Blog Archives
Corporate Teachings on a Mountain
“And seeing the crowds, He ascended the mountain, and when He sat, His disciples came to Him. He opened His mouth and taught them, saying…”
(Matthew 5:1-2)
These words introduce what is commonly called Jesus’ “Sermon on the Mount.” Follows in this sermon is a philosophy on Christian living, something that might be called the “Pastoral Theology” of Christ. We have a series on the Beatitudes, Jesus’ teaching on the nature of the Law and its application, on piety and prayer, and on the marks of a Christian as he or she lives out faith in this world. It is a boiled-down version of Jesus’ instructions for living a God-Centered life boldly in a fallen world.
Often, though, when we look at these teachings, we focus on them in the context of our personal living. And, while it is true that there is much personal application that can be made from within this text, we sometimes miss the corporate nature of this sermon. Indeed, to whom does Jesus preach this? He preaches to the crowds that are following Him. He preaches to His disciples, not just to the twelve. Corporately speaking, he is teaching the church, not just persons in the church.
As Americans, I fear that we often focus too much on the individual. We are “rugged individualists” at heart, and that is an asset in many parts of our culture. Yet, we sometimes forget that Christ has united us as a one body that is designed to be unified in thought, attitude, and action for the furtherance of His kingdom. Over the next several weeks, we are going to spend some time together on the Sermon on the Mount, beginning here in the Beatitudes. And while we will talk about many personal and individual applications, our focus will primarily be to apply this language to the church — the corporate gathering of Christians — to ask the question, are we really being faithful in being Christ’s church, or has the church simply become another civic organization to which we may or may not have ties.
For instance, is “church” just something you do one day of the week? Is your commitment to church something that begins and ends when you walk into the church building? For many professing Christians, the extent of church is just that — it is a program of sorts for Sunday participation. In contrast, if we take the Gospel (and this Sermon) seriously, we should see church not as something we do, but as the natural outflowing of who we are (or whose we are). As laid out here by Jesus, church is part of the fabric of your being, and it shapes all that you do, not just what you do on Sundays. Indeed, in light of these words of our Lord, I would suggest that taking the teachings of Christ seriously also ought to shape (or challenge) what we do when we gather as a body on Sunday morning and evening.
A final note. Who does Jesus gather to teach? We are told that he gathers His disciples. A disciple (μαθητής, mathates in Greek) is literally a student. Ask anyone who has ever taught, what is the mark of a good student? They learn and apply. You may learn every teaching that is given in the Bible, you might even memorize the Bible, cover to cover, but if you do not apply the things that you learn within the Bible to your life, then you are every bit as much a heathen as the person who is utterly disinterested in the Bible. Further, if you, as a corporate body — as a church — do not submit to the teaching of the Bible, but rather pick and choose what you like and you don’t like, you are not a True Church and have more in common with a social club than anything else. Corporately, we are a body with one Head who is Christ; we must live like it.
Unity, Honest Questions, Not Re-Inventing the Wheel, and Eternal Punishment
An Open Letter to Kirk Cameron and those exploring the question of Annihilationism:
Wow, that is a long title, and I suppose I ought to commend you for reading beyond the title, as many in today’s world prefer to live their lives in theological sound bites. The problem is that while theological sound bites may produce conformity in some circles, they rarely produce understanding. Due to providential hindrances, I am entering this conversation a little late, but there are a few things that seem to be missing from the broader dialogue that ought to be brought to the table. Yet first, please understand that I am not impugning Mr. Cameron’s salvation, nor am I condemning the raising of honest questions. As Christians, our goal ought not be to march blindly along a party line, but to use the tools that are at our disposal to understand why we believe the things we profess. How else will we be able to make a reasoned defense for the hope we have?
One of the concerns that I have is that many of the conversations are centered around matters that are essential and matters that are non-essential to salvation. While I appreciate the spirit behind such a position, I do not see this distinction either in Scripture or in the life of the early church. One might respond lightly that there are teachings on which we may disagree, where we will openly expect to see one another in heaven (and then have our views corrected). True. I baptize babies and do so by pouring water; others only baptize those who profess faith and do so by immersion. We disagree strongly in these matters, but the vast majority of creedo-baptists that I know would expect to see me in heaven one day, as I would expect to see them. Yet, where do we see the idea of such “non-essentials” presented as a virtue in Scripture? You might be tempted to cite Jesus’ remark in Mark 9:40 that “whoever is not against us is for us,” but I would respond that such is not the end toward which Christians should strive. Instead, Paul speaks of us maintaining the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Ephesians 4:3) and that we have “one faith” (Ephesians 4:5) through which the church is built up in the truth and in love (Ephesians 4:16). The principle here seems clear, we will have some points of disagreement within the body of Christ, but we ought never be content to remain in those points of disagreement, but in love and unity search the scriptures to find answers that will keep Christ’s church from being tossed about by every wind of doctrine like a boat in a storm (Ephesians 4:14). So, let us agree that if God thought it good and wise to provide it to the church in the scripture, it is essential (2 Timothy 3:16-17). We just may need to labor together within the scriptures to better and more accurately understand what God is teaching us in such areas.
To illustrate this principle, I would appeal to the Council of Jerusalem, recorded in Acts 15. A debate arose between the Christians who had a Jewish background and the Christians who had a pagan background. Did these Gentiles need to be circumcised to be saved (Acts 15:1)? Some said yes; some said no. What was the solution? Notice that the solution was not to allow the church to split into two factions. No, the desire was to be clear on how the Bible instructed Christians to order their lives. The solution, then, was to call a meeting of all of the Apostles and of all of the Presbyters in Jerusalem to debate the matter. Why? They recognized that while the church had disagreements, God was not confused in what He taught. The end result was to insist that circumcision was not necessary for the Christians, but there were four rules that were necessary: abstain from things polluted by idolatry, from sexual immorality, from what has been strangled, and from blood. These rulings were put in the form of an authoritative letter to the churches and Paul would circulate that letter as he traveled on his missionary journeys (Acts 15:22-29; 16:4; 21:25).
Though there is only one such council recorded in the New Testament, the church would follow this practice when teachings arose that threatened the unity of the church. These later councils are not Scripture as there were no Apostles present, but they were gatherings of the church in the same spirit as was recorded in Acts 15. These Councils would articulate what the Bible taught on new areas of debate that arose within the church. From these Councils, we have received Creeds like the Nicene Creed, the Apostles’ Creed, the Chalcedonian Definition, and the Athanasian Creed. We also find that these councils clarified those books that were to be understood as inspired Canonical books. This does not mean that they invented the Canon, but they were used by God to clarify for the church as a whole those books which were inspired by God and useful for the edification of the church body (much like the Jews did when they defined the canonical books of what we call the Old Testament).
Further, like the Council of Jerusalem, these Councils addressed specific questions and teachings that had arisen in the church with the aim of bringing clarity to “the faith that was once and for all time delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). They addressed matters like the Trinity, inspiration, the dual nature of the God-man, who should serve in the office of Elder or Deacon, and the practice of church discipline. Again, these teachings were meant to preserve the unity of faith amongst the church as it was challenged with new ideas. These Councils were not perfect, and often we see later Councils correcting earlier Councils. In other words, they were not inspired Scripture, but applications and interpretations of Scripture that were meant to be binding on the church as a whole.
One of the ideas the early church debated was that of annihilationism. Why must hell be understood as eternal? The Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (AD 553) addressed this matter. The conclusion of the Council was articulated in its ninth anathema:
If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (ἀποκατάστασις) will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema.
In essence, this anathema is simply denouncing any teaching that would depart from that of the Athanasian Creed, which states: “And they who have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.”
It should be understood that this position was not simply the position of the medieval church; it was considered the universal teaching of the church, even by the Reformers. The Belgic Confession (Article 37) and the Westminster Confession of Faith (Article 33) echo this language with even further clarity. Knowing Mr. Cameron’s Baptistic leanings, it should also be noted that such was the view of the London Baptist Confession (Chapter 32). Likewise, the Welsh Calvinistic Methodist Confession (Article 41) articulates the same doctrine. Arguably, this has been the consistent teaching of the True Church across the ages. This point cannot be stressed highly enough. Here are the councils of the church, looking to the Word of God, and seeking to articulate for the body the clear teachings therein, defending against false teachings and heresies.
Does that mean that Mr. Cameron is not entitled to ask questions? Absolutely not! We should ask questions and seek to understand what the Councils have articulated according to the Scriptures. My criticism lies not in his asking an honest question. As Peter wrote of Paul’s teachings, some of them are hard to understand (2 Peter 3:16). And herein lies the problem with our culture today. As in the days of Judges, where every man did what was right in his own eyes (Judges 21:25), today it seems that theology is done in much the same manner. The reason, we are told that people behaved as they wanted was because there was no king in Israel. At least, there was no human king. God was king, but people chose to do what was right in their own eyes as if they were God and as if they had His authority. Essentially, what the author of Judges was saying is that the people behaved like Adam and Eve, discerning what was good and evil in their own eyes rather than submitting to the authority of God.
Today, there are thousands of different denominations and innumerable people and groups who evaluate theology on the basis of what seems good to them. Even though there is a King in Christ’s church, people act as if they are their own authorities rather than as men and women under the authority of God. The scriptures tell us of an interaction that Jesus had with a Roman Centurion. What is striking about this encounter is that, unlike most, the Centurion was content with Jesus’ word alone and did not insist that Jesus come and enter his home. Why? The soldier spoke of being a man under authority, and he believed that the physical world itself was under the authority of Jesus. In this case, we are told that Jesus marveled at this man’s faith (Matthew 10:8-9). What is the common thread? One of the effects of sin is that people desire to be like God, discerning right from wrong themselves. Nevertheless, we are meant to be men and women under authority, submitting to the clear and consistent teaching of the word of God as our authority. How do we discern that? Indeed, we look to the Word of God itself as our ultimate authority, but we are also to listen to and submit to the Consiliar rulings that our spiritual fathers have made. As noted above, Counsels and Confessions are not scripture, but they are authoritative for the church. And so, while we may not understand a given theology as articulated, let us say, in the Westminster Confession, we begin there by affirming its teaching as people under authority while seeking those wiser to understand why it is worded in a given manner. Remember, Mr. Cameron is a teacher in the church, and teachers are judged by God with greater strictness (James 3:1). Like it or not, his questioning orthodox teachings here is opening the door for others to pursue this error as well. To borrow the words of Anselm of Canterbury: “I believe so that I may understand.” Faith in God’s revealed Word must always be preeminent.
So, my concern for the path that Mr. Cameron is going down is that all scripture is God-breathed and thus all things are essential to believe and strive to understand. In addition, we should not be spending all our effort on reinventing the wheel. These are matters that the church has already wrestled through; why ought we be starting over again and again? In the case of Annihilationism, the church recognized the notion of eternal punishment was so significant to the Christian faith that they anathematized (essentially placed a curse upon) those who taught otherwise. In other words, this is a very important doctrine to understand and “get right.”
So, with the principle laid forth, why has the doctrine of Eternal Punishment been one that the church has so universally held to and defended? Or, perhaps, one might more simply ask, “Doesn’t eternal punishment seem vindictive on God’s part?” Of course, the answer is that, no, it is not vindictive, but perhaps we should define why it is just and right. To make an analogy to our experience in society, imagine that one day, after a particularly bad day at work, someone in the parking lot angers you. The reason why is not important, but imagine a situation where someone “pushes all of your buttons” just right and you, in anger, haul off and punch them, breaking their nose. Yes, that would be pretty bad, and you would likely be arrested and charged with a crime. Yet, once justice is served and a fine is paid, life goes on as it normally would. Now, imagine the same setting, but that you punched the President of the United States. The likelihood is such that you would end up in prison for a lot longer than if you hit a co-worker. Neither situation is good, excusable, or commendable, but with the increase in someone’s station in society comes an increase in the severity or duration of the punishment. To complete the analogy, apply it to God, who is infinitely greater and higher in society than any human might be. Hence, justice demands that the punishment be infinitely greater than any punishment served for a crime against a human. As God is the being greater than which no other being can be conceived, sin against God, in turn, is greater in severity than any other sin which one may commit. Thus, sin against the person of an eternal God warrants eternal judgment. You might be tempted to respond that your sins are not so much against God as they are against your fellow man. James makes it clear that when you break one aspect of God’s divine Law, you have broken the whole (James 2:10). Thus, even the sin of lying to one’s neighbor makes one guilty of breaking the whole of God’s Law. Justice demands that sin be punished.
It might be said that one’s view of sin parallels one’s view of grace. The more seriously we take our sin, the more weighty we will understand grace to be. The more lightly that we look at sin, the less seriously we will take grace. If sin is not such a big deal, neither is grace. If we realize that even our more “insignificant” sins deserve eternal condemnation in the fires of Hell, the more in awe we will be over the grace of God. If you make light of one, you make light of the other; if you treat one with great gravity, so too will the other be seen as weighty. So, what does the Bible say, specifically, about God’s judgment upon the wicked? There are three general categories in which the Bible speaks of Hell. It is a place of privation (a separation from anything good), positive retribution (punishment that is deserved due to sin), and eternal destruction (not annihilation, but a permanent time of slowly being destroyed). Below we will break down all three categories, but 2 Thessalonians 1:9 gives us an overview that includes all three aspects:
“They will pay the penalty [positive retribution] of eternal destruction [destruction] apart from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power. [privation]”
Privation:
This refers to a separation from anything good, glorious, peaceful, wholesome, pleasant, or good. It is a place without rest (Isaiah 57:2,20-21) or even light (Nahum 1:8). It is sometimes referred to as “the outer darkness” (Matthew 22:13) and of eternal chains in gloomy darkness (2 Peter 2:4). It is a place for those who do not abide in Christ (John 15:6). Further, it is described as a place of waiting until the final judgment will be brought. Any comfort you may have is gone; any pleasure that one might experience is removed. It is a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 8:12) and it is an abyss (Psalm 71:20).
Positive Retribution:
Why use the term “positive” here? It is positive because the retribution that is poured out by God is earned by the wicked. We may feel that sometimes punishment can be vindictive, but this punishment is just, fair, and moral. The language found here helps us to understand just how greatly our sin is an affront to God. It is described as a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 24:51) and that of a fiery furnace that will destroy (Matthew 13:42). It is also described as a place where people are tormented for all eternity (Matthew 18:34 — note that many Bibles use the term “jailer” here, but the Greek word βασανιστής is better translated as “torturer” or “inquisitor.”)
Destruction:
The key verses when dealing with this matter are Matthew 7:13 and 10:28. It should be understood, is that when this teaching is harmonized with the other Biblical teachings on Hell, annihilation is not in view. Instead, it is a picture of a slow and gradual destruction that will take place across eternity. Think of an eternal unmaking. As humans are made in the image of God, something perfected in glory, destruction implies a gradual decay and ruin of the Imago Dei through fire and worms. One of the terms that is used to describe Hell in the Greek New Testament is Gehenna, a Helenized reference to the Valley of the Sons of Hinom (Joshua 15:8; 2 Kings 23:10). It was a place where infants were sacrificed to Molech (also known as “The Burning Place — Isaiah 30:33) and was seen as the place where God would enter into final judgment (Isaiah 66:24), characterized by worms and fire, weeping and gnashing of teeth, and torture (Matthew 13:42,50; 18:8,34). By Jesus’ day the valley was used as a place where the offal from Jerusalem was dumped and burned. Some rabbinic references speak of the stench of Gehenna as something that could be smelled for miles. Ultimately, it became one of Jesus’ most common analogies for what God’s eternal judgment would be like.
Eternality
What one must note is that the uniform teaching surrounding Hell is that it is eternal. There is essentially an equal ultimacy in view. God offers eternal life to His elect and delivers eternal death to the reprobate. For Christians, the horrors of Hell are one of the reasons we share the Gospel so energetically.
Human language often lacks the ability to capture the fullness of eternal concepts. Yet, analogies are meant to get us as close to the principle being addressed as humanly possible. Thus, Hell should not be understood as a metaphor, but our finite minds and language will never capture the fullness of the Hell and fire reserved for the enemies of God. Knowing, as we do, that God is love often makes the doctrine of Hell difficult for people to reconcile, yet we need to remember that God is also just and holy, thus punishment must be exacted upon those who offend the God of glory. Indeed, God is merciful, but in His mercy, he renders punishment upon the wicked, which is a loving act toward those who are objects of His eternal redemption. Finally, the one who speaks of Hell and its reality the most frequently is our Lord Jesus Christ himself. If we are going to be faithful to the Biblical text, we must not water down the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment that is presented in the Bible and has been testified to by the church councils.
The good news for the Christian is that none shall bring any charges against God’s elect, for it is God who justifies, but it is also Christ who condemns, as He is the one raised to the right hand of God Almighty (Romans 8:33-34). The bad news for unbelievers is that unless they repent of their unbelief, they will die in their sins and face the wrath that they deserve (John 8:24).
So, what is the conclusion? Heaven and Hell are real, and we need to submit to the unified teaching on the matter as laid out in the Scriptures. We also need to learn from the Councils of the Church, for this matter was resolved long ago; there is no sense in trying to re-invent the wheel.
Divisions
In C.S. Lewis’ novel, The Great Divorce, he depicts a kind of metaphorical bus tour of Heaven , Hell, and a kind of in-between place, much as did Dante in his Divine Comedy. For Lewis, the aspect of Hell that he emphasizes the most is that of privation, or the separation from anything that is good. While Lewis did not reject the language of positive retribution or destruction that the Bible speaks of, it is the idea of the “outer darkness with weeping and gnashing of teeth” that depicted the awefulness of Hell to him.
As part of this tour, he described the people building houses with walls, but the walls only kept other people out and did nothing to protect the one within from the weather. Further, he depicted hell as a place utterly devoid of community. When someone would move nearby, those already there would quickly move away to avoid interaction with others. Lewis understood, as did Aristotle, that humans are social animals and separation from others is a most difficult thing to face — something that was a suitable part of God’s eternal and righteous judgment.
Yet, what strikes me as odd is that as a society, we are doing everything in our power to create that context here in this life, in this case, through the many labels that have been assigned to people, putting them into ever-smaller groups in both church and in society. We use terms like liberal and conservative, which have meanings, but don’t always define a person’s specific view. Most of us fall across a spectrum that falls between the far left and far right. In matters of religion, there are fundamentalists and liberals, orthodox and Neo-orthodox, evangelicals, confessionalists, Reformed or Arminian, pentecostal or cessationist, post-mil, a-mil, pre-mil, pan-mil and a wide range of in-betweens. I sometimes describe myself as a Confessionally Reformed, a-mil with post-mil sympathies, supralapsarian, paedo-baptist, creedo-communion, presuppositional in the Clarkian school of thought, sola psalmis, Christian with certain theonomic sympathies. And, I imagine that some of you, dear readers, either don’t know what all of these distinctions mean and others may be outraged by some of them.
My point is this: labels can be useful when understanding a person’s thoughts and motivations, but they are destructive when they just create walls between people that prevent constructive conversation. Socially, we see the same thing happening. People have created numerous “gender expressions,” which tend to put people into boxes that separate them from genuine community with anyone who does not hold their exact set of preferences. Largely, this generation has grown up being told they can be anything they want to be. Even in the church, this has been taking place as people often misquote Philippians 4:13. Paul saying that he can “do all things through him who strengthens me” does not mean that Paul could flap his arms and fly. It does not mean that he could breathe underwater. Similarly, people with lousy eyesight are not going to become Air Force fighter pilots even if that is what they most “want to be.”
Humans thrive in community and one of the reasons that the American Experiment has been so wildly successful (at least culturally and technologically) is because people of varying backgrounds have been able to come together to share ideas, cultural traditions, and to meet shared goals while also sharing a commitment to Truth (both in natural law and in spiritual law). Yet, today, as labels arise, as “personal truths” supplant the idea of absolute truth, we create chasms between ourselves, our ideas, and our cultural distinctives that do not belong if we are going to live in a united society.
Church Discipline
“Of whom are Hymenaios and Alexander, whom I handed over to Satan in order that they may be taught how not to blaspheme.” (1 Timothy 1:21)
Paul gives us two examples of people who have not been faithful as “good soldiers” of Jesus Christ. Hymenaeus, we see again in 2 Timothy 2:17, along with Philetus, as one who is irreverent in his speech and was leading people into ungodliness. If we presume that this Alexander is the same person as “Alexander the Coppersmith” found again in 2 Timothy 4:14, it can be inferred that these men did not learn their lesson.
What lesson, perhaps, is that? It is the lesson that calls upon all who name the name of Christ to live out lives in accordance with the way God has called us to live. Jesus said that we are to make disciples of the nations and part of that disciple-making process is to teach said disciples to obey all that Christ has commanded (Matthew 18:20). In turn, when sin is embraced rather than put to death, there is a place in the life of Christ’s church for the practice of discipline for the chastisement of sin (see Matthew 18:15-20). Here, Paul is referring to an instance where he has disciplined those in the community where Timothy is laboring (Ephesus).
The question that many raise is, why does Paul name-drop here? Arguably, it is not simply to make a point, but to prepare Timothy for those who might work against him. Those who had been disciplined by the Apostle Paul may very well become enemies of Paul’s emissary. Yet, that brings up a question of propriety. Many would suggest that for a preacher today to name-drop would be in poor taste. Nevertheless, Paul stated that we should imitate him as he imitated Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1). It should also be said that if a church disciplines a member of the church, especially to the point of removing that member from the rolls, then the rest of the body should know who that happens to be and why indeed they should be avoiding them (2 Thessalonians 3:6). Further, should not a shepherd warn his sheep of known threats from false teachers? While it may not seem to be “in good taste,” it is the example set for us in God’s word…something which we should be keen to follow.
The goal, though, of all discipline, is to teach the body how not to blaspheme, whether that blasphemy is to be uttered with one’s lips or communicated by one’s actions.
I Don’t Care
(What you want, what you really, really want…)
In the mid-nineties, the Spice Girls had a hit song called “Wannabe,” which contained the refrain, “I’ll tell you what I want, what I really, really want. So tell me what you want, what you really, really want…” The tune was catchy and spoke of the nature of friendship and relationships, but it also provided an apt commentary on our Western culture. Burger King’s tagline is “The way you want it.” Chik-fil-A stresses, “It’s our pleasure to serve you.” Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart, used to say, “There is only one boss, the customer.” Slogans that tout the importance of customer satisfaction abound in our culture today. It’s how businesses succeed in building a loyal customer base. Further, as someone who has been in small business himself, a satisfied customer is what you ultimately want, and the businessman should strive to give his or her customer what they “really, really want.”
Yet, churches are not businesses. Nevertheless, church leaders fall into the trap of thinking of themselves as businesses. Surely, when attendance goes up, revenue tends to go up. When attendance drops, revenue drops. Yet, while the purpose of a business is to generate revenue, the purpose of the church is to build Christ’s kingdom. And these, my friends, are two very different goals. Nevertheless, churches often circulate surveys and other questionnaires asking the people in the pews what they want in a pastor, what they want from the pastor, what they want as part of the worship service, and what kind of programs the people want…what they really, really want.
The problem is that the church is a Kingdom, or at least, the local church is meant to be a microcosm of the Kingdom of Heaven. And, Kingdoms have Kings. In the case of the church, these Kings are not mere figureheads like the King of England, but it has a real King with real rules and commands, and the King expects His citizens to obey said rules. In fact, the King has established offices in His Church to ensure that His laws are taught to His citizens, that they are trained and equipped to carry them out, and to discipline said citizens when the citizens refuse to submit to His authority.
Who is this King over the church? It is Jesus Christ the Lord. Who are His ministers? They are Elders, Deacons, and Pastor-Teachers. Deacons are charged with ensuring that the poor, the widows, and orphans are cared for and treated with equity. Elders are charged as overseers over the body, and Pastor-Teachers are given the awesome responsibility to teach and equip the citizens of Christ’s Kingdom for ministry, so that the people are also able to live their lives as disciples, obeying all that the King has commanded.
And so, within the Kingdom of Christ, what is important is not what the people want, what is important is what the people need to train them to be good and productive citizens of the church. Of what value, then, are polls and questionnaires? What is important is not citizen satisfaction, but the satisfaction of the King. In fact, the citizens will discover, if they submit to the will of the King, that they will find far more satisfaction in the things that satisfy the King than in the things that they think will satisfy themselves.
And so, what you (or I) might want (or think we might want) is irrelevant in the life of the church. The only thing that is relevant is what Christ wants. And so, as a Pastor-Teacher in the church, I really don’t care what you want, what you really, really want; I care what Jesus wants, what He really, really wants.
Faith and a Good Moral Conscience
“having faith and a good moral conscience. Those who cast this aside have shipwrecked their faith.”
(1 Timothy 1:19)
What are the qualities of a good soldier of Jesus Christ? While we might list many attributes that Christians are to strive to have, Paul focuses on two here in this verse and combines them with a warning. What are those two attributes? The first is faith and the second is to have a “good conscience.”
Faith ought to be obvious. One cannot please God apart from faith (Hebrews 11:6) and likewise, all that is done without faith is sin (Romans 14:23). Further, this faith is not something we generate within ourselves, but we must be born again from above (John 3:3), it is the means that guides the way the believer lives and walks (Hebrews 11:1; 2 Corinthians 5:7) and it is not only how we are saved on this side of the Cross of Jesus, but it is the way the saints of old also walked (Romans 4:12; Hebrews 11:2). If you would be a good soldier of Christ, saving faith is the starting point and it is God’s doing.
Yet, there is an aspect of this “good soldiering” that also speaks to our participation. We are called to have a “good conscience.” Paul uses the word συνείδησις (suneidesis) in this context, which primarily speaks of the question of morality, or that of a moral conscience (hence the translation above). In other words, Paul is speaking about a person who chooses right over wrong, life over death, and God’s way over the ways of man (Deuteronomy 30:15-20; Romans 12:1-2). The one who knows what is right and yet refuses to do it is not a good soldier; indeed, he is one from whom we must separate ourselves (2 Thessalonians 3:6). And those ignorant of the ways of God must be taught (Matthew 28:20).
The challenge (to preserve the analogy) is that many in the church are not good soldiers and many churches are not interested in training good soldiers. People are often lax when it comes to growing in their faith and obedience to Christ’s commands and are often content with the idea that they are destined for heaven while they go about living worldly lives. If you have ever served in the military, you understand that obedience to the commands of your leaders is not an option and contentment in mediocrity is never an acceptable option. It isn’t in the church either. At least, it isn’t in Christ’s true church.
While it is certainly true that a true conversion (which is God’s work in us) does often supernaturally produce a change in the moral conscience. Indeed, it must! One is being transformed from death to life! Nevertheless, the true believer also seeks to mature his or her moral conscience every day of their life. We seek to discern what is the good and acceptable will of God and as we mature in the faith God has given to us, we grow more like Christ and less like the world. We grow to hate the things that God hates and to love the things that God loves in every aspect of our lives. In other words, we participate in maturing our “good moral conscience” so we may become a better soldier.
What happens if we do not? Therein lies the warning (and even examples in the following verse!). When you do not seek to be that good soldier, you make a shipwreck out of your faith. Does that mean you will lose your faith? No, God loses none of His own. But it does mean that your spiritual life will be tossed and battered by every wave and storm of human invention. And folks, if you have ever been aboard a ship that has been in danger of shipwreck, you understand that it is not a voyage that you would enjoy. A life such as that is filled with misery and guilt rather than with the satisfaction that comes with the fact that God is using you to build Christ’s Kingdom.
So be that good soldier and build on the faith that God has instilled in you (Jude 20).
Wage War as a Good Soldier
“This commandment I put before you, my child, Timothy, in accordance with the prophesies about you that preceded this, in order that you might wage war as a good soldier through them.”
(1 Timothy 1:18)
Paul now focuses on a direct instruction given to Timothy, yet it is one that is instructive for all of us. Timothy is to wage war as a good soldier. Wage war in what way? Wage war against whom? Paul will flesh this out as he continues through this epistle. Yet, what is clear is that the prophesies made about (or over) Timothy when he was a child were given for one purpose: that Timothy might rise up as a soldier in Christ’s church, fighting the Good fight (as Paul would once again instruct Timothy in chapter 6, verse 12, and as Paul would strive himself to do, 2 Timothy 4:7).
How is this instructive for us? As Christians, we live here in this world in a time of war. Indeed, we are not waging war against the flesh (2 Corinthians 10:3); we fight against the rulers, authorities, and powers over this present darkness and the spiritual forces in heavenly places (Ephesians 6:12). Indeed, there will be times of peace in the new creation, but not here in this world. And, just as Timothy was commissioned for this task by the prophecy and the laying on of hands (2 Timothy 1:6), we too are called to approach the Christian life as ones who are engaged in warfare. And we are to be “good” soldiers. We are an expeditionary force of heaven, yet, a quick survey of the landscape around us will indicate that we (as the True Church) have largely been losing ground.
Losing ground? Society in the West is in decline. The church, which is called to be the “pillar and buttress of the Truth” (1 Timothy 3:15) is commonly filled with corruption, social syncretism, and narcissistic strife. What is worse, like the church in Laodicea, the church in the west has largely become lukewarm and comfortable in its own filth. Loved ones, this is not how soldiers take to the battlefield. This is not how soldiers honor their captain (2 Timothy 2:3-4). This is not how members of a kingdom honor their King. Beloved, sometimes, as a church, we wonder why the culture will not listen to us. Yet, before the culture will listen, we must repent. We must worship and conduct our lives as the great Captain of our Faith calls us to live. Then, and only then, will God hear from heaven, forgive our sins, and heal our land (2 Chronicles 7:14).
Wake the Sleeping Giant
“And, coming from the town square, unless they have baptized [themselves], they do not eat and there are many other things that have come down to them that they hold dearly, such as baptizing cups and pitchers and copper kettles and dining couches.” (Mark 7:4)
In our home, there reside four adults. In addition to my wife and me, we have two adult children, and it should be said that all four of us have somewhat different work schedules. My wife’s alarm clock is typically the first to go off on any given day, and then the others follow, sometimes creating a cacophony of various beeps and tunes between our bedrooms. My wife is a light sleeper, and so she chooses a quiet melody as her alarm sound, one that wakes her up without disturbing my slumber. I tend to be a heavy sleeper, so I choose the most obnoxious-sounding alarm tones available to ensure that I will roll out of bed on time to go to work.
It has been said that the church, during times of relative peace, is like a sleeping giant. During persecution, that giant awakens and rises to a level where it changes the world. Yet, during seasons such as what we experience in the Western World, where persecution is fairly negligible, the Giant slumbers. It is as if it is genuine persecution, where people are losing their lives and churches are being shut down, that provides the obnoxious-sounding alarm that causes the Giant to wake.
I’d suggest that three things happen when the Church slumbers. First, every man does what is right in his own eyes, creating traditions that are both unbiblical and idolatrous. Second, we find ourselves fighting and bickering over the validity of our traditions rather than boldly proclaiming that people must repent and believe. And third, the society around us looks to other sources for finding meaning in life. Will any of you argue that society isn’t filled by all three of these sorts of things?
Some of you might be tempted to protest by saying, “Wait, but our local church meets all three of the marks of the True Church. Perhaps you do and praise God for that, but are you really fulfilling what the church is called to be doing? For those unfamiliar with the “Three Marks,” Chapter 29 of the Belgic confession lays these out as 1) the pure doctrine of the Gospel is preached therein, 2) the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ, and 3) that church discipline is exercised for the chastizing of sin (it should be noted that the Second Helvetic Confession, chapter 17 contains a much fuller description of the true church).
The problem is that many of the churches stop with a bullet-pointed list when the Belgic Confession itself goes on to summarize the nature of the true church in that same chapter, as one in which Christ is the only head of the church. A head is a ruler. A head is a lawgiver. A head is the one that you obey and follow. As Jesus stated: “My sheep hear my voice, I know them, and they follow me” (John 10:27). There are also no qualifiers. The sheep are not to follow Christ their head some of the time. They are not to follow Christ their head when it is appealing to their taste or pleasing to their senses. And, they are not to follow Christ their head only when the path is easy. The sheep are to follow Christ their head at all times. The sheep are to follow Christ their head even when the road is hard, uncomfortable, and distasteful.
In turn, the true church is to do likewise. They are not to do what is right in their own eyes. They are not to follow and defend the traditions of men. And, when they discover that they are following human traditions, they are to repent no matter what the ramifications of doing so may be. Many denominations claim that they have Christ as their only head, but if you challenge them in an area — their approach to worship, their approach to leadership, their practice of discipline, their practice of koinonia — where said things reflect the traditions of men, then you will find yourself labeled as a “troubler of Israel” (1 Kings 18:17).
You see, the problem is that the traditions of men lull the church to sleep. To borrow from an old pop-song, they have become “comfortably numb.” The church today seems to be more interested in its own agendas, its own entertainment, and its own preferences…not that of the Head they claim to follow. They remain stuck in the morass of uninspired, man-centered, entertainment-driven, therapy rather than true worship. It needs a wake-up call. It needs to be told that man-made traditions, even while benign, are never okay. It needs an obnoxious-sounding alarm clock to wake it up. It needs to discover worship in Spirit and Truth, genuine koinonia, and a declaration of the Gospel that is proclaimed and then lived out, despite what the consequences may be. It needs a wake-up call. And, when the sleeping Giant truly awakes from his slumber, he will transform the world with that declaration.
The Unexamined Church
In Plato’s apology, he presents Socrates as stating: “The unexamined life is not lived by man.” More commonly, it is phrased as “the unexamined life is not worth living” or “the unexamined life is not worthy of a man.” In the end, he conveys that a life lived without introspection, self-examination, and a critical examination of the heart is a life that will amount to very little once all is said and done. One of the things that separates man from the natural order is that we have the ability to think and reason, but if we are not to apply that reason to ourselves and our lives, what good will that reason be to us?
Certainly, this notion ought to resonate with the Christian as he goes through life. We are called to examine ourselves and the way we conduct our lives to determine whether or not we are walking in the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5). We are called to examine ourselves before we come to the Lord’s Table for Communion (1 Corinthians 11:28). The very title that is given to Elders in the church is that of “Overseer,” implying that one of the roles that these men play is that they are to examine the church as a whole to determine where it is walking in truth or where it may have lost its first love and is walking in error (1 John 1:6; Revelation 2:5).
And, it is that latter notion that we often miss as Christians. We do understand the importance of self-examination (though often we are not as honest with ourselves as we ought to be because we have grown accustomed to justifying sin), but we also feel uncomfortable when others in the church examine us. To that, we often cry out the world’s mantra, “Don’t judge me!” Yet, we need that judgment. How can church discipline be practiced (Matthew 18:15-20) if judgment is not exercised in the examination of the body? How will the Elders root out the wolves from the midst of the sheep if examination is not practiced (Matthew 7:15) and distinguish the antichrists who are seeking to lead people away from the body (1 John 2:18-19).
In turn, we should note that it is not just the Elders who should be examining the body, but the individual Christians should likewise be examining the body as a whole to discern whether they are in a true church or a false church. Is Christ the King of the church or is man its king? Is there true worship, faithful to the Scriptures, being practiced or do people practice what they most like or according to the traditions of men? Are the Scriptures taught faithfully, rightly dividing the Word of Truth, and is the Gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone proclaimed from the pulpit or are works somehow injected into the message of salvation? Are the sacraments practiced as Jesus presented them and is discipline used for the chastisement of sin?
It is my experience that churches are often happy to examine others but are want to examine themselves. They want to hold that their traditions are fine and that nothing needs to be changed and act like an ostrich, burying its head in the sand, ignoring any critical evaluation of their practices. Sometimes, they have practiced an unbiblical tradition so long that they are blind to it entirely. Yet, spiritual growth does not take place apart from examination. In fact, I would suggest that growth never takes place until a person, or a group of persons in a body, is willing to critically examine all of their practices in the light of the Word of God. And thus, just as the unexamined life is not worth living, the unexamined church is not worth attending.
Disinterest or Just Disinterested?
I have learned over the years that often people in churches are disinterested in learning what the Bible teaches beyond a certain point. Often, that certain point has a great deal to do with a person’s comfort zone (particularly in the realm of Christian living) and often that certain point has to do with what a person finds to be overall “interesting.” Talk to people about David and Goliath, Joel, Jonah, or Lot’s daughters and people’s attention is grabbed, but challenge people on their sexual ethics or approach to worship and they turn you off. In this case, much like some people’s hearing, interest can be selective.
Interestingly, the word “disinterest” has two different uses. Commonly, we use it as a synonym for the word “uninterested.” If we don’t give a flying leap about a matter, we are not interested. We might say we are uninterested, but very often we simply say that we are disinterested in that particular topic.
Yet, in a more technical sense, while being “uninterested” in a topic means that you don’t find it interesting, being “disinterested” in a topic means that you are unbiased toward a given outcome. In other words, being a “disinterested judge” in a matter is actually a good thing and something toward which we should strive. It means that you are willing to listen to the argument at hand and if the facts of the argument demonstrate an error in your view, you will alter your view accordingly.
What might it be like, were we able to conduct theological debates in disinterested ways? Often, when I have had theological debates with a person, I have laid out all of the Biblical reasoning behind a view and the response of the person would be to say, “Yes, but I prefer to do such and such (whatever that might be).” That response is an “interested” response because a person has gone into the matter with their own preconceptions that they are not willing to change. A disinterested response would be: “Wow, you are right about what the Bible teaches; I guess that my views on the matter do need to change.”
It does not matter as to the topic that is at hand. We may be talking about Creation, the use of Psalmody in worship, the doctrine of Election, Abortion, or the nature of the human will, whether we are comfortable with a notion is irrelevant. The question that must be asked is, “Is this True and Right?” If it is true or right, it does not matter what our preferences may be nor does it matter what we might find comfortable. What matters is if we are aligning our understanding with God’s understanding as He reveals it in the Scriptures. Then, what matters is if we are aligning our practice with God’s revealed Truth. In the words of one contemporary philosopher, “nothing else matters.”
Historically, being disinterest was a mark of good philosophical thought, but it was also a hallmark of the pre-Reformation and the Reformation itself. Here were men like Waldo, Wycliffe, Huss, Zwingli, and Calvin who were disinterested in what Rome was teaching that God used their disinterest to drive them back to the Bible and the early church. Yet, somewhere in the western world we have become comfortable in our preconceptions and are often unwilling to have them challenged.
In the Reformed world, this is essentially the notion of Ecclesia Reformata, Semper Reformanda (sometimes abbreviated simply as Semper Reformanda). If the church is reformed yet always reforming (what the phrase means), then on what basis is the church always reforming? Certainly it must not always be reforming to match the culture or the preferences of those in the church. No, the church is always reforming on the basis of a disinterested approach to theology as found in the Bible and as has always been understood by the True Christian church. Yet, the only way to get to that point of disinterest is to become interested in honoring God, loving what He loves, and obeying what He commands. That will have great consequences in the church. You may even discover that some groups that claim to be churches aren’t really churches at all — at least as defined by the Bible and the “faith that was once and for all time handed down to the saints.” No, there will be upheaval in the church if people truly approached theology and practice with a disinterested demeanor. But, it would also mean reformation in the church and perhaps our God will honor that disinterested reformation with revival.
Eternal King
“So, to the Eternal King, imperishable, invisible, God alone, honor and glory forever unto the ages, Amen!”
(1 Timothy 1:17)
Doxologies like this are not only common in Paul’s writings, but in the Bible as a whole. How can we even begin to put into words the glorious character of our God? Statements like this make a great start. And we must be very clear that we understand that declarations like this are not a matter of mere fancy or flights of spirituality, but they are clear statements as to the character of the God we serve, and as such, they should instill within us a holy fear for who He is.
One of the trends of the last generation has been to try and emphasize the personal and the relational nature of our God. Indeed, He is personal and he does condescend to us. Yet, the Bible also presents Him as being gloriously transcendent and our theology needs to capture both. Today, talk about the “Fear of the Lord” is frowned on in many circles, yet if we are going to take this passage seriously, these words should engender just that fear in our lives, for they speak of God’s profound transcendence over all He has made.
He is Eternal King. In other words, he is the ultimate ruler over all that exists. He has always been its ruler and always will be its ruler. He is God. Kings also protect what is theirs and they enforce the Law. Since God is also Lawgiver, now we see the language of Him being Law Enforcer, which reminds us that he is the final judge over all things. We may be tempted to think that if we write human laws in such a way that they excuse our sins that we are okay when it comes to judgment. Nevertheless, human laws do not supersede divine ones. He sets the standard. We often abuse it, twist it, warp it, and malign it for our own ends. And we will be judged accordingly for having done so.
God is imperishable. In some senses, this goes along with God being eternal, but it is a reminder that were we to stand up against God, we will never prevail. God is invisible, for He is spirit. And, God is alone. He is not one God amongst many nor is he even the superlative example of a class of beings. No, God exists alone. He is in a class that is entirely His own and there is none to rival Him; all others are pretenders at best.
And thus, all honor, glory, and praise belongs to our God forever. And the only right statement to add to these words is, “Amen!” It is our testimony that these words are both true and that they are engrained in the very innermost part of our being. Indeed, He is the one to be praised! Amen and Amen!
Good Confidence
In the original German edition of the catechism, the phrase here speaks of having guter zuversicht, it speaks of a good “confidence,” a good “trust,” or a good “faith” in our faithful God and Father. But what does it mean to have a “good confidence” or a “guter zuversicht” in God?
Confidence refers to the level of one’s trust in another. Perhaps one of the classic illustrations of this trust is found in a child jumping off the edge of a swimming pool into the waiting arms of his father — perhaps fearing the unknown of the water but trusting in the strength of his father’s arms and with the assurance that his father will keep him safe. When the prophet instructs us what God demands of us as believers, one of those things is that we “walk humbly with our God” (Micah 6:8). That humble walk implies that we are walking having placed our confidence in God.
Interestingly, confidence in the western culture is sometimes viewed as being presumptuous and egotistical. Yet, this kind of overconfident attitude only comes when one is placing confidence in oneself. When one places his or her confidence in God by faith there is no room for bragging or pride. Instead, we are quietly relying on the strength of our God to deliver us from the threat of the situation.
The core of what the catechism is instructing us in question 28 can be found here. It is because God has ordered all things by his divine providence and because I belong to Him in Christ, I have no need to fear what is to come. I have good confidence in the plans and designs of Him who orders and ordains all things by his providence and I will not question his purpose. This, friends, is what it means to have a gut zuversicht.
Even so, sometimes the eighteen inches between the head and the heart can be a difficult bridge to cross. We understand an idea intellectually, but bring our hearts to a point where we live like it can often be a great challenge. We like to worry and fret over things, yet the scriptures and the catechism seem to make it utterly clear that we have a God who hears our prayers, who cares for us in our times of need, and who acts in this fallen world, ordaining all things that come to pass (Ephesians 1:11). So, in what shall we fear? We shall fear none but God alone and serve and love Him as our God and Father with good confidence because is our Father and will use all things to conform us into the image of his Son, Jesus.
From Negev to Gerar: Genesis 20:1
“And Abraham journeyed from there toward the land of the Negeb and he dwelled between Qadesh and Shur; and he sojourned in Gerar.”
(Genesis 20:1)
After the fall of Sodom and the surrounding cities, Abraham returns back to the west and the land of his sojourning. The Negeb (sometimes written as “Negev”) is the region to the southern side of what would become Israel. Qadesh and Shur are both on the western coast with Gerar just a little inland (not too far from Beersheba). All of these regions are part of the broader Canaanite territory and they are part of the territory that God had promised to Abraham. This is Philistine territory as well, yet again, all of this region is part of the inheritance of Abraham. In addition to this area being part of what would become national Israel, some of the area is also the territory through which Israel would travel on their wilderness wanderings. Again, God preserving his people in a place where they are surrounded by pagans.
While we may not wander leading a caravan of livestock, in a similar way, we are also wanderers in a land not our own. The culture around us typically claims to believe in God, but by the way most folks live, little of that testimony has merit. Crime, pornography, false teachings being presented as Christianity, and oppression fill our land, yet God provides for us as we walk in the midst of unbelief. In light of this, though, we are given a message to share with those we meet—one of hope, one of life, one of salvation. Because God provides for us and protects us, we have nothing to fear and nothing to hinder us from a bold testimony of faith. How often we fall short.
An interesting side note can be found in the names of the territory that Abraham is traveling between. Qadesh is derived from the Hebrew word for “holiness”—something that has been set apart for divine use. Shur is derived from the word that describes a wall around a well— something that protects the well from being destroyed. Gerar is derived from the word meaning, “to sweep away.” Indeed, these are things that are promised to Abraham’s children though the pagan nations regularly have set their hands to make poor imitations of what can really only be found in God. We are called and set apart as holy and God indeed sets a wall around us to protect us. To that end he sent his Son to suffer and die on the cross so that our sins might be washed or swept away in his grace. How significant even the names of these ancient cities are; how sad it must have been for Abraham to see the bastardizations of truth all around him. How we also ought to lament at how often truth is warped and distorted in our culture as we sojourn in a land that is not our own.
The Great Nation of Ishmael
“And unto Ishmael, I have heard you, so behold, I will bless him and will cause him to bear fruit and I will make him exceedingly great. He will bear twelve princes and I will give to him a great nation.”
(Genesis 17:20)
Because of God’s promise to Abraham, God blesses Abraham’s firstborn and allows him to build a nation. Like Jacob, from Ishmael we are told that 12 princes would come (see Genesis 25:13-16 for the list of Ishmael’s twelve sons). These sons would grow in stature and influence and founded many of the nations that surrounded ancient Israel and which are even today seeking to destroy the rest of those who descend from Abraham. These, of course, are ultimately the current Islamic nations.
So why did God permit the rise of Islam? Couldn’t God have just cut off the line of Hagar as he did with Keturah (Abraham’s wife after the death of Sarah)? Indeed, God could remove all of the obstacles between us and glory, yet God uses those obstacles to refine us and to mature us in our faith. Islam is also designed to be a reminder to us of the grace and mercy of God. Their religion is law, law, law and it is as contradictory to the Christian faith as light is to darkness. If man’s natural bent since the fall were not legalism, Islam would have no appeal.
As we look at the political landscape of the world around us, one may be quick to wonder if life indeed would be easier if the Muslims were not a threat. Not only has there been centuries of warfare between Christians and Muslims but that warfare has been coupled with terrorist activities. In additions, Muslims are immigrating all over Europe and America and some are suggesting that one day these once Christian nations will be under Sharia Law.
So, indeed, what is the solution to this great dilemma that Christians are facing today? The answer is the same, beloved, as it has always been: be bold in your witness of the Gospel. Part of the reason that Islam, Humanism, eastern Mysticism, and other false religions are making such headway into the thinking of lands who have once been dominated by Christianity is that Christianity no longer dominates in the public square. We have sadly turned inward and have decided to focus more on building buildings, running programs, and having a following than in making disciples of all nations. Can you imagine what America would be like if we were so bold with our testimony of the Gospel that everyone who came would end up converting to Christianity? If that were the case, we would be excited about more Muslims immigrating from the Middle East because that would mean that they would soon be becoming Christian. Even many pastors have become defeatists, acting as if they are serving the church in Sardis, strengthening what is about to die, rather than engaging and breaking down the gates of Hell. God has given us the armor and weapons of warfare to do so; will we not use them?
Beloved, we have been called by our great captain to engage the enemy, let us do so with vigor and with boldness and proclaim that we will not lay down our arms before the foe because the war has already been won by Jesus Christ upon the cross. Let Christianity once again be on the march because it is through Isaac and through Christ that the promise is given, not through the other children of Abraham.
Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
Forward into battle see His banners go!
At the sign of triumph Satan’s host doth flee;
On then, Christian soldiers, on to victory!
Hell’s foundations quiver at the shout of praise;
Brothers lift your voices, loud your anthems raise.
Crowns and thrones may perish, kingdoms rise and wane,
But the church of Jesus constant will remain.
Gates of hell can never gainst that church prevail;
We have Christ’s own promise, and that cannot fail.
Onward then, ye people, join our happy throng,
Blend with ours your voices in the triumph song.
Glory, laud and honor unto Christ the King,
This through countless ages men and angels sing.
–Sabine Baring-Gould
Does Your Location Affect Your Religion?
Recently, I heard a challenge to Christianity that was worded like this: “The only reason you identify yourself as Christian is because you were born in America; if you had been born in Iraq, you would be Muslim and if you had been born in northern India, you would be Hindu—religion is nothing more than a cultural expression of morality.” The person making the challenge was Richard Dawkins, a popular atheist in our culture today. Though I had not heard that objection worded in the same basic way, I have heard this objection of Christianity before, and thought that I would like to pose a response from two perspectives.
The first perspective is purely a practical one, for I know that there are many nominal Christian parents that are essentially banking on this principle, hoping that their children will remain Christian (at least in name), while never truly training their children up in the faith. They think that of course, America is a Christian nation, so of course, my children will remain Christians all of their life. This not only exposes a faulty understanding of Christianity (as I will mention below), but it is a dangerous assumption, for America is becoming more and more of a secular, atheistic nation, and not a Christian one. Thus, some are estimating that as many as 80% of teenagers leave the church when they hit their college years, often without returning. Don’t get me wrong, many of them still think of themselves as Christian, but their Christianity has no bearing on the way they live their lives and for all practical purposes, they are secular humanists in practice and thought.
Furthermore, many of these children will openly reject Christianity because they see how self-serving, jaded, lazy, and corrupt so many churches have become. Many embrace the atheism of their college professors, but others are embracing false religions like Islam because they are attracted to the self-discipline and rigid lifestyle that such religions offer. We should not need to be reminded that one of the reasons that the Byzantine empire fell so easily to the Muslim expansion was due to the corruption and self-seeking nature of the church—people saw its weaknesses and rejected it as diseased and dying. Such an observation has been made of much of the church in America. Thus, it is not enough that we are actively pursuing the Christian faith, it is essential for us to recognize that our children must be actively pursuing the Christian faith as well.
That is the purely practical perspective, now for the theological one… While many religions may very well be simply cultural expressions of morality, Christianity, by definition, is different. For in Christ, we are called “new creations” (2 Corinthians 5:17)—in other words, we are changed from the outside in. Christianity is not a mere self-help program, it is a total change of lifestyle that can only be accomplished if one is supernaturally changed by God—we refer to this as being “born again” (John 3:3). This change is impossible to do for oneself, but God must effectively draw us to Christ as well (John 6:44). God draws us from the world, God gives us new life, and God makes us a new creation. This is more than mere morality, it is transformation. And, it is a transformation that takes place all over the world, even in countries where you can be put to death for claiming Christ as Lord and Savior.
The sad thing is that too many Christians simply treat Christianity as a self-help program, and when that happens, they do not live like new creations and Christianity becomes nothing more than a social norm—a norm that is quickly being redefined in America.
C.S. Lewis: Christianity and Literature (outline)
Christianity and Literature: Outline
The Big Idea: What distinguishes Christian Literature? Answer: it clearly points to Christ
Introduction:
- Asked to discuss “Christian Literature” though unsure of value of this discussion
- Understands that Literature is a means for sharing the Gospel
- Rules for good writing are same for Christian and non-Christian
- Thus, does not see a value in a genre of “Christian” literature, just good literature or bad literature, both kinds reflecting the author’s perspective
- Is one a “Christian writer” or a “writer that happens to be Christian?”
One: What makes literature “Christian?
- Sacred in theme/starting point for devotion
- Value is subjective (rag may be sacred for some)
- Written by Christians for Christians, not for literary merit per say
- Christian approach to literature
- Creative vs. derivative
- Spontaneity vs. Convention
- Freedom vs. Rules
- Great authors are innovators, “breaking fetters,” not followers
- Jesus as Poet or Philosopher
- Jesus’ limitations
- Poetic in some senses
- More like Socrates than Shakespeare in analogy
- Man as head of woman, God the Father as head of the Son, Jesus as head of Church
- The subordinate is to reflect the head
- Just as son watches Father, so Jesus observed the Father to better communicate his being
- New Testament Literary Expression
- Originality is the prerogative of God
- Creativity discouraged and being conformed into the image of Christ
- “being as little as possible ourselves, in acquiring a fragrance that is not our own but borrowed, in becoming clean mirrors filled with the image of a face that is not ours
- Lewis’ rejection of Total depravity
- Derivative & reflective is good
- “pride does not only go before a fall—a fall of the creature’s attention from what is better, God, to what is worse, itself.
- Applied to Literature
- Purpose is not to create, but to reflect Christ
- Embody or reveal what is true of eternal beauty and wisdom
- Originality is not true originality as it comes from God
- Non-Christian writes for vain purposes, Christian for Christ
- Christian does not ask, “Is it mine?” but will ask “Is it good?”
- Conclusion
- “The Christian knows from the outset that the salvation of a single soul is more important than the production or preservation of all the epics and tragedies in the world”
- The strength of Christian literature comes not from the literature but from the God of Christian literature
Words to Define:
- Hagiological: of the Saints
- Proprement dite: French for “properly itself”
- Argumenta ad hominess: argument by opinions
- A fortiori: “From the Stronger”
- Catena: chain
- Redolere Christum: “to smell of Christ”
- mi/mhsiß is derived from mimhth/ß, meaning: imitator
- au moins je suis autre: French—“At least I am different”
- di se medesmo rise: Italian for, “I lauged at myself”
Gethsemane
Oh how sober a garden that must have been. Here Jesus has come just prior to his arrest at the hands of the children of the Serpent; he has been betrayed by one of his twelve; he will soon be denied by Peter, the leader of the twelve; and abandoned, at least for a while, by all of the rest (John and the women make their way to the cross). Jesus is intentional. They have come into this garden so that he can retreat from the world and pray, seeking strength and an internally unified approach to the passion that was to come. Peter, James, and John, he has taken to the side to pray on his behalf as he seeks the Lord’s face.
There are many things that we can learn from this passage; a few are worth noting:
1) For the Christian, when preparing to face great trial, prayer must be our primary retreat. Here, even Jesus, the very Lord of Creation is seeking his father’s face. Oh, how we make a mess of this principle. Prayer so often is our last resort, when for the Christian it must be our first. Look here, dear Christian, if the Lord of the heavens needs to pray for strength before trials, then how much more do we, the frail and sinful, need that same prayer.
2) Jesus shows us the value of intercessory prayer. Here Jesus has taken three of his trusted apostles to the side. Jesus continues on to pray for a spell and leaves the three of them to wait. What, dear Christian, do you think that they were meant to be doing while Jesus prayed? If they were meant to be chatting about the day’s events in Jerusalem or swapping jokes, then why was Jesus so upset when they chose to take a catnap? No, these three were meant to be praying for Jesus that he would have strength to lift his prayers and burdens before his father. Brethren, do you want to know who your faithful friends are? It is those brothers and sisters who agonize with you in prayer before the father’s throne.
3) Times and trial and tribulation can cause us to have great internal struggles of faith, but disunity of spirit and body will cause us to stumble. Our Lord had two natures, a human one and a divine one. His petitions before the Lord were partly out of a desire to approach the coming suffering with the assurance of a unified witness. His human nature would not fail him, but would be faithful to the divine will. It is times when we are filled with indecision that we fail in our appointed task. As terribly important as Jesus’ next days were, not merely to his mighty work, but to the very future of mankind, Jesus was aligning his human and divine natures together for this task.
Yet what strikes me about this passage is how sad a place the garden must have been that night. There was a time that the Garden would have been a place for celebration and joy amongst the olive trees, but that night was quite different. Oh, the weight, not only of the task ahead, but of disappointment in his faithful apostles for their lack of faith even after all they had seen.
It must have taken Jesus back to another garden, Eden, recalling the disappointment that must have been felt at the time of the fall of our first parents. That garden as well was turned from a place of joy into a place of sadness. How often we do this with the gardens of blessing in our own lives. We take the gifts of God for granted and we bring sin into those gifts. We bring sin into our homes, or jobs, and our families. And we bring sin into our churches. Psalm 128 paints a picture of the blessing of work, family, and Church fellowship that God gives to those who fear him; we bring sin into all of these areas.
That same psalm describes our children as olive shoots. I want to be careful about how the analogy it draws, so as not to spiritualize the connection of olive shoots and the mature garden of Gethsemane, but it is worth noting the garden imagery. As with any garden, olive shoots need care and they need a strong fence to support them as they mature. If they do not have that fence to support and mold them, the shoots will creep across the ground and quickly become diseased, rotten, and die.
The sadness of Gethsemane came as a result of our sin. Adam and Eve sinned and fell, and Jesus, in this next garden, is preparing for the task of making right that which we made so wrong. As he leaves his time of prayer, he does so with a renewed determination. Notice that Jesus does not hide from the people coming to arrest him; he does not seek out just a few more minutes of prayer. He lays his prayer before his father three times and then, with renewed determination sets forward and presents himself to the children of darkness. It is as if he is saying, “let’s do it…” and entering into the belly of the beast—offering his life before them. And this he does on that lonely cross.
Loved ones, this was a path we could not walk; yet, Christ walked it so that we might not have to. This is the promise of the Gospel—we who deserve death are offered life and he who is the Lord of Life went to his death on our behalf. What wonder that this should raise in our heart, what amazement it should birth in our souls, yet how often we go through this time of the year thinking only of our own desires and wants. For you who are already trusting in Christ, let this Passion Week renew your adoration of and commitment to the Lord of your life; for those who are suffering in your own futile struggle against sin and guilt, know that Christ offers life—come to him and live!
The Preacher's Study 