At the Name of Jesus
by Caroline M. Noel
At the Name of Jesus
Ev'ry knee shall bow,
Every tongue confess him
King of Glory now.
'Tis the Father's pleasure
We should call him Lord,
Who from the beginning
Was the mighty word.
At his voice creation
Sprang at once to sight,
All the angel faces,
All the hosts of light,
Thrones and dominations,
Stars upon their way,
All the heav'nly orders
In their great array.
Humbled for a season
To receive a name
From the lips of sinners
Unto whom he came,
Faithfully he bore it
Spotless to the last,
Brought it back victorious,
When from death he passed.
In your hearts enthrone him;
There let him subdue
All that is not holy,
All that is not true:
Crown him as your Captain
In temptation's hour:
Let his will enfold you
In its light and pow'r.
Brothers, this Lord Jesus
Shall return again,
With his Father's glory,
With his angel train;
For all wreaths of empire
Meet upon his brow,
And our hearts confess him
King of Glory now.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Government God-ordained
The Lord has ordained civil government as a means of maintaining order in society. It is an act of grace on his part for without the restraining hand of the civil magistrate human society would dissolve into chaos. This is the truth as God’s word tells it and the truth as history has revealed it.
Despite all of the attempts on the part of various utopian dreamers, humanity will never come to a place where it is not in need of the power that the civil magistrate wields. Those who dream of a peaceful existence generated by the goodness of man who has been freed from the influences of religion, capitalism, and materiality (think John Lennon’s “Imagine”) do not take into account the depravity of sinful man. Sin is man’s big problem and left to our own devices we end up doing nasty things to each other. We need the restraining hand of government and God has graciously ordained it. Because of this, we are to obey the civil government and pay taxes for its support.
The question usually arises as to how far should our obedience go? Must we always obey everything the government tells us? Charles Hodge offers some help in this regard. He said, “Whenever obedience to man is inconsistent with obedience to God, then disobedience becomes a duty.” Hodge’s statement is consistent with Scripture when we consider the apostles’ actions before the Sanhedrin recorded in Acts 4.
Was it right for Christians who harbored Jews during the terror of the Nazi regime to lie in order to save some of their neighbors? Absolutely. The civil magistrate had overstepped its bounds and was abusing its authority. In effect, they forced the Christian to lie in order to combat the injustices of the Third Reich.
It will not always be black and white when it comes to our response to the State. There most certainly will be times in the future (as there have been in the past) when Christians will be called upon by God to bear with cruel dictators, humanly powerless before their atrocities. The Lord will have to give us wisdom at those times and he has promised to do so: “. . . you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them and the Gentiles. When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour. For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you” (Matthew 10:18-20).
Again, in principle, the authority of the State is a God-ordained good. We can thank him for it and seek to be those who “do what is good, and . . . have praise from the same” (Romans 13:3, NKJV).
Despite all of the attempts on the part of various utopian dreamers, humanity will never come to a place where it is not in need of the power that the civil magistrate wields. Those who dream of a peaceful existence generated by the goodness of man who has been freed from the influences of religion, capitalism, and materiality (think John Lennon’s “Imagine”) do not take into account the depravity of sinful man. Sin is man’s big problem and left to our own devices we end up doing nasty things to each other. We need the restraining hand of government and God has graciously ordained it. Because of this, we are to obey the civil government and pay taxes for its support.
The question usually arises as to how far should our obedience go? Must we always obey everything the government tells us? Charles Hodge offers some help in this regard. He said, “Whenever obedience to man is inconsistent with obedience to God, then disobedience becomes a duty.” Hodge’s statement is consistent with Scripture when we consider the apostles’ actions before the Sanhedrin recorded in Acts 4.
Was it right for Christians who harbored Jews during the terror of the Nazi regime to lie in order to save some of their neighbors? Absolutely. The civil magistrate had overstepped its bounds and was abusing its authority. In effect, they forced the Christian to lie in order to combat the injustices of the Third Reich.
It will not always be black and white when it comes to our response to the State. There most certainly will be times in the future (as there have been in the past) when Christians will be called upon by God to bear with cruel dictators, humanly powerless before their atrocities. The Lord will have to give us wisdom at those times and he has promised to do so: “. . . you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them and the Gentiles. When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour. For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you” (Matthew 10:18-20).
Again, in principle, the authority of the State is a God-ordained good. We can thank him for it and seek to be those who “do what is good, and . . . have praise from the same” (Romans 13:3, NKJV).
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Emotional Health
Emotions are an intangible part of our existence. That is to say, unlike our body, which we can see and touch, our emotions have no material substance. Yet we would all agree that though they have no physical characteristics our emotions are real and formidable. In fact, our emotions have such a power and presence that they can often lead us to do things that we would not ordinarily do. Sometimes, our emotions can take over our rational faculties and drive us to do things that we later regret. They are a potent force in our lives and they need the transforming power of the Gospel applied to them by the Holy Spirit in order that they might more and more bring glory to God.
For me the most concise statement of what the Lord has in mind for our emotions (at least as it relates to our interactions with one another) is Paul’s instruction for us to “rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep” (Romans 12:15). Captured by these words is an ability to unselfishly enter into the life of another.
Too often we struggle when someone else has had that which has caused him or her to rejoice come into his or her life. Our ability to enter into another’s joy can be tempered by jealously, or envy, or a lack of appreciation as to just why they are as happy as they are at the turn of events. Similarly, we often hold ourselves back from another’s sorrow and disappointment. We are too quick to urge them to get over it or blithely offer our spiritual interpretation of the tragedy that has occurred. In such tragic times we need to be able to move beyond our own thresholds and offer comfort, not suggestions.
Jesus is the most emotionally stable, emotionally appropriate person who has ever walked the face of the earth. He defines normality. The Holy Spirit dwells in the believer in order to transform that one more and more into the image of Christ (2 Corinthians 3:18). We can be confident, therefore, that in the places where our emotions need growth and healing the Spirit is at work to make us more and more “normal.” Our goal is to be able to engage life and respond to all that it has to offer with the appropriate emotion in an appropriate way -- rejoicing with those who rejoice and weeping with those who weep.
For me the most concise statement of what the Lord has in mind for our emotions (at least as it relates to our interactions with one another) is Paul’s instruction for us to “rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep” (Romans 12:15). Captured by these words is an ability to unselfishly enter into the life of another.
Too often we struggle when someone else has had that which has caused him or her to rejoice come into his or her life. Our ability to enter into another’s joy can be tempered by jealously, or envy, or a lack of appreciation as to just why they are as happy as they are at the turn of events. Similarly, we often hold ourselves back from another’s sorrow and disappointment. We are too quick to urge them to get over it or blithely offer our spiritual interpretation of the tragedy that has occurred. In such tragic times we need to be able to move beyond our own thresholds and offer comfort, not suggestions.
Jesus is the most emotionally stable, emotionally appropriate person who has ever walked the face of the earth. He defines normality. The Holy Spirit dwells in the believer in order to transform that one more and more into the image of Christ (2 Corinthians 3:18). We can be confident, therefore, that in the places where our emotions need growth and healing the Spirit is at work to make us more and more “normal.” Our goal is to be able to engage life and respond to all that it has to offer with the appropriate emotion in an appropriate way -- rejoicing with those who rejoice and weeping with those who weep.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Intelligent Worship
Paul begins the twelfth chapter of his letter to the Romans outlining the appropriate response on the part of a Christian in the light of the mercy shown to us by God in what he has done for us through his Son: “I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.” A biblical example of a truly grateful response is an incident recorded in Luke chapter seven, in which a “sinful” woman stood behind Jesus weeping and wiping his dirty feet with her hair, who then went on to anoint his feet with fragrant oil.
The man who had invited Jesus for a meal, a Pharisee named Simon, looked upon her with disgust and Jesus with disdain. In response, Jesus told a parable to the man to explain the nature of the woman’s actions.
In the parable two people were in financial debt to the same man with one owing much more than the other. Both, however, are described as having been unable to pay. The man who was owed the money mercifully forgave the both of them. The question that Jesus then posed to his host was, “Now which of them will love him more?” Simon acknowledged the obvious, “The one, I suppose, for whom he canceled the larger debt.”
Jesus went on to explain that this was why the woman was doing what she was doing, “. . . I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.” (v.47).
The lesson of the incident (or at least one of the things to be learned) is that such a response should not just be forthcoming from someone such as her; the one with the “gutter testimony.” Given the parable, it is clear that Jesus means to indicate that both Simon and the woman are debtors. And like the debtors in the parable, they both are unable to pay. The appropriate response for both of them, therefore, was what the woman was doing. In the end, the only difference between Simon and the woman is that she realized she was a sinner and he did not.
Whether we are a 50 or 500 denarii sinner, the more we contemplate the mercy and grace of God in saving us the greater will be our response of thankfulness and love toward him. And such a response is our “reasonable service” (NKJV), or “spiritual service of worship” (NASB), or, as Phillips translates it, combining the two ideas expressed in the two translations just cited, our “intelligent worship.”
The man who had invited Jesus for a meal, a Pharisee named Simon, looked upon her with disgust and Jesus with disdain. In response, Jesus told a parable to the man to explain the nature of the woman’s actions.
In the parable two people were in financial debt to the same man with one owing much more than the other. Both, however, are described as having been unable to pay. The man who was owed the money mercifully forgave the both of them. The question that Jesus then posed to his host was, “Now which of them will love him more?” Simon acknowledged the obvious, “The one, I suppose, for whom he canceled the larger debt.”
Jesus went on to explain that this was why the woman was doing what she was doing, “. . . I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.” (v.47).
The lesson of the incident (or at least one of the things to be learned) is that such a response should not just be forthcoming from someone such as her; the one with the “gutter testimony.” Given the parable, it is clear that Jesus means to indicate that both Simon and the woman are debtors. And like the debtors in the parable, they both are unable to pay. The appropriate response for both of them, therefore, was what the woman was doing. In the end, the only difference between Simon and the woman is that she realized she was a sinner and he did not.
Whether we are a 50 or 500 denarii sinner, the more we contemplate the mercy and grace of God in saving us the greater will be our response of thankfulness and love toward him. And such a response is our “reasonable service” (NKJV), or “spiritual service of worship” (NASB), or, as Phillips translates it, combining the two ideas expressed in the two translations just cited, our “intelligent worship.”
Saturday, May 9, 2009
A Case for Modesty
Several years ago there was a Time magazine article reporting on the rise of camps and resort facilities for nudists. It was portrayed as a “conservative” activity. A couple of folks quoted or referenced in the article were described as “conservative" Christians.
The point of the article was to make a case that nudism (the way it was presented it seems appropriate to append the suffix at the end making it an “ism,” or philosophy) has nothing erotic about it. In fact, the article offers anecdotal evidence that growing up in nudism deflects the erotic tendencies and connotations of nudity for those who grow up in a clothed environment. They even equate embracing nudism with having “no shame.”
But nudity is not a matter of how one feels about it. I can perfectly understand how humans can dull the discomfort that Adam and Eve felt when their “eyes were opened and they saw that they were naked.” Given our sinful natures we are always finding ways to justify our not seeing things the way God sees it.
In truth, what is under consideration when we take up this subject is not a lack of clothing per se, but the pervasive eroticism in our culture that is only heightened by the explicit attempts to display more and more flesh, or to direct attention to what lay underneath (or isn’t underneath!) the outer layer of clothing. This reality is something that we as Christians must be very careful to not “buy in to.”
We can resist this is several ways. One is to examine the presentation of ourselves to those around us. This would begin with an examination of our heart. In a teaching about the behavior of a woman who lives with an unsaved husband, Peter enjoins “chaste conduct” and goes on to say: “Do not let your adornment be merely outward -- arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel -- rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God” (1 Peter 3:3-4). While the apostle has a specific goal in mind in this teaching, it is not difficult to see how the soul is placed above the body. Man looks on the outside but God the inside (1 Samuel 16:7) and a beautiful spirit is more attractive to God than outward adornment.
Now, I want to be careful here. I do not wish to suggest that we cannot make ourselves attractive, but when how we look becomes more important than the state of our soul, things are out of order. And it is hard for me to imagine a Christian, who is working on the improvement of his or her soul, desiring to present themselves in ways that are designed to provoke sinful responses on the part of others. So the first thing we can do to resist the eroticism of our culture is to develop godliness in our souls.
The second thing is to take it the next step and examine our wardrobe. Does what we wear demonstrate that we have bought into the pervasive eroticism of our culture? Do we own and put on clothes that are designed to draw attention to the parts of our bodies that are meant only to be seen by our spouse? If so, then we have bought into the ethic that is working hard to cast off the restraints of modesty. We cannot control everyone else’s response (there are those who would find the illustrations in “Alice in Wonderland” erotic), but what is in view here are clothes that are specifically designed to present the body in sexual ways. We really ought not to be wearing such things.
The last thing I would suggest is to not partake of the erotica of the culture. This involves, at the least, not looking at pornography, not ogling people as they walk down the street, resisting sexual fantasy, not blithely viewing eroticism in television and films (a PG-13 rating is no guarantee against erotic content), turning your eyes from suggestive advertising . . . well, you get the picture.
Remember this requires wisdom. It would be too easy to just demand a dress code of some sort or to go live in the woods. That is not the point. It begins as an issue of the soul. God will give his people wisdom as to how they might “serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear” (Hebrews 12:28).
The point of the article was to make a case that nudism (the way it was presented it seems appropriate to append the suffix at the end making it an “ism,” or philosophy) has nothing erotic about it. In fact, the article offers anecdotal evidence that growing up in nudism deflects the erotic tendencies and connotations of nudity for those who grow up in a clothed environment. They even equate embracing nudism with having “no shame.”
But nudity is not a matter of how one feels about it. I can perfectly understand how humans can dull the discomfort that Adam and Eve felt when their “eyes were opened and they saw that they were naked.” Given our sinful natures we are always finding ways to justify our not seeing things the way God sees it.
In truth, what is under consideration when we take up this subject is not a lack of clothing per se, but the pervasive eroticism in our culture that is only heightened by the explicit attempts to display more and more flesh, or to direct attention to what lay underneath (or isn’t underneath!) the outer layer of clothing. This reality is something that we as Christians must be very careful to not “buy in to.”
We can resist this is several ways. One is to examine the presentation of ourselves to those around us. This would begin with an examination of our heart. In a teaching about the behavior of a woman who lives with an unsaved husband, Peter enjoins “chaste conduct” and goes on to say: “Do not let your adornment be merely outward -- arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel -- rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God” (1 Peter 3:3-4). While the apostle has a specific goal in mind in this teaching, it is not difficult to see how the soul is placed above the body. Man looks on the outside but God the inside (1 Samuel 16:7) and a beautiful spirit is more attractive to God than outward adornment.
Now, I want to be careful here. I do not wish to suggest that we cannot make ourselves attractive, but when how we look becomes more important than the state of our soul, things are out of order. And it is hard for me to imagine a Christian, who is working on the improvement of his or her soul, desiring to present themselves in ways that are designed to provoke sinful responses on the part of others. So the first thing we can do to resist the eroticism of our culture is to develop godliness in our souls.
The second thing is to take it the next step and examine our wardrobe. Does what we wear demonstrate that we have bought into the pervasive eroticism of our culture? Do we own and put on clothes that are designed to draw attention to the parts of our bodies that are meant only to be seen by our spouse? If so, then we have bought into the ethic that is working hard to cast off the restraints of modesty. We cannot control everyone else’s response (there are those who would find the illustrations in “Alice in Wonderland” erotic), but what is in view here are clothes that are specifically designed to present the body in sexual ways. We really ought not to be wearing such things.
The last thing I would suggest is to not partake of the erotica of the culture. This involves, at the least, not looking at pornography, not ogling people as they walk down the street, resisting sexual fantasy, not blithely viewing eroticism in television and films (a PG-13 rating is no guarantee against erotic content), turning your eyes from suggestive advertising . . . well, you get the picture.
Remember this requires wisdom. It would be too easy to just demand a dress code of some sort or to go live in the woods. That is not the point. It begins as an issue of the soul. God will give his people wisdom as to how they might “serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear” (Hebrews 12:28).
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Biblical Faith
In Daniel, Chapter 3, the three friends of Daniel find themselves having to make a very grave decision. Would they bow down to the idol that Nebuchadnezzar had set up, as was expected, or would they obey the commandment of God that said worship must be given to none other than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Their lives depended upon the answer. If they refused to kneel, a furnace awaited them.
They needed no time. They knew the answer. “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego . . . said to the king, ‘O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If this be so [that is, that they would end up in the oven for their decision], our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.’”
How often have we seen faith falter at just this moment? A crisis arises, God is sought for deliverance, and when it does not go as hoped, he is abandoned as one to be scorned for emotional deafness and another, more attentive, god is embraced. Such idolizing was not an option for these young men. God, and God alone, would be worshiped even if his will included a horrifying death.
This is faith -- biblical faith. It is a belief that God is to be worshiped and trusted as God despite how the matter turns out. God could certainly protect them, if he wished, and they would emerge from the oven, or be prevented from entering it in the first place. But, if in the wisdom of God, they were to perish at the hands of this blustering tyrant, they would not give to another what was due God. Theirs was not a performance-based faith. It was not dependent upon God doing what they wished. Rather, it was a respectful resolve to worship a God that does as he wishes. This is the stuff of martyrs. May God find in us such adoration for his person and purposes.
They needed no time. They knew the answer. “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego . . . said to the king, ‘O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If this be so [that is, that they would end up in the oven for their decision], our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.’”
How often have we seen faith falter at just this moment? A crisis arises, God is sought for deliverance, and when it does not go as hoped, he is abandoned as one to be scorned for emotional deafness and another, more attentive, god is embraced. Such idolizing was not an option for these young men. God, and God alone, would be worshiped even if his will included a horrifying death.
This is faith -- biblical faith. It is a belief that God is to be worshiped and trusted as God despite how the matter turns out. God could certainly protect them, if he wished, and they would emerge from the oven, or be prevented from entering it in the first place. But, if in the wisdom of God, they were to perish at the hands of this blustering tyrant, they would not give to another what was due God. Theirs was not a performance-based faith. It was not dependent upon God doing what they wished. Rather, it was a respectful resolve to worship a God that does as he wishes. This is the stuff of martyrs. May God find in us such adoration for his person and purposes.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
I Pledge Allegiance?
“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Mark 12:17
Those who wield political power have a just claim upon our lives and energies. They serve as God’s agents in the world, exercising his authority. We are instructed, therefore, to pay taxes in their support and to show them honor (Romans 13:6-7). Praying for them, we lighten their load, and this has the benefit of bringing blessing into our own lives (1 Timothy 2:2). Those in authority have every right to expect from us willing and diligent service in support of maintaining an ordered and just society. We must not, then, resist their rule but accept it as a manifestation of God in the world. This is rendering to Caesar the things that are his.
However, as C. S. Lewis observes, “He who surrenders himself without reservation to the temporal claims of a nation, or a party, or a class is rendering to Caesar that which, of all things, most emphatically belongs to God: himself” (Learning in a Time of War). When we do not maintain an inner loyalty to God we fall prey to seducing patriotism, tradition, social status, or some other of the many worldly values that seek to rule us.
The ability of Daniel and his friends to prosper while in exile was because they seemed to understand what Jesus was talking about. They would give to Nebuchadnezzar what he had a right to expect, but they would not allow him to possess their souls. Throughout their captivity, they remain “inner strangers to the life and culture in which they are outwardly and fully involved” (Ronald Wallace, Daniel, p. 39).
Here is a model for us. We, too, feel the loss of the familiar as we sojourn in what seems to be an increasingly foreign land. Yet, as did the young men of the exile, we can learn the language and wisdom of those around us without forsaking our allegiance to the One who has placed us here.
Those who wield political power have a just claim upon our lives and energies. They serve as God’s agents in the world, exercising his authority. We are instructed, therefore, to pay taxes in their support and to show them honor (Romans 13:6-7). Praying for them, we lighten their load, and this has the benefit of bringing blessing into our own lives (1 Timothy 2:2). Those in authority have every right to expect from us willing and diligent service in support of maintaining an ordered and just society. We must not, then, resist their rule but accept it as a manifestation of God in the world. This is rendering to Caesar the things that are his.
However, as C. S. Lewis observes, “He who surrenders himself without reservation to the temporal claims of a nation, or a party, or a class is rendering to Caesar that which, of all things, most emphatically belongs to God: himself” (Learning in a Time of War). When we do not maintain an inner loyalty to God we fall prey to seducing patriotism, tradition, social status, or some other of the many worldly values that seek to rule us.
The ability of Daniel and his friends to prosper while in exile was because they seemed to understand what Jesus was talking about. They would give to Nebuchadnezzar what he had a right to expect, but they would not allow him to possess their souls. Throughout their captivity, they remain “inner strangers to the life and culture in which they are outwardly and fully involved” (Ronald Wallace, Daniel, p. 39).
Here is a model for us. We, too, feel the loss of the familiar as we sojourn in what seems to be an increasingly foreign land. Yet, as did the young men of the exile, we can learn the language and wisdom of those around us without forsaking our allegiance to the One who has placed us here.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
The Intent of History
“Now these things took place as examples for us . . .” 1 Corinthians 10: 6
History has meaning. This is because it has intent: “these things took place as examples . . . ” So we study history with an eye to learning what happened, why it happened, and to what end it happened. That last component would not seem to be part of the secular historians task, but biblically, it is the whole of it: “For of him and through him and to him are all things” (Romans 11:36).
History as captured by the Bible carries a particular burden: it is rarely, if ever, a sterile, objective, dispassionate, recounting of events. Each account saved for us is intended to illustrate what is called the history of redemption: the unfolding fulfillment of the promise made to fallen man in the Garden of Eden, namely, that at the end of history what is meant to be accomplished, will be accomplished, and it will be for good. This biblical recounting of history, which ultimately involves the entire world, is focused on father Abraham and his descendants, for it was decreed that through him a particular man would come who will be shown to be both the catalyst of the story and the culmination of the story -- the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.
In the mercy of God, we who have been born of God are drawn into this particular story. We are not bystanders, looking from the outside, but participants in God’s redemptive history (Ephesians 2:19), both as beneficiaries and as those who proclaim that history (2 Corinthians 5:20). Additionally, such stories are meant to provoke us to be faithful followers of the Lord of history (Cf. Hebrews 12:1-2).
But even though the story preserved for us in the Bible has particular intent, what is before us remains real history. These are events, while part of the greater work of redemption, that are nevertheless particular to the context and personages involved. We must resist, therefore, making it formulaic. By that I mean, that because something happened in a certain way at one point in biblical history, or because a certain person undertook a particular action, a faithful follower of Jesus should expect to see and do likewise. I am not suggesting any kind of relativism in our extracting meaning from the biblical account, but rather a respectful approach to what is before us that honors the context of what transpired, and looks to understand from that God-directed history what might be understood about our own God-directed history. The God, who ruled with sovereignty over history then, still rules over history today.
History has meaning. This is because it has intent: “these things took place as examples . . . ” So we study history with an eye to learning what happened, why it happened, and to what end it happened. That last component would not seem to be part of the secular historians task, but biblically, it is the whole of it: “For of him and through him and to him are all things” (Romans 11:36).
History as captured by the Bible carries a particular burden: it is rarely, if ever, a sterile, objective, dispassionate, recounting of events. Each account saved for us is intended to illustrate what is called the history of redemption: the unfolding fulfillment of the promise made to fallen man in the Garden of Eden, namely, that at the end of history what is meant to be accomplished, will be accomplished, and it will be for good. This biblical recounting of history, which ultimately involves the entire world, is focused on father Abraham and his descendants, for it was decreed that through him a particular man would come who will be shown to be both the catalyst of the story and the culmination of the story -- the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.
In the mercy of God, we who have been born of God are drawn into this particular story. We are not bystanders, looking from the outside, but participants in God’s redemptive history (Ephesians 2:19), both as beneficiaries and as those who proclaim that history (2 Corinthians 5:20). Additionally, such stories are meant to provoke us to be faithful followers of the Lord of history (Cf. Hebrews 12:1-2).
But even though the story preserved for us in the Bible has particular intent, what is before us remains real history. These are events, while part of the greater work of redemption, that are nevertheless particular to the context and personages involved. We must resist, therefore, making it formulaic. By that I mean, that because something happened in a certain way at one point in biblical history, or because a certain person undertook a particular action, a faithful follower of Jesus should expect to see and do likewise. I am not suggesting any kind of relativism in our extracting meaning from the biblical account, but rather a respectful approach to what is before us that honors the context of what transpired, and looks to understand from that God-directed history what might be understood about our own God-directed history. The God, who ruled with sovereignty over history then, still rules over history today.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
The Passing of a Poet
| Seven Stanzas at Easter |
|
Make no mistake: if He rose at all It was not as the flowers, The same hinged thumbs and toes, Let us not mock God with metaphor, The stone is rolled back, not papier-mache, And if we will have an angel at the tomb, Let us not seek to make it less monstrous, Telephone Poles and Other Poems © 1961 by John Updike |
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
An Important Week
This week is an important one.
First of all, it began with Sunday, the Lord’s Day, the most important day of any week. This is the day on which the people of God gather to worship their Maker and Redeemer. God has graciously made a way for sinners such as you and I to be in communion with him. This he has done by giving the gift of his Son to do what we could not do – fulfill all righteousness and bear the penalty of our not having fulfilled God’s righteous demands. We gather together each Lord’s Day as those who are aware of this kindness and we pause to intentionally thank God and learn of him.
On Monday, we had a national holiday commemorating the life and work of Martin Luther King, Jr. He would have been 80 this past Thursday. It is fitting that the nation pause and honor this courageous soul. He was used by God to awaken this nation to its own values and hold it accountable regarding its fundamental commitment that “all men are created equal.”
Then, on Tuesday, we had the inauguration of a new president. This is a remarkable event for several reasons. First of all, we are truly blessed to live in a country that witnesses a peaceful transition of power every four years. One does not have to strain very hard to find numerous examples in history of when such change in leadership was anything but peaceful. Zimbabwe is a contemporary example. And, of course, the inauguration of our new president is remarkable because the one who took the oath is identified as a black man. God has graciously allowed our country to evolve so that we might be a nation of opportunity and equality both in theory and in practice.
On Thursday, however, we have a much more important event taking place in Washington, DC, than the inauguration: the 36th March for Life, which observes the Supreme Court’s fateful Roe v Wade decision of January 22, 1973. This was the decree that unleashed the holocaust of abortion upon this land. Since that time, some 45-50 million children have been aborted in this country and, in this environment, we have witnessed an increasing tolerance for the destruction of human life for “therapeutic” reasons: assisted suicide, euthanasia, and, lately, embryonic stem cell research.
Unfortunately, the newly sworn president doesn’t get it. He is without a doubt the most pro-abortion president we have ever had. He received a 100% rating from NARAL and is on record (and this is thoroughly documented) as persistently voting against and standing in opposition to a bill in the Illinois legislature that would have protected the life of children who survived an abortion procedure. This is particularly unfortunate as it is the African-American community that has suffered the most in the wake of Roe. A disproportionate number of black babies are destroyed by the abortion industry in this country. For every two African-American women that get pregnant, one will choose to abort. In truth, a black baby is five times more likely to be killed in the womb than a white baby (statistics from The Alan Guttmaucher Institute support these observations). This has led a colleague of mine in the pro-life community (a black man, by the way) to remark, “The most dangerous place for an African American to be is in the womb of their African American mother” (Rev. Clenard H Childress, Jr. of blackgenocide.org).
We must pray that President Obama will come to realize that his desire for all of the human family to be respected and valued must extend to the most vulnerable among us. May he become a champion of life in all its stages.
First of all, it began with Sunday, the Lord’s Day, the most important day of any week. This is the day on which the people of God gather to worship their Maker and Redeemer. God has graciously made a way for sinners such as you and I to be in communion with him. This he has done by giving the gift of his Son to do what we could not do – fulfill all righteousness and bear the penalty of our not having fulfilled God’s righteous demands. We gather together each Lord’s Day as those who are aware of this kindness and we pause to intentionally thank God and learn of him.
On Monday, we had a national holiday commemorating the life and work of Martin Luther King, Jr. He would have been 80 this past Thursday. It is fitting that the nation pause and honor this courageous soul. He was used by God to awaken this nation to its own values and hold it accountable regarding its fundamental commitment that “all men are created equal.”
Then, on Tuesday, we had the inauguration of a new president. This is a remarkable event for several reasons. First of all, we are truly blessed to live in a country that witnesses a peaceful transition of power every four years. One does not have to strain very hard to find numerous examples in history of when such change in leadership was anything but peaceful. Zimbabwe is a contemporary example. And, of course, the inauguration of our new president is remarkable because the one who took the oath is identified as a black man. God has graciously allowed our country to evolve so that we might be a nation of opportunity and equality both in theory and in practice.
On Thursday, however, we have a much more important event taking place in Washington, DC, than the inauguration: the 36th March for Life, which observes the Supreme Court’s fateful Roe v Wade decision of January 22, 1973. This was the decree that unleashed the holocaust of abortion upon this land. Since that time, some 45-50 million children have been aborted in this country and, in this environment, we have witnessed an increasing tolerance for the destruction of human life for “therapeutic” reasons: assisted suicide, euthanasia, and, lately, embryonic stem cell research.
Unfortunately, the newly sworn president doesn’t get it. He is without a doubt the most pro-abortion president we have ever had. He received a 100% rating from NARAL and is on record (and this is thoroughly documented) as persistently voting against and standing in opposition to a bill in the Illinois legislature that would have protected the life of children who survived an abortion procedure. This is particularly unfortunate as it is the African-American community that has suffered the most in the wake of Roe. A disproportionate number of black babies are destroyed by the abortion industry in this country. For every two African-American women that get pregnant, one will choose to abort. In truth, a black baby is five times more likely to be killed in the womb than a white baby (statistics from The Alan Guttmaucher Institute support these observations). This has led a colleague of mine in the pro-life community (a black man, by the way) to remark, “The most dangerous place for an African American to be is in the womb of their African American mother” (Rev. Clenard H Childress, Jr. of blackgenocide.org).
We must pray that President Obama will come to realize that his desire for all of the human family to be respected and valued must extend to the most vulnerable among us. May he become a champion of life in all its stages.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Human Beings -- God's Tapestries
"My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the earth." Psalms 139:15
Psalm 139 is a psalm that reveals the enormity and otherness of God. His divine attributes are on display: omniscience (2-4), omnipresence (7-12), loving-kindness (17-18), justice (19-20), righteousness (23-24), and omnipotence. Yet, when it came to express this last attribute, what example did the psalmist use – God’s creation of mountains, seas, or far-flung galaxies? No, he used none of these. To express the wonder of God’s unparalleled creative power the writer mentions the fashioning of the human in the womb (14-16).
The Hebrew word used to express God’s forming of us in the womb, raqam, is the same term for needlework or embroidery. In other words, we are a tapestry that displays God’s artistic mastery. And, like the artist who knows his creation down to the last detail, God intimately knows us. This reality provokes the writer to awe and wonder. He proclaims, “I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (v. 14).
What is true for this psalmist is true for every human being. Each is fashioned by God and known by him and we can proclaim on behalf of each, “I am fearfully and wonderfully made.”
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the earth." Psalms 139:15
Psalm 139 is a psalm that reveals the enormity and otherness of God. His divine attributes are on display: omniscience (2-4), omnipresence (7-12), loving-kindness (17-18), justice (19-20), righteousness (23-24), and omnipotence. Yet, when it came to express this last attribute, what example did the psalmist use – God’s creation of mountains, seas, or far-flung galaxies? No, he used none of these. To express the wonder of God’s unparalleled creative power the writer mentions the fashioning of the human in the womb (14-16).
The Hebrew word used to express God’s forming of us in the womb, raqam, is the same term for needlework or embroidery. In other words, we are a tapestry that displays God’s artistic mastery. And, like the artist who knows his creation down to the last detail, God intimately knows us. This reality provokes the writer to awe and wonder. He proclaims, “I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (v. 14).
What is true for this psalmist is true for every human being. Each is fashioned by God and known by him and we can proclaim on behalf of each, “I am fearfully and wonderfully made.”
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Embracing Common Grace
There is a teaching found in the Scriptures to which the Church has given the name “common grace.” What this refers to is the biblical evidence that God expects us to love our enemies and “do good” to those who might even hate us because this is how God acts toward those who hate him. Jesus teaches that God “makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.” As Jesus says, if we love only those who would love us back then we are not acting any differently than the wicked. Even they do this. But we are held to a higher standard: the actions of our heavenly Father. As his servants, we are to be God’s agents of grace on the earth even if the recipient does not respond with thanksgiving or praise to God.
Such grace (unmerited favor or undeserved kindness), since it is expressed to saint and sinner alike, is called “common.” Not because it is of little value but because it is common to everyone. This is to be distinguished from the biblical doctrine of “special” or “saving” grace which is the grace extended to the elect that results in eternal life (Ephesians 2:1-10; Romans 11:5-6). While the two are not unrelated they are not to be confused. The one is for everyone, the other for the elect.
Common grace in action is the parable of the “Good Samaritan” (Luke 10:25-37). The one whom the Samaritan is helping is to be understood as being a Jew. That is to say, that had the one who had been hurt been conscious he would most certainly would have refused the help of the Samaritan and probably offered a few expletives to go along with it. For “Jews have no dealings with Samaritans” (John 4:9). But the Samaritan, who knows the Jew hates him, nonetheless offers help and as such, Jesus declares, fulfills the command to “love our neighbor as ourselves.”
The parable teaches that such acts of kindness done on behalf of even an unrepentant sinner are sufficient in and of themselves. They may lead to an opportunity to “witness” but they do not need the “witness” to justify our having done them. There is no verbal exchange in the parable. There is only a soul acting as God does in heaven, and he receives the highest approval rating of Jesus: he is the model to be followed.
Common grace should spur us on and broaden our understanding of what it means to minister to the world around us. It is a good thing to do things that are good for others. It pleases God and brings him glory.
Such grace (unmerited favor or undeserved kindness), since it is expressed to saint and sinner alike, is called “common.” Not because it is of little value but because it is common to everyone. This is to be distinguished from the biblical doctrine of “special” or “saving” grace which is the grace extended to the elect that results in eternal life (Ephesians 2:1-10; Romans 11:5-6). While the two are not unrelated they are not to be confused. The one is for everyone, the other for the elect.
Common grace in action is the parable of the “Good Samaritan” (Luke 10:25-37). The one whom the Samaritan is helping is to be understood as being a Jew. That is to say, that had the one who had been hurt been conscious he would most certainly would have refused the help of the Samaritan and probably offered a few expletives to go along with it. For “Jews have no dealings with Samaritans” (John 4:9). But the Samaritan, who knows the Jew hates him, nonetheless offers help and as such, Jesus declares, fulfills the command to “love our neighbor as ourselves.”
The parable teaches that such acts of kindness done on behalf of even an unrepentant sinner are sufficient in and of themselves. They may lead to an opportunity to “witness” but they do not need the “witness” to justify our having done them. There is no verbal exchange in the parable. There is only a soul acting as God does in heaven, and he receives the highest approval rating of Jesus: he is the model to be followed.
Common grace should spur us on and broaden our understanding of what it means to minister to the world around us. It is a good thing to do things that are good for others. It pleases God and brings him glory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
