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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
