.”
Dr. Cook: “Somebody go throw a stone at him.”

2. Dr. Cook: “I like this guy Erasmus, ‘When I have a little money, I buy books. When I have a little bit of money left over, I buy food.’ Yes, I agree, so keep your textbooks!”

3. Dr. Cook: “Does anyone have any questions about the project? How ’bout the answer to number 1? *intending to be sarcastic*
Student with raised hand: “It’s B, Dr. Cook”
Dr. Cook: “What? Oh, that’s not what I meant…”

4. Dr. Cook: *Completely out of nowhere* “Don’t put books on a table and put lamps on them. That’s what my wife does. They’re just not… accessible.”

4.5. The next day he put up a picture of his office on the projector, which illustrated the bookage underneath a lamp. He proceded to confess, under duress from his wife, that he had put those books there because they were too big to stand upright on his shelves. Furthermore, there was a little one on top of the big one that seemed like it would have fit on his shelf just fine. The explanation: “Well, it just didn’t look right with the one book under the lamp.”

5. Isaac was a passive kinda guy… you know living in the basement of his dad’s tent a little too long.

6. I had a point to make with that… and I totally forgot. (I think this is my favorite, I was truly impressed with his honest humility in front of two hundred students.

7. Now you girls who are really intelligent. Don’t marry an idiot… there are a lot of guys out there who are dumber than you are.

Handisms

1. “The Old Testament saints were justified through Christ too. Abraham was justified by faith because he was looking forward to Christ. In a sense it was like the longest “Hail Mary” in history…. *awkward silence followed by raucous laughter* Of course in the football sense of the phrase.”

Maríoisms

1. “I don’t understand this tradition; I give my girlfriend dying reproductive organs as a display of affection.” (Lest he be mortified, referring to flowers)

molly sonnet ii
kindness…bent toward usefulness, to purposefully make oneself useful to another

My heart longs to serve you as a servant His lady.
But so often you chafe under such affection, dawdling,
Never wanting to command me, subjected in willing slavery,
In vain I coax your desires, leaving you still desiring.
My Father blazes sovereign humility, and slowly I glean:
A man does not love a woman as servile fixture to her side,
But as a king rules and serves his queen, as The King His Queen.
The King commands, but bent on the best for His Bride.
Out of my high estate I must give myself, boldly love, and contend
On your behalf to give the world. To bravely guard your best,
To even lift our banner-we happy few-and storm toward our End.
Though longing to serve, by emulative design I must lead our quest.
Such an unwilling ruler, and thus such an unwilling, impeding
Lover, when my greatest service consists in loving leading.

“Unless you can read Hebrew without the vowel points and translate any passage in the Greek New Testament inside fifteen minutes, you have no business in the ministry…If you can’t tell me where the church has been, you have no buisness telling me where it ought to go.”

My heart is weak and broken. Through my tears I look at the shattered pieces. I cry to my Daddy in heaven as a child would her father, looking for some reason for the breaking. I cannot understand.

And then I fear. I fear that I am broken beyond use. My heart cries. How can God use a girl with a crying heart? I must be too broken because those people that God needs are the people who don’t cry themselves to sleep. God uses the people who accept life’s struggles as gifts from the hand of God and do not chafe at the weight of life that seems to crush the soul. My heart is too broken.

But then my Daddy opens my eyes. He wants me to be broken. To Him this brokenness makes me ready for use. I must come to end of myself before I can come to Him in broken humility. He knows that my heart cries. And He comforts my heart. He knows the struggles of my life seem to be crushing me to death. He carries the weight on His own shoulders. He mends my heart with His gentle hands. He sees my broken heart. And to Him my broken heart is beautiful.

Reflections on the Intimate Dialogue Between Man and God

This little book provides a fascinating look into the mind of a theologian. I often wonder what thoughts theologians play with and discard as unfit for publication because those thoughts are the very thoughts and rejections that shape their published greatness. C.S. Lewis prepared Letters to Malcolm for publication before he died, but it retains some of that edgy flavor, dealing in experience and supposition far more than many other Lewis books.

Lewis writes the book as if penning a series of letters to a friend. This style provides a unique feel to the book, allowing him to deal with touchy subjects in a much friendlier way rather than a normal presentation of thesis and argument. I found myself wanting to know the other side of the imaginary conversation and being drawn into a character, almost like a novel, rather than simply tracing an weighing an argument. Though I admire the style, I am very thankful that C.S. Lewis wrote such a book; in his hands I would describe it as winsome and edgy. Had a less admirable theologian written it, the book would be seductively replete with Siren songs of theology.

For a theologian I would most definitely recommend weighing some of Lewis’s ideas against scripture. Letters is foundationally built upon Lewis observations and thoughts about prayer. The book is not of the devotional quality of Reflections on the Psalms nor the polemical excellence of Abolition of Man. The book lies somewhere in between with a dash of literary influence and a heavy dose of his more philosophical works like The Four Loves. The book is definitely thought provoking and thus very worthy of reading, though perhaps not worthy of swallowing whole. I would recommend at the very least that anyone pick up this book and read through chapters 17-19 in a book store sometime. Therein are most of the most quoted thoughts concerning the intrinsic goodness of pleasure, necessitating an intentionality about our joy in directing all glory back to the Giver.

Read More…

This little book is the encore to The Cross-Centered Life. This first little orange book focused on the wonder and necessity of living every day, disciplining our thoughts to consider our life in light of the cross. This little blue book has a specific purpose for us to see the glory of God in the passion of Christ on the cross.

C.J. starts by examining his purpose in writing the book, reflecting on how he had seen Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ. Though he appreciated the movie’s realistic presentation of the depths of Jesus’ suffering, he was concerned that everyone in the theater was unprepared for what they saw, and ended up leaving the theater with undirected responsive passion. For a believer, the movie was a wake-up call to personal passion; to anyone else it was just a moving portrayal of horrible violence. The passion was undirected, when it should be the most beautiful mystery of God’s gospel: “My God, only You could show me what a wretched sinner I am and make it the greatest news I’ve ever heard” (14).

Though much of the aim is to elicit appropriate passion from the work of Christ, the very first chapter encourages the reader that our feelings and responses do not ultimately determine truth. God’s Word and commands matter. In C.J.’s words, “I will believe the objective truth of His Word, regardless of how I feel.”

The next chapter deals with “the Divine Dilemma,” a somewhat scandalous title with a message of orthodox gold. God is not a deity wringing His hands up in heaven waiting for people to love Him if they choose. He is a warrior lover. His beloved hates Him with a cosmic, intrinsic enmity and would never want to be reconciled to Him, yet He will pursue her. He will pursue her in righteousness without compromising anything. Job’s desperate cry: “If only there were someone to arbitrate between us, to lay his hand upon us both, someone to remove God’s rod from me, so that his terror would frighten me no more” (Job: 9:33-34) will finally be answered by Christ, our only mediator.

“For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.”

C.J. describes this as “Paul succinctly captur[ing] the main theme and essence of the entirety of holy Scripture…there is a mediator” (42). But Christ has to be able to arbitrate between two disparate types of beings, both man and God. He has to be both able to relate to us and yet not compromising His own nature as God. Christ has a unique essence as true God and true man, upon whom all the wrath of God against His enemies was poured. “God’s holy hostility against us has ended. The divine dilemma is resolved. That’s what Christ’s death means to God” (46). There is no better news possible, not only will be saved one day from the wrath of God, we can actively live the way we were designed as God would have us right here and now.

C.J. makes an excellent point that Christ’s suffering goes far beyond His physical passion extending to the depths of separation from God, being forsaken by His beloved Father because of God’s great love for His creation. This is what our sin demands, and Christ in His unfathomable love drained this cup of wrath and judgment for us. On the cross “Jesus doesn’t just feel forsaken; He is forsaken… as the substitute for our sin…it isn’t a deceptive feeling; it is reality” (75). And here, with our screams of “crucify” still ringing in His ears, He died for our sakes, cut off from His eternal Father. We nailed Him there in our natural hatred so that He could rescue people who hate Him from the very depths of their being, so that He could remake them into lovers of God! We deserve the cross and hell. Because of Christ we get a love for God Himself, now “even in the glory of heaven, the wounds of the Lamb who was slain continue to bring blessing our way… especially in our darkest hour” (85).

Thus a study of the cross, of Christ’s glory displayed there, leads to an assurance of our own joy and security with God. Christ bore God’s wrath so that we don’t have to. Christ suffered for us and bought our fellowship with God, enabling us to suffer on behalf of a fallen world. Even with joy! What glorious recreation of our nature God has wrought through the cross! The Gospel is “both the source and object of our joy…Joy is a command.” (92-93). Joy is a command that Christ bought on the cross, one that we can revel in and in the words of a beloved song,

“Lord take us deeper, into the glories of Calvary.”

I sit in darkness
Guilty of my sin.
Ashamed of my failure.
Knowing you are holy
I repent and prepare
To face the darkness
That my sin has caused.

And when I sit in darkness,
Afraid, yet not alone
I burn with shame
In the presence of your mercy.
I cling to your forgiveness
And approach your throne
With broken boldness.

“If anyone says ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.”

I John teaches essentialism. Lovers love. Haters hate. What we are produces what we do. If something has essential properties, it always has them unless it transmutes into something else. Long ago, the labor pangs of science birthed alchemy whose chief end was to turn base metals like lead into precious metals like gold. Five hundred years later we know that such transmutation is actually possible and even quite common. For instance, Polonium-210 naturally decays half of its matter into lead-210 in approximately 138 days. As long as it is polonium, it will act like radioactive polonium. However, once it decays into Lead-210 it will no longer be radioactive and its volatile properties will be exchanged for stability.

As redeemed sinners we are like an alchemist’s dream, lead transmuted into gold. As lead, we had all the properties of lead; now as gold we have all the properties of gold. One distinction between lead and gold is conductivity. It doesn’t matter whether you plug lead into a nine-volt battery or into a high-voltage industrial line, it won’t conduct electricity. No matter how well an unbeliever is trained, he will not love.

Similarly, gold is conductive. It will conduct whether plugged into a nine-volt battery or a high-voltage industrial line. Christians will love! Whether the image of God in humanity evokes their compassion or God himself, their essential properties demand that they conduct love. They will love when they have the opportunity.

Granted, in this life we are impure gold. Thus, God works, “our gold to refine, and our dross to consume.” As He purifies us we conduct Love better and better, always imperfectly until we stand before Him and are “purified even as He is pure.” And because believers see God’s power flowing through them to live like Jesus, they know that no one but our Almighty God could have worked such a miracle! No one else could have transmuted lead into gold!

Where alchemy failed, our Almighty Chemist has succeeded with ease, not with base metals like lead and gold… but with the eternal souls of His creation. We have confidence in this transmutation as we walk as He did and observe our conductivity!

I was given a beautiful picture of the dependence and wonder of expressive worship through Piper–a five year old friend of mine–last week. I was kneeling down talking with her, and out of the blue she reached up her arms to the height of my shoulders and didn’t quite reach. She leaped up around my neck with selfless, expressive love, gentle and yet powerfully passionate as only a five year old young lady can accomplish.

As she did this the Lord put a beautiful parallel into my mind of our expression of dependence as we lift our hands to him in worship. We are like a child with no intrinsic height or ability to truly embrace our Father. All we can do is look up expectantly like a child with our arms outstretched to our mighty Father, longing for His embrace and presence, trusting in His strength and ability to lift us up in our weakness. We bank on His goodness and Cross-bought justice to meet us in our weakness. Our physical expression is dependent on His power as we leap up with arms outstretched to Him. We don’t expect to leap to Him, but rather for Him to reach down to our powerless exuberance and meet us in His Glory and strength, scooping us up as his beloved adopted children.

With this thought, I embraced little Piper and stood up, lifting her higher than she ever could have on her own. I spun her around and she smiled at me, enjoying her dependence on my strength to support her child-like affection. I sat her back down on the floor, and she ran off having quite finished welcoming me as a new friend. But she left me with a new and vibrant picture of my expression in worship to my Heavenly Father. I’ve never worshiped through a hug quite like that before. May our faith be strengthened by our child-like weakness and need of our Father.

The churches of Galatia had a problem: they knew the truth yet some of them were turning to a “different gospel—not that there is another one,” (Galatians 1:6) but people were trying to change the gospel. Paul addresses the issue with no room for generosity. There is only one gospel and that truth must be protected at all costs.

After clearly establishing the gospel, he reveals his disbelief that they would turn to something other than the truth. Through this theme of unity around the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, God teaches us that there cannot be any unity without the gospel of Christ.

But doesn’t this hard-lined dedication to the truth seem a little old fashioned at times? Shouldn’t we just love everyone the same? In our culture of tolerance and acceptance this old doctrine just doesn’t seem to be working anymore. Can’t we all just be right in our own way?

I recently began reading A Generous Orthodoxy by Brian McLaren, one of the leaders of the Emergent Church movement. McLaren teaches that we are all right in how we follow God as long as we get to God in the end. He is a spokesman for post-modern Christianity and he speaks seductively. His book is interesting and frank but his ideas are deadly. He nailed the problem with so much of today’s “orthodoxy” but he nailed the problem into its own coffin. Instead of going humbly to the Word to solve the problem, he turned to a “new wave of doctrine” that dangerously leads people down a path of misguided “love” and tolerated sin.

What he got right: the problem of pitting “us v. them” in issues of Christian liberty (Romans 14 type of issues) and petty doctrinal differences. This is no new problem. II Timothy 2 warns us to avoid such pointless arguments; however, the solution lies not in departing from the truth but running toward it.

McLaren ironically gives up absolute truth to attempt to solve a problem that can only be solved by the truth. If we give up our pursuit of the absolute standard of orthodoxy, we are left on a winding road to nowhere. Our goal moves from pursuing legitimate knowledge of the truth to looking for what we will establish as our personal standard of truth. We give up the very core of the gospel in a vain effort to love those who believe differently than us.

But if we give up the gospel, we cannot love. Our human thinking wants to believe that to love is acceptance. We have “not so learned Christ!” Love can only come from a humble dependence on truth of the gospel. In Galatians Paul boldly opposed Peter to his face because Peter was allowing the Jews to add the law to the Gospel. Paul could not overlook such a departure from the truth. In love, he rebuked Peter to bring Peter back to way of truth. To allow Peter to continue in his sin, harming his brothers with him, would not be loving. It would be hateful. Love and unity cannot be based on anything but the truth. Such “generosity” is not love but a false humility that arrogantly refuses to accept the truth that God has revealed to His servants.

Herein lies the final major flaw with McLaren’s solution. He spends an entire chapter of his book trying to convince you not to buy his book. This (which to me almost bordered on annoying) however is not humility. To understand that God has given us truth to guard and teach can be humility. It seems backwards but by humbly accepting God’s provision of truth for us we can humbly share this orthodoxy with others. As we humbly submit to the truth of God’s Word we learn and can share God’s work in us with those around us. This is not a proud sharing that boasts of personal goodness. It does not lord knowledge of the truth over those who do not know the truth yet. It speaks the truth in humble love, submitting to the knowledge that God alone is the Giver of all truth. The problem with “orthodoxy” today is not the truth, but the irresponsible wielding of truth.

And so I offer this generous critique. By forsaking truth in an impossible effort to love, A Generous Orthodoxy strays into the realm of false humility to combat pride. What is viewed as “generosity” is no more than a toleration of error and sin.

moses & molly

“In this the love of God was manifest, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through Him.”

It strikes me in light of some recent reading, that many people want to live, but not through Christ. In fact I would dare say that everyone wants to live, but they want to do it on their own terms in the same way the rich young ruler wanted eternal life and his riches too. Christ was not enough, and when he counted the cost the price was too high.

“If we love one another, God abides in us and His love is perfected in us…by this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world.”

A recent sermon that I heard by Jeff Purswell stressed a purposeful pursuit of the presence of God. But in a sense, we the vines, cannot make ourselves abide and dig ourselves into the root-stock. God graciously puts us there and holds us there. But how do we the finite know where we are in the cosmic scheme of vines and branches? How can we know for sure what we are? Here is a description of what God dwelling with His people and transforming them looks like: they love whoever is near them. They take on the characteristics of the root. God’s love is perfected in us! We don’t love on our own! So we have confidence in the day of judgment because we are living even as He did in the world! Seeing this happen gives us confidence that we are truly following the Way. We are becoming like Christ.

It doesn’t seem like this is a formula: love each other and then I’ll abide with you. It’s not a condition. Rather, it seems like a description of what God’s initiatory love produces in the lives of His saints. It transforms us, “completes us,” and changes us to love one another. God is at work in us when we love. And we should praise Him for it. “May the humble hear and rejoice” at what God is doing! As we strive to walk “even as He walked,” we can be supremely confident that we would not do this naturally. This is a miracle from God’s mighty hand! Working love through a sinner like me is a miracle of miracles!

Even more, John draws the same parallel between abiding and confidence at the beginning of Chapter 3. There we had confidence because we held fast to what was taught and greatly anticipated our transformation by His power. There was orthodoxy preaching confidence before the throne of God.

Here in chapter 4 we live the Christ-life and we marvel at God’s power transforming us. We look at our lives and see His life in us, even “as he is, so also are we in this world.” This is a type of resurrection of our decaying flesh even now. We are “in not of”–living as Christ–rebelling against the kosmos system of life! Orthodoxy births orthopraxy, and orthopraxy gives sure confidence that Christ is alive and transforming us to be like Him.

June 9, 2008

v. 6: We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

Through the gentle rebuke of a friend I’ve recently noticed how often I debase my time with the Lord in the morning to mere academia. Knowing truth about God is good, only surpassed (with an infinite margin) by knowing God, by beholding Him face to face and being transformed. I have often applied this verse to discerning true prophecy, true teachers etc. That’s the obvious, academic and exegetical interpretation. Do they agree with apostolic authority or not? Case closed. “Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us.”

How often do I refuse to listen to the Apostles? To God as He speaks through them? How often do I profess Christ with my academic lips and deny Him with my lack of obedience? How often do I willingly yield my freedom in Christ to live under fleshly slavery? How often do I prove my divided being, still tied to mortality and needing to fight my sin to death? How often do I fail to live in the power of the same Spirit that resurrected Christ’s body from the tomb and has the power to master my mortal flesh? My life demands repentance.

Here I beheld my God. Demanding perfection, my Holy God is not satisfied with Academia. Here I see my own inadequacy clearly in my own life. Here I see that I am in need of a Savior to transform me in His presence. My dependence is exposed. Praise God for kindly reminding His children of their need; praise Him for all His lovingly immanent manifestations of His transcendence in His Word. Praise God that he kindly gives the gift of repentance to His needy children.

Molly Sonnet I

Love wells up from my soul, ever pouring out
With desire and care, longing to immerse you forevermore,
But having been cut off, my love has nowhere to flow without
You. A wall of distance dams my affections to fill like a reservoir.
Pressure builds against the wall of separation, pressing
To destroy our hindrance. But unlike water—its cosmic counterpart—
My eternal love cannot dissipate; it must remain, ever building.
No ground can sop, nor air affect, the strain on my swelling heart.
It persists, rising until the dam binding my love must break
Or overflow. But you cannot see this indomitable internal
Lake; when tempted to doubt or feel forgotten, drought fakes
To have fallen, but it is not so. No dam is eternal.
Hope my love! Eternal love cannot be lost, only stored,
Ever growing, to be loosed as a mighty torrent upon my Adored.

I’ve been learning this past week about the power of prayer. I’d never quite gotten the “lead us not into temptation” line of the Lords prayer, but last week my life was specifically blessed by God through that thought process of prayer. God graciously directed my thoughts toward righteousness. It was miraculous for a sinner like me to experience such otherworldly bliss. As my schedule picked up around here last week, we started waking up later and sandwiching Bible reading before flying off to the office.

The difference between the two weeks was like night and day.

Last week I set aside time to specifically express my dependence upon God every morning, to specifically express that without God’s power I was impotent to fight sin. This put my mind in a Godward framework, relying on and walking in the spirit, filtering life through God’s perspective. The Word came alive to transform my life as I beheld Christ. A life dependent on the word, overflowed last week. A self-centered, independent attempt to get by this week. And when we try to live on our own–independent of God–we die. God is so good to us. Lord teach me to slow down, to discipline myself to live in dependence on your grace. Skipping ten minutes of prayer in the morning gains me nothing; on my own, my time is worthlessly spent on perishing me. Lord, use your gracious gift of prayer to teach my soul to respond dependently and worshipfully to life.

I John 3:11-15
11 For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. 12 We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous. 13 Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death. 15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

God is love. Therefore, those who are in Christ are to be loving. But what is love? Can we really pin down a definition of a concept so broad that it describes part of the very essence of God? We do have however, several descriptions of what love is. In the same way, we see examples of the antithesis of love: hate. Hate is not merely a negative action. It is the absence of love. That which is not love is hate. You cannot love and yet not hate someone. You must do one or the other.

Then, since I do not always love, I too must hate. And since I hate, I am a murderer. And since I am a murderer I have not eternal life abiding in me. Wait! Does this mean that by my un-love I cannot be in Christ? Or is it just that I must have more love than hate in order to not be condemned? Does the measure of my love become a litmus test to Christ’s work in my life? My heart leaps up to condemn me for how often do I hate? Does this mean that I might not be saved because I do hateful things?

NO! My heart longs to condemn me but this should not condemn my heart but drive me to repentance. That should be the result of seeing my hate. The very fact that I can love–regardless of the fact that I at times in my sin am not loving–reveals that I am a child of God. How sadly my mind follows this wrong thinking of my God, waiting to crush me under a load of my condemnation. He has already used my condemnation. He used it to crush his own Son. God is not lording over me, trying to convince me that I am condemned. He already took my curse.

Last night at Bible study I was listening to someone share this passage with me. I was confronted with my sin but my heart did not have to condemn me. Instead, I was pulled to a place of repentance. This is where my heart should go. I do not need to doubt and despair. I need to bow and repent before my holy, loving Daddy. It was a beautiful lesson to me. The Spirit joyed my heart with my sin last night because I know it does not condemn me any longer. My hatred has already been condemned. It has been crushed. It has been redeemed.

This little book by C.J. Mahaney–like most little books by C.J. Mahaney– is very down to earth and yet profound in its simple application of the gospel to real life.

The book starts with a defense for the pleasure of sex and romance, defending love rather than duty-bound procreation. Sex is a good thing to be enjoyed. God made it that way, and Christians should not be ashamed of it. Many people view sex as somewhat defiled by the fall, but it isn’t. The Song of Solomon provides an excellent example of pure, passionate love. Always the complementarian, C.J. exhorts his readers to lead their wives (or in my case future wife) toward a biblical, God exalting view of sex.

However, sex is not merely to be enjoyed for the glory of God. Marriage becomes a priority of the highest order because it is designed to display the beauty of Christ and His Bride. Marriage goes “beyond personal fulfillment” to display the wonder of Christ’s love for His church.

Having laid a foundation of the goodness of sex and the glory-reflecting purpose for marriage, C.J. dives into some intensely practical advice. Study your wife!

“In order for romance to deepen, you must touch the heart and mind of your wife before you touch her body.”

This little phrase becomes the thesis for the rest of the book. C.J. builds an effective case that a wife should always be a wife first, and any other role (including mother) second. As a man, one of my responsibilities in leading her is to ensure that those roles never reverse: “Motherhood is exceptionally important…But…I think the most effective mothers are wives who are being continually, biblically romanced by their husbands.” A godly marriage, provides a God-designed environment to raise children: “your children should be able to look at your life and know beyond any doubt that they have the great privilege of being the most important people in the world to you…right after their mom.” My first responsibility is to lead my wife; from there we work as a team to raise godly children out of that thriving relationship.

He encourages husbands to pursue their wives by studying them in a variety of different areas: see page 33-34 for two great lists of areas to consider studying your Love. But knowing this information is not enough; we must be transformed by this information to love our wives and serve them in each area that we study. Love must have feet. Love needs date nights, phone calls, notes, cards, letters, gifts, music, getaways, and surprises to name a few. I should make the passionate pursuit of my wife life-long, fresh, and obvious to everyone (in a tasteful sort of way).

Drawing on the Song of Solomon, C.J. encourages husbands to carefully choose their words. The language of Song of Solomon is not “Hey honey, you look nice tonight” but “How beautiful you are, my Darling! Oh, how beautiful! Your eyes behind your veil are doves. Your hair is like a flock of goats descending from Mount Gilead!” In typical C.J. fashion he exhorts his readers not to try to imitate the exact metaphors of ancient Hebrew poetry. “Your neck is like an ivory tower of Lebanon,” comes to mind as being probably unsuccessfully romantic. Words are important.

He ends the book with some practical pointers on humble, selfless sex, and a look forward toward the promise of true covenant love. Till death do we part…from our ever intensifying love for one another. In the words of Solomon: “Many waters cannot quench love, neither can floods drown it.” Love endures, and grows; it is unstoppable and permanent. We must love our wives like this–covenant enduring love–displaying the beauty of Christ to the world around us through a redeemed marriage!

2Timothy 2:14-26 (The Message According to Moses)

Reiterate these things, warning them before God not to dispute words about something that is not profitable, which destroys those who listen. Be eager to demonstrate yourself to be genuine before God, a worker with no cause for embarrassment because he clearly facilitates the message of Truth. But shun those who babble pointlessly, for they advance ungodliness further and further and their message will spread destruction like gangrene. Hymenaios and Philetos are men like these, who have shot at and missed the Truth by saying that the resurrection has already come, and they are destroying the confidence of some.

But nevertheless, the solid foundation of God stands! The foundation has this seal : “The Lord knew those who are His,” and “anyone who claims the identity of the Lord, let him revolt from unrighteousness.”

But in a great house there are not only gold and silver vessels but also wooden and clay ones . On the one hand are vessels for special use and on the other hand are vessels for mundane work. Therefore if someone should cleanse himself from mundane usage, he will be a vessel for special use, having been set apart. He is useful for the Master, having been prepared for any pure use.

So flee the youthful lusts! Pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace with those who call upon the Lord from a cleansed heart. Politely decline from foolish and ill-informed debates. The Lord’s servant must not quarrel. Rather he should be gentle toward everyone; able to teach, patiently responding to evil, gently instructing those who disagree with him: who knows whether God should grant them repentance unto knowledge of the truth! And they might snap out of the devil’s snare, since he has captured them for his purpose.

Philosophy of Biblical Leadership

All biblical leadership should be founded on principles of humble unity and orthodoxy, which this passage contains. Brash, avaricious, and unqualified leaders should be opposed by true guardians of God’s word. Leadership must be based upon genuine instruction from God’s Writings. Since God’s declared desires for our world center around the gospel, a leader’s desires and authority should flow from that source.

Paul exhorts Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:14 to “remind them of these things,” referring back to his encapsulation of the gospel in verses 11-13. “If we have died with him, then we will live with him; if we endure we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us; if we are faithless, he remains faithful—for he cannot deny himself.” Here we see our death in Christ’s vicarious sacrifice, and our life through the same means, our future glory serving God in exercising his will, our need for fidelity and endurance, and finally the hope of God’s glory because of his self-sustaining redemptive purposes: the gospel giving God all glory.

The leader’s primary goal is one of reminder not novelty, to herald the gospel that the believers already know. Call these things to mind! Remind them! An emissary of a king has authority to carry out the king’s will, no more. When he strays from his edict he treads dangerously close to abusing his position and endangering his hearers. Thus it becomes imperative that we get the edict right, that we focus our efforts on proclaiming that edict, and making sure that its dictums are actually carried out. Thus one of our most noble labors is to “eagerly demonstrate” ourselves to be “genuine before God…worker[s] with no cause for embarrassment because [we] clearly facilitate…the message of Truth.” A leader must make the gospel clear, to even the simplest lamb. He must make the gospel applicable to even the most self-righteous ram.
Thus, the message must be accurate. Exhorting a church to do something outside of God’s message, in fact any departure from orthodoxy becomes a very serious matter. If our ruling mandate is to spread the gospel to the four corners of the globe, and God’s declared will for us is our “sanctification” by the gospel, then to depart from that truth becomes exceedingly dangerous (Matt 28, 1 Thess 4:3). Our salvation and sanctification depend on the clear words of God. In the words of the disciples, “To whom shall we go, for you have the words of eternal life?” (John 6). A leader must wield the Word well. Praise God that our hope is not placed in such fallible men though! Our faith is founded on the sure foundation of God! Who will stand for all time, who “knows those who are his” and who clearly identifies his children and chosen leaders by their departure “from iniquity” (2 Tim 2:19). God will guard his church. The words of “The Church’s One Foundation” come to mind:

“The Church shall never perish!
Her dear Lord to defend,
To guide, sustain, and cherish,
Is with her to the end:
Though there be those who hate her,
And false sons in her pale,
Against both foe or traitor
She ever shall prevail.”

No matter what the heirs of Hymenaeus and Philetus may do, the gospel will remain unchanged. It is rooted in the faithfulness of God, not errant leaders. Believer’s first loyalty is always to our King! Not his emissaries on earth who may very well be flawed.

Leaders must be humble, gently reproving those who oppose the Word of God. Sometimes leaders rightly disagree like Timothy and his opponents. Timothy preached God’s word, and Hymenaeus and Philetus opposed God’s word. This passage in 2 Timothy clearly hopes that leaders will come to a humble unity around the gospel, submitting themselves to the gospel and laboring side by side rather than endlessly debating or opposing one another and dividing the church against itself. The Bible does not demand that we submit blithely to any hierarchical church polity; Timothy did not trump Hymenaeus and Philetus because of his relationship with Paul. Paul could have given Timothy such apostolic authority; instead, he encourages Timothy to submit himself to the word, and to exhort his opponents to do the same. Hymenaeus and Philetus wouldn’t be submitting to Timothy, they would have been submitting themselves back with him to the Word that he was guarding. What does a leader have that he has not received after all? He is merely a guardian, merely a herald, merely a man submitting himself to the Word of God and exhorting others to do the same. There is no room for pride here, only humble submission to the Word.

Paul presents this hope in the Truth using an illustration of dirty dishes. God can use vessels prepared to take out the garbage, like Hymenatus & Philetus leading away false believers from the church of God. However, God is a redemptive God. Thus we as finite creatures must never presume to know the ultimate end of anyone. Even teachers who seem to oppose God. Hence Paul doesn’t call the believers to cast out all the dirty dishes around them, but rather to examine their own lives! After all, who is truly a clean dish? Before you judge Hymenaeus & Philetus too harshly, consider your own shared depravity. Empathize, and depart from iniquity. Learn from even the enemies of God what not to do, rather than judging and dismissing them.

Furthermore, Paul presents a hope of cleansing. And upon that hope he found a philosophy for dispute, holding out an olive branch even to Hymenaeus & Philetus. Purity in the community is essential! Paul does not present a fluffy hope that all the dishes should get along, but all the dishes would scrub themselves pure by the power of Christ’s work on the cross! He is not exhorting them to pull themselves up by their own boot straps but to walk in the Spirit, and to join company with others who do. Flee iniquity! It’s not that difficult! Don’t second guess yourself whether you are acting “in the Spirit” or “out of the Spirit” or all sorts of such pitfalls that those of the reformed persuasion are apt to fall into. If you successfully resist the temptation, guess what… you were walking in the Spirit!

Grace is God empowering you to do what it is impossible for you to do: everything. However, how often do we live in that realization? Don’t let fear constrain you that perhaps you might not be acting with the right motivation. Give glory to God that you are acting at all by his grace, and repent of your clinging sin. Sanctification consists in us striving for Holiness, in the realization that we are impotent without God’s power working in us. Our sin will cling to us as long as we live in our mortal bodies; we will never reach a point where our attitudes are completely pure and completely dependent. Even our lack of dependence has to be confessed and nailed to Christ’s ineffable work on the cross. Flee iniquity! Simply obey the Word, and confess your inadequacies. Christ’s work is sufficient for you. Finally, flee only what is truly opposed to God. Flee perversions of His purposes, but never flee any part of creation intrinsically. We sin if we reject what God designed for us to receive. Remember that God created the world as good, and it is not so fallen that Paul cannot exhort Timothy to praise God for everything, because everything “to be received with thanksgiving and prayer” (1 Timothy 4).

So where do we flee to? You have to run somewhere, and Paul exhorts us to run into the arms of our community of believers. Sanctification is designed to be a communal struggle. Turn from sin, and “pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart” (2 Tim 2:22). However, Paul knows that in community we have a tendency to… bicker. How often do we respond arrogantly and defensively when someone tries to love us by pointing out an area of sin in our lives that we are blind to? How often do we argue with them? Paul exhorts Timothy to avoid foolish controversies of all sorts. We must respond humbly to our brothers. Even more amazingly, by the grace of God we must patiently endure evil, knowing that but for grace we are know different. We must correct our opponents with gentleness, following the pattern of our savior, never compromising the truth, but hoping that “perhaps God might grant them repentence leading to a knowledge of the truth.” Our passion for the truth and humble unity allows us to respond gently, hoping and praying that God might show them the same grace that he gave to us! Why respond arrogantly as if we produced the truth when we received it? What do we have that we haven’t received (1 Cor. 4:7)? The Gospel of humility allows us to realize that we don’t know the state of anyone’s soul. All we know is that God has called us to labor and by all means win some. Who, when, and where is up to God. Let the grace of God motivate us to continuously exhort one another, hoping for even mightier works of grace. May God’s grace empower us to fight together, side by side against sin, rebuking each other in love. May God’s grace forever protect us from turning the body of Christ against itself. To God be all glory.

I wasn’t planning on anything today at work.  I wanted another uneventful day (as a lifeguard, the more boring the better) living in my own thoughts.  I should learn some day that my plans, though they may not be bad, are often interrupted by an even better purpose.

The other lifeguard today came in and told me “only 5 more hours.”  Great outlook on the day I was thinking.  So, we began discussing the ways to make time pass faster.    And so began a conversation with someone I’ve worked with several times and never said more than 20 words to in a whole day.  We talked about interests and dislikes.  I told him about my boyfriend and his desire to be a pastor.  Enter the “religion question”

“So, if you are dating him, are you like a really religious person?”

I winced at the term religion but we were going somewhere.  So we talked about “religion.”  Perhaps I was one of the first people he has known who really talks about this sort of thing.  He told me “I guess I’m Catholic because my parents are Catholic and I go to church and I got baptized and stuff.”  His questions were real.  “How can God condemn a little Buddhist girl who dies without hearing about Christianity?” and “Aren’t there good people who should just pay for some of their sins in purgatory?” and “What about these bad people who do good things?”  I was able to share that truth.  That no one if good but that their very essence is marred by sin.  We cannot do any good until we do it in Christ.  And we can only come to Christ by faith alone.  Not sight.  Not works.  Not anything.  And when I don’t understand things about God I know that he is sovereign.  And I know that he is good.  The other lifeguard agreed with me on some points.  He remained silent on others.  And yet, today he was confronted with the very thoughts that he confesses that he so often pushes to the side.  Today he was confronted with realizing that he cannot simply ignore God.

And my heart felt joy in my sovereign God.  Today was freeing.  My God is sovereign.  He draws his children to himself.  I am merely the messenger of this great truth.  I’ve shared my faith–the Gospel–with other people before.  I’ve done it out of peer pressure, out of guilt, even out of fear that by me not sharing I am personally condemning someone to hell.  Witnessing meant bringing someone to a point of decision and trying to convince them to choose Christ.

Now I know that I am not the one who has to bring someone to the point of salvation. I didn’t preach today because of guilt or fear of God’s displeasure.  Today I was able to share the truth that wells up inside of me.  The truth that betrays my timid heart.  That cannot help but share.

I watered a seed in the heart of a young man who wants to know what he cannot know on his own.  I shared today my “religion” because I know the truth.  I know the very God and  I cannot help but to declare his wonders.

I’ve been chewing on this little book for the past week. It’s only about eighty pages long but it’s pretty intense, weighty like The Mortification of Sin. The main thrust of the book is the precious rarity and high calling of the biblical gospel. Chantry lays waste to a gospel of cheap grace, arguing for the indivisibility of faith and repentance.

Christians should love unity, but only when it is founded on the truth. He gives an illustration that a true presentation of biblical gospel becomes very unpopular when it begins to cause division within a mission society. Generality is not enough; the gospel is specific and it divides. In Jesus’ words it divides even the closest family ties, dividing two against three in a family, mother against daughter, brother against brother, bringing not peace but division.

Like Bonhoeffer, he takes the gospel presentation to the rich young ruler and builds a poignant case against false assurance and half-hearted hope: cheap grace. In Chantry’s words: “Evangelicals are swelling the ranks of the deluded with a perverted gospel.” I was rather convicted, that I do no one any favor when I assure them of a salvation that they may not have. Assuring someone that they’re on the way to heaven while allowing them to persist in their sin is a pretty sweet deal. Who would refuse sin and wanton abandon in this life and leisure in the next?

But by the authentic Gospel we are saved from sin. We are saved to live in Christ, to love Christ, and to follow Christ. We don’t come to him on our own terms bargaining about what to give and what not to. Chantry calls for evangelicals to drastically reconsider their evangelistic approach, educating their thoughts by the thoughts and approach of Jesus. Jesus first preaches the character of God to the Ruler, displaying God in his unique goodness. His primary motive was to glorify God, not to devalue Him and assuage a sinner’s fear, or coddle his immature knowledge of the Truth. The True gospel demands that we understand the depth of our sin, that we have committed heinous treason against God: “Christ’s Gospel sends men to beg pardon of the Holy One.” Jesus teaches failure and punishment, but very clearly against the holiness of God, instilling a fear of God rather than a fear of individual torment. I think there’s a big difference. The one defends the exclusivity of the Gospel, that it only exists on God’s terms. The other offends that exclusivity, presenting it as free to all who would choose to avail themselves of God’s free fire insurance, as if God were up in Heaven biting his finger-nails, hoping that some people would choose to not make him destroy them. On the contrary, “The Holy One has done you a great favor in commanding you to trust His son.” His command is the ultimate source of all salvation.

The law of God is also often neglected. The Ruler thinks he has obeyed all the commandments, but ultimately the tenth commandment disqualifies him. His greed demands that he hoard his own possessions rather than follow Christ. He seems to know this too because he went away sad. He didn’t go away angry as if he had been commanded to do something that he thought was wrong. He didn’t go away confused. He went away sad, knowing that he was torn between two masters, God and money. He was unwilling to give up the one, and stood condemned by the very law he professed to keep.

Just wallowing in sin gains nothing, such assault by the truth must produce repentance. The law of God exposes our hearts. We know that we are wicked, but only a repentant heart will turn from that wickedness to pursue the path of Christ. Such repentance is not the road of super-spiritual Christians, but the mark of every Christian. Unrepentent faith is a biblical unknown. Part of faith was that conquest of sin; Christ bought our freedom from sin so that we could live lives full of love as we were designed, rather than filling our lives with destructive rebellion. We were saved from sin! We were saved in order to be able to repent and live our lives in Christ. There is no either or; their is no moment of “rededication;” there is only repentant faith that restores our fellowship of broken boldness before our Holy God. We don’t come minimizing our sin, but confessing it and mortifying it.

Chantry concludes his book with a progression of thought, faith in God’s Son alone, leading to assurance of faith because of a dependence on God. Jesus is the only way; only those that abide in Him have fellowship with the Father. To give assurance to someone who abides outside of Christ deceive them, and probably drives them further toward a Christless eternity because they lose the conviction of the Holy Spirit and an unkeepable law. They think they are set, so why would they call upon the name of the Lord and be saved from their sin? They think that they can live and wallow in their sin, utterly assured that they are on their way to heaven. But they love nothing heavenly? If they got to heaven they would hate Christ; Heaven would be hell to praise him for eternity. Assurance of safety was one of the marks of false prophets in the Old Testament, saying “Peace peace, when there is no peace.” We must declare the truth, not the convenient statement that keeps us from offending those who need to trip over the truth of the Cross of Christ. Finally Chantry spends a moment centering the reader’s mind on Grace. No sinner comes to God on his own; no sinner desires God. In Christ’s words to the disciples after his encounter with the ruler: “With man [salvation] is impossible, but with God all things are impossible.” No man will ever turn from his sin on his own, but God can work even such a miracle, changing a leopard’s spots and transforming a sinner to love righteousness.

The Gospel all depends on God. It flows from a knowledge of God’s holy character, displayed in His unattainable law, demanding repentance. Such repentance exists in Christ alone, thus those in Christ have assurance and those who do not follow him are deceived. These are the essential points of the Gospel; to lose them is to lose true Hope and replace it with a fear assuaging lie.

Church division is heart-wrenching to me. Today I came face to face with a divided church for the first time in my life. I saw nothing so blatant as a church split, or so asininely accepted as denominational disunity, but the gangrenous rot of backbiting divisiveness, pitting parties against pastor.

As part of our internship, one of our goals for the summer is to interview representatives from seven different urban ministries. Our first appointment came this morning and after an overly grueling bike-ride to the church, we sped off to Cedargrove Church in North-Eastern Philadelphia. We arrived, wandered about for a bit and finally found the office wedged between school and sanctuary. We walked in and were warmly greeted by “Pastor Bob.” Ian had warned us that he might be a little shy, so we came with several prodding questions ready to coax him out of his shell. I don’t know who put espresso in his decaff, but he was anything but shy today. After one question he was off and running about everything we could have asked for.

He described how he had come to Philadelphia, how he had taken the church despite reservations concerning its constitution and congregational polity, how he was now embroiled in a struggle between people who had professed willingness to follow and then entrenched themselves in stagnancy, unwilling to humble themselves and be led. Struggles were over the traditional bastions, music, polity, upkeep etc. Nothing major, nothing biblically controversial at all, and yet divisive. He proceeded to describe several instances where people refused to be led, refused to heed the word, and refused to do anything but follow their own selfish whims. From the side of the story I witnessed today, they wanted to be exonerated from feeling like their church was stagnate because of them and their apostasy, and yet they wanted to be coddled and have someone else shoulder that responsibility while allowing them to live peaceful, unexamined lives of blissful self-deception, paving their own unknowing path to an unrepentant Hell. They wanted to feel like they were following, like they were actually obeying the Bible, and yet live for their flesh. They, with itching ears sought for a teacher who would teach them what they wanted to hear and lead them where they wanted to go, and the Lord saw fit to give them a pastor who would actually care for their souls and for the Kingdom of God more than his own popularity.

I was struck with two things: the stark unbiblical nature of congregational polity, and how blessed I am to have been placed in a church of humble, plural, servant-leadership. We in democratic America automatically assume that the majority opinion is right. Why shouldn’t we run our churches the same we run our country? We are the most powerful, successful country ever, are we not? Perhaps, such reasoning should be subordinated to the Word of God, and our patriotic snobbery should be tempered by historic reality. America has been greatly blessed by God, and in democracy’s multitude of counselors there is great wisdom and stability. However, God has not designed his church to operate in such a way. Perhaps Plato’s fears of democratic corruption are most poignantly realized, not in Washington’s stagnation, but in the halls of our churches. Visionaries and true guardians are bitten by their own sheep and many times driven from self-righteous pastures because the sheep, don’t like to march up steep hills to seek greener pastures. Democracy has its place. That place is not in the handling of the word of God, nor in the leadership of a local church.

The leadership of a local church is to be entrusted to “faithful men” with specific qualifications that Paul explicitly laid out for both Titus and Timothy. Unless every single male in a church has such qualifications, then they really should have no say in guarding, directing or teaching the church. The biblical example is that elders should seek out, train, and empower other men to lead and shepherd the flock of God. Elders are not elected, but appointed by God and recognized by his church, particularly the currently presiding elders. Such federal polity, where the congregation humbly yields its autonomy to a counsel of elders has become increasingly unpopular. As individualism becomes idolized by our society, God forbid that anyone should actually direct our spiritual lives. God forbid that we should actually consider the way of life that our elders live and imitate their faith! Rather, consider that God commands. We must be directed; we must be led; we must imitate, or we will perish like lonely sheep in deserted wastelands. We need the church that God designed, not the church that we dreamed-up.

How blessed we are if God has placed us into a healthy church. Recently several evangelical pastors have published books or pamphlets encouraging Americans to pursue Godly leadership within a “healthy local church.” Mark Dever gives “nine marks” of such a church and Joshua Harris provides ten. How fortunate I am to sit at the feet of a godly counsel of elders, who humbly submit themselves to the word and to each other under a principle of unanimitiy.  Such a counsel of elders delegates responsibility to humble deacons, ready and willing to put feat to their decsions and serve the body of Christ. A godly counsel elders delegates to a cadré of deacons who serve a  body that willingly follows their leadership through rough patches, trusting a sovereign God to ensure their safety. To be a joy to our leaders! What a glorious thought, to submit joyfully and without obstinancy in order that “they might serve with joy” and not with consternation which is of no use to us! May God humble my heart to both relish my church, and to pray for the unity of His assembly. May the Lord spark a revolution of unification within local churches, drawing people to his word and convicting them of the sins of divisiveness and rebellion. May we be a church without spot, or blemish, or any such thing, to the praise of His glorious grace.

Reiterate these things, warning them before God not to dispute words about something that is not profitable, which destroys those who listen. Be eager to demonstrate yourself to be genuine before God, a worker with no cause for embarrassment because he clearly facilitates the message of Truth. But shun those who babble pointlessly, for they advance ungodliness further and further and their message will spread destruction like gangrene. Hymenaios and Philetos are men like these, who have shot at and missed the Truth by saying that the resurrection has already come, and they are destroying the confidence of some.

But nevertheless, the solid foundation of God stands! The foundation has this seal : “The Lord knew those who are His,” and “anyone who claims the identity of the Lord, let him revolt from unrighteousness.”

But in a great house there are not only gold and silver vessels but also wooden and clay ones . On the one hand are vessels for special use and on the other hand are vessels for mundane work. Therefore if someone should cleanse himself from mundane usage, he will be a vessel for special use, having been set apart. He is useful for the Master, having been prepared for any pure use.

So flee the youthful lusts! Pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace with those who call upon the Lord from a cleansed heart. Politely decline from foolish and ill-informed debates. The Lord’s servant must not quarrel. Rather he should be gentle toward everyone; able to teach, patiently responding to evil, gently instructing those who disagree with him: who knows whether God should grant them repentance unto knowledge of the truth! And they might snap out of the devil’s snare, since he has captured them for his purpose.

The Problem of Pleasure

I. Introduction: Everybody wants to be happy. But many times when I grew up it seemed to me that my choice wasn’t between being happy or sad, right or wrong, but a convoluted mixture of the two: a choice between doing what was right, or being happy for a little while. Well, my goal for today will be to convince you that even our fleeting joys, point toward, rather than oppose true Joy. Through some of the writings of C.S. Lewis, we will look at three different facets of Joy: Pleasure, Design, and Sin.

II. Pleasure: God has created a world where every pleasure in and of itself is fleeting.
a. King Solomon proves to himself in Ecclesiastes that pure hedonism doesn’t pay off. You end up holding nothing more than the wind.

b. Most of us are not that brazen though. Instead, we search for pleasure in a variety of diversions. Here’s a funny word for what happens to those diversions: cloy. Cloy describes the feeling you get when you’ve had one scoop of ice cream too many, and you vow never to eat ice cream again. Whatever pleasure you had from ice cream has been destroyed by over-use. It has cloyed.

C.S. Lewis’s favorite entertainments back before World War I were stories about the adventures of the Norse gods, “from these books again and again I received the stab of Joy. I did not yet notice that it was, very gradually, becoming rarer” (43) . All pleasures eventually cloy!

III. Design: So what is a Christian to do? Are we supposed to disavow joy? It seems like it’s hardwired into us. We seem to be designed to pursue joy! But what’s the point if it’s just going to vanish? Should we just fight the whole tendency? Turn Stoic or monastic?

a. Solomon saw that all the toil around him vanished away but then observed that all of it was still “from the hand of God, for apart from him who can eat or who can have enjoyment? For to the one who pleases him God has given wisdom and knowledge and joy.”

So for the one who just pursues pleasure? Solomon sees only worthless wind. But for the one who enjoys creation as from the hand of his God: he sees wisdom, knowledge, and joy.

b. Lewis describes this concept in a letter to his friend Malcom, describing how God had taught him in a rather mundane way as he was standing in an old decrepit tool shed: “The sun was shining outside and through the crack at the top of the door there came a sunbeam. From where I stood that beam of light, with the specks of dust floating in it, was the most striking thing in the place… Then I moved, so that the beam fell on my eyes. Instantly the whole previous picture vanished…Instead I saw, framed in the irregular cranny at the top of the door, green leaves moving on the branches of a tree outside and beyond that, ninety-odd million miles away, the sun. Looking along the beam, and looking at the beam are very different experiences.”

Those sunbeams that Lewis described are like everything God created, every good thing in the world. However, looking at a beautiful sunbeam is one thing, but it doesn’t get you very far. How much more beautiful is it to experience the sunbeam’s purpose and see the glory of God that is displayed in it?

IV. Sin: Well in that case shouldn’t I be able to do anything I want? Just make sure I treat it as from the hand of God? Trace the sunbeam to the sun; nothing should be sin right?

a. Well, what happens when we try to enjoy a pleasure outside of God’s design? The husk of pleasure remains, a husk that will just blow away, but you lose the kernel, the weight and worth of joy. The longing, the desire for something more, the glorification of God as the giver: all that dies. In another letter to his friend Malcom, C.S. Lewis asks the same question: ‘Aren’t there bad, unlawful pleasures?’ Certainly there are. But in calling them ‘bad pleasures’ I take it we are using a kind of shorthand. We mean ‘pleasures snatched by unlawful acts.’ It is the stealing of the apples that is bad, not the sweetness. That does not palliate the stealing. It makes it worse. There is sacrilege in the theft. We have abused a holy thing.

b. “I have tried since that moment, to make every pleasure into a channel of adoration. I don’t mean simply by giving thanks for it. One must of course give thanks, but I mean something different…. There need be no question of thanks or praise as a separate event, something done afterwards. To experience the tiny theophany is itself to adore. Gratitude exclaims, very properly, ‘How good of God to give me this.’ Adoration says, ‘What must be the quality of that Being whose far-off and momentary coruscations are like this!’ One’s mind runs back up the sunbeam to the sun. ” Lewis does something magnificent here; he starts where we did, asking if we are allowed to sin, whether we can snatch pleasures unlawfully, but he redirects us, teaching us to pursue joy in everything around us, within God’s design, for the glory of God!

V. Synthesis: Now let’s try to bring this together into a synthesis. Because the pleasures around us are fleeting, and yet we seem designed to enjoy things, and we can’t just indulge in anything under the sun. It seems that we were designed so that the pleasures around us, remind us to worship their giver, and point to their completion in the presence of God.

a. But also from this stems our frustration, we know that we should pursue some sort of joy, but all that we perceive around us is physical, temporal stuff. C.S. Lewis contends boldly in his sermon The Weight of Glory that “Our desires are not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased!”

VI. Paul describes this same Conclusion in his letter to the Corinthians speaking of a “weight of glory” beyond our comprehension. At the end of his book the Last Battle, Lewis describes a new country of Narnia. This new Narnia was different, but not in the sense that it wasn’t Narnia anymore; but that it was somehow being “more real” than the Narnia they had known. In a similar way, the pleasures and joy that we trace up to glory here on earth, someday will be complete. Someday it will be obvious that fleeting pleasures and our eternal joy don’t have to be at odds. In God’s plan they are intricately linked by worship. Cloy will be destroyed! We will be satiated and yet never bored! Some day, we will see our completely transcendent God face to face, and we will be transformed, knowing and enjoying Him!

Universalism is contrary to the clear teaching of scripture. But aside from this extreme position there are two favored doctrines of “limited atonement,” of what Christ’s death accomplished. We will take a quick look at both and the merits or weaknesses of each before proposing a humble stance.

1. Sufficient for All, Applied to Some: this one has been by far the most popular through the ages. All in all this one seems pretty simple and straight forward. If you don’t want to think about this, stay here and feel relatively safe. However, several noteworthy figures in history have been wary of this position because of the tendencies of its adherents to minimize the glory of God in election. However, I can see how election can fit solidly into this as well if Christ paid enough for everyone but specifically redeems the chosen.

2. Particular Atonement: Christ, being omniscient, knew who he was coming to earth to die for. John 10 et al. lend a lot of credence to this view. However, other passages such as 1 John 2 and I Corinthians 15 make this one a bit sticky as well. This is the traditional reformed doctrine, and though some of the hermeneutics may seem a bit “iffy” when they say that “whole world” may not mean “every single person in the world” they really are sound. I know that seems scandalous, but given seven distinct usages for the word “world” (several of which have nothing to do with “the world” as we know it), a plethora of clear usages of the word “whole” which refer to a lot but not all of something, plus the Greek tendency to hyperbole and litotes to make a point, you end up with a lot of potentially viable interpretations. Augustine, Calvin, Luther and many more would take these passage as obviously referring to the elect “around the world.” The strictest Greek translation would render the phrase “concerning the world as a whole.”

Option 3: faithful, humble orthodoxy

a) Scripture clearly teaches that Christ’s death on the cross conquered the world. Check out Hebrews 2 where “all things are put into subjection under his feet, in putting all things under his feet he left nothing out” or Colossians 1 where he “reconciled all things to himself, whether on heaven or on earth, making peace by the blood of the cross.” There is no limitation on the extent of what Christ’s blood can redeem. Anything is redeemable! Not just people, but all things in heaven and earth (cf. 1 Timothy 4:1-5). This by no means implies that everyone is saved. If you have questions concerning this point I would recommend that you study the difficult doctrine of God’s choice particularly in Ephesians 1-2 and Romans 8-11. God can glorify himself both in his wrath on rebellious creation and in his mercy on whomever he will have mercy. In this sense Christ is Lord over all things living and dead, in heaven and on earth, the worthy judge of all things with all authority over everything. Here we see an unlimited atonement in the sense that Christ has bought reconciliation between Himself as Holy God and His fallen creation, through the blood of His cross. He has absolute authority to reconcile both His wrath and His mercy through the Cross. He deserves to be able to have mercy on whom He will have mercy.

b) Scripture also clearly teaches that the Lord has chosen a specific few before the foundation of the world. There are a plethora of passages that emphasize this point, in fact God pursuing a particular people sums up most of the story of redemptive history. Take the beginning of Ephesians for instance: “1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.” Notice the link at the end between Christ’s redemption of all of creation, restoring fellowship between the wayward and their perfect God in a general sense. Next notice the clearly exclusive nature of God’s choice. Consider Christ’s explicit statement in John 10:14 “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.”

c) So we come away with something of a mystery, and to be honest I think that it is best if we leave it there. Christ’s cross conquered sin and death, and placed the whole creation under his feet to judge with absolute freedom. Christ’s cross specifically redeemed the elect to eternal life, by transforming them to become like Christ. Going beyond this we start to go beyond the text of scripture, diving head first into hypotheticals, whether Christ’s sacrifice could or could not have atoned for more than it did. Fundamentally, Christ’s blood will avail for whatever and whomever He wants it to. Let us shoulder our clear simple obedience to scripture and let it rest there.

Any way you look at this issue, we have unity in the cross of Christ if we are humble. The purely Particular Atonement Calvinist does not know who is atoned for and still should be constrained to preach to all, seeing that he is not omniscient. The purely Sufficient Atonement Arminian feels the same burden to preach the good news of Christ’s redemption to all the world. To the Humbly Orthodox (refusing to nail down particulars that scripture does not explicate) the same burden to preach the good news rests. Thus we can all shoulder the great commission side by side, perhaps viewing some particulars slightly differently but united in our passion to spread the Worth of God to the furthest corners of the globe that Christ died for.

Regardless of all of this, the passages where these issues crop up are remarkably clear in their over all thrust. For instance, John’s sense in 1 John 2 is clear. If he means to comment on Limited Atonement at all it is only incidentally. His argument clearly builds from the fact that our confessed sins are faithfully forgiven. However believers still sin, and Christ is our advocate still. And just in case you thought that God was a local deity, or perhaps Christ’s blood couldn’t avail for your horrible sin, His blood is not just for your little locale but even for the world as a whole. There is no sin that a believer could dream up that Christ’s blood could not avail for. He is our eternal advocate by virtue of His incorruptible life, able to save to the uttermost those that follow Him by faith.

We exist to glorify God by fostering the progress and joy of believers through genuine exposition, humble unity, and the loving application of the Word to one another’s lives.

By these means we hope to promote…
• a worship-filled response to authority.
• humble unity among our peers.
• sound interpretation and application of God’s Writings.
• loyalty to the local church, fostering unity between our assemblies.
• a dependent and God-centered philosophy of continuous, necessary prayer.

Philosophy of Biblical Leadership

Our purpose for Eirene’s existence derives predominantly from 2 Timothy 2. All our leadership should be founded on the principles of humble unity and orthodoxy contained within this passage. Brash, avaricious, and unqualified leadership will be opposed by the men currently guarding Eirene. Leadership must be based upon genuine instruction from God’s Writings.

A teacher’s primary goal is one of reminder not novelty, to herald the gospel that the believers already know. Call these things to mind! Remind them! An emissary of a king has authority to carry out the king’s will, no more. When he strays from his edict he treads dangerously close to abusing his position and endangering his hearers. Thus one of our most noble labors is to “eagerly demonstrate” ourselves to be “genuine before God…worker[s] with no cause for embarrassment because [we] clearly facilitate…the message of Truth.” A leader must make the gospel clear, to even the simplest lamb. He must make the gospel applicable to even the most self-righteous ram.

Our salvation and sanctification depend on the clear words of God. In the words of the disciples, “To whom shall we go, for you have the words of eternal life?” (John 6). A leader must wield the word well.

Philosophy of Plural Prophecy

Inescapable bias and finite perspective constrains any single leader from perfectly wielding the word. Every leader makes mistakes. In order to protect His church, God has ordained a Biblical precedent of plurality. No single man will be entrusted with the flock of God, just as generally no flock of sheep is entrusted to one shepherd. The more eyes watching, the more likely the shepherds will be to spot danger or better pastures. Plural shepherds allow for unanimity and safety, in the words of Proverbs “in a multitude of counselors there is wisdom.”

Eirene’s plurality works itself out through an open invitation for prophecy, extended to the entire group. A prophet (or an oracle) is someone who mediates the Words of God to mankind. Prophecy is mystical and a bit scary to our scientific culture. The spiritual is often squashed into a scientifically quantifiable pattern. The Spirit will not be constrained by such an enlightened box; however, prophecy is also not whatever mystical thoughts happen to pop into our minds. In the Old Testament, the primary role of a prophet was merely declaring the revealed Word of God: reminding. This is the pattern that we should follow. We have been given so much in the Bible, thousands of pages of the very Words of God. In the same way Malachi took the Law of Moses and preached it to his generation, our prophecy should consist of a studied exhortation that lives and breathes the revealed Word of God. Our prophecy should take God’s already revealed Words and apply them to our lives. In the words of Peter, let “whoever speaks, [speak] as one who speaks oracles of God.” His Words should be grounded in the truth of God and declared with that authority, never going beyond the bounds of what is revealed*.

Because of our commitment to a clear teaching of the Word of God, at least one prophet will come prepared to thoroughly instruct the group on a particular passage of Scripture, exposing its particular truths and overarching themes. However, in humility we recognize that this teacher does not have a corner on the plenary truth of that passage. The hope of Eirene is that the Spirit of God will prompt others to fill in what Truth the primary teacher may have missed: different emphases, corollary passages, or specific applications that would build up the body. After the pattern of 1 Corinthians 14, we do not want to come expecting to be “fed,” but rather to plurally exhort one another. We should come expecting to give, edify, and love one another.

According to the regulative principles of the passage, we have also chosen to limit the prophecies to three on any particular night. This is a simple obedience issue, and our hope is that all of Eirene can rest in the sovereignty of God and rejoice at such regulation without having to explain it away. For the sake of simplicity, a prophecy will be treated as one person specifically exhorting the group out of a passage of Scripture. Questioning and discussion is encouraged but should be directed primarily toward those who spoke the Word that night. Also in keeping with the passage, any woman under the authority of a man present should address her questions through him. In the horrible event that a teacher would be heterodox in his presentation of a passage, it would be the responsibility of the other men in the group to stand up and oppose him, guarding the Word of God for the benefit of the flock.

Philosophy of Corporate Sanctification

Paul presents a hope of cleansing for even the vilest offenders. Purity in the community is essential! Paul does not present a fluffy hope that all the dishes in 2 Timothy 2 should get along regardless of their filth, but that all the dishes would scrub themselves pure by the power of Christ’s work on the Cross! He is not exhorting them to pull themselves up by their own boot straps but to walk in the Spirit, and to join company with others who do.

We should not second guess ourselves, whether we are acting “in the Spirit” or “out of the Spirit.” Those of the reformed faith seem particularly prone to fall into this debilitating morass. If we successfully resist the temptation, guess what… we were walking in the Spirit! Humans apart from the Spirit are completely impotent. Only those born of God act righteously! Others may appear to, but a true desire for righteousness is only birthed by the Spirit of God.

Grace is God empowering us to do what it is impossible for us to do: everything. We were designed to be dependent creatures; everything we do is by at least the common grace of God. However, how often do we live in that realization? We should not let fear constrain us that perhaps we might not be acting with the right motivation. Give glory to God that you are acting at all by his grace, and repent of your clinging attitudinal sin. Why should an attitudinal sin be dealt with any differently than the cross of Christ, through confession and repentance? Do not let sovereignty become a pathetically week cover for apathy and laziness. God is not mocked by false piety.

Our sin will cling to us as long as we live in our mortal bodies; we will never reach a point where our attitudes are completely pure and completely dependent. Even our lack of dependence must be confessed and nailed to Christ’s ineffable work on the Cross. Christ’s work is sufficient!

We must be careful to flee only what is truly opposed to God. Flee perversions of His purposes, but never flee any part of creation intrinsically. We sin if we reject what God designed for us to receive. False prophets in Isaiah’s day were rebuked for calling what is “evil, good” and what is “good, evil” (Isaiah 5:20-21). It cuts both ways. Remember that God created the world as good, and it is not so fallen that Paul cannot exhort Timothy to praise God for everything, because everything is “to be received with thanksgiving and prayer” (1 Timothy 4).

So if we don’t flee away from things that we might use to sin, in what way do we flee? Paul exhorts us to run into the arms of are community of believers. Sanctification is designed to be a communal struggle. Turn from sin, and “pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart” (2 Tim 2:22). However, Paul knows that in community we have a common vice, the tendency to bicker.

Often I respond arrogantly and defensively when someone tries to love me by pointing out an area of sin in my life that I am blind to. We must respond humbly to our brothers. Paul also exhorts Timothy to avoid all sorts of foolish controversies about the Word. Even more amazingly, by the grace of God we must patiently endure evil, knowing that–but for grace–we are merely slaves to sin. We must correct our opponents with gentleness, following the pattern of our savior, never compromising the truth, but hoping that “perhaps God might grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth.” Our passion for the truth and humble unity allows us to respond gently, hoping and praying that God might show them the same grace that he gave to us! He is the source of all such repentance!

The Gospel of humility allows us to realize that we don’t know the state of anyone’s soul. All we know is that God has called us to labor and by all means win some. Who, when, and where are up to God. Let the grace of God motivate us to continuously exhort one another, hoping for even mightier works of grace. May God’s grace empower us to fight together, side by side against sin, rebuking each other in love: “Holy Butt-Kicking” as we like to call it. May God’s grace forever protect us from turning the body of Christ against itself. To God be all glory.

*The Bible does not teach a specific closing of the power of the Holy Spirit to work miracles or even to declare new oracles from God. Many people find it convenient to draw conclusions about why miracles do not seem to occur like they did in the days of the Disciples. Such conclusion oversteps the bounds of Scripture. However, praise God that he has laid down specific criteria to identify true prophets of God! They are often accompanied by signs of power (particularly when dealing with new revelation), they agree perfectly with previous prophecy, and most importantly they follow Christ, declaring Him Lord and Son of God by their words and lives (Jude, 1-3 John, 1 Corinthians 14, 1 Peter 4). Reminding prophecy obviously fits all of these criteria, but I am also confident that any new prophecy that might arise, would really not be a new prophecy as much as a reiteration and application of the sufficiency of the Gospel. We have the fullness of the counsel of God. However, we will not put God in a box, declaring that signs have “dispensed” and that we know that there are certain things that God won’t do. Such language should frighten us to direct toward a Sovereign God. We must not overstep Scripture and declare revelatory prophecy to have perfunctorily ceased when Scripture clearly teaches us how to discern such prophecy. May God protect and preserve His sufficient Word, instructing His people as He sees fit, to the praise of His glorious grace.

We exist to glorify God by fostering the progress and joy of believers through genuine exposition, humble unity, and the loving application of the Word to one another’s lives.
Themes:
• To promote a God-glorifying response to authority.
• To promote humble unity both among ourselves and among our peer groups at our respective churches.
• To promote sound interpretation and application of God’s Writings.
• To promote loyalty to the local church, fostering unity and love between our assemblies.
• To promote a dependent and God-centered philosophy of continuous, necessary prayer.

Preaching Translation of 2 Timothy 2:14-26

Genuine Exposition (Orthodoxy)
Reiterate these things, warning them before God not to dispute words about something that is not profitable, which destroys those who listen. Be eager to demonstrate yourself to be genuine before God, a worker with no cause for embarrassment because he clearly facilitates the message of Truth. But shun those who babble pointlessly, for they advance ungodliness further and further and their message will spread destruction like gangrene. Hymenaios and Philetos are men like these, who have shot at and missed the Truth by saying that the resurrection has already come, and they are destroying the confidence of some.
Humble Unity and Loving Application of the Word (Inseperable Orthopraxy)
But nevertheless, the solid foundation of God, stands! The foundation has this seal : “The Lord knew those who are His,” and “anyone who claims the identity of the Lord, let him revolt from unrighteousness.”
But in a great house there are not only gold and silver vessels but also wooden and clay ones . On the one hand are vessels for special use and on the other hand are vessels for mundane work. Therefore if someone should cleanse himself from mundane usage, he will be a vessel for special use, having been set apart. He is useful for the Master, having been prepared for any pure use.
So flee the youthful lusts! Pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace with those who call upon the Lord from a cleansed heart. Politely decline from foolish and ill-informed debates. The Lord’s servant must not quarrel. Rather he should be gentle toward everyone; able to teach, patiently responding to evil, gently instructing those who disagree with him: who knows whether God should grant them repentance unto knowledge of the truth! And they might snap out of the devil’s snare, since he has captured them for his purpose.

Our lives are characterized by reactions. One of the basic characteristics of life is a “response to stimuli,” a reaction provoked by an external perception of some sort. Since fifth grade most of us have known that every action is accompanied by an equal and opposite reaction where no energy is ultimately lost. All of creation stays in a state of balance where reactions ensure that no energy or matter is every created or destroyed. Reactions are inevitable; however, when it comes to shaping philosophy and theology, reactions are exceedingly dangerous.

When any ideology is confronted with a competing truth-claim, the ideologist’s natural inclination is to react. However, to simply take the exact opposite position from the error, rarely generates a tenable position. C.S. Lewis noted that “supposing, for purposes of argument, that Christianity is true; then it could avoid all coincidence with other religions only on the supposition that all other religions are one hundred percent erroneous. ” Thus, one cannot take error and reject the entire construct that contains it. Is Islam a lie? Yes. Can one take every point of Islam and reconstruct Christianity by countering the point? Such a thought is absurd, we would end up with no God, no prophecy, and no morality of any sort. Islam’s deception is contained in how those doctrines are arrayed and defined.

This concept of assuming that one’s opponent argues one hundred percent incorrect is almost always fallacious. However, no position is more attractive when one’s beliefs are challenged. I cannot tell you how many times I have directly refuted a point in a formal debate where the safer, more logical, and more effective course of action would have been to concede a very large part of my opponents arguments and refute only the specific error in his line of reasoning. Such an approach smacks against our pride, and yet no other type of argument has ever seemed so attractive and believable than a carefully reasoned combination of concession and rejection. This intellectual honesty is very persuasive.

However, very rarely do people practice this humble argumentation. We are a people of extremes whose natural inclination is to polarize every issue into “totally right” and “totally wrong” for fear of the morass of subjectivism. Truth is so precious to us that we insist on taking broadsword swings, easily deflected strokes to defend its honor. However, skilful rapier’s disarmament would actually be effective at stopping her assailant. Many times my pride demands total victory, so I choose a less effective approach so as to cling the most fully to my current beliefs. Heaven forbid that I ever be even slightly incorrect and learn from an opponent.

In the early eighteen hundreds German philosopher, Georg Hegel theorized that history was composed of a series of unavoidable actions, reactions, and resolutions. This process is referred to as Hegel’s dialectic, which describes Hegel’s ideas as to how history progresses. In a nut-shell Hegel observes an action, say an abusive monarchy, followed by a reaction, perhaps a revolution, which leads to a synthesis of the two competing forces. The competition completes itself in a synthesis better than either of the competing forces, perhaps a constitutional monarchy. Hegel breaks down all of history into these ever-progressive dialectics. Hegel’s process has been abused to absurdity when used to justify secular humanism, or any other philosophy as an ultimate system—logically, Hegel’s dialectic can never produce an ultimate truth. There will always be something better to synthesize. Furthermore, I would reject Hegel’s specific error of atheistic fatalism. Though sometimes abused, perhaps we should not assume that Hegel’s theory is one hundred percent in error simply because some people have twisted it to their own immoral ends.

I would like to propose that Hegel’s thought process has merit in constraining our natural inclination toward extreme reactionism, realizing that more than likely we are rejecting more than we should because our viewpoint is limited. When two brothers in Christ are in disagreement, there should be no polarized inimical attacks. Particularly in matters where interpretations of God’s word differ, I would propose that we often react too strongly and end up diving off the opposite deep end. Perhaps a wiser approach would be to examine where our brother is drawing his view from, and then if he is in fact in error to point out the specific error, but feel new liberty to concede as much of his truth as you possibly can: one Lord, one Salvation, one God and Father of all. Rejoice around the unity that truth provides; do not allow yourself to be sucked into the abyss of sectarian pugilism.

George Campbell describes eloquence as ‘that art or talent by which the discourse is adapted to its end.” This definition seems new, a genuine contribution to the great conversation. Whereas others have offered ends based definitions such as Plato’s “a [rhetor] must know the truth about all the particular things of which he speaks,” Campbell offers four foundational ends that the means of rhetoric drives at: understanding, pleasure, evoking emotions, and finally influencing the will. This conception of rhetoric as a means seems helpful in delineating a specific trans-discipline role for all five canons of rhetoric. Rhetoric is not merely style, but nor is it Plato’s impossible attainment of knowing and communicating all truth. Such Rhetoric becomes a method of discovering truth and presenting it well to achieve a purpose. Such a construct allows for qualitative distinctions among rhetors: good, bad, worse, better, skilled, or unskilled based upon their art rather than upon either the rhetor’s essence or the end he accomplishes. This conception can transcend specific disciplines and be applied wherever it is needed. Furthermore it provides a much more useful word to the English language, with a broad enough domain to service the wide range of ideas we search for to describe persuasive communication.

In Chapter IV of The Philosophy of Rhetoric, Campbell presents Grammar and Logic as foundations for Rhetoric. Ramus would have been proud of his careful denomination of terms throughout this work. There are no Scholastic square pegs shoved into rationally round holes here. He clearly delineates a distinction between Grammar and Logic, but contends that they birth a new creature, Rhetoric. In Campbell’s words, “as in man, each of these constituent parts hath its distinctive attributes, and…the latter consisteth in its fitness for serving the purposes of the former.” Grammar serves Logic, and together they are the parents of Rhetoric.

However, Rhetoric is not merely good grammar added to logic. Rhetoric has to be the planned fusion of the two. Campbell asserts that “it is alike incumbent on the orator to design and to execute. He must, therefore, be master of the language he speaks or writes, and must be capable of adding to grammatic purity those higher qualities of elocution which will render his discourse graceful and energetic.” His argument would deny eloquence to presidential addresses and all other speeches drafted by a secondary writer. I believe I would agree; there, this pseudo-eloquence is merely style added to someone else’s conception of what should be said. To extend upon Campbell’s architect analogy, it seems to me that a house is obviously more than merely bricks and steel. There is a plain difference between a pile of rubble and an erect house even if composed of exactly the same materials. Logic seems parallel to the architect’s plans and grammar to the raw materials. Plans alone are worthless to accomplish anything worthwhile; the pile of rubble seems equally useless. However, when they are combined successfully, they produce a useful structure capable of sheltering and serving its creator. A house is more than just bricks and a plan; there is a third, distinct, ordering and acting force that changes materials into a product. In the same way, rhetoric exists as a distinct discipline, a similar fusion and application of five distinct disciplines: invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. This art of rhetoric, adapts all five disciplines into a single means to accomplish a chosen end.

God is good to  those who recognize their spiritual poverty,
for the Kingdom of the Heavens is theirs.
God is good to those who are grieving,
for they will be comforted.
God is good to those who are gentle,
for they will inherit the earth.
God is good to those who are hungering and thirsting for righteousness,
for they will be satiated.
God is good to the merciful,
for they will be given mercy.
God is good to those with pure hearts,
for they will see our God.
God is good to those who contend for peace,
for they will be called the sons of God.
God is good to those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for the Kingdom of the Heavens is theirs.
You are specially favored by God whenever anyone should reproach, persecute, or falsely report any sort of evil against you because of me,
Rejoice and exult, for your wages are ample in the Heavens!
For in this way they persecuted the prophets who went before you.

The normal Greek sense of the construction “ho makarios,” means that “the gods smile upon” the predicate of the construction. Such a human is a “Privileged recipient of divine favor” (BDAG 2. a.). The “privileged recipient” aspect is retained in the “hoti” clause following each “makarios.”

Erasmus begins book II of Ecclesiastes with a defense of why a pastor should pursue rhetoric. He constructs a primacy for the strong ethos of genuine Christianity by reflecting that “we…observe…the Holy Spirit, peaceful, mild, and ignorant of pretense, virtually gleams in the eyes and face of certain people” (Bizzel 628). Those who know God are plain by their fruits. Their words should be trusted. In fact, Erasmus concludes that their words are naturally trusted by the congregation. Furthermore, Erasmus expresses concern through an anonymous interlocutor that rhetoric “is so detrimental to a speaker’s credibility that… [the listener] is reluctant to agree because he thinks that the artist is setting a trap for him” (628).

Since ethos is sufficient to persuade and adding rhetoric may apparently be harmful, should not a pastor simply abandon rhetoric? Erasmus disagrees. Erasmus proposes that “when [rhetorical ability] has been acquired through human effort, the richer grace of the Spirit comes over it and…completes it, rather than taking it away, it assists it” (629). Thus a pastor should pursue rhetoric as a foundation and rely on the Spirit to complete the work. His final statement in this brief apology requires that “no wicked self-confidence” be present in the speaker’s rhetoric (629).

This premise that the Spirit completes what we have already begun to accomplish on our own seems biblical but remains inherently flawed. Though this position strikes toward a balance of personal responsibility and sovereign grace, it lands where Erasmus requires that it cannot, in a “self-confidence” that departs from the truth of Scripture. The Holy Spirit is not our assistant who finishes whatever task we set our minds too.

Paul deals with the same balance of grace and works; however he ends up with a subtly but importantly different conclusion. Treating the same subject matter, that of a man of God presenting the gospel to an audience, Paul says: “But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether it was I or [the other apostles], we preached and you believed” (1 Cor. 15:10-11 ESV emphasis added). Paul starts with Grace as His foundation. He exists by God’s common grace. He exists as a new creature by God’s sovereign grace. However, unlike those who err toward an apathetic theology, this foundation does not remain a bare foundation. Rather, a man of God works hard as a result, in full knowledge that the grace of God’s Holy Spirit is at work within Him as he abides in Christ. Though the distinction is slight, it is important. Erasmus’s theology is flipped on its head. Man works and grace completes. An appropriate view of rhetoric in a pastor’s life must be based on His effectiveness being founded dependently on grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Rhetoric’s only place rests as a facet of “working harder than any of them” in response to grace, facilitating the unencumbered transmission of the gospel (see 1 Cor. 9:19-27).

The two of us we dream like one, The two of us, The two of us.

This post is to try to illicit discussion and counsel, my views are not cogent in this matter yet.

Romans 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God’s appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 2 So the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment 3 (for rulers cause no fear for good conduct but for bad). Do you desire not to fear authority? Do good and you will receive its commendation, 4 for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be in fear, for it does not bear the sword in vain. It is God’s servant to administer retribution on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath of the authorities but also because of your conscience. 6 For this reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants devoted to governing. 7 Pay everyone what is owed: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

Now that seems pretty absolute, especially considering that Paul is referencing Nero. However, compare the following, where Daniel persisted in prayer despite the king’s edict. So, where is the line? Daniel was not bound to pray to God aloud three times a day; it was merely his habit. So he wasn’t writing this concept off under “obey God rather than men.” There is no Mosaic law to pray towards Jerusalem thrice daily.

Daniel 4:4 Then the presidents and the satraps sought to find a ground for complaint against Daniel with regard to the kingdom, but they could find no ground for complaint or any fault, because he was faithful, and no error or fault was found in him. 5 Then these men said, “We shall not find any ground for complaint against this Daniel unless we find it in connection with the law of his God.”

6 Then these presidents and satraps came by agreement to the king and said to him, “O King Darius, live forever! 7 All the presidents of the kingdom, the prefects and the satraps, the counselors and the governors are agreed that the king should establish an ordinance and enforce an injunction, that whoever makes petition to any god or man for thirty days, except to you, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions. 8 Now, O king, establish the injunction and sign the document, so that it cannot be changed, according to the law of the Medes and the Persians, which cannot be revoked.” 9 Therefore King Darius signed the document and injunction.

10 When Daniel knew that the document had been signed, he went to his house where he had windows in his upper chamber open toward Jerusalem. He got down on his knees three times a day and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as he had done previously. 11 Then these men came by agreement and found Daniel making petition and plea before his God.

And they took Daniel and chucked him into the lion’s den for breaking the law. The synthesis of these two passages seems to be an issue of fearing God rather than men. Paul’s reasoning in Romans is that “if you do wrong, be in fear, for it does not bear the sword in vain. It is God’s servant to administer retribution on the wrongdoer.” So if the action is pleasing to God, and you are willing to submit to your authority for the consequences of your actions, is it permissable to disobey authority after the pattern of Daniel? The presentation in Romans seems to offer two options, obey the undesirable laws because God is sovereign over the ruler, or disobey and accept the punishment. Daniel seems to illustrate the latter, there is no question of his meek submissiveness to his earthly authority, even though he flagrantly disobeyed. Thoughts? Other passages to consider?

Since before the dawn of history, humanity has banded together into societies. These groupings form “comprehensive, territorial” structures in order to meet “basic human needs” (Popenoe 86). As these societies grow apart from each other they become distinct in a variety of ways, taking on unique virtues and vices that demand a Christian’s attention. These moral elements are present within every society. Christians should respond to these elements conscientiously and lovingly.

David Popenoe defines “culture as the shared products of a human group or society” (53). These “products” include two forms. Material culture refers to anything from plastic silverware to the Sears tower. More abstract products shape the way that society thinks and are referred to as non-material culture. “No thing is to be rejected” in and of itself; God created every part of creation to be useful to a believer “if it is received with thanksgiving and prayer” (1 Tim. 4:5 ESV). Only when a moral creature wields a created object, does that object take on any moral quality. Non-material culture shapes and uses material culture. As a result a Christian’s primary response to culture rests in the sphere of the non-material. A Christian should “not be conformed to this world,” instead he should be “ transformed by the renewal of his mind” in order to make correct moral choices (Rom. 12:1-2). However, the Christian is also free to wield both non-material and material elements in service to Christ. Scripture provides a plethora of examples for us to emulate. First, Christ used material coinage as an illustration defending submission to the government, a non-material norm (Mat. 22:15-22). Second, Paul’s defense of His apostleship to the Corinthians seems to condemn rhetoric’s use for Christ’s service. The false apostles inappropriately relied upon “lofty speech” and “plausible words of wisdom,” instead of the power of God; however, Paul obviously makes brilliant use of rhetorical skill in the rest of 1 Corinthians, as well as a lengthy, carefully structured rhetorical argument in Romans. His reliance is on God, but he wields a cultural form in Christ’s service (1 Cor. 2:1-5). Finally, Paul’s example at Mars’ Hill draws support from a material altar as well as non-material mythology and poetry in order to point his listeners to truth (Ac. 17:22-31). A Christian should adapt to and use the culture that God has placed him in to advance the Kingdom of God on earth.

Every culture has specific expectations that its members are to support and uphold. These expectations are called norms, and they fall into three categories: folkways, mores, and laws (Poponoe 60). Folkways are social customs, but they are broadly interpreted and are not too much of a problem if they are violated (Poeponoe 61). However, mores are much more precious to society. “Violating [mores] is likely to result in serious consequences;” society will not readily overlook such impropriety (Poeponoe 61). Mores utilize moral sanctions, such as prohibitions against rape or rewards for bravery. If these mores are written down they become a special sub-class called laws.

Christians should first turn to the Bible to define or temper all of their mores and folkways. If cultural expectations specifically oppose God’s declared will for mankind, particularly the advancement of the gospel, a Christian has no recourse but to “obey God rather then men” (Ac. 5:29). However, this breach of social propriety should not be the norm for Christians. Paul exhorts the Roman church to “give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all” and to “live peaceably with all” (Rom. 12: 17-18). These two concepts encourage the Romans to respect the cultural norms that surrounded them. The beginning of the next chapter specifically commands that Christians submit themselves to governing authorities because “there is no authority except God, and those that exist have been instituted by God” (Rom. 13:1). A Christian who resists the government ultimately resists “what God has appointed” (Rom.13:2). This section of Paul’s epistle builds to the greatest commandment, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Rom. 13:10). A Christian should respect cultural norms as much as possible out of deference to his neighbors; this is a small aspect of the way of love, the fulfillment of God’s law. Furthermore, a Christian’s posture toward the government should be one of dependent “intercessions,” which should be made to God on behalf of “all who are in high positions, that [Christians] may lead a peaceful and quiet life” (1 Tim. 2:1-3).

Nevertheless, looking around at culture, social ills and injustices abound. As Christians live within a culture, they should know how to effectively love individuals who are hurt by these difficulties. A primary difficulty in society is the steady rise in divorce rates and the acceptance of divorce. Christ forbids divorce, equating it with adultery (Mat. 5:32). He makes provision for divorce only on the grounds of adultery. However, that recourse is not demanded, and grace is always preferable. Israel’s unfaithfulness and God’s mercy is an intense illustration of the beauty of grace in such a circumstance (Eze. 16). However, divorce happens. Divorcees, who are resting in grace, should never be self-righteously judged as second-class people. Even if they were at fault, their sin is no more damnable than any other apart from Christ. In every case they should be met with grace and love. Within the church, the pursuit of illegitimate divorce should be dealt with as any other sin, a gentle rebuke, followed by several brothers’ rebukes, and finally an expulsion from the church with a faith-filled hope of reconciliation (Mat. 18:15-20). If a Christian faces a divorced individual who is outside the church he should defer his judgment to God for “God judges those outside” (1 Cor. 5:9-13). Christians are to be concerned with the purity of the church; we are to share the purifying gospel with the world, not judge them.

During His ministry on earth, Christ rebuked His disciples for frowning upon a woman’s lavish gift of perfume. They presumed that her gift would have been better spent providing for the poor, but He told them, “She has done a beautiful thing to me. For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me.” Poverty will always exist, and Christians should know how to respond. Within the church Paul instructs believers that “if anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat” (2 The. 3:10). He also tells them to “admonish the idle” but to be lovingly “patient” with them (1 The. 5:14). However, when there is a legitimate need, Paul praises the Corinthians for “giving beyond their means” to aid Jerusalem (2 Cor. 8:1-5). Genuine Christian love will rebuke a brother who is living in indigence; however, that same love will provide for and demonstrate generous mercy on the world at large and on those among the church who are truly in need.

Finally, both racial and gender discrimination are prevalent in society. Such arrogance has no place in a Christian’s life. God created mankind in his image, and every creation is to be treated with respect as imago dei (Gen. 1:27). Furthermore, within the church we are all equal participants in Christ. As a result “there is neither Jew nor Greek… neither male nor female, for [believers] are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). Such a realization should breed a beautifully loving, humble diversity within the church. However, equality of essence and worth, does not imply an equivalence of role between the genders. God designed the genders to complement each other and this design should not be destroyed (Gen. 2:18-25). The Bible defines specific roles for each gender that are distinct but complementary (Gen. 3:16-19, Ti. 2:1-10). Each would be incomplete without the other, and the genders were designed to work together to effectively minister to both the world and the church.

A Christian’s greatest sociological priority should be to reach the members of society with the gospel. This goal should be kept in view when dealing with any other sociological issue. First, culture is the God-ordained means of reaching and relating to our fellow creatures. Paul relates to the Corinthian church his philosophy of wielding culture to advance the gospel, becoming “all things to all people…all for the sake of the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:22-23). Furthermore, culture’s ills are a means by which to reach a hurting world with Christ. A hurting divorcee is not a social problem to be remedied, rather a soul in need of a sufficient Christ. Even as Christians address social injustices around them, they should always keep the advancement of God’s kingdom at the forefront of their mind. Christ did not exhort us to “go and fix social injustice,” but rather to “go…and make disciples” of Christ (Mat. 28:18-20).
Definitions from:
Popenoe, David. Sociology. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2000.

When we fell, we fell from dependence on God as our moral absolute. He gave one rule, which amounted to “Trust me, and remain innocent.” And we broke it. Dissatisfied that God’s way was best, we wanted to judge for ourselves what was best, what was good, bad, ugly, beautiful, lovable, hateable, or worthy. We wanted to be morally independent of God, “like God” only in determining what was right and what was wrong. So we rebelled. However, unfortunately for us, what actually is right and wrong was already determined by God. We wanted to be independent little lords, but like a father, unmoved by the incessant blows of a three-year-old’s tantrum, God is still Sovereign.

Paradoxically, God still wants us to be “like him.” From creation we were made imageo dei. Even in the old covenant he wanted us to “be holy, even as I am holy.” However, under the new covenant the exhortation becomes even more intense: “may the word of Christ dwell in you richly,” “have [one] mind among you, which is yours in Christ Jesus,” “be perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect,” and “abide in Christ… becoming pure even as he is pure.”

Each of these statements is an exhortation for mankind to reform his will to be in line with God’s. The first is a command to spill out what Christ communicated, exhorting our brothers incessantly in the truth. We are to imitate Christ’s ministry, proclaiming the Kingdom of God. We should want to proclaim the good news of our citizenship there of our rights and responsibilities just as he enjoyed proclaiming it while he was present on earth.

The second command is Paul’s plea for unity in the Philippian church. He pleads with them to be “of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.” By becoming more like Christ’s mind, their passions were drawn from a single unifying source. There was no lateral effort to actively unify their desires, but their loves were unified, because their loves were Christ’s.

Third, we are to be perfect. Now there’s an intense command. Christ’s aim in this mandate is at the fulfillment of the whole law, love. “You have heard, love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I say ‘Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.’” God loved us and died for us, while we were his mortal, treasonous enemies. Christ’s thrust here is that we should love as our Father loves. He wants our affections, loves, and will to be more and more like his own: complete, impartial, and perfect.

Finally, we are to abide. And as we abide we become like Christ. As we begin to know and understand his heart; we use our moral decision-making and see that his heart is beautiful. We see that he is infinitely worthy, and the crap around us in this world is not. Our moral-compass begins to reorient itself north; we begin to see that God was right all along. Unfortunately, we will not see Christ “face to face” in this lifetime, but one day we will “see him face to face, and be purified even as he is pure.”

Each of these commands to become like God communicates God’s desire that our volition should reflect his. One day, we will know Christ and be like him. Our desires will be his, to exalt the excellencies of God. One day, our will will be done, because our will will be God’s. One day we will love like God, seeing the heart and the worth of each individual as a fellow image-bearer. One day, we will stroll with God. However, it will be different from Eden, because in that day we will want to, not because we are innocent, but knowing full well what the alternative is. In heaven we will be more like God than in Eden. For in heaven, we will know good and evil just like God; however, just like God, we will always see that Good is always best. Our value system will be scaled correctly and we will accurately reflect God’s likeness. One day, we will be like God.

All right, when man first sinned, Satan tempted Eve with the thought that she would “be like God.” Apparently this was sin and rather problematic because God lists it as the reason for why mankind was barred from Eden in vv. 22-24.

But, conformity to the “likeness of Christ” is a prevalent admonition throughout the New Testament. So, then it was sin, and now it is the goal? I have a few thoughts on the matter, but they’re half-baked so I thought I would just throw out the seeming contradiction and see if anyone wanted to comment.

“One person’s love for another is not based solely on an expected return. Nonetheless, that expectation is a part of the relationship. If a person never receives any affection or gratitude for the love offered, his or her feelings of love will probably diminish.” -David Popenoe

Unfortunately, I believe that this observation is usually true. Many times I find myself weighing what I will receive against the cost of serving someone else. If I do not receive thanks I feel chagrined, and if the receiver never reciprocates I tend to get frustrated. Naturally, man is only interested in advancing himself, so he leverages everyone around him to push himself up. Our God, “because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ… so that he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.” God’s love seems similar at first, but it starkly contrasts with my sorry excuse for love because His love strives to exalt what is truly worthy. God loved us in our despicable state in order to put a part of his character on display for all to see. Both human and divine loves seek to exalt the lover, yet one is sin and one is glorious grace. Though seemingly dichotomous, both are ultimately held to the same standard: everything that exists should bring glory to God. When I love selfishly I fail this mandate and idolize myself; however, if God were to not act for His own glory He would be duplicitous, failing to praise what is truly worthy. Though my love may falter based on whether or not my self-centered exchanges are a net-gain, God’s love will never falter. His sufficiency is rooted in himself, and He will not forsake His own trustworthy name.

I just have to say, that Dr. Cook is amazingly, unintentionally funny.

Exhibit A)
Dr. Cook: “Is it wrong to turn a stone into bread? Well…”
Bzzzzzzzzzz “What is that?”
Student: “A blower.”
Dr. Cook: “Somebody go throw a stone at him.”

Exhibit B)
Dr. Cook: “I like this guy Erasmus, ‘When I have a little money, I buy books. When I have a little bit of money left over, I buy food.’ Yes, I agree, so keep your textbooks!”

Exhibit C)
Dr. Cook: “Does anyone have any questions about the project? How ’bout the answer to number 1? *intending to be sarcastic*
Student with raised hand: “It’s B, Dr. Cook”
Dr. Cook: “What? Oh, I didn’t mean…”

Exhibit D)
Dr. Cook: *Completely out of nowhere* “Don’t put books on a table and put lamps on them. That’s what my wife does. They’re just not… accessible.”

Exhibit D.1)
The next day he put up a picture of his office on the projector, which illustrated the bookage underneath a lamp. He proceded to confess, under duress from his wife, that he had put those books there because they were too big to stand upright on his shelves. Furthermore, there was a little one on top of the big one that seemed like it would have fit on his shelf just fine. The explanation: “Well, it just didn’t look right with the one book under the lamp.”

All right, if you grew up in a church where you “dressed up to honor the Lord,” raise your hand. Mine is up. I would imagine a good chunk of evangelical Christianity’s hands would be up. That’s the way church is; you put on your “Sunday best” in order to be reverent and honor God. Or perhaps, instead you dress up in order to not “conform to the spirit of this age,” and thereby separate from the world through your dress.

There is a little bit of Biblical support for the first option. First, Old Testament priests had a very particular, distinctive garb that they wore into the temple. The High-priest’s robe was even more particular. The Israelites were instructed to bring their first fruits and the best that they had to offer to God. Second, the psalmists speak of coming before God in the “splendor of holiness,” which is probably a description of their fine attire. So dress up! Ah, but even the best of our righteousness and adornments are only “filthy rags” if they are brought for their intrinsic worth (Isaiah 64:6). Such outward adornments were not pleasing to God in themselves, but rather they pleased God as an illustration of Israel’s obedience and as a shadow pointing to what was to come (Hebrews 9:6-15). The principle of adornment for worship points to a more intense fulfillment within the New Covenant.

“Women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.” (2 Timothy 2:9,10)

God’s value system is clear. God wants beautifully adorned children! He wants daughters with jewelry far more valuable than pearls and gold. He wants them to spend far more time preparing themselves beautifully for Him then they could ever spend braiding their hair. However, He only cares for these adornments on their heart. This one time where Paul specifically addresses material garb, he says not to dress up, but rather to dress down. It seems that outward finery distracts from the adornment God desires. A daughter of God should dress modestly, and adorn herself with virtue; by doing so she becomes more gorgeous than any queen.

Throughout his writings, Paul speaks of “dressing yourself with,” and in various circumstances he lists a host of virtues to put on. Ephesians six describes our garb as defensive armor, consisting of Spirit-wrought virtues. In Colossians he speaks of stripping off the old man with his ways and putting on Christ. In Romans he speaks of putting on the armor of light, which is Christ. Paul repeatedly uses this vivid imagery of our external apparel to describe what God wants from believers. He uses our outward dress as a metaphor for what God wants, inward change, a faith that bears fruit. And yet with all this talk of dress, Paul never bothers to mention putting on a nice robe as a little way to honor God. It really would make a beautiful parallel, “Just as you adorn the outer-man, so also adorn your hearts.”

Two of the most poignant examples of God’s heart-based values are displayed in two passages, a rejection in the Old Testament, and an acceptance in the New. Samuel describes God’s rejection of one of David’s brothers saying,

“When they came, he looked on Eliab and thought, “Surely the LORD’s anointed is before him.” But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.” (1 Samuel 16:7)

Eliab, was the strongest, best-looking logical choice. He was the best that Jesse had to offer. However, God chose David because God knew David’s heart. God knew that David was actually the best Jesse had to offer, even though he didn’t know it. David’s heart honored God. His heart honored God, not his rude shepherd’s garb.

The second example is in the Acts. Peter is astonished to realize the truth of God’s acceptance based solely on the heart. When he finally gets it, he declares to Cornelius’s household,

“Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” (Acts 10:34)

In several of Paul’s epistles, especially when addressing Jews and Gentiles, he reiterates that “God is not a God of partiality,” or that “there is no partiality in Him.” God isn’t looking for a particular type of person, Jew, Goy, American, or Armenian; he’s looking for worshippers, who live out their faith. The single most stark, outwardly separating feature of a Jewish male is circumcision. Yet repeatedly Paul emphasizes that outward circumcision is worthless without “cicumcision made without hands,” a circumcision of the heart. No distinctive type of dress is even in the same league as circumcision, and yet God does not even care about circumcisions when juxtaposed against a faithful heart! Contextually following a discussion of earthly and heavenly values, Paul describes his ministry to the Corinthians:

“We are not trying to commend ourselves to you again, but are giving you an opportunity to be proud of us, so that you may be able to answer those who take pride in outward appearance and not in what is in the heart….And he died for all so that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised. So then from now on we acknowledge no one from an outward human point of view.” (2 Cor. 5:12ff.)

Paul wants the Corinthians to delve deep and see the hearts of their brothers. Particularly when judging a teacher, Paul wants them to not look on their presentation but their life. Ultimately he wants them to see that skilfull oratory, intelligent arguments, and a strong outward showing, mean nothing. It seems odd to me that now, we would be tempted to describe these three items as being “a good testimony for Christ.”

Christ does not care what we wear! The people around us may, but God does not. Let us be fully convinced in our own minds that we are dressing out of faith, whether dressing up or down, purging our hearts from dead works. Oh, but do not judge. If anyone is tempted in that respect, consider meditating on Romans 14 or even more specifically, on the warnings against clothing-based partiality in James 2:1-17. Judgment should be deferred to God in either respect, for “who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand” (Romans 14:4). Isn’t it wonderfully freeing that we don’t have to judge our brothers concerning issues of Christian practice? God, the sovereign guarantor of our salvation, is powerful enough to uphold our brothers, even if we might disaggree.

The second reason for dressing up, is short and logically self-defeating: to dress up for church so as to be set apart from the world. First, the world does dress up for special events. The world puts a huge premium on dressing up to match formal occasions. This is not exactly a unique, Christian separation. Someone might say, “Well I want to emulate the best.” Then why emulate business-men with their coats and ties? They form the most prominent section of our society whose reputation is stereotypically permeated with dishonesty, greed, and treachery.

The point is this, we could try to set ourselves apart by our dress, but it cannot work. Any external criteria is prone to fail, because it does not reflect the heart. If we attempt to emulate the best that the world has to offer, it is still just that, the best of the world. When someone sees a guy in a suit they do not say “Christian;” they say “wealthy,” “businessman,” or “wannabe.” Of course you could go and invent a completely unique “Christian style,” perhaps Monkish garb? However, that misses the whole point, and would be no more unique than Hindu robes or Jewish locks. But when the nations see real people who look just like them, living a fruitful, loving life in the Spirit, then they see a glimpse of God’s Kingdom instead of GQ.

God does not want a separate, distinctive sub-culture. He had that with Israel. He wants people from every culture who do justly, love mercy, and walk with humility toward God. Those are the distinctives that he wants to characterize his children. So do you wear a suit or not? Fear God, and don’t worry about it.

I conjured a storm
To slash sweet blossoms, lacing
Ice across my soul.

In a land ages away,
Slashing apart the swirling mists, an ethereal spire
Juts from a war-wrent wasteland, standing strong, alone, unforgiving, and grey.

A brilliant funeral pyre
Burns before this towering mausoleum.
Melodic dirges drift off, snippets of former glories, flowing from a crisp lyre.

To ruin there is always addendum,
A Renaisance from Rome, propitiation from pain.
From molten, warring factions, a redeemer will extract a purified Christendom.

I felt sick. I listened, ate, and after a while, I spoke. She didn’t say much. I drove her home, spoke with her mom and left. I cried before falling asleep.

I think this is the hardest thing I’ve ever done: Laura and I broke up last night. I don’t really want to answer a hundred questions the day after, so if you could hold on to those? We aren’t mad at each other, and she’s not pregnant. After much counsel, and prayer between the two of us, it was time. God is good, and Laura is in His care.

It was suggested to me that it would be helpful to give a book synopsis when I finish a book. I’ll try to present what the book says. If I want to express an opinion I’ll try to make it clear that it’s my opinion, not the author’s. So here goes.

The introduction alone is worth the ten bucks for this book. He presents a very clear break-down of Biblical separation and its potential abuses. Plus it’s great because he’s outside of the fundamentalist circle, so he’s not trying to be particularly perjorative about the subject, just admonishing his younger brothers. He presents three main characteristics of what a church should do: love the culture, love the church, and love truth. He procedes to describe three major sections of the Christianity: the parachurch, liberalism, and radical fundamentalism. Each of these have a tendency to be out of ballance. Liberalism tends to major on a love for “church” and a love for culture. It doesn’t care about a love for truth so it stears itself into heresy. Radical fundamentalism tends to emphasize a love for the church and a love for the truth. This branch tends to miss out on a love for culture, so it has perfect doctrine but becomes in-grown and ineffective. It is characterized by short forrays into culture followed by a hasty retreat into the walls of the church. The parachurch has a love for truth, and a love for the culture, but it does not have a love for the church community. Hopefully, conservative evangelicalism ballances all three, not overly divisive about Christian practice within the church, not ashamed of its love for the truth of Christ, and not miserly as at lavishes love on Christ’s body and the world Christ has given her to reach.

Into this framework he sets his book, encouraging believers to reach out into taboo places for the sake of the gospel. My favorite chapter was “The Sin of Light Beer.” First of all, that’s just funny. Second, according to him light beer tastes bad. But most importantly, a watered down gospel frought with little rules tacked on… is a sin of high order. The gospel is only through Christ, believing that God raised Him and can raise us, and confessing Christ Jesus as our ruling Lord. And a brother who can enjoy a beer within Scripture’s boundaries? “Welcome him, but not to quarrel with him about food and drink.”

The subtitle is: “reaching out without selling out.” The main thrust of the book is that the church be so radically loving, doctrinally sound, active, and genuine, that unbelievers are attracted to those distinctions: real holiness, real salt and light, real separation. This kind of church in particular mirrors Romans 14. It radically loves its brothers, and isn’t concerned about itself (reputation, rights or otherwise). Protect the weak, but don’t water down the gospel to do it. The first few chapters describe presenting that hard-core gospel through “participation evangelism.” He encourages groups within his churches that actively bring unbelievers into them, with the goal that they would see Christ at work within that body: a real testimony. Though his terminology in reference to this ecclesiology bothered me a little bit, I think his intention is solid to establish real, engaging friendships and community through home-based bible study.

The majority of the rest of the book deals with nitty-gritty details. Understsanding and evaluating types of cultures, living as you are called, distinctions of conscience (”sins and Sins”), connecting with culture, postmodernism, and the sins of syncretism or sectarianism. He has an excellent thought-process mapped out on page 104 for dealing with matters of conscience. The thought process is very loving and god-centered: unconcerned about reputation, concerned about Christ and the souls of brothers. The final chapter is a beautiful portrait of how different areas of creation (beauty, children, home, church-planting men, sex etc.) are being redeemed for the Kingdom.

Over-all, this was an excellent book. It is a funny, but poignant read similar in flow to Josh Harris. Praise God for Driscoll’s leadership over his segment of the Emmergent Church.