Having Two Legs

Sunday, August 10, 2008

Turn the Other Cheek

On Christ's words in the Sermon on the Mount, Lewis suggests three possible interpretations. The first is the absolute literal hermeneutic of the pacifist, the second is the hyperbolic interpretation which assumes that Jesus was not being literal but overstating his point for effect (much like the exhortation to cut off limbs and pluck out eyes that cause one to sin). Not satisfied with either of the first two, Lewis suggests a third option which he explains:

"I think the duty of non-resistance is here stated as regards injuries simpliciter, but without prejudice to anything we may have to allow later about injuries secundum quid. That is, in so far as the only relevant factors in the case are an injury to me by my neighbor and a desire on my part to retaliate, then I hold that Christianity commands the absolute mortification of that desire. No quarter whatever is given to the voice within us which says, 'He's done it to me, so I'll do the same to him.' But the moment you introduce other factors, of course, the problem is altered. Does anyone supposed that Our Lord's hearers understood Him to mean that if a homicidal maniac, attempting to murder a third party, tried to knock me out of his way, I must stand aside and let him get his victim? ... I think it equally impossible that they supposed Him to mean that the best way of bringing up a child was to let it hit its parents whenever it was in a temper, or, when it grabbed at the jam, to give it the honey also... it seems unlikely that they [Christ's audience] would have ever supposed Our Lord to be referring to war. War was not what they would have been thinking of. The frictions of daily life among villagers were more likely to be in their minds."

(Timeless at Heart, 62-63)

More Lewis on War

Lewis says that a significant part of the question of war has to do with the question of authority. He asks how one could arrive at the conclusion that "I must disobey if I am called on by lawful authority to be a soldier." He summarizes the various forms of authority as "special or general" and "either human or divine."

Special human authority is the "society to which I belong," says Lewis. Here, Lewis cites his English heritage of Arther, Alfred, Burke, Shakespeare, and everything in between. General human authority would include the the broader scope of human history including the likes of Homer, Virgil, Plato, Cicero, and the Bhagavad-Gita. Thus far human authority.

Lewis cites Hooker who said that there were basically two reasons for disregarding human authority. The first was the blind optimist who as a matter of course simply believes that the latest is the wisest. Time is progressive de facto, and so there is nothing improbable for this fellow that the "whole world was wrong until the day before yesterday and now has suddenly become right." But the second avenue of discounting authority is found in a Christian accounting of history which recognizes the reality of sin and the fall, such that the human race can and does err and therefore unanimity amongst the human race does not guarantee veracity.

Thus Lewis turns to "Divine Authority."

(Timeless at Heart, 58-60)

Lewis on War

In the essay Why I'm not a Pacifist, C.S. Lewis writes: "Nor am I greatly moved by the fact that many of the individuals we strike down in war are innocent. That seems, in a way, to make war not worse but better. All men die, and most men miserably. That two soldiers on opposite sides, each believing his own country to be in the right, each at the moment when his selfishness is most in abeyance and his will to sacrifice in the ascendant, should kill each other in plain battle seems to me by no means one of the most terrible things in this very terrible world. Of course one of them (at least) must be mistaken. And of course war is a very great evil. But that is not the question. The question is whether war is the greatest evil in the world, so that any state of affairs which might result from submission is certainly preferable. And I do not see any real cogent arguments for that view." (Timeless at Heart, 57)

Friday, August 08, 2008

A Continual Sacrifice

Hughes Oliphant Old points out that the worship of the Temple was daily worship. Every morning and evening there were sacrifices in the temple and "these daily temple sacrifices were called the tamid, the continual sacrifice." One of the places Old is referring to is Exodus 29 where Yahweh commands Moses regarding the sacrifices that are to be offered at the Tabernacle. The priests are to offer two lambs, "day by day continually" (Ex. 29:38). One lamb was to be offered in the morning and the other was to be offered in the evening, and He explains that this morning and evening sacrifice is to be "a continual ascension offering throughout your generations at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the face of Yahweh" (Ex. 29:42). This morning and evening pattern is perpetuity; this rhythm is continual worship, day by day, following the pattern of creation, morning and evening, morning and evening.

Old also points out that the daily sacrifices "were accompanied by prayers and particularly the singing of psalms." Perhaps this originates in practice following the golden calf incident where Moses moves the tent of meeting outside the camp, and from that time on when the glory of God's presence descended upon the tent, the people would all worship from afar, falling down on their faces in the doorways of their tents (Ex. 33:7-11). But Old says that the "Christian discipline of daily prayer is ultimately derived from these continual sacrifices." Old cites Daniel who would maintain the Temple sacrifices even in exile, "There three times a day, at the regular hours of the Temple sacrifices, Daniel went to his room, opened his window toward Jerusalem, and said his prayers..." Related to this was the command in Deuteronomy to recite the Shema "when you lie down, and when you rise up...," every morning and every evening. Thus the faithful meditate on the law of God "day and night" (Ps. 1:2).

Old says that surely this is what the Apostle has in mind when he exhorts Christians to pray "continually" (Rom. 12:12), "without ceasing" (1 Thess. 5:17), offering "supplications and prayers night and day" (1 Tim. 5:5). And it's therefore no wonder that from the earliest centuries of the Church, Christians were known for these daily sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving and prayer. While Old recognizes the great work of monastics in preserving and glorifying the daily prayer services throughout the middle ages, he also notes that by the time of the Reformation it was necessary to restore prayers to the laity. Thus, in Geneva, Strassburg, and Augsburg, and apparently throughout the continent, morning and evening common prayers were restored to the people, often including sermons from the Reformers. In England and Scotland, the practice of daily prayers was emphasized in particular connection to the family which is probably related to the growing interest in covenant theology as well as the complex religious and political circumstances facing reformers at various points. Fathers were charged with the sacred duty of diligently instructing their families and leading them in the morning and evening prayers. Pastors would make regular visits to parish families to inquire about daily prayer habits and encourage fathers and mothers to grow in this practice. With the coming of Pietism, this practice degenerated into an individualistic "quiet time" which became the standard of Evangelical piety.

As we recover this pattern of continual prayer, it will surely take on slightly different forms in various places depending on many factors, but it is a gift of our heritage to be recovered nonetheless.

(References from Worship Reformed According to Scripture by Hughes Oliphant Old, 147-151).

Thursday, August 07, 2008

Protestantism: The Greatest Act of the Roman Catholic Church

Schaff argues that just as "the Jewish dispensation looked always towards the gospel... in like manner the discipline of the Roman Church involved an inward struggle, that became satisfied at last only in the evangelical emancipation of Protestantism." Thus, he says that the immmediate genesis of the Reformation was not in any number of political, scientific, or theological developments as much as it was bound up "in the very center of the religious life of the Catholic Church itself, as it stood at that time." He concludes: "The Reformation is the legitimate offspring, the greatest act of the Catholic Church; and account of true catholic nature itself, in its genuine conception: whereas the Church of Rome, instead of following the divine conduct of history has continued to stick in the old law of commandments, the garb of childhood, like the Jewish hierarchy in the time of Christ, and thus by its fixation as Romanism has parted with the character of catholicity in exchange for that of particularity." (The Principle of Protestantism, 48-50)

When Shepherds are Wolves

Documenting the deep roots of Reformation thought in the catholic tradition, Schaff quotes John von Gerson, the Chancellor of the University of Paris (d. 1489) who insisted that the apostle be heeded when he says 'Let every sould be subject to the higher powers...' But he insists that this is not an absolute requirement and when real authorities so abuse their responsibilities, duty to them ceases. He says, "I conclude then that obedience to superiors ceases to be a duty, where their works are openly bad and a source of scandal to the whole Church; where the shepherds are shearers; not sheep, but wolves; not sober, but drunken; not prelates, that give their lives for the sheep, but Pilates, that serve the lusts of others; casting forth their net, not to catch souls, but money." (from De reformatione ecclesiae in concilio universali, cited in The Principle of Protestantism, 46).

Pentecost as Reformation Day

Schaff begins his argument for the catholicity of the Reformation by pointing out that Christianity is all about reformation. "Chrisianity was such a Reformation, not simply of Judaism, but of Humanity as a whole." He goes on to insist that what Luther gave utterance to was already "darkly present to the general consciousness of his age, and brought out into full view that which thousands before him, in his own time, had already been struggling in various ways to reach. Genuine Protestantism is no such sudden growth, springing up like a mushroom in the night, as the papist, and certain narrow minded ultra-protestants, would fain have us believe. Its roots reach back to the day of Pentecost." (The Principle of Protestantism, 37)

All Things New

At the end of the introduction, Nevin compares this progressive sanctification of the Church to the life of individuals and says that they are not only analogous, but they are completely codependent. In other words, the ultimate sanctification and salvation of individuals is in the salvation of the Church as a whole.

"Only indeed as it is comprehended in this general process, can the particular process by which the salvation of the single Christian is accomplished, from the new birth to the morning of the resurrection, be carried successfully forward. He is saved in the Church, the mystical body of Christ; and can become complete, only as the whole is made complete which he is a part. His resurrection accordingly, the last result of the organic power of his nature, will be reached only in connection with the consummation of the life of the Church as a whole, when in the fullest and most glorious sense, old things shall have passed away and all things become new." (The Principle of Protestantism, 25-26)

Reformed Apostolic Succession

Again, Nevin: He insists that the Reformation did not go back and start over at the fourth or fifth century. Rather, the Reformation was the continuation of that true Catholic Christianity that had run all the way up to the Reformation. He says, "If Protestantism be not derived by true and legitimate succession from the Church life of the Middle Ages, it will be found perfectly vain to think of connecting it genealogically with the life of the Church at any earlier point." (The Principle of Protestantism, 23).

The Womb of the Reformation

Nevin again, speaking in support of an optimistic view of the progress and growth of the Christian Church down through the ages says that this does not mean there is never regression or apostacy along the way, but rather "Truth can be said to advance, only as error is surmounted and thrown into its rear. But this requires that the error should always, in the first place, make itself known and felt... In this view the Middle Ages form properly speaking no retrogression for Christianity. They are to be regarded rather as the womb, in which was formed the life of the Reformation itself." (From the Introduction to The Principle of Protestantism by Philip Schaff, 21-22)

Wednesday, August 06, 2008

Protestant Catholics

I can't remember how many times I've heard it said that we call ourselves "Protestants" because the Reformers were "protesting" the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church.

However, not too long ago a professor pointed out to us that the Latin word protestare does not mean "to protest." It actually means to confess, to testify, to profess. It's an entirely positive term, meant to convey the affirmation of a certain stance rather than a negative term that quibbles and critiques.

Protestant Catholics are Confessing Catholics, Professing Catholics, Catholics who bear witness to the ancient faith found in the Scriptures and those faithful fathers down through the centuries who preserved and built upon it. To be a Protestant Catholic is to be committed to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, actively confessing the faith of that Church, celebrating the sacraments of that Church, following in the footsteps of the faithful who have come before us, while working towards establishing an even more glorious Christendom in the future.

The Way Forward

"The present state of Protestantism is only intermistic. It can save itself, only by passing beyond itself. In this country particularly, our sect system is an evil that may be said to prey upon the very vitals of the Church. The evil itself however is but the index of a false element, incorporated with the life of Protestantism itself. The case then is not to be remedied, by any merely external change. We are not called to a crusade against sects as they stand; as though storming them to the ground, we could do for Christianity all that is needed in this direction. Only as the sect principle can be reached and cured in the inward habit of the Church, may any such revolution, in connection with the openings and orderings of God's providence,) be expected to take place, as the existing crisis demands." (J.W. Nevin in the Introduction to The Principle of Protestantism by Philip Schaf, 17-18)

Truth and History

One other thought on Jeremiah's indictment of Israel's false prophets:

Not only is Truth a question of present and future, but given what Jeremiah says concerning the requirement of prophets to expose the sins of the people, Truth has everything to do with the past as well. Exposing sins is a task which includes recounting what has already taken place in a particular way. Confessing sins is the act of telling the story like God does and not massaging the facts to appease our conscience.

Truth, in order to be Truth, must bind up past, present, and future together.

Truth and Eschatology

The prophet Jeremiah explains the "false and deceptive visions" of the prophets of Israel in these words: "They have not exposed your iniquity to restore your fortunes but have seen for you oracles that are false and misleading" (Lam. 2:14).

The falseness and deceptiveness of the visions and oracles is not merely a question of the factual truth or falsity of their words. It is primarily found in the trajectory of their words, where they lead. The immorality of their words is in their refusal to expose the sins of their people and thereby deliver the people from the judgment of God. False visions are false because they lead people into judgment. True visions are true because they lead people to restore their fortunes, they lead to the blessing of God.

In this sense, a prophet could say *true* things all day long about politics, the weather, religion, and history and still be a false prophet full of deceptive visions and oracles that are misleading. Truth is not merely a question of factual reality. Truth is a question of trajectory and eschatology.

Abstraction and Incarnation

Truth is a person. Truth has a story, brothers and sisters. Truth has a mother and father.

As I continue to meditate on the concerns of my friends who are grappling with issues related to what the Church is called to be and their place in it, more and more, the concerns I have boil down to a fundamental aversion to abstraction and rationalism.

If Truth is a person, a man with 32 teeth and a score of fingers and toes, a man with a story, history, context, this means that it is not enough to merely ask factual questions. It’s all well and good to ask questions about “apostolic succession,” “veneration of icons,” “episcopal polity,” the role of “tradition,” the “authority of the church,” and a whole host of other issues, but all of these are abstract ideas which have not yet touched down. Those factual questions are only half of the work, half of the question. And furthermore, no one comes to those ideas with clean slates; you cannot come to these questions with an ecclesiological tabula rasa. You were born into a story, a family, a tradition, and all of these questions have their own stories and complexities. In other words, to take one example, there is no such thing as “apostolic succession” in general. There are only particular bishops who consecrate particular bishops in a particular sequence, and we may generalize concerning this activity over time using various terms as short hand for historical events, but we’re talking about a story with main characters, minor characters, heroes and villains, a plot, a climax, and various levels of resolution.

And this is not an apologetic for a relativistic version of truth. On the contrary, it is to argue for the most absolute form of truth that can or does exist, truth that is so absolute it resides in a single person, the Word of God Incarnate, Jesus from Nazareth in Galilee. And because you were made in his image, you also have a story, a context, a history, pastors, parents, friends, and neighbors. It is not enough to merely ask if something is a fact or exists or is *true*, floating up there in the cerebral ether. The next step must be made in understanding how it is true, how it has been applied, understood, abused, and so on.

To refuse to ask the how question is just straight up rationalism. The rationalist can only see the world in black and white. The rationalist can only see the world through open and shut, abstract categories, the world in ones and zeros. Everything is a true or false question on the exam of life. Humanity is a brain which operates according to simplistic logical categories. Of course there are certain questions which may always be asked and answered with straight up yes or no results. But – and this is the point – that is always because God has already spoken authoritatively on those points. But life is lived in the messiness of flesh and tears and blood and laughter. Being human means embracing this image of God in our living, in our breathing, in the parents the bore us, in the communities that reared us, in the Church that regenerated us. But this means appreciating the dynamics of the story.

For a Protestant to suddenly look up and say, “The Pope said it, that settles it,” is not only to give multitudes of faithful fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters in the Protestant Church the fig, it is to do the same to history. It is an anti-intellectual fundamentalism of the worst sort. Similarly on the question of icons: Protestants need to realize that the seventh ecumenical council really did happen, and the Church did in fact mandate the use of icons in Christian Worship and we also need to recognize that there were some distinctions being made between veneration and idolatry. True. Yet, it simply will not do to completely ignore the heathen superstitions that have plagued both Orthodoxy and Romanism down through the years. Russian Orthodox shrines with totem poles in them is not a legitimate application of the communion of saints, and for all my love of Eskimos, it will not do for a purse lipped priest to solemnly start explaining the difference between worship and veneration. Calvin’s catalogue of relics would be funny except for the fact that it was true. And the countless sheep led astray by that kind of foolishness as well as the gadfly bishops and archbishops prodding their people on while filling their pockets with filthy lucre is part of the story. Answering the other questions must be done in the context of this story in order to arrive at Truth.

Tuesday, August 05, 2008

Broken for Tomorrow

In the sermon text this morning, Jesus warned the disciples about the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. He insisted that his provision of bread was sufficient for the disciples. Not only is their leaven dangerous, but the disciples shouldn’t need it. But this only makes sense if we understand how leaven worked in the ancient world. In the past, leaven was not a packet of yeast you bought at the grocery store. Leaven was actually a chunk of dough left over from the last loaf of bread you made yesterday. Leaven was actually dough from yesterday’s loaf. Leaven was a bit of leftover dough that you saved so that you could have bread not only today but also bread for tomorrow. And this is perhaps why Jesus points to the leftovers he has provided for his disciples. He has plenty of dough, plenty of bread for the disciples. But notice also how this leaven works. It is broken off from the main lump today in order to make a new loaf tomorrow. And the next day another part of the dough will be broken off for the bread on the following day. And this is precisely how Jesus taught about his own life and death. On the night in which He was betrayed he took bread and broke it and gave it to his disciples and said that it was his body broken for them. Later, Paul says we who partake of the one loaf are one loaf, but this means that just as we are also the body of Christ, we are being called to be broken. But you are not merely being broken for the sake of brokenness. You are being broken for tomorrow. You are being broken today so that God can make another loaf of you tomorrow, so that God may give you life tomorrow and next year, and so that your children and grandchildren and neighbors might have life. And in Christ the cumulative effect of your life being broken is life for the world. Each of us has the calling to die for our spouses, our children, our neighbors, our coworkers, and even our enemies. We do this willingly and joyfully because we know that we serve the God who provides not only today, but in our brokenness he is also providing for tomorrow.

Pastoral Collars

One of the newer sights for Trinity Church folks is seeing your pastors walking around town wearing clerical collars. I’ve been wearing one and Pastor Leithart will also be wearing one regularly. And we want to make sure that you understand what that means and what it doesn’t mean. One of the first associations with clerical collars for many is Roman Catholicism, but actually for most of the church’s history, Christian ministers have been publicly set apart by their clothing. Up until about a hundred years ago Presbyterian and Reformed ministers even wore distinctive clothing. You can see Reformers in many church history books wearing distinctive shirts and collars that designated their callings as ministers of the gospel. We are seeking to align ourselves with that tradition. But the purpose of a minister wearing a collar is tied to his vocation. We are public servants both for you and for the broader Moscow community. The reason mailmen, police officers, doctors, and other vocations have uniforms is so that they can serve. When we see the uniforms we know what they are called to do, and similarly, we want as ministers to be available, recognizable, and at your service and at the service of our community. Traditionally, the collar has represented the yoke of Christ, the fact that ministers are slaves of the gospel, and called to lead their congregations and communities in submission to the Lord Jesus and as Christ’s servants called to serve his people. Finally, one of the central callings of ministers is to speak, proclaiming the gospel, comforting the grieving, calling the wicked to repentance, and declaring forgiveness to the penitent. These collars at our throats remind both us and you of that responsibility. And that’s a terrifying responsibility, but it is actually the calling of all Christians. In baptism we have all been called to take up the yoke of Christ, to be his servant for the world, and to speak gospel light into the darkness of sin and death. Consider these uniforms as simple reminders to us all of this high calling, the calling to die to ourselves, giving ourselves away for our families, neighbors, friends, and even our enemies.

Thursday, July 31, 2008

July

14. Solomon Among the Postmoderns by Leithart

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

July in Pictures: Happy Birthday Felicity

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

The Weightier Matters of the Law

I've mentioned this before, but the phenomenon of "converting" from and to various communions in the body of Christ seems to me to be largely a convenience of western civilization along the lines of having the convenience to choose between a myriad of restaurants, various styles of clothing, and having grocery stores that supply us with food from all over the world at very reasonable prices. Many of those choosing to join the Roman and Eastern communions of course do so because of their distress over the seeming rootlessness of protestantism. They are making the change because they object to this choose-your-own-flavor approach to Christian faith.

But it is still highly troubling that they often do this, either calling upon all their friends and family to forsake their wayward ways or else looking down their noses on all us poor, separated brethren. What we could use is a little old fashion persecution. I've been reading through Foxe's Book of Martyrs recently, and it has struck me repeatedly that these people understood what the Church was all about. People can't get too wound tight about apostolic succession when their children are being beheaded before their very eyes. They are not wondering whether the sacrament they received was legitimate when boiling tar is being poured over their heads. The woman whose nursing child was ripped from her arms, who was then hung in nets naked for a while before finally being gored by a bull, that woman was surely not fretting about proper church government, icons, or who had ordained her pastor.

The faithful, fearless saints are remembered for encouraging one another and even their persecutors with the words, "If I have Jesus, I have enough." "Jesus has been faithful to me, I will be faithful to him." And so on.

Not that questions of church government, succession, ordination, etc. are not important, but they really need to be put in perspective and prioritized. Jesus has some pretty harsh words for people who tithe mint and dill while neglecting justice, mercy, and faithfulness. There are weightier matters of the law that need to be treated as such. That means they are more important than questions of church polity and sacramental efficacy. I want to have these conversations, but I want to have them with people who are busy dying. I want to have these dialogues with people who are busy giving their lives away for orphans and widows, wives and husbands, fathers and mothers, children, neighbors, and enemies. And this is not meant to imply that any of the people I've been conversing with are anything less than this, but I want to state this upfront and encourage the folks in the peanut gallery to think this way.

From this angle, there's a lot of work to be done, and the questions need to start out much simpler, "Do you have Jesus? Do you love him?" And that actually begins to answer some of the more complicated questions. The sectarians of every communion who are busy excommunicating their brothers and sisters who part their hair on the wrong side are simple, straight up hypocrites. That kind of blindness met some of Christ's fiercest denunciations, and Jesus says that if they had lived back when slaughtering the saints and prophets was in vogue they would have joined in the fun (Mt. 23:29-33). Christians who bite and devour their brothers and sisters, demanding revolutionary change tomorrow, are no better than the Roman tyrants who beat, scourged, pierced, burned, and beheaded countless thousands of faithful saints in the early church.

Sunday, July 27, 2008

Celebrating the Humility of Jesus

This meal is called communion, it is a sharing in the body and blood of the Lord. This meal is a celebration of the great humility of Jesus who gave up everything for us men and our salvation. This is why Paul get’s so bothered by the arrogance that some were displaying in the early church during this meal. This is a celebration of the humility of Jesus, a certain mindset that gave up all that was his due, trusting God for a good and glorious outcome. Each time we celebrate this high feast before God, we do it as a memorial. And that doesn’t just mean we think about it really hard for a few minutes. We celebrate this feast as a memorial like Passover, like the rainbow after the flood. This memorial proclaims the death of Christ until he comes, the apostle says. And this means that this meal proclaims the humility of Christ, it proclaims the humble submission of Christ to the will of the Father. And now we are invited to share in it. We are invited to share in the humility of Christ with one another. We are sharing in the humility of Christ in the face of the greatest act of injustice in the history of the world, a righteous man, the only righteous man, crucified with thieves and robbers. And Paul says, do you get it? You’re sharing in that. You’re sharing and communion in that kind of humility. And that doesn’t mean you’ve given up or decided you’re fine with injustice. Actually, it’s just the opposite. It means you trust God for the outcome. It means that you are so utterly confident in the goodness and power of God, that whatever the circumstances, he is willing and able to turn them to good. So whatever it is that haunts you this morning, whatever it is that plagues you, that disturbs you, that bothers you, that annoys you, that gives you grief and heartache this morning. Eat this meal, celebrate this feast, as a memorial, a prayer before the Father. And rejoice in faith, believing that the same God who raised Jesus will raise you up to glory.

Looking Through the Resurrection

We considered this morning the example of Christ who humbled himself even to the point of death on a cross as an act of identifying with his people. Paul exhorts us to pursue the same mind, and ultimately the mind of Christ which is willing to even die. Elsewhere, Paul says in Romans that baptism is baptism into the likeness of the death Christ. In baptism we are united to his death, and we are raised up to new creation life. This means living like that’s true. In the early church it’s sometimes almost humorous to read how quickly and almost haphazardly baptisms occurred. The Roman Centurian was baptized at night with his whole household, the Ethiopian eunuch was baptized on the side of the road, and surely it was a wild baptismal service for the three thousand who were baptized at Pentecost. And that exuberance is either really foolish or really faithful, and since these are the apostles Jesus sent into the world to found his church, we have every reason to think that this is nothing but faith. Faith looks at everything in light of the resurrection. Faith is busy trying to see the renewal of the world in everything. See that tree blossoming? That means Jesus conquered death. See that comet? That means Jesus is King of the World. Cell phones? That means sin and death are on the run. Faith sees the world through the resurrection. Everything is evidence of the victory of God.

So the exhortation to you as you raise your children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord is twofold: first look at them, teach them, talk about them in light of the resurrection. Look for every opportunity to see the work of Christ in them. Don’t do this because you are doting parents and you’re blind to their flaws and weaknesses. Do it because you believe the promises of God; believe that the promises of the covenant are for them. Believe that they are holy ones, saints, set apart as kings and queens of Christendom. When they’re loud remind each other that Christians are leaders in the world. When they’re wild and energetic remember that we have been given the world to subdue and evangelize, and that’s going to take a lot of energy. And so on. And this should not be understood as an encouragement to go soft on sin, but an encouragement to love them in faith, believing that these little ones will one day be scientists and pastors, governors and explorers, mothers and fathers, and all in service to King Jesus. And this leads to the second exhortation: as you teach them and train them, encourage them to see the world in light of the resurrection. This should mean that they grow in courage. What is there to be afraid of if Christ has conquered death? In Christ, we have been given back the world to rule it, to fill it, to glorify it, and to bless its inhabitants through the gospel. Train your children’s imaginations to dream big, to dig deep, to love the world that God made, and to expect wonderful magic in all the good gifts of our God.

Eleventh Sunday in Trinity: Toward a Theology of Other People 3: Philippians 2:1-14

Opening Prayer: Gracious Father, we ask you to give us courage this morning as we consider your word. We are afraid of really submitting to your word, and we are often even more fearful of submitting to other people. Teach us to rejoice in obedience, but even more, teach us to see the glory of unity.

Introduction
We’ve now considered the fact that other people are gifts, and that these gifts have been piling up long before we got here. This tradition, this culture arrives at us in the fathers and mothers that surround us today. And the honor we bestow upon our fathers is ultimately based upon the fact that God is our heavenly father.

Pursuing the Same Mind
Paul exhorts the Philippians to be likeminded based on three realities: their consolation in Christ, comfort of love, and participation in the Spirit. Paul may have any number of things specifically in mind here, but it sounds highly reminiscent of the Trinitarian benediction at the end of another letter (2 Cor. 13:14). If any of that is real and true, Paul says that the completion of his joy would be found in being likeminded, being united in thought and affections (2:2). If you know the Trinity, be like the Trinity. He literally says the “same thinking, the same love, having united spirits, and one way of thinking.” This is another way of saying “conform.” The gift of the Holy Spirit is the gift of conformity to the image of the Son so that we might be like him, like brothers (Rom. 8:26-29). And at the same time, Paul says don’t be “conformed to this world” but be transformed (Rom. 12:2). Peter says the same thing when he says not to be conformed to their “former ignorance” but be holy just like God is (1 Pet. 1:14-16). So we are always called to reject one way of thinking, acting, living, and called to embrace another. The question is: whose mind are you pursuing?

Putting off Rivalry and Conceit
Paul says that one of the ways you can know the difference is by whether you are acting out of rivalry or conceit (Phil. 2:3). And this rivalry and conceit often shows up in two different ways: Option A is the straight up rivalry and conceit: I will be better than them, and I will get all the glory. Option B is the not so straight up but just as obvious rivalry and conceit: Since they are better, more ____ (fill in the blank), I will do my own thing and steal their glory. And people do this with all sorts of things: clothing/hair, sports, home culture, theological convictions, worship styles/traditions, etc. But Paul says we must consider others better than ourselves. This word only shows up five times in the NT, and in two of those places it means being subject to civil authorities. Consider others, Paul says, as having more importance, worthy of more honor than you and your opinions. This is another way of saying that people always submit. The only question is ‘who are you submitting to?’ And who has priority: mom, dad, roommate, blogs, books, pastors, teachers, parents’ friends, TV, magazines? Again, whose mind are you pursuing? And Paul says that when you make a decision do it in the interest of others over your own; not your will but their will be done (Phil. 2:4). And the summary of it all is: have the mind of Christ who gave up everything that was his due so that he could have more (Phil. 2:5-11).

Conclusions and Applications
The gospel of Disney, Hollywood, and all of the rest of the modern day prophets is the imperative of following your own heart, be different, go against the flow. But the question that needs to be asked is ‘different than what?’ ‘different than whom?’ ‘which flow?’ ‘what’s my heart saying?’

Two things need to be constantly kept in mind: first, apart from the grace of God, the heart of man is desperately wicked. And second, Christ rose from the dead to make all things new. This means that we need to hold together a certain skepticism regarding human nature and a certain optimism about the trajectory of history. And that means first and foremost a certain skepticism of our own wisdom and a certain optimism about the people God has surrounded us with.

Finally, given what we have already established about the people God has given us and the gifts of our fathers and mothers, we need to train our instincts to act and think with the flow of God’s blessing. Go with that flow. And this applies across the board in your families, with your children, with your teachers, with your classmates, with your neighbors, and of course in the church. Work at having the same mind and loving the same things. Of course you are different; that’s the point.

In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Amen!

Closing Prayer: Almighty God, we confess that so often we sin against the Holy Spirit by not trusting Him to bring us back from the dead. We don’t mind going under here and there, but we are afraid to lose ourselves, to lose our gifts, to lose our concerns, our opinions, our desires, our dreams, but Father we know that Jesus gave up everything and he had far more to lose and yet you gave it all back and even more. Therefore we rejoice in your calling us to die because we know that you have prepared great things for us. And therefore we cry out to in faith praying the words that Christ taught us, singing…

Submitting in Faith

The gospel, the good news, is that we have a king who has come and delivered us from all our enemies through his life, death, resurrection, and ascension. But if you believe this gospel, and if you believe it is good news for all of life, for the entire world, then your mission is to see this reality impressed upon everything you do and touch. And this is the pattern of death and resurrection. And this means we need to continually go back and study and remember how Christ died. And notice two things: first, when Christ went to the cross, when he willingly suffered the scourging and the beating, the false accusations and the mockery, he did not suddenly begin to agree with his accusers. Dying did not mean that Christ actually decided he wasn’t the Messiah, the King of Israel, and the Savior of the World. In fact it was because he fundamentally disagreed with the proceedings that he endured the shame and excruciating pain of the cross. Second, Hebrews says that Jesus endured the shame of the cross for the joy that was set before him. In other words, Jesus believed unswervingly that God would raise him from the dead. And here is the point, all of you are called to submit in various ways and at various times. You may need to submit to your parents, to your husband, to elders or pastors, or civil authorities. And just so get the picture, Paul says that all Christians must submit to one another. Submission means letting go of whatever it is that you wanted and obeying. It means dying to self, valuing the other person more highly, and following. Now sometimes you will submit and midway through you’ll realize that the other person was right and you were wrong and thank God for that. But it’s very possible that you may be asked to submit to unreasonable demands, what you consider unjust punishment, or just unkind directions. The requirement to submit does not mean that you change your mind, it doesn’t mean that you must suddenly agree with your accuser, Jesus didn’t change his mind. We submit to authorities because we ultimately submit to God the judge of all men. He sees us, he hears our prayers, and we believe that he is the God who vindicates his people. And so the call to submit is the call to trust God, trust the God who sees all and raises the dead. This is the gospel, the good news, that our king has remade this world such that you cannot be finally defeated by any enemy.

Friday, July 25, 2008

Authority, Tradition, and Heroes

So Matt and Brad have asked the question that is lurking behind a good bit of this discussion, and that has to do with the nature of authority.

When must Christians submit to authority? At what point is a Christian justified in fleeing that authority, rejecting authority, etc?

I just want to start the conversation by answering two points from the comments of the Who Do You Trust? post.

First, as to Matt's last assertion that Calvin always had the option of submitting, this is just not the case. The historical circumstances were incredibly topsy-turvy not to mention the fact that he was a wanted man from time to time. When they're killing all your friends and chasing you with swords, that's not exactly an invitation to dialogue. Perhaps you've heard of the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre? Christ establishes families and says what God has joined together let no man put asunder, and yet when a husband begins beating his wife and children, the wife has a biblical obligation to run. Authority is not absolute, automatic, or irrevocable, sacrament or no sacrament. And when the family has a long tradition of beating wives and children, the wife has an even greater obligation to break that tradition.

I put up a post a while ago here which covered some of the exact same points focusing on the idea of unity, but the same point holds for the concept of authority as well. It is simply not true that the foundation of ecclesiastical authority is found in people. God certainly bestows authority on particular people as he wishes and normally it should be orderly and predictable, but the foundation of ecclesiastical authority is Jesus Christ, the image of the invisible Triune God. This is why when Paul is speaking about unity and humility he grounds it in the person of the "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all" (Eph. 4:6).

Second, as to Brad's question in the comments regarding the reformers' willingness to reform within, I would again appeal to the analogy of the brow-beaten wife. Of course a wife is biblically required to submit to her husband in the Lord. But when that husband abuses her and her children and for many years, she is not under the obligation to stay and suck it up. And it won't do to tisk-tisk that same wife when she objects to moving home after only a year or two of slightly better behavior. And it is simply not true that this refusal to trust an abusive husband somehow throws Paul's injunctions to Christian wives out the window. It is not a threat to authority to tell an abused wife to run. Neither is it a threat to the church authority to flee the bishop who wants your head on a pike. And when he chuckles and invites you to talk things over a few weeks later, I wouldn't blame anyone for staying far away (in fact I would advise it). Several centuries of high-handed abuse doesn't qualify the abuser for leniency when he calls for a Church Council. At the same time, surely you are aware that there were continuing talks between Geneva and RCC bishops. At least one conference resulted in a united statement on justification. But the Magisterium required those bishops to repudiate their attempted peace. Likewise, there were Protestants at the Council of Trent and a number Protestant-minded Catholics as well. Bucer, for one, is famous (or infamous) for his attempts at reconciliation throughout his life. But for all the progress that the RCC has made, modern day Catholics that do not recognize the gross failings of the established church leading up to the Protestant Reformation are simply blind. This does not mean it was not the church of Jesus Christ, but God is not bound by human tradition. As lovely as an unbroken chain of bishops might be, God was pleased to go beyond that, and it has still pleased him to do so. I'm sure there were a number of Israelites none too pleased with the Reformation of Samson in the era of the Judges either, but it was still the work of the Holy Spirit delivering the people of God from her enemies. The work of Calvin, Luther, Wycliff, Huss, Bucer, and Zwingli was no less heroic.

Lurking beneath questions of ecclesiastical authority is the question of what Jesus actually commanded his apostles and therefore what we are required to follow, and this gets at Brad's assertion that Presbyterianism was/is an historically novel notion. But again, that's simply not the case. The early church was a gloriously messy place, and it is simply not true that all the orders of bishops, presbyters, and deacons had shiny little job descriptions. The way Christian authority works and has always worked is through the way of service. If you want to be great in the Kingdom of God you must become like a little child and a slave of all. Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius, Tertullian, Origen, and even Cyprian in the middle of the third century are not working with fully developed Episcopal forms of church government. It does not prove anything to quote them saying they have bishops. We do too even if we don't call our pastors by that name. Ambrose of Milan (376) and even Augustine later on refer to the fact that their customs of church government where not the law of the church by divine fiat but rather rested on the wisdom of the church to build unity and order. And this does not mean that I don't think we have anything to learn from the fact that through most of the church's history it has been organized in an Episcopalian fashion. Nor am I defending every last thing the reformers did or said. I am saying they are/were heroes of the faith, judges like Samson and Gideon who delivered God's people from hirelings that had broken into the sheepfold. And it doesn't matter if hands were laid on their head, they spoke in tongues at their ordination, or they were dressed exactly like shepherds. You can always tell a tree by its fruit, and you can always tell a hireling by his way with the sheep.

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Deep Smit: Learning to Kiss Real Icons

Josh Gibbs has a new post up covering our most recent conversation. I have deep respect for a man who takes the counsel of his friends and elders seriously, and since I had responded to some of his recent posts here, I wanted to thank him for that here as well.

But a few other thoughts on the general theme: First, it is very striking that these "conversions" often happen quickly after a number of months of quiet festering. What I mean is that all of the times I have seen something like this, it has been the sort of thing where a guy is first converted in spirit fairly isolated from friends and family, makes the announcement public and proceeds to be confirmed in the new church of his choice. But it's this very process that I object to so strenuously. It utterly ignores the friends, family, and church that God has given previously. Of course there are situations where it's happened differently, of course there have been reformed pastors and elders that should have been more faithful and loving and more willing to talk and discuss issues. But it has occurred to me that there is a very similar sort of scenario that occurs from time to time with fathers and daughters.

Imagine: A girl comes home to her dad one day and says, "I met the man of my dreams, and we would like your blessing to get married next week." This is the first time he's heard about it, and maybe to make matters more complicated, the dad has some significant concerns about the guy. Let's say maybe the daughter even came to her dad at one point previously and asked about the guy, and the dad said, "Yeah maybe there are a few redeeming qualities about this guy, but I've got some serious concerns about this, that, and the other." And the daughter said, "Well if you think it's a bad idea, I trust you. I won't pursue it." But, as it turns out, the daughter has been seeing this guy on the sly, they're madly in love, and now they're planning to get married. It's the dad's duty in one sense to tell the daughter "no," and give his reasons. But the more fundamental question has everything to do with trust and loyalty and love. Why haven't we been together on this? Why didn't you come back and ask more questions? Why have we not been discussing these issues for the last number of months? And so on. It will not do for the daughter to insist that by marrying this man she will actually be getting closer to her dad.

Which is again why I would appeal to questions of loyalty, trust, and honor. Who do you trust? Who has God given you as your fathers in the faith? Of course they are not perfect, of course they have failed in various ways, but they are your family, your people, give them the love and honor God calls you to give them.

And this is not at all a refusal to tackle the difficult questions. Of course not everyone has the time, inclination, or ability to do tons of study, but it would be far more helpful for people pondering these issues to go to their pastor, father, elders, and friends and say, "I've been wondering about icons, what do you think?" I for one would want to say, "Hey, that's a long, complicated story. But let's start meeting together, reading some books, and discussing the issues." But it's a little more difficult to have that conversation when someone has already made up their mind after having read little to nothing on the subject.

And actually this has everything to do with icons. The question is not whether but which. There will always be icons, but the question is which icons are most suitable for representing God to his people. God is not anti-icons. It is clear from the very beginning that he has always intended to have images of himself and lots of them. But he objects to being portrayed in ways that significantly distort the kind of God he is. Chiefly, he wants to picture himself, and he wants his pictures to be alive. He wants his images to have hands and feet, mouths and ears that work. He wants his images to speak words of comfort to the downcast; he wants his images to rebuke the foolish. He wants his images to have hands that can be used to heal and touch and embrace. He wants his images to have eyes that see the needs of others and have ears to hear their cries and respond. In short he wants images and icons that are truly like Him, full of mercy and compassion. There is absolutely no problem with venerating images of Christ in worship so long as they are alive, so long as they are the images that God has authorized, the descendants of Adam and Eve that have been remade and renewed according to the image of God found in Christ. And this is precisely what we do when we say, "The Lord be with you/And with your spirit." This is what we do when we Pass the Peace and greet one another with a Holy Kiss. Kissing icons? You bet, so long as they are living, breathing icons of our Lord Jesus.

Let's have generations of this kind of icon veneration; let's have a rich tradition of honoring fathers and mothers and wives and husbands and children and grandchildren according to God's word, a legacy of caring for orphans and widows in their distress, and along the way we can talk about the proper use of Christian art in worship (which I am not opposed to at all). But a refusal to honor and listen to the living icons all around you is iconoclasm at its worst.

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Who Do You Trust?

A good friend of mine, Josh Gibbs, has posted a couple of recent entries on his blog that I wanted to respond to.

First, in his Joe Versus the Volcano post from July 17^th, he suggests that perhaps one of the ways of looking at the cross-migration of folks to and from various traditions of Protestantism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy is in the way that God determines to grow particular individuals up. He cites friends of ours in particular who have "blossomed" in their new surroundings and recognizes that there are just as many folks coming the other way into Protestantism from one of those two branches of the church that have grown in ways never conceivable in their old cathedral digs. Now, I certainly appreciate Josh's sensibility to recognize that this is going both ways, (although I would suggest it is FAR more common that cradle catholics and orthodox are blossoming when they "get saved" in college through some hip and trendy evangelical ministry than the other way around – but that's not really what I want to talk about). My first objection to Josh's logic is how myopic this description appears to be. It seems fairly near-sighted to evaluate one's transition based on six months or two years of experience. Yes, I know that we can all name certain (in)famous characters who have done the transition to Rome or Constantinople and lo, there they are 20 or 50 years later and appear to still love Jesus with all the fervor of a spirit-filled charismatic. And thank God for that. But what about their children and their grandchildren? Jesus warns about certain people who get their houses exorcised, all swept and clean and organized so that after a while seven more demons can take up residence. Which is all to say that judging "ugly" in one tradition and "lovely" in another seems far too superficial. I know that Josh means things like simple, sacrificial obedience and love for neighbors and family, but again, how can we judge the trajectory of that kind of transition after a few years? Which is to say that this kind of evaluation is always secondary to the question, 'who do you trust?' This is the most important question, I believe. Do you trust the pastors and teachers who have faithfully taught you, prayed for you, counseled you, and given themselves up for you over the last number of years, or do you trust the guy who you met a few months ago who chants prayers to icons? And this is not a question about whether you may like or respect people in other traditions. The question is, who do you trust more? Who will you submit to?

People who leave traditions do so because they no longer trust their pastors and elders to lead and pastor them. And sometimes that's understandable, but Josh's apparent ambivalence doesn't seem to recognize the personal nature of the church community. You can't just say, sorry I found a new church; it's nothing personal. It's always personal. It's always a question of loyalty and trust and gratitude. And yes, it has everything to do with the "frustratingly personal God" found in Jesus Christ and him alone. But where are we to see this personal God found in Christ? St. John says, "If you do not love your brother who you have seen, you cannot love God whom you have not seen" (1 Jn. 4:20). Similarly, the whole point of the parable of the sheep and the goats is the calling of Jesus to see Him in the people right in front of you. And so my question is, how many migrating goats will be told on that great and terrible day, "when I was hungry you went on a pilgrimage to Rome." "When I was naked, you were praying to your icons. When I was sick and lonely, you preferred to spend time with your well-vested priest. Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Mt. 25:31-45). It is all about Christ, and so I want to know why it would ever be OK to treat the body of Christ like an amusement park where different people can get their thrills on different rides and that's really all that matters at the end of the day. Now I know that Josh isn't saying that, but surely he would recognize that his point is not too far removed. If Christ is found in the people right in front you, why would you ignore them, walk away from them to find new friends in some other tradition, and how could it be done in the name of finding Christ? Christ is goodness, and his goodness is the family he reared you in, the fathers and mothers he gave you when you were young, and the friends and brothers who still love you today.

Second, I wanted to respond to Josh's post on closed communion in the Reformed tradition (also from July 17^th). On that note, it is true to point out that Reformed churches of various stripes do indeed practice various forms of closed communion. In some Reformed churches only the members of that particular church are allowed to partake. In others, there is only a small number of fraternal denominations that are recognized as being able to participate with them. And so comparing those with Rome or Constantinople, there really isn't much difference on that point. But Josh's point has more to do with taking communion to the sick, the disabled, and the outcast who are for various reasons unable to be in regular Sunday service. But here there are several important distinctions that Josh isn't careful to make. He does say that he is willing to be taught, and that's great, but these are the kind of distinctions that a couple of introductory books on reformation theology would clear up. And all I mean is that the answer to Josh's question is fairly simple. The Reformers were fed up with the Eucharistic idolatry going on in the late middle ages. Saving the elements in order to pray to them later, holding them up in the air and walking through town for the crowds to cower at various clergymen's feet, and using them as tools of manipulation against God's people were all abuses that the Reformers (and probably most modern RCCs) loathed. The Westminster Confession's point is merely to disallow the idolatry and the practice of private masses, where one individual could be elevated above the rest to have communion by himself, or commonly where political rulers could get their grace without actually being part of the worshipping body of saints. To be clear: the reserving and venerating of the host had grown into a kind of manipulative maneuver that pushed the majority of the people of God into the margins. These idolatrous practices were being used to abuse the very lambs that Christ called his apostles to feed. Ironically, the very thing that Josh thinks he sees in Westminster is the very thing the Reformers were seeking to correct. The Eucharist is for the people of God; it's for the commoners, the outcasts, the sick, the lonely, the dying.

And while I think we could always do a far better job of acting this out in practice, I know of plenty of occasions where it has been done in Reformed churches, where pastors have celebrated the sacrament with the faithful in hospital rooms and nursing homes, and as at least one commenter pointed out in the original post, there were prominent examples of this in the early Reformation churches themselves.

All that to say, these are great questions to raise and worthy of discussion. But I would plead with whatever audience I have to be patient and use caution in rushing to conclusions. People have actually discussed these very things before. These questions have been raised and answered by our fathers in the faith. Don't think that this is a new discussion. It's been going on for 500 years. Honor that tradition enough to listen for a little while.

Sunday, July 20, 2008

Living Icons

Throughout the history of the Church there have been numerous controversies surrounding pictures and images of Christ and the saints, but most Christians, including the Reformers, have insisted that this meal is an authorized image of Christ. But it is not bread and wine by themselves which consists of this picture, and that is why they rightly objected to the veneration of the elements as we would as well. The body of Christ is not found in the existence of bread in a sanctuary or wine in a chalice. The apostle says that we are to discern Christ in the communion, in the thankful sharing of the bread and wine. As we celebrate with thanksgiving together and hand one another the bread and the wine and tell one another the gospel of forgiveness, that is the body of Christ. That is the image of Christ we are supposed to see and discern. This is a much different sort of icon than the ones commonly honored in other traditions, and we do this because God told is in the very beginning how he wanted to be pictured. He pictured himself in humanity when he created them. He composed his own icons in Adam and Eve, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them. God created humans to be his images in the world. He re-created us in his grace to be conformed to the image of Christ, the perfect picture of the invisible God. This image and picture is one that is not static. It is not lifeless like stone, paper, or precious metals. It is alive. It moves, it breathes, it acts, and it creates just like God. This is what the Triune God looks like. As nice as pictures of dead saints may be, they are lifeless; they have hands but they cannot hand you the bread of life. As beautiful as an ancient icon may be, it is lifeless; it has a mouth, but it cannot tell you that your sins are forgiven through the blood of Christ. Do not imagine some Jesus picture in your head. You don’t need to do that. God reveals himself to us here and now, week after week. He says, do you want to know what I am like? Do you want to see what the Trinity is like? Then open your eyes, open your mouths, and rejoice together. You are surrounded by true images of God, images with hands and feet and mouths and ears. Our God is alive and well and acts and breathes and speaks and hears, and we are the living icon of that God; we are the image of the invisible God as we make up the body of Christ, animated as we are by His Spirit. So as we celebrate this feast together honor the images of Christ around you: honor your mothers, honor your fathers, honor your brothers and sisters and roommates and neighbors and honor your children.

Tenth Sunday of Trinity Season: Toward a Theology of Other People 2: Ex. 20, Pr. 27:9-10

Opening Prayer: Gracious Father, you are our Father, and you have given us life by our Mother, the Christian Church. We ask that you would teach us to honor our fathers and mothers. Give us grace that we might see where we have failed in this, and even greater grace to make it right. Through Christ our elder brother, Amen!

Introduction
Last week we established the biblical norm that other people are God’s gift to us. And the particular people that God has given us and given us to is significant. Space and time contribute to prioritizing the neighbors that we love. Another name for this prioritizing is loyalty. This is a fairly radical sentiment in the modern, transient world.

Other People as Tradition
Other people is really another way of saying culture or tradition. When we refer to the other people that God has surrounded us with, we are referring to our people, our tradition, our culture, our fathers and mothers (Ex. 20:12), our friends (Pr. 27:9), and the friends of our fathers (Pr. 27:10). And of course our tradition and culture is made up of neighbors going back centuries, but our immediate reception and taste of that culture and tradition is incarnated in the lives of our immediate neighbors. While biblically, we are required to always use wisdom in discerning good and evil in the past, present , and future, the fifth commandment generally leans us in a direction of expecting God to have blessed us already. Grace comes up to meet us in salvation (Rom. 5:8); while we were still planning treason, God conspired to bless us. And when that grace overtakes us, it immediately causes us to look back at everything that led up to that point, all the grace that has followed us through life. The fifth commandment means expecting God to have already blessed us, and seeing that blessing in the people that have come before us. As Christians, we lean into the world with a faithful optimism concerning the past.

Who is My Father?
In Scripture, fathers and mothers are not just biological fathers and mothers. They include all lawful authorities in our lives: These authorities are fathers and mothers which God requires his people to honor. While family fathers and ruler-fathers are often the same people in the early history of Israel, the whole logic of the Covenant is that Abraham is our father by virtue of covenant loyalty (i.e. faith) (Rom. 4:16-18). Abraham and all of the “fathers” of Israel were not merely fathers by blood (though that was often the case). They were fathers of Israel by faith, meaning that they were God-appointed rulers and teachers of Israel and were to be honored as such. This begins to emerge more explicitly in the era of the kings: Elijah is the father of Elisha (2 Kgs. 2:12). Servants call their master/commander “father” (2 Kgs. 5:13). Isaiah calls kings “foster fathers” and queens “nursing mothers” (Is. 49:23). Elisha is considered the father of the king of Israel (2 Kgs. 13:14). The prophets being called father suggests that the office of prophet/teacher in Israel was considered a “fatherly” office. Thus, much later, Paul describes his relationship with Timothy similarly to Elijah and Elisha (cf. Phil. 2:22, 1 Tim. 1:2, 2 Tim. 1:2). Paul says that he and Timothy came and ministered to the Thessalonians as nursing mothers and exhorting fathers (1 Thess. 2:7-11ff). Paul says that the Corinthians have many instructors but few fathers in the faith (1 Cor. 4:15). Paul extends this in other directions as well when he encourages Timothy (and other young ministers) to exhort older men as fathers in the faith (1 Tim. 5:1). Fathers and mothers include biological parents but also teachers, pastors, elders, political rulers, and older neighbors of all sorts.

Conclusions & Applications
So who are the fathers and mothers of your people? Your fathers and mothers include people like Peter and Noel Leithart, Douglas and Nancy Wilson, Jim and Bessie Wilson, Francis and Edith Schaeffer, Cornelius Van Til and J. Gresham Machen, Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee, George Washington and Patrick Henry, Thomas Cranmer, Martin Bucer, Alfred the Great, John Calvin, Gregory the Great, Charlemagne, Augustine, Constantine, Athanasius, the Apostle Paul, Phoebe, Mary, Elijah, Moses, Miriam, Abraham, Sarah, Noah, and Adam and Eve (and of course many, many more).

So first off, this is your family, your people, your tradition, your culture. Second, as this story unfolds in time and arrives at you, it comes packaged in the persons of your immediate parents, siblings, pastors, elders, deacons, senators, governors, neighbors, and church family. This matrix of people forms the incarnation of that tradition, that story, that legacy. It represents the gospel in some ways better and in some ways worse than other traditions, but it is the family that God has bestowed upon you. And this is glorious, but there are always the temptations to apathy, despair, or revolution. Avoid them all. Love your neighbors, honor your parents, trust and obey God.

In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Amen!

Closing Prayer: Gracious Father, we thank you that you are remaking this world, and we thank you that you have been about this mission for the last two thousand years. We thank you that in your infinite wisdom you have told our stories, which began with our ancestors long ago. Teach us to rejoice in our past even where it was rough, even where it hurts, trusting your goodness and faithfulness and teach us to see how you have been blessing us already, even before we were aware of it. And therefore give us loyalty to that story, loyalty to your goodness. Through Christ our Lord who taught us to pray singing…

Love Covers Sins

Scripture says that “love covers a multitude of sins”. It does not say that it might or that it could. It says that it does. This means that if we are not regularly covering sins, then whatever we have, it certainly is not love. Our love for our brothers and sisters must be so great that we will do everything in our power to forgive, forget and cover over the blemishes of others. This begins with our attitudes: A firm commitment to this means that we must think the best of everyone. Paul says that love “hopes all things”. And one of the things this means is that it is a Christian duty to tell the story, remember the event, recall what he/she said, shedding the best possible light on all people involved. Your mission as a Christian is to make everyone else’s reputation as good as possible. And this is our mission even when we think someone has snubbed us, ignored us, and perhaps shown some level of disregard for us. You mission as a follower of Jesus is to bless that person and think and speak about them in the best possible light. This is at least one meaning of “love your neighbor as yourself.” Remember the words of Christ: But if you do not forgive, neither will your father in heaven forgive your trespasses. You will be judged by the standard with which you judge. And if you are picky and critical, then God will be picky and critical of you. And God knows that on even on one of our very best days, he’d have more than enough to condemn us all. But God in His great love has covered our sins. Therefore go and do likewise.

Sunday, July 13, 2008

Grace to One Another

“The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” (1 Cor. 10:16-17)

We’ve considered this morning the fact that God has saved us and is saving us through other people, chiefly Jesus Christ, our neighbor, our Good Samaritan who came to our rescue when we were left for dead on the side of the road. But this salvation is lived out here and during the week as communion, community, koinonia. This means that you need one another. One of the ways that we picture that mutual dependence is in the way that we partake of the bread and the wine. We give thanks here together, and then the bread and the wine go out from here, down the rows, and out to the back of the congregation. We picture in this what the gospel is doing in the world. It is a river that flows out of the temple and floods the earth. It is yeast that leavens the entire loaf until it is fully risen. The Church is the body of Christ, and therefore his blood flows through us. We have just exchanged Peace with one another, and now we are enacting that peace. But notice how we are doing it. We are doing it with the body and blood of the Lord Jesus. This is the only way to have peace. This is the only way relationships work. This is the only way you can deal with other people, through the blood of Christ. But by the grace of God this meal makes you all grace to one another. You are images of God, instruments of blessing to one another. So come eat, drink, and rejoice in the kindness of God.

Ninth Sunday of Trinity Season: Toward a Theology of Other People 1: Eccl. 4:9-12 and Lk. 10:25-37

Opening Prayer: Gracious Father, we ask that you would empower your word now. Cut us up that we might be living sacrifices holy and blameless. Separate the thoughts and intents of our hearts that we might be reconciled to our parents, to our children, to our siblings, and to all of our neighbors. Through Christ our Lord, Amen!

Introduction
We begin a new chapter in the story of Trinity Reformed Church this morning. It is fitting for us to consider who we are and what we are called to as a body of believers. The great summary statement of our calling is the two great commandments which summarize all the law and the prophets: Love God and love your neighbor (Lk. 10:27). Pastor Leithart and I will be sharing the preaching duties over the next number of months, and while he continues to work through Matthew, I will be doing a topical series on a hodgepodge of issues related to family, community, and culture: toward a theology of other people.

Isolation is not Good
When God created Adam, he said that it was not good for man to be alone (Gen. 2:18). Even though this is in the context of marriage, the principle is that two are better than one (Eccl. 4:9-12). All things being equal, it is better to be with people than not. And this is presupposed by the greatest commandments. There must be God and neighbor in order for us to carry out those commands. But these other people are not merely decorations; they are helpers (Gen. 2:18). The wise man says that there is a better reward when two work together on a project; woe to the one who is alone when he falls (Eccl. 4:10). Other people even keep us warm. They are comfort, courage, and strength against enemies (Eccl. 4:12). The common assumption that doing something “by yourself” is somehow more valuable is not true. It is more glorious to weather a storm with other people. Two are better than one; a threefold cord is not quickly broken.

Who is my Neighbor?
A significant part of the story of the Good Samaritan is the answer to the question, ‘Who is my neighbor?’ The answer comes in the form of a story that reveals that your neighbor is the person right in front of you. Jesus says, ‘go and do likewise.’ Don’t make excuses; just do it. This means that proximity and opportunity are important aspects to answering this question. You do not have more responsibility for the needs you know nothing about. Nor do you have more responsibility for the needs you can do nothing about. This means that our neighbors must necessarily be prioritized (Pr. 27:10). Neighbors that are nearer in space and time are the neighbors that God wants us to love, honor, and cherish the most. This means that what your mother thinks is more important than something you read on a blog somewhere. The joyful obedience of your children is more important for you than following the latest diet fad.

Applications
Flee all forms of isolationism: it is not good for you to be alone. You need to love and be loved by these particular people: God has given you your spouse, your children, your parents, your elders, your co-workers, your neighbors. These other people are God’s good gifts to you (Eph. 4:4-12). They are your people, and your response needs to be gratitude because God promises to use them for your good. Do not act, speak, or think as though it would be better to be alone, to be free of these other people, free of their opinions, free of their challenges, free of their . Do not grieve the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:30). They are the neighbors that God has given you. And this is not because it is the easiest way; it is because it is the better way. It is not good for you to be alone because that is how God’s image is being revealed and perfected in you. Therefore, the first lesson toward a theology of other people is that you are not your own (1 Cor. 6:19, 12:13ff). And that is grace. So love them. Cherish their opinions, honor their methods, value their contributions. These are your people. This is your tradition. Embrace the grace that God is bestowing upon you.

In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Amen!

Closing Prayer: Almighty God, you sent your Spirit at Pentecost that we might be your renewed humanity, that our lives might be bound up together, hidden with you in Christ. Teach us to love other people; teach us to love the other people right in front of us, the ones that live with us, the ones that we talk to every day. And grant us these things as we pray as your Son taught us singing…

Monday, June 30, 2008

Performing the Impossible

When Jesus instituted this meal, he did so with the full knowledge that he was at the end of his ministry. He was leaving, and as he left he promised that this was a good thing because he would send the comforter, the Holy Spirit to be with them and lead them into all truth. One of the central ways that the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth is here at this table. The Lord’s Supper is itself the proclamation of the Lord’s death; it is evangelism; it is the gospel. But someone might say; that’s funny, it doesn’t look like a highly effective marketing tool. But this is the glory of the Spirit, the Spirit often works silently, mysteriously, and it’s glorious because the Spirit does what is impossible. As Jesus leaves, he says it is better that he go because he will send them the Spirit. In order to be led into all truth, you must be led by the Spirit of Truth, the Spirit of Jesus. And all of this is proof that it’s the Spirit doing the work. Churches that have everything quickly fall into many temptations to rely on particular people, buildings, traditions, whatever. But churches that lose pastors, churches that have very diverse congregants, churches that have to meet at odd hours or in odd places, those kind of churches know (or should know) in their bones that if they make any kind of impact at all, if anything they do brings glory God and builds his kingdom in a significant way, it was a miracle, something only wrought by the Holy Spirit. And so here we are, doing the impossible. We are proclaiming right now with bread and wine that Jesus died and rose again. That he ascended into heaven and reigns over Greer, South Carolina as her rightful King. And we are doing so in faith believing that Greer will come streaming into the Kingdom one way or another. Since we know that is utterly impossible, we are all the more confident that it is the very sort of thing, our God will delight to do. So I’m leaving, and Craig is coming on. And some of you have challenges in your families, in your work, in your finances, whatever. Good. If it was all easy and straightforward you’d have to wonder if the Holy Spirit is leading you. But if the skies look stormy, if you see death and suffering in your future, if you feel surrounded, if you know you need mercy and grace, then come. This bread and this wine are for you. This meal is for people who need the impossible. And this meal is full assurance that the most impossible thing in the world has already occurred: your sins have been forgiven. And if that impossibility has become reality, how will He not also give you all these things. How will he not also give you faithful children, how will he not also provide for your needs and perfect your marriage? How will he not also establish this church for many generations? So come in faith, believing the promises of God.

Seventh Sunday after Pentecost: Exodus 40

Opening Prayer: Almighty and Gracious God, we are your house, your temple, your dwelling place. Therefore we ask that you would fill us with your glory-spirit. Come and dwell with us now, and impress your image upon us through your Word, Amen!

Introduction
We come at last to the end of the book of Exodus. The chapter opens confirming that the erection of the tabernacle is in fact a new creation, the beginning of a new world: the tabernacle is set up on the first day of the first month (40:2).

The New World
The fact that the text repeats the day on which the tabernacle was raised means it’s important for us to catch (40:2, 17). We noted the similarities between the Moses and Noah previously (Ex. 33-34), and the beginning of Moses’ life had an explicit correlation to the story of the flood in the word “ark” (cf. Ex. 2:3). But this chronological placement on the first day of the first month is the same point at which Noah removed the covering on the ark and saw that the earth was dry (Gen. 8:13). This also reminds us of the Passover, in that the Passover was to be celebrated beginning on the 10th day of the first month. This means that the tabernacle is finished exactly one year after Israel left Egypt (cf. 40:17), getting ready for their first anniversary celebration of Passover. This temporal placement emphasizes all the great contrasts between Pharaoh and Yahweh. This is a new world.

Filling the House
After the tent is constructed, the furniture is brought in starting from the center and working outward (40:3-7). Everything gets anointed and consecrated (40:9-15); this once again emphasizes the continuity between the tabernacle and Aaron and his sons. Notice that what God commands runs parallel to what Moses does and what happens: God command Moses to arrange the tabernacle (vv. 3-8), and commands Moses to anoint/wash everything (vv. 9-15). Then Moses arranges everything (vv. 18-33), and God’s glory cloud comes and fills the tabernacle to lead Israel (vv. 34-38). In other words, the anointing/washing of the tabernacle and its utensils (and people!) corresponds to the spirit-glory of the Lord filling the tabernacle. This has a clear NT antecedent in the close association between baptism and the Holy Spirit (e.g. Acts 2:38, 1 Cor. 12:13). When we anoint in obedience to God’s commands, God’s Spirit confirms by filling.

Filling the House
The use of the word “house” is a key term throughout the book of Exodus: Jacob is recorded as having come down into Egypt with his sons’ “houses” (Ex. 1:1), the midwives are blessed and given “houses” for their faithfulness (1:21), blood is put on the doorposts of the “houses” of Israel in the Passover (12:7), Egypt is called the “house” of slavery (20:2), and of course much of the second half of the book is concerned with building the “house” of Yahweh. Interestingly, the tabernacle is never explicitly called the “house” of Yahweh. Israel is supposed to bring offerings to his “house” (23:19, 34:26), but the word “house” is otherwise only used to describe certain materials used to build the tabernacle, as an architectural term often translated as “inside” or “holder” (e.g. 25:11, 25:27, 26:29, etc.). The tabernacle clearly is a “house,” but Exodus closes, the “house” having been completed, explicitly insisting that the people Israel are the “house” (40:38). All the concern with the tabernacle is really concern with Israel. The “arrangement of the furniture” is really a concern for Israel’s heart, her whole-hearted worship and service of the Lord.

Applications & Conclusions
Two things: How is the furniture of your heart arranged? How is your family’s house put together? This works both as an exhortation and as an encouragement. The exhortation is to pattern your lives after the true tabernacle, the Lord Jesus: pursue beauty and glory in your homes. But the encouragement is that if the tabernacle is in your midst then God promises to accomplish that re-creation in you and in your family. God promises to give you the wisdom of the Hebrew midwives, the wisdom of Bezalel and Aholiab. He promises to give you the Spirit of wisdom.

The Holy Spirit was sent into the tabernacle to lead the children of Israel in all their travels, in all their journeys. It was not Moses who lead them in all their journeys; he had been driven out of the tabernacle. It was the Spirit who lead them. This is God’s pattern: first Moses then the Spirit, first Jesus then the Spirit. There is something bound into the character of God that delights in teaching people to walk in faith and live by the Spirit.

In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Amen!

Closing Prayer: Gracious Father, we call upon you to give us that Spirit that you poured out on Bezalel and Aholiab that we might make our homes and our hearts holy and beautiful. Teach us to order our ways after your ways. Make us love the things that you love and hate the things that you hate. Grant that your Spirit might continually remake us. We give you thanks for what you have already done and trust you for the rest.

Anastacia Ruth Sumpter: March 23, 2008

In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Amen!

The Lord be with you.
And with your spirit.

I am the resurrection and the life, says the Lord: he that believes in my, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosever lives and believes in me, shall never die.

Hymn: Jesus Priceless Treasure

Let us pray: O God, whose beloved Son did take little children into his arms and bless them: Give us grace, we beseech you, to entrust this child Anastacia Ruth Sumpter to your never-failing care and love, and bring us all to your heavenly kingdom; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

Psalm: 116:5-19: Gracious is the LORD, and righteous; Yes, our God is merciful. The LORD preserves the simple; I was brought low, and He saved me. Return to your rest, O my soul, for the LORD has dealt bountifully with you. For You have delivered my soul from death, my eyes from tears, And my feet from falling. I will walk before the LORD in the land of the living. I believed, therefore I spoke, "I am greatly afflicted." I said in my haste, "All men are liars." What shall I render to the LORD for all His benefits toward me? I will take up the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the LORD. I will pay my vows to the LORD now in the presence of all His people. Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of His saints. O LORD, truly I am Your servant; I am Your servant, the son of Your maidservant; You have loosed my bonds. I will offer to You the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and will call upon the name of the LORD. I will pay my vows to the LORD now in the presence of all His people, in the courts of the LORD's house, in the midst of you, O Jerusalem. Praise the LORD!

1 Corinthians 15:20-26, 51-58: But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death…. Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed -- in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory." "O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?" The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.

This is the Word of the Lord.
Thanks be to God.

Funeral Meditation

Somehow it seems rather fitting that the first funeral I perform should be one for my own daughter. There’s nothing quite like death that concentrates the mind and makes priorities obvious and clear. As we commit Anastacia to the earth in sure confidence of God’s care over her and her resurrection at the Last Day, I want to consider three things.

First, our family has prayed that God would prepare us to serve his people both here and those that we will serve in the future. There is no doubt that this is part of that preparation for us. Related to this has been our prayer over the last six months since we knew that Anastacia had died, that we would learn the lessons that God would have us to learn through this time. I have no doubt that there are many such lessons, but one of them has certainly been related to the calling of ministry. And this is not really limited to pastors either. The calling of all Christians is to bear crosses, to lose their lives in order to find them, to lay their lives down for their neighbors, families, friends, and even their enemies. The call of Christian ministry is a call to die. We came here to South Carolina to die, and we have. And in God’s great kindness he has also raised us back up to serve again. We are all called to consider our lives as living sacrifices; we are to think of our lives as a slow motion death for everyone around us in gratitude and thankfulness to God.

Second, I, like many of you, have prayed and continue to pray for Holy Trinity Church, that God would be pleased to establish it for many generations, and that God would equip the saints here for ministry. I believe that Ana’s death is part of this process of establishing Holy Trinity here in Greer and equipping the saints here to minister for many generations. As the apostle says, except a seed be planted in the ground and die it cannot bear fruit. We fully intend for Ana’s grave here to be a memorial to and for the saints of Holy Trinity. It is our prayer that Ana’s death and grave, as little as they are, would nevertheless be a reminder to you of our love for you and our hope that God will continue to do great things through you in the church. A pastor leaving is always a sort of death for a church, and it can be an opportunity for doubts and insecurity. But we hope that you will trust in the God of resurrection with us, and that you will look forward in faith to the more glorious future that God has ahead you. May Ana remind you of that from time to time.

Finally, I want to point out that we named our daughter Anastacia Ruth. Anastacia means “resurrection,” and we thought this was fitting for several reasons. First, she and Tovia were born on Resurrection Sunday, March 23rd, Easter – of all days. Second, all the appearances are that the placenta they shared just wasn’t sufficient for the two of them. One of them had to die in order that the other might have life. This is also related to why we gave her the name Ruth. Ruth means “friend,” and she was a friend to Tovia for a number of weeks and truly a great friend in her death. Third, we certainly do believe that we will meet Anastacia again at the resurrection. Her name is meant to convey our sure faith in Christ who will raise her up with all those who have died in the Lord.

We give great thanks for the privilege it was to have had some brief care of Ana, and for her short life. We realize that all of the children God gives us are foster children. They are ours to care for on behalf of their Father in heaven and their Mother, the Christian Church here on earth. May God teach us wisdom as we mourn. May God teach us to hate sin and death more and more. And may God grant us grace to live knowing that because of the resurrection, our labor is not in vain. But Christ will come and establish the work of our hands.

In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Amen!

The Lord be with you.
And with your spirit.

Let us pray: (singing) Our Father who art in heaven…

Grant us, O God, with all who have died in the hope of the resurrection, to have our consummation and bliss in your eternal and everlasting glory, and, with Anastacia and all your saints, to receive the crown of life which you promise to all who share in the victory of your Son Jesus Christ; who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Hymn: For All the Saints

In sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life through our Lord Jesus Christ, we commend to Almighty God our sister, Anastacia Ruth, and we commit her body to the ground; earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust. The Lord bless her and keep her, the Lord make his face to shine upon her and be gracious unto her, the Lord lift up his countenance upon her and give her peace. Amen.

Almighty God, Father of mercies and giver of comfort; deal graciously, we pray you, with all those who mourn, that, casting every care on you, they may know the consolation of your love; through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.

Hymn: Nunc Dimittis: Master let your servant depart in peace…

May Almighty God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, bless you and keep you, now and for evermore. Amen.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)