The Call of Christmas

From a blog post of Dr. Jennifer Myhre, of World Harvest Mission, serving in Kenya:

“Having spent 17 of the last 20 Christmases in Africa, the wind which blows in a drier hotter season now feels familiar, and the flashing spastic lights we bought in our capital a couple years back (our first electrified season) feel appropriately chaotic. Last year was our first in Kijabe (Kenya), and I remember the church Christmas pageant which included a band of skinny little camouflage-clad Kenyan boys as Herod’s soldiers marching in like a rebel resistance army, and Jesus’ parents fleeing before them like any other refugees. I don’t recall much focus on this part of the story in America as I grew up.  Our plays ended half-way through Matthew 2, with the gifts of the magi, while the scene was still serenely beautiful and triumphant.  

“The slaughter of innocent children gives the story a jarring, uncomfortable ending, dangling, unresolved, and terrible.  Rachel weeping for her children, because they are no more . . .

“We should not have dropped this part of the Christmas story all these years, because slaughter is the context of Christmas.  The whole story hinges on the presence of rampant evil. When masses of children are violently killed, it becomes hard to deny the reality of injustice and suffering, the horrible brokenness of our world . . .

“On this continent, it would be absurd to deny the horror and heartache of evil, just as absurd as it would be to do so in Newtown [CT], or in Bethlehem, when the bloodied bodies of baby boys were being buried.”

Matthew’s inclusion of Herod’s atrocity in his Christmas account, powerfully signals that God is not removed from our human condition. He understands that, as Paul states, “. . . the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God . . [for in that day] the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.” After all, it is He who, in Revelation 21, puts before us the vision of an existence, an earth, a new earth, in which there is no more death, sorrow, and, therefore, no more mourning.

So, as Dr. Myhre acknowledges:

“Evil is real. Innocents suffer. But the story does not end there . . .

“The birth of the child, who is God, ushers in a turning point in the story. A foe capable of meeting evil, and defeating it, disguised and humbled in human flesh. The incarnation sets in motion a complete reversal of all that is wrong, all that is sorrowful, all that is painful, and in the course of this battle, a lot of people die. The baby survives and becomes the man who will refuse to ride against Roman powers as a King. That is a victory too small, a territory too temporary.  This King will choose a path of suffering, voluntarily taking on all that evil could throw at him, in his own body, nailed to a tree -- like the teachers at Sandy Hook who put their bodies in the path of bullets, trying to protect the children. This King will defeat evil. He will walk out of a tomb so that every 6 and 7-year-old gunned down, every starving baby, and even the Adam Lanzas of the world, can be redeemed.”

We who are followers of Jesus, while we look forward to that day in glory with him when mourning will be no more, must not ignore the path he trod to get there. His mission was a mission lived out in the real world, to overcome the evil let loose upon the real world. From first breath to last, Jesus bore the burden of sin and its evil evidences. Sin caused him to be greeted by the sound of weeping as he came into the world; he confronted its malevolence as he walked about the highways and byways; he succumbed to its power as he yielded up his life on the cross. He did not, however, overcome evil so that we would not have to confront it. He confronted evil so that we might join him in overcoming it. The call of Christmas is to pick up the cross and follow him.

This requires us to be more than passive, secret followers. Jesus did what he did in plain view, and those who had eyes to see, saw, and were overwhelmed by his love and sacrifice. While our work will not redeem anyone in any eternal sense, it will serve to expose others to Jesus and, with his help, push back against the effects of evil in the world. Dr. Myhre: “. . . it is not so much the power of armies that keeps evil at bay, but the ordinary acts of courage and kindness that preserve our world: the community outpouring of love which will heal hearts in Newtown; the tenacious pushing of a teenage girl who gave birth to a baby; and the steady painful walk he took towards death; the daily self-sacrifice of his followers who sweep streets, and teach children, and suture wounds, and defend the fatherless.” Such actions on the part of his followers celebrate the coming of the Christ, who came not to be served but to serve and give his life as a ransom for many.

Adoration of the Magi

The news created a stir. Visitors from the east, magi, men who spent their days discerning the times, had arrived in Jerusalem claiming they had seen a sign. A star appeared in the sky that indicated the promised king of the Jews had been born. Apparently, this was good news to them as it provoked them to travel a long way provided with gifts to express their adoration. Perhaps through their studies they learned that the one they now sought would bring peace and blessing that would be for all peoples, including gentiles like them. That such a one may have actually been born was a matter for great rejoicing.

Not everyone was of the same mind, however. For Herod the “king,” the news posed a threat. The notion that one had arrived that the Jews would laud as the Messiah, the true king, would only spell trouble for his already troubled rule. Then the scribes and priests, who at first displayed alarm, appear to have constructed an explanation for the strange phenomenon that allowed them to go about their business with indifference, despite their knowledge of the Scriptures that foretold of the coming one. Only the “wise” men were provoked to awe and joy at the advent of the Christ.

Such disparate responses to the person of Jesus persist. There are those who, like Herod, respond with virulent hostility. Others, despite the wealth of information available to them, appear unmoved by Christ even though his presence and teaching altered the landscape of human history. Thankfully, there are those who understand the significance of the one born to the virgin and respond with joyful worship. May we all be numbered among them.

What's in a Name?

What’s in a name? Most names have a meaning. How about yours? My name, Kirk, means church. It’s pretty ironic that I ended up working in a church for the past 25 years. Sometimes destinies are bound up in names, at least that seems to be the case biblically. It's certainly so for the one whose birth we anticipate during the Advent season.

In Matthew’s account (1:18-23), we learn that the baby who is to be born to Mary is to be named Jesus, the meaning of which is “God saves.” The name will have particular significance for the child, as he will “save his people from their sins.”  But Matthew also sees in the birth of the child the fulfillment of a word given by God through the prophet Isaiah that the child born of a virgin is to be named Emmanuel, which means “God with us” (Isaiah 7:14).

What’s in a name? In this case, the identity of the perfectly suited mediator between a holy God and sinful human beings. We needed a thoroughly righteous man to accomplish what we could not do -- live a sinless life -- and so be our champion, who at the same time was powerful enough to bear the eternal wrath of God. Only the heavenly named redeemer would do.

God knew that we could not save ourselves. If we were going to be rescued he would have to do it. And wonder of wonders, our savior is a baby, sent from heaven to be for us Jesus, Emmanuel. Advent is intended to be a time when we reflect upon the circumstances that prompted the loving and gracious act of God sending his Son. May our hearts be humbled and filled with gratitude.

A Changed Man

Onesimus, a slave, had run away. When he fled he took something of value from his master's home: money? jewelry? He probably thought he had made a clean get away, traveling many, many miles to the city of Rome where he could live out his days, and his freedom, in anonymity. But things did not go as planned. He was now on his way back to his master to face the consequences of his flight and thievery. What's remarkable about his return is that he was going back not under guard, or in chains, but of his own volition. He was going back because he had come to a new understanding of his obligations to his master. How had this change come about? What made a man, who had decided it was best to flee his circumstances, now decide to face them? It was the presence of God's redemptive power in his life. While in Rome, he had met the apostle Paul, who shared with him the gospel of Jesus Christ. By the grace of God, Onesimus came to faith and he was a changed man, a new creation.

The brief story of Onesimus, which is the subject of Paul's letter to his friend Philemon, is a powerful example of what can happen when a person who comes to faith in Christ embraces the process of change that God intends to take place in the lives of his children. That process involves (at the very least) the renewing of the mind (so that we understand the will of God), the practice of repentance (when something we formerly thought acceptable is discovered to be outside of God's will), the participation in the life of the community of God's family (for mutual provocation and support in the process of change), and, most importantly, the resource of Jesus himself (who unites himself to us when we confess him as Lord; see Ephesians 4:17-24).

As the story of Onesimus illustrates, change is possible. We need not respond to the circumstances of life with the same default responses that exhibited themselves when we were governed by our old nature. With God's help, utilizing the means he has provided, we can put off the old self and put on the new and face the challenges of life with faith.

The Church

I spoke of the Church, with a capital C, this past Sunday. It was one of our joint services and it seemed a good time to speak of the entity with which, by God’s grace, we are identified. We considered the Church under four headings. The Church is one; the Church is universal; the Church is apostolic; and the Church is holy. 

All who confess Christ, no matter their age, gender, language, or culture, are one in Christ. This promises the real possibility of peace between peoples no matter how deeply the warring parties have been offended. All who come, from whatever tongue, tribe, or nation, partake of the life that flows from our one common source, Jesus Christ, the head of the Church.

This leads us to the next heading: the Church is universal. The fact that God intends to draw people from every nation opens up the worldwide missionary enterprise. The Church represents the most diverse collection of people of any other religion or belief system. This is because the gospel transcends cultures and tongues and gathers in peoples from across the spectrum of human expression. Contrary to the common perception that the Church is a Eurocentric entity, the most vibrant center of Church life currently is found in Africa and Asia.

The Church is also apostolic. The Church is defined by the faith proclaimed by the apostles and preserved for us in the Scriptures (Cf., Ephesians 2:20). When the Church abandons the Scriptures it abandons its message and, therefore, its reason for existence. We were sent by Jesus to bear witness to him and if we don’t believe what has been said about him we have nothing to proclaim.

Lastly, the Church is holy. It is a unique entity that has been brought into existence by a holy God to be holy unto him. The gospel is not one path among many to God nor is it merely another form of therapy. The gospel calls people to faith and repentance in Christ alone. We must resist every attempt of unbelieving critics to fold Christianity into the deck of world religions. The Church has been set apart by the grace of God to bring glory to his name and to carry out his mission on the earth.

The culture around us works hard at marginalizing the Church, painting it to be bigoted, oppressive, and a threat to an open, pluralistic society. As a result, we are often hesitant to openly identify with the Church. Truth be told, the people around us need the Church for it is the repository of the gospel, the “power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16). They need us to be faithful to and unashamed of the Church and its mission.

To Whom Much Is Given . . .

The Yankees are not getting the job done in the American League Championship Series. In fact, by the time some of you read this they may have been eliminated. It’s just baseball, I know, but when the Yankees lose it’s seems worse than when other teams lose (I say this not because I’m a Yankees fan, though I am). The reason why it seems worse is because the Yankees are the Yankees, and when it comes to the Yankees expectations run high. Why are there such high expectations? Because they have an unparalleled history of winning and they consistently have one of the highest payrolls in professional baseball. Without necessarily being able to quote the verse, most people who care about it would agree with the teaching that “to whom much is given, much will be required.” And when the Yankees don’t produce, they deserve all the verbal junk that gets thrown at them.

God’s judgment of Saul (1 Samuel 28, 31) was of a similar stripe. It’s true that Saul had been plucked unasked from obscurity and made king of Israel. But before we cut Saul slack for his failings, we must keep in mind that he had been given what he needed to accomplish the job he had been assigned: the anointing of God’s Spirit and the word of God. These are tremendous resources that Saul squandered or abused. And what applies to the Yankees applies to him, “to whom much is given, much will be required.”

God holds people responsible for what he has given to them. This seems an inescapable reality when we consider the many parables of Jesus that warn of the coming accounting. Like Saul, for the many around us who have heard and pushed away the revelation of God, a just judgment awaits. Their only hope is to repent and trust that what God has revealed in the person and work of his son is sufficient to atone for their squandering what had already been revealed to them by a generous and gracious God. Much has been given; much will be required. For those who repent and believe, what is required is met in the one who was given.

Fragile Faith

David’s decision to flee to the Philistines (1 Samuel 27) is totally understandable. He had been relentlessly pursued by Saul and had heard his pleas for forgiveness before. Experience had taught David that Saul was not to be trusted no matter how genuine the appeal sounded. He also had those with him: some 600 men and their families. To continue moving and managing that horde was both taxing and troublesome. It made sense to put all that behind him, at least for a while, and find safety under the protection of Achsih, king of Gath, a Philistine city.

As understandable as David’s decision was, it was not commendable. In fact, given all that David had been provided in the way of assurances that Yahweh was with him and would be his protection, the decision to find refuge among pagans outside the boundaries of Israel revealed a faith that had wavered. His fragile, faltering faith put David in a precarious position that, unless the Lord had intervened, would have caused him to participate in grievous sin.

But the Lord did intervene and therein lies the lesson. Like Jesus holding out his hand to Peter when Peter allowed the circumstances around him to get inside his head (see Matthew 14:22-33), the Lord did not abandon David. The pursuit by Saul had taken its toll and David decided trusting in Yahweh’s protection was more than he could maintain. Nonetheless, the Lord pulled him through much as Jesus pulled Peter into the boat.

The promise is that the Lord will not abandon his children, even when his children act in ways that doubt his watch-care. For, “As a father shows compassion to his children, so the Lord shows compassion to those who fear him. For he knows our frame; he remembers that we are dust” (Psalm 103:13-14). We shouldn’t cavalierly test his kindness, but we can trust it.

Increasing Maturity

David’s sparing of Saul’s life a second time (1 Samuel 26) was by far the more extraordinary. The first demonstrated David’s willingness to allow God to judge between Saul and David, but the second demonstrated how far David’s faith was willing to run in seeing it come to pass. Recall that the first time Saul inadvertently wandered into David’s camp. The second time, David deliberately walked into Saul’s! In fact, David’s confidence in God’s vindication is evident in his interpreting the second incident as a divinely provided opportunity to demonstrate his righteousness (Cf.1 Samuel 26:23). I would suggest that David understood the encounter as (to use American evangelical parlance) “a God thing.” What we the readers know, and which apparently David did not, was that his ability to secure the trophies of his righteousness, Saul’s spear and water jug, was indeed a “God thing;” the Lord had caused a deep sleep to fall upon Saul and his army.

In Saul’s camp, David demonstrated that he had learned something from the Nabal affair, the one in which he purposed to wipe out Nabal and his household in an act of vengeance until Nabals’ wife, Abigail, intervened. God would be both his vindication and his vengeance. That lesson (a “God thing” in its own right) he applied to this God-given opportunity. God will determine when Saul’s life would be over, not David. And implicit in that understanding is that Saul’s death, like Nabal’s, would prove David’s righteousness. As is seen at the end of 1 Samuel, that will prove to be the case.

Something of importance to note is the progress of David in this vengeance triptych. David’s initial pious motives in sparing Saul (1 Samuel 24) matured after being brought through the Nabal affair (1 Samuel 25) so that he can say, “As the Lord lives, the Lord will strike him, or his day will come to die, or he will go down into battle and perish” (1 Samuel 26).  Such growth is meant to be the fruit of God’s dealings with us. Too often we ask God to reconstruct his character in the face of each new trial: Does he see what’s going on? Does he care? Will he be faithful? Let’s learn from God’s previous grace to trust him for present grace.

If You Can't Take the Heat . . .

It began in earnest some years ago in response to the publishing of cartoons in a Danish magazine: denigration of the prophet Mohammed would not be tolerated by Muslims. Riots broke out, buildings were bombed, people were killed. More importantly, free expression was threatened. The problem persists as exemplified by the events surrounding the recent murder of the US ambassador to Libya along with three of his staff.

Folks in the West seem terribly naive at such times. We respond to such violent acts with therapeutic language rather than moral outrage. Western tradition values discussion, consensus building, tolerance of other ideas, and the like. These precious and hard won values are worth contending for, even in the face of extreme threats. They are what fueled the multinational response to Hitler's hegemony. What needs to be understood is that 21st century Islamic fascism is of a piece with the 20th century Nazi variety.

If Islam cannot intellectually and morally contend with other ideologies and, as a result, must resort to murder and mayhem to get its way, then it should be abandoned. It should certainly not be branded as legitimate and apologized for by our government or any other government.

I commend to you comments by a thoughtful observer:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/mobile/article/kevindeyoung/stupid-depolorable-and-cowardly

BTW, Terry Jones, the headline seeking "pastor" from Florida is, by all biblical standards, a fool.

Divine Defense

After encountering her in 1 Samuel 25, I’m persuaded that Abigail has not gotten the recognition she deserves. Maybe I’m showing my ignorance, but I don’t recall her being referenced as one of the exemplary characters of the Old Testament. This seems an injustice when we consider how she interposed herself, Esther-like, between a potentially deadly force and the life of others. In addition, her intervention stayed the hand of David from wrongfully shedding blood and bringing guilt upon his head.

David was bent upon avenging the offense that Nabal had committed against him. But the Lord used Abigail to intervene. She saved David from himself. One might assert that she was motivated by self-preservation, but the text reveals much more. Her greatest concern was for David, the Lord’s anointed, the one who was sure to become the “prince” of Israel, and how this wrongful act would weigh upon his soul and reputation. Her wisdom and faith impressed itself upon the David and his wrath was turned away (Cf. Proverbs 15:1).

Of the several lessons one could take away from this incident the foremost is the necessity of allowing God to be the arbiter of justice (this is a surprisingly prominent theme in scripture). God alone is capable of perfect judgment and justice and we are not to usurp his place by taking matters into our own hands. On the contrary we are to “never avenge” ourselves. Rather we are to “leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord’” (Romans 12:19).

David had understood this when just prior to this incident he had the opportunity to strike down Saul and he would not do it. Instead, like the “Greater David” whom he foreshadowed, he entrusted “himself to him who judges justly” (1 Peter 2:23; 1 Samuel 24:15). God be praised that David, hot from the injustice perpetrated by foolish Nabal and no longer governed by the knowledge of God’s just judgment, was restrained by the actions and words of a courageous woman. May the Lord be as gracious to us that we might be kept from that which would “cause . . . grief or pangs of conscience” because we had foolishly taken matters into our own hands.

Teflon Sinners

It had been a tumultuous stretch of time for David. He had gone from tending sheep in obscurity to being part of the king’s household and numbered among his closest advisors. Then the king had gotten it in his head that David was conspiring to kill him, forcing David to flee his wrath. After the king had received intelligence that David was located in the wilderness of Engedi, he went after him. However, when “nature called” Saul entered a cave where David and his men were hiding. The king was compromised and David was given an opportunity to rid himself of his mad pursuer.

Those with David encouraged him to strike; but he couldn’t. Saul was the Lord’s anointed and David could not bring himself to touch the Lord’s anointed. Instead, David stealthily snipped off the corner of Saul’s robe. Even that gesture troubled David’s soul. But the corner provided proof that David was not guilty of Saul’s charges. Outside the cave David confronted Saul with his evidence of innocence and placed his case before the Lord saying, “May the Lord therefore be judge and give sentence between me and you, and see to it and plead my cause and deliver me from your hand.”

This is an encouraging picture of the righteousness that is ours in Christ. As Christ’s perfect righteousness has been imputed to a believer's account we, too, have evidence to lift up in the face of accusations, whether they come from the world, our own soul, or the devil. This is not to say that we are necessarily innocent of charges that might be leveled against us, as was David of the charges of Saul -- we very well might be guilty. But clothed in the righteous robes of Christ damning charges cannot stick.  When the finger is pointed we do not hold up our own filthy rags to thwart the accusation; our evidence is Christ’s righteousness. So clothed, we can say with Paul, “Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” (Romans 8:33-35). No one and nothing!

The Holocaust at Nob

Unscrupulous and unchecked power can create a situation in which a person is seemingly forced to make decisions they would never have otherwise made. I would suggest that David found himself in just such a situation as Saul relentlessly pursued him. Seeking to escape Saul’s murderous intent, David flees to Nob, where the sanctuary was currently located. The high priest, Ahimelech, upon seeing David, is apprehensive. But David dissembles and assures him that he is there on the king’s business. In the end, the priest gives David some of the Bread of the Presence so that those with David might have something to eat, as well as the sword David had won from Goliath. Unfortunately, an opportunistic member of Saul’s court witnessed all of this. He reports back to Saul what he had seen and Saul proceeds to damnably devote to destruction the priestly city of Nob.

Telling is the exchange between Saul and Ahimelech. Saul asks why the priest conspired with his sworn enemy. Ahimelech protests. It’s true that he helped David, even inquiring of the Lord for him, but as David was a much loved and respected member of Saul’s court this is something he had always done. Ahimelech didn’t realize that Saul had changed the rules. Good was now evil, and evil was now good. As a result, Ahimelech, along with the priests at Nob, are executed. When David heard the news he understood that it was his deception that had placed Ahimelech in danger.

There are a vast number of similar scenarios that were generated by the unfathomable rule-changing abuse of power perpetrated upon innumerable Davids in 1930s Germany. People were being placed in circumstances in which they had to make decisions they could not have imagined they would have to make. Some stood firm; most did not. I think the fateful decisions of David and his German counterparts serve as a warning: impossible situations make the unthinkable possible.

Peter’s denial of Christ fits the pattern. The good news is that Jesus extended love and forgiveness to Peter. This doesn’t justify Peter’s actions but it does teach that Jesus is the Lord of impossible situations, drawing good out of evil and transforming weak men into men of principled resolve who can say, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God.”

Covenant Confidence

The love that David and Jonathan had for each other is described in terms that impress the reader with its depth of devotion and loyalty. It’s a type of love prized in human experience. However, their affection for one another was not the basis of their appeals that the other would faithfully extend kindness. They had covenanted together before God, and it was that bond, with its attending promises, that gave them confidence to expect benevolence from the other, even in the face of circumstances that could easily have tempted either of them to serve their own interests.

The covenant between these two friends is a reflection of the covenant God has made with his people. It’s a bond that has as its corollary chesed, the Hebrew term most often translated “loving-kindness” or “steadfast love.” As the writer of Hebrews explains, God desiring “to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose guaranteed it with an oath.”  He made a promise to Abraham and “since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself, saying, ‘Surely I will bless you and multiply you’” (Hebrews 6:17; 6:13-14). With that “surely,” God put himself on the line. He would stand by his word to extend chesed to those with whom he is in covenant.

This type of generous pledge making is reflected in the language of traditional marriage vows. The parties to the marriage vow “to have and to hold [the other] from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part.” Don’t you long for that kind of love -- for love that is, in the words of Dale Ralph Davis, “not merely love, but loyal love; not merely kindness, but dependable kindness; not merely affection, but affection that has committed itself”? David and Jonathan made good on their vows. Unfortunately, some 50% of those who make such vows at a wedding do not. We can be assured, however, of God’s chesed for he has promised it and sealed his promise with the blood of his Son.

Love for the Lord's Anointed

Much has been made in recent scholarship of the relationship between David and Jonathan. Revisionists, looking for a way to baptize their own desires, label it homosexual. The absurdity of this notion becomes readily apparent when we remember that David is described as one of God’s choosing, a man after his own heart, a king who would rule as God would have a king to rule. Even a cursory glance at the expectations that God had for a king would note that he expected the would-be king to know and be submitted to the Law of Moses (see Deuteronomy 17). Current apologists for homosexuality themselves recognize that the Law of Moses is not kind toward homosexual activity. To suggest then that David and Jonathan enjoyed a sexualized male-to-male relationship is to suggest nonsense.

The stumbling block for these folks is the strong language that characterizes Jonathan’s love for David (see 1 Samuel 18). But the real reason for Jonathan’s love for David was Jonathan’s love for God. He saw in David a kindred spirit, a man who loved God and possessed great faith that God would defend his name.

Mary, the sister of Lazarus and Martha, echoed this exemplary response to the presence of the Lord’s anointed (see John 12). Like Jonathan to David, her soul was knit to the Lord’s anointed and she responded with devotion and love. To the contrary are the responses of Saul and the Pharisees. They saw in the exploits of the Lord's anointed reasons to hate and fear, and they plotted to destroy the object of their wrath. But it was not to be. God was with David, and God was with Jesus. The plans of the jealous come to naught as God's plans overrule.

These disparate responses are worthy of contemplation. And rather than finding ways to minimize their impact by suggesting, for instance, that Jonathan's love for David was coupled with lust, we should ask for the grace to see the Lord's anointed as Jonathan and Mary saw him, worthy of total devotion.

Hallowed Be Your Name

One of the most famous stories in the Bible is David v Goliath. The message of the story, however, is often misconstrued as being about a weak party triumphing over a powerful one as when, for example, a small software company takes on Microsoft for something like copyright infringement. In such a scenario, Microsoft has overwhelming resources and can easily crush the attempt by the small market share “David.” Yet, should the small company win despite the imbalance, we would say it was a David v Goliath confrontation.

This typical application of the biblical account misses the point. Yes, shepherd boy David beats towering brute Goliath, but what is at the heart of the story is David’s zeal to maintain God’s honor. He is provoked to action by the “uncircumcised” Philistine’s defiance of the army of Israel and, by extension, Israel’s God. This affront needed to be addressed and David was willing to do it.

We have our own Goliath’s that have marched out on to the field of battle defying the “living God.” For instance, loud voices treat with contempt the biblical understanding of marriage as they seek to bring political power to bear upon the church. If possible, they would “give [our] flesh to the birds of the air and to the beasts of the field” (metaphorically speaking, of course).

Now, I’m not an alarmist (and, no, I don’t think it’s the “end times”) but I do think that great and grave challenges face the church in the not too distant future. We must determine now that we will stand, as did David, with the “living God.”  I’ve included a link below to a document that I hope you will take time to read. It places a challenge before us regarding several important issues. The intent of the framers of the declaration was to encourage Christians to determine beforehand how they will respond should they need to make a choice between honoring God and yielding to the threats of Goliath. Manhattan Declaration

A Banquet of Bondage

An incident from Numbers 11, in which Israel complained against the Lord’s provision as he brought them from Egypt to the Canaan, the Promised Land, is instructive. They had grown weary of the journey and the manna, the divinely supplied food that was given to sustain them. In their complaining they expressed a longing to return to Egypt. In Egypt, they said, they had “fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic.” But, of course, in Egypt they also had slavery and servitude. Somehow their current circumstances blinded them to that part, so much so that they remembered the foods they now craved as costing them “nothing.” Remarkable! This rejection of the future the Lord had for them caused his judgment to fall on them.

A similar type of grumbling happened in the ministry of Jesus. God had sent him as the Bread of Heaven, the true bread that the manna foreshadowed. By feeding on him Israel was to be sustained until they reached the greater Canaan, eternal life. Yet, like their ancestors in the wilderness, they complained about God’s provision. They rejected the Bread of Heaven and chose instead to feast on the fare of their spiritual Egypt.

The problem with the malcontents, Old Testament and New, was that they had lost sight of the goal that Yahweh had for them. As a result, they ended up on the wrong side of God’s history. His plan was moving forward toward Canaan and all the complaining in the world wasn’t going to stop it. The first generation died in the wilderness, never partaking of the land that “flowed with milk an honey.” Those in Jesus day remained dead in their trespasses and sins, never partaking of the wedding feast of the Lamb.

If we are going to make it through our journey we need to keep our eyes on the goal God has for us. We cannot allow trials that might attend our walk to turn our eyes back to Egypt as though what we had before is better than what we will possess. Egypt was servitude and the delicacies it offered made for a banquet of bondage. God has promised and God will provide. Resist the voices from within and without that would tell you otherwise.

A Heart for God

Israel selected Saul; the God of Israel rejected him. It’s not as if Yahweh didn’t give him a good shot at the office, however. Saul was given God’s Spirit, God’s word, and ample opportunity to prove himself a man after God’s heart. Found wanting, he was put aside for one of God’s choosing.

A part of the problem (a big part, truth be told) in this unfortunate episode was the difference in perspective between how God looks at people and how we look at people. To use Yahweh’s words, “man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7). From a human perspective, Saul’s outward aspect appeared to make him a suitable candidate to rule Israel. From God’s perspective, there was little to commend him. This became evident as Saul’s reign unfolded. He lacked a proper reverence for and submission to God, as well as lacking a desire to heed and not rebel against God’s word. These were the faults substantiating God’s rationale for rejecting Saul’s kingship. Yahweh was seeking a man after his own heart, and that would be a man who had a heart for him.

How can we develop a heart for God? Of primary importance is developing our ability to see as God sees. By God’s grace, this will involve our eyes being opened to at least three things: that our hearts are corrupted by sin and inherently predisposed to Saul’s failings; that Jesus is the one whom God sent to save us from the fate of Saul; and, that how people appear is not as important as who they are, the contours of their heart being more important than the contours of their body.

God rejected Saul. But he had another ready to take his place. This one would be a man of his choosing and one who would prove, despite many failings, to have a heart for him.

True Justice, True Obedience, True Repentance

The second of two foolish and fatal decisions by King Saul brought a severe consequence. While the first was the loss of a royal dynasty, the second -- the loss of the throne itself.

Saul had been charged by God to carry out divine justice against the Amelekites, who had acted cruelly toward the Israelites as they came up from Egypt. Saul’s obedience to the command, however, was incomplete. As a result, God instructed Samuel to go to Saul and tell him that he was no longer fit to rule over God’s people. The exchange between Saul and Samuel is one of the most pitiful in Scripture. Rather than offering true repentance, Saul offered excuse piled on top of excuse. Saul’s heart proved to be, as the law had warned, “lifted up above his brothers” (Deuteronomy 17:20).

The punishment meted out against the Amelekites and their king, Agag, is a true picture of what we would be subject to apart from the love of God that placed his own Son between his wrath and us. Yet, somehow Saul thought better of God’s sentence of utter destruction against the sinner. Saul’s failure to recognize the grace that had been extended to him and the condemnation that followed this self-delusion offers a warning against such presumption. We have what we have only by the grace of God. The only appropriate response in the light of God’s mercy is to present our bodies “a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God.” And rather than offering pious sounding religious intentions, as did Saul, we need to see that true obedience to God’s will is what constitutes our “spiritual worship” (Romans 12:1).

Do Right

Saul was told to wait until Samuel arrived so that Samuel could give him instructions as well as offer up appropriate sacrifices to the Lord. As the days drew on, and Samuel did not arrive, the pressure mounted on Saul and he buckled. He went ahead and offered the sacrifice himself. The consequences for his lack of faith were grave: the posterity of his throne would be cut off.

This is the nature of sin. It presents a way of meeting a perceived need that goes against God’s explicit command. The alternative way seems reasonable, practical, often more enjoyable, and, at times, even pious, as in the case of Saul.  But, no matter how plausible the sin seems, it is still sin. And to the extent that we choose a sinful manner of satisfying a need we express our lack of faith in God being able to meet that need.

Faith demands that we do what is right, even if doing right comes at a cost and dictates that we wait until we see God’s provision for our perceived need.

Rocky Starts, Strong Finishes

The reign of Saul, Israel’s first king, was a disaster. It began with the demand of a willful and faithless people and ended with an ignominious death. There was little to commend it. Though the start of the monarchy in Israel was ill conceived and poorly executed, it nevertheless proved glorious.

Glorious might seem an odd adjective given what one reads about the kings who reigned in the Northern and Southern kingdoms. There are many, many more Saul-like failures than there are successes. But the glory of the monarchy is ultimately not realized in the earthly reigns of fallen men. Rather, it is ultimately realized in the one who sits enthroned as the King of kings and Lord of lords. As such, what began badly has ended (and will end) wonderfully.

This is the very nature of the gospel. God takes broken circumstances and people and transform them. Each of us was brought to Christ when we were willful and faithless and by his power and through his mercy, he redeems us so that we will end better than we began. Understanding this, none who read this should think themselves beyond hope. Your willfulness and faithlessness, no matter how horribly it has been expressed, is not irredeemable. If you repent and submit yourself to the kingship of Christ you will be held fast by the one who takes rocky starts and turns them into strong finishes.

Mysterious, Merciful Providence

Saul was unaware of what was to take place. He was sent by his father to find lost donkeys. Yahweh, however, sent him to find Samuel (1 Samuel 9). This is the nature of providence, the term used to describe God’s continued involvement in and direction of all things. People go about doing what they do; yet it is God who stands behind them directing their steps (Cf. Proverbs 16:9).

If we trust that God is good and wise then we have reason to trust his providence.  He orders things according to his purposes so that his will, which is good and wise, comes to pass. This should be a source of comfort for this means that we are not subject to random, impersonal forces. Quite the contrary, all things, in the words of the Heidelberg Catechism, “come to us not by chance but by his fatherly hand.”

How are we to respond when we are subjected to what the Puritans called, “dark providences”? These are the times when difficulties -- tragedies, even -- disturb our peace. Are we to just grit our teeth and say, “Ah, the Lord’s will be done”? That’s an option, but it’s not our only option. Assuming that there is a wise and good purpose behind what is currently covering the sun, it’s our task to prayerfully experience what that purpose is. It may be that God would have us fight the darkness, and action, even bold action, may be called for. That being said, whatever his purpose, we are to trust that he is in control.

God is at work. God is always at work. Let’s pray for greater discernment that we might see the hand of the Lord in both the extraordinary and the mundane.

Self- Control

One of the evidences that the Holy Spirit has taken up residence in a person, that is, that he or she is converted, is one's ability to exercise self-control (Galatians 5:22-23). In fact, as Christ is being formed in us we can expect that his character traits become ours. This might seem an outrageous notion, but it appears to be what is expected of us.

How can this possibly come to pass? It seems a long journey from walking as a "child of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3) to walking as a child "of light" (Ephesians 5:8). In particular, how can we exercise the kind of self-control that Jesus exhibited when he was tempted, whether by the devil, Peter, or Pilate, to overthrow his mission? I suggested on Sunday evening that there are several important steps to exercising self-control.

The first is growing in the knowledge of God's will. Paul writes to the Ephesians "do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is" (5:17). The assumption is that when we know the will of God we will be better able to recognize sin for what it is and be less susceptible to its power. Secondly, we not only have to know the will of God but we must determine to follow it. But this is not an exercise in "doing our darndest" to walk the straight and narrow. A believer is one who has been united to Christ. It is he in us that will give us the strength we need to walk in the light. Next, we need to be in vital relationships with other believers. "Submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ" (Ephesians 5:21) is one of the means that God has provided for us to exercise self-control. Lastly, we are not to place ourselves in situations that cause us to stumble. Paul instructs, "Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness" (Romans 6:13). I mean that just makes sense, doesn't it?
Self-control is not always easy to exercise. Sin is tempting because it is appealing and turning away from something that is appealing is easier said than done. That being said, pursuing it is our God-given goal, and with his help, a God-given possibility.

We Have No King but . . .

The Israelites' demand that Samuel make them a king (1 Samuel 8) was in and of itself not an evil request. Israel being ruled by a monarch had been anticipated in the covenant God made with Abraham, reiterated in the blessing of Jacob, and detailed in the Law of Moses. What made the demand offensive was the motivation and manner of the demand. They wanted to be "like all the nations" around them and they wanted it now.

But Israel was not like other nations. They were a chosen people who had as their sovereign the God who made heaven and earth. He was the one who had brought them out from the slavery of Egypt and into the land that he had promised to their forefather, Abraham. Throughout, Yahweh had exercised his rule over them by the people he had raised up and when it came time for the monarchy they were to await his selection. Their faithless and untimely demand for a king, however, showed once again how prone they were to being like the other nations around them (1 Samuel 8:8).

A warning is here. As Christians we confess Jesus as Lord (Romans 10:9). Biblically, such a confession brings with it the expectation of otherness, as was upon the Israelites, as well as the need to be ruled by Christ, in all of his kingly sovereignty. As it did for the Israelites, this will demand faith and courage. The pressure to be like "the other nations" is great, particularly when our separateness brings with it strife. The solution, however, is not to slip into a posture that renders us indistinguishable from those around us. On the contrary, we are to hold fast to our confession without wavering (Hebrews 10:23), trusting that our Lord is able to protect us and cause us to prosper.

Who Can Stand before the Lord?

         The “ark narrative,” from 1 Samuel 4:1b - 7:2, communicates much about the God we confess. What transpires in the account inevitably leads to the question posed by unnamed Israelites, “Who can stand before the Lord, this holy God?”

After losing a battle against the Philistines, the Israelites make the decision to bring into their camp the Ark of the Covenant. This was the box, made according to God’s specific directions, that suggested, in the words of one commentator, God’s “rulership,” the “revelation” of his will, and the “reconciliation” he offered through the ministry of the high priest. The ark was at the center of Israel’s worship and, as such, was closely related to God himself. But the Israelites decision smacked more of sorcery than it did of piety. God showed that he would not be controlled by the schemes of men and the Israelites suffered defeat.

Though the Philistines conquered the Israelites and captured the ark, God declared in no uncertain terms that he would not be conquered. He made a mockery of Dagon, the Philistine’s god, he plagued the people of the Philistine cites, and, finally, he confirmed that, far from being conquered, he was their conqueror by causing the ark to be returned to the Israelites in a manner that proved he was the source of their troubles.

But the return of the Ark to the Israelites revealed one more truth: God is not to be profaned. Several scores of men are struck down for looking upon the ark, something only the priesthood was allowed to do.

It is no wonder, then, that someone would voice the question, desperate in its tone, “Who can stand before the Lord?

The truth of the matter is, no one can. God is holy and not to be trifled with. This is why we desperately need the gospel. The righteousness we lack is revealed in the message that tells of a heaven-sent Savior who propitiates God’s wrath through his loving obedience for all who place their trust in him. Only if we are found to be in Christ are we able to stand before this holy God.

Let Our Eyes Be Opened

This was the request of two blind men as Jesus, pursuing the consummation of his divine mission of redemption, passed by them on his way to Jerusalem. They heard he was approaching and from what they had learned about him prior to this moment they were persuaded that this was their opportunity to be released from lives of living death.

They were determined to get his attention. Nothing would dissuade them. When people tried to silence them, they cried out all the more. Their pleading cut through the cacophony of the crowd and caught the ear of Jesus. He stopped and called, “What do you want me to do for you?” “Lord, let our eyes be opened.” With pity the Savior goes to them and, touching their eyes, grants their request. Now seeing, they follow him.

This takes place on Palm Sunday and given the context of this miracle, it is meant to demonstrate more than the power of Jesus to heal. It’s, rather, a living parable teaching the dangers of spiritual blindness. Everyone else around these two beggars was able to see Jesus, but they alone perceived who he was.

This is the great need of fallen humanity; to see Jesus for who he is. Blinded by agenda, pride, ignorance, or some other impairment from a long list of spiritual disabilities, people read or hear of him but are unable to process what is actually before them. Such blindness is not benign. It has eternal consequences. This Easter season, when the mercy, grace, and love of God are on display, call to Jesus with your own petition, “Lord, let my eyes be opened.” Perhaps, in pity, he will stop and grant your request.

God Hears

The Bible tells the grand story, the meta-narrative, if you will, of God’s restoring work. The plan was conceived in eternity, set in motion with creation, and will continue to unfold until the new heavens and the new earth descend. There are some familiar characters in it: Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and, of course, Jesus. In fact, one could say that the particular characters just mentioned mark the significant developments of the plot. These are not the only figures that help carry the plan forward, however. There are a host of “minor” characters that are used by God. One such character is Hannah, the mother of the prophet Samuel.

The book of 1 Samuel, where we find the story of Hannah, follows the period of the Judges (a particularly dark period in Israel’s history). Judges ends with the familiar line, “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” This anticipates what is about to take place. Both the book of Ruth and the beginning of 1 Samuel recount how God was using two women, Ruth and Hannah, to keep his plan of redemption moving forward, despite what was taking place in the rest of Israel. The offspring of these women figure significantly into the establishment of the monarchy in Israel.

What we want to focus on for our purposes, however, is the reality of Hannah’s life, which must have seemed to her far removed from God’s grand story. Due to her barrenness, her life was one of pain and shame. How could she know as she cried out to God for a child that the answer would result in David being anointed king of Israel? She couldn’t know.

In truth, we often don’t know how our lives factor into God’s meta-narrative. But what we learn from Hannah is that there are no insignificant characters in the drama. Each of us has a part to play. And though our lives, with their struggles and sorrows, triumphs and joys, may never be recorded for posterity, they are nonetheless important to God. He uses each of his people to move the plot forward to its glorious conclusion.

Don’t lose heart. We are told that God “remembered” Hannah, he will remember each of his children.

Parsing the Language

This past Sunday, in both services, we took up the very current topic of same-sex marriage. This was prompted by our President's endorsement of same-sex marriage and my being forwarded an email in which a fellow believer was asking many thoughtful and timely questions. This subject is important and is particularly important to him as he is involved in the theater and, as a result, has many good friends, whom he dearly loves, who are gay or are supportive of gay marriage. I attempted to respond to his comments and questions, hoping to shed some biblical light on a contentious topic. The audio file of the sermon and a PDF file of the email with my interspersed responses is available at sermonaudio.com/ncgv.

For the purposes of this post I would like to stress just one point. I have read several articles in which opinions from within the pale of Christianity are offered either for or against same-sex marriage. On the supportive side are sentiments that express Jesus' love for people who were on the "outside." In fact, similar notions were hinted at by President Obama, who self-identified as a Christian in making his remarks. I concur that Jesus' love for those whom the religious leaders deemed unrighteous is evident in numerous ways, from the sitting at table with "tax collectors and sinners," to expressing deep approval for a "sinful woman" who was unabashedly offering worship at his feet. Time after time he stepped into the midst of sinners and affirmed their humanity and worth. But we should not mistake his willingness to love such people as approval for their sin. He says to the sinful woman spoken of above, "Your sins are forgiven." To the thieving Zacchaeus he announces that "salvation has come to your house." To the woman caught in adultery he assures and warns: "Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more."

Jesus declared that he came to heal the unrighteous. He preached about sin and the need for repentance. He promised that he would shed his blood for the remission of sins. In these, and numerous other ways, he made his mission clear: he had come to be the Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world. One gets the impression from advocates for same-sex marriage, however, that the only thing that needs to be done by the church in the name of Jesus is to welcome people in the door with open arms. The expectation of repentance is never expressed. Such indifference to sin is not honoring of the person and work of Jesus nor of the gospel that he preached. Homosexuals are not any more sinful than others, but neither are they any less sinful. We all need, through the power of Christ, to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus that we might be saved.

An Imbalance of Power

What transpires in a believer’s life is never disconnected from the purposes of God. Consequently, if a person takes time to reflect on how God has worked in his life he might discover how God is works in the world around him. Furthermore, as he meditates upon how God has delivered him, he might just gain confidence that God’s good purposes will, in the end, triumph – not just over the evil in the believer’s own life but also over all evil. One writer calls this line of reasoning on the part of the believer causes him to move from a "micro" to a "macro" view of salvation. That this was the experience of Hannah is evident in her song (1 Samuel 2:1-10). Between the day that she gave birth to Samuel till the day she brought him to serve at the tabernacle, she appears to have meditated upon her experience and made the logical connections suggested above. She had experienced God’s salvation through his lifting her up from a position of weakness to one of strength, from one of shame to one of honor. She appears to have concluded that what Yahweh had done for her must be consistent with how he always work. He did not allow injustice and human arrogance to go unanswered in her life and, therefore, he would not allow it to go unanswered in the world. And, ultimately, his just rule would bring down even the mightiest from their self-important positions for as she sang, “The Lord will judge the ends of the earth.”

It is remarkable that, centuries later, Mary, as she anticipates the birth of the King who was the fulfillment of the promises made to the one whom Samuel would anoint king, would sing a song that reflects sentiments identical to Hannah’s.  Could it be that the reversing of roles that Hannah and Mary sing about is the way God rules the world? Under God’s dominion, “The bows of the mighty are broken, but the feeble bind on strength . . . the barren has borne seven, but she who has many children is forlorn.” The birth of Samuel, the birth of Jesus, proves this to be so. May the Lord give us eyes to see that our small "salvations" are like down payments on our ultimate salvation. And may we then add our voices to Hannah’s and Mary’s as they sing God’s praises.

Honoring God

Eli, the high priest in the days of Samuel, heard this terrifying pronouncement from God: “I swear to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever.” Eli and his family had been cut off – forever -- from the grace of God. What had provoked God’s anger?

Eli had enjoyed much favor from God: 1) He was of the people of Israel, the nation that had been chosen by God and delivered from the bondage of Pharaoh; 2), he was of the line of Aaron, the ones whom God set apart to serve at the altar, to mediate between God and God’s people; and 3) as the one serving as priest, God had promised he would forever provide for Eli and his descendants from the sacrifices that the people of God brought for him to administer. Eli, however, had scorned God’s grace. By allowing his wicked sons to make a mockery of the priesthood, he honored them more than the Lord. As a result, the Lord said he would cut him and his family off for, “those who honor me I will honor, and those who despise me shall be lightly esteemed.”

What does it mean to honor God? I offered the following quote from J. Stuart Holden: “To honor God does not necessarily imply doing great things for Him. It is rather the consistently maintained attitude of the heart which refers every choice to His judgment, measures every value by His standard, and endeavors to make every incident of life contribute towards the glorifying of His Name.” Read through that quote again. It is wonderfully concise and enormously helpful. This is the kind of whole-life devotion that God deserves. When we consider that he “did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all” and from that we can have confidence that he will “also with him graciously give us all things” (Romans 8:32), we should honor God by keeping his person and purposes preeminent in our lives, something Eli had forgotten to do.