The Letter to the Seventh Church (in my opinion) is the most difficult of the seven to understand. I want to draw your attention to three issues the interpreter has to work through: Are the recipients of the letter Christians, what does it mean to be lukewarm, and what does Revelation 3:20 mean?
Are the recipients of the letter Christians?
It seems to me that they must be Christians. The evidence for this position begins with the fact that Jesus Christ calls the people He writes to a CHURCH. This admittedly does not guarantee that every person who was connected to the Church in Laodicea was a true born-again Christian, but that does not change the foundational point Jesus is making to this group, as we will see below.
Secondly, and more complex, Daniel Wallace makes a good case for why these people are believers in the Church of Laodicea. He points out that the use of the Greek verb “phileo,” when used separately from “agapao,” carries the force of fellowship. Theologically then, for the Lord to tell these people He loves them with a fellowshipping kind of love, it would suggest that they are in fact part of His body.
Jesus uses some very harsh words against this Church. He calls them wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked. He tells them they are lukewarm. He tells them that they need pure gold, white garments, and eye salve. This sounds like they need salvation. I’ll suggest my reason for rejecting this position below.
What does it mean to be lukewarm?
Jesus tells them that He wishes they were either hot or cold. As it is right now, they are lukewarm and are in danger of being vomited out of Jesus’ mouth. I used to think that Jesus was decrying “fence-sitting” in this passage. That He wanted people to either be completely sold out for Him or completely against Him so that there is no question to anyone about whose side you are on. However, it seems inconceivable that Jesus would wish someone were completely against Him. And the issue of “fence-sitting” being confusing to Jesus is certainly no trouble to the Omniscient One.
Rather, the historical and geographical context of Laodicea probably clears up what Jesus is referring to here. There were two neighboring cities with springs of water around Laodicea. One had hot springs and the other had cold springs. But, the aqueduct system for Laodicea was not able to retain the properties of the two springs – they mingled together and brought lukewarm water into the city.
Hot water is useful, cold water is useful, but lukewarm water can’t do what either of the other two can do. Jesus seems to be saying, “I have called some of you to be hot, I have called some of you to be cold – and yet you all are just lukewarm. You are not being who I have called you to be.”
What does Revelation 3:20 mean?
Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him, and eat with him, and he with me.
Is this a summons to salvation? “Will you invite Jesus into your heart?” I do not think that is Jesus’ point. First, I just argued above that these people were already Christians. Second, and more importantly, look at the prepositions “in to” and “into.” (Again, see Daniel Wallace’s discussion on this.) These are different words in both English and Greek. The verse says Jesus will come “in to” the person. The force of the verse then is not – will you allow Jesus to indwell you? (Which is theologically problematic anyway seeing as the Holy Spirit is the Member of the Trinity who indwells believers.) Rather, the force of the verse is on whether or not you “hear” Jesus’ voice and open the door to Him.
Conclusion
So, how does this tie together? I take this whole passage as one of the warning passages of the New Testament. Jesus seems to be giving the same warning to the Church in Laodicea three different ways. You are neither hot nor cold, you are lukewarm. You are not rich; you are poor, blind, and naked. Will you hear My voice, or will you close off from Me and remain in the same condition you are currently in?
If you will not be what I created you to be, or buy from Me instead of from the world’s wares, or hear my voice and eat with Me, THEN I will spew you out of My mouth. You will have shown yourself to be a false believer. You will have shown yourself to be lost. BUT, if you will be what I created you to be through repentance and zeal; if you will get your gold and white garments and eye salve from Me instead of from the world; if you will hear my voice and open the door, then this warning will have done its job and you will have given evidences of grace in your life.
And if you will hear My voice and open the door and eat with me, then I will allow you to sit down with Me on My throne just as I sat down with My Father on His throne!
To read another pastor’s take on this conclusion, go here. It is worth your time.
Showing posts with label Jason. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jason. Show all posts
Friday, January 14, 2011
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Church and State
There is wisdom here.
Read Dr. Mohler’s words in the context of Romans 13:1-7, 1 Timothy 2:1-4 and 1 Peter 2:13-17. The Church has specific responsibilities given to her by Christ regarding those in governing authority over us. And these responsibilities hold whether we agree with the authority's policies/ideologies or not.
Mohler’s conclusion:
Read Dr. Mohler’s words in the context of Romans 13:1-7, 1 Timothy 2:1-4 and 1 Peter 2:13-17. The Church has specific responsibilities given to her by Christ regarding those in governing authority over us. And these responsibilities hold whether we agree with the authority's policies/ideologies or not.
Mohler’s conclusion:
“Evangelical Christians have moved through several phases of political engagement in recent decades. Coming out of the wilderness years of relative withdrawal from interest in politics, evangelicals joined the Religious Right with eagerness and great expectations. But, even as some important legislative and bureaucratic victories were won, the Religious Right never fulfilled its many promises. Now, a good many evangelicals, young and old, are rethinking the political equation once again.
Evangelicals tend to swing between extremes when it comes to politics and elections. We are too easily elated and too readily depressed. Make no mistake. The election results of 2010 will lead to big changes in Washington and far beyond. That in itself is good news. But all this must be put in a truly Christian context.
Christians are supposed to be the people who know the dangers of investing either too much, or too little, confidence in the political system. The election is over. Now is the time for Christians to pray for those who were elected and for the government they will serve. Things are going to get interesting fast.”
Friday, October 22, 2010
Local Church Discipline and Local Church Health
The Bible teaches that we will not be completely freed from our sin until we are glorified in the New Heavens and the New Earth (see 1 John 1:8, 3:2, Revelation 21-22). Therefore, while still on earth in this age, the Church continually needs sanctification and the mortification of the flesh in believers. One of the main processes of sanctification in the local church is church discipline (see Matthew 18:15-20). Because of this, if a local church does not regularly practice church discipline as laid out by Jesus Christ it is not a sign of health in that church. Rather, the lack of the regular practice of church discipline can only be categorized as unfaithfulness to Jesus Christ and a lack of love for the members of that local church.
I am not suggesting that a local church must regularly practice the third level of discipline that Jesus gives us (bringing an unrepentant sinner before the church and then excommunicating him if he refuses to repent). Certainly if the situation requires this level, it must be practiced. But, the goal is that the first level (privately going to your brother to show him his guilt), or maybe the second level of church discipline (taking two or three witnesses if the first level did not bring repentance) would suffice to bring the sinner in question to repentance.
The upshot is this: our churches must practice church discipline if they are to be healthy churches. And the excuse that there is no reason to practice discipline in one's particular local church cannot be used. Sin is universally present in all of our lives (and all of our churches); therefore we all need regular church discipline. To fail to regularly practice local church discipline is to be unfaithful to Jesus Christ the King and Bridegroom of the Church.
For further reading on this topic see Mark Dever’s WHAT IS A HEALTHY CHURCH? and Dever’s NINE MARKS OF A HEALTHY CHURCH.
I am not suggesting that a local church must regularly practice the third level of discipline that Jesus gives us (bringing an unrepentant sinner before the church and then excommunicating him if he refuses to repent). Certainly if the situation requires this level, it must be practiced. But, the goal is that the first level (privately going to your brother to show him his guilt), or maybe the second level of church discipline (taking two or three witnesses if the first level did not bring repentance) would suffice to bring the sinner in question to repentance.
The upshot is this: our churches must practice church discipline if they are to be healthy churches. And the excuse that there is no reason to practice discipline in one's particular local church cannot be used. Sin is universally present in all of our lives (and all of our churches); therefore we all need regular church discipline. To fail to regularly practice local church discipline is to be unfaithful to Jesus Christ the King and Bridegroom of the Church.
For further reading on this topic see Mark Dever’s WHAT IS A HEALTHY CHURCH? and Dever’s NINE MARKS OF A HEALTHY CHURCH.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Review of ACCORDING TO PLAN
Graeme Goldsworthy, ACCORDING TO PLAN: THE UNFOLDING REVELATION OF GOD IN THE BIBLE. Published by InterVarsity Press in 1991. ISBN# 0-8308-2696-3. 251 pages.
Goldsworthy’s book, ACCORDING TO PLAN, is still being presented as a watershed piece by those who know and teach Biblical Theology. My plan for this post and the next (and possibly the one after that) is to summarize and discuss some of the issues of Biblical Theology. I will be reviewing Goldsworthy’s book in this post. And next time, I will review Michael Lawrence’s brand new book on Biblical Theology.
First, Goldsworthy states on page 7 that he has attempted to do three things: “First, to introduce the reader to an integrated theology of the whole Bible. Second, to write this introduction fully accepting the full inspiration and authority of the Bible as the word of God. Third, to write for ordinary Christians at a level that avoids unnecessary technicalities.” The book is then broken into four parts. Part one asks the why question: Why do Biblical Theology? Part two: How do we do Biblical Theology? Part three: What is Biblical Theology? And Part four: Where do we do Biblical Theology? Also, at the outset, I would like to note that there are several charts, graphs, and visual aids in this book that are immensely helpful for the reader to make sure they understand everything that is being discussed in the book.
Summary of ACCORDING TO PLAN
Part one consists of one chapter. Here, Goldsworthy argues that individual texts of Scripture raise difficult interpretive questions and Biblical Theology helps the reader answer these questions. For examples, Goldsworthy picks various passages in Scripture and talks about the multiple ways these passages could be interpreted i.e. questions about the Sabbath. Biblical Theology is meant to give the Bible reader the tools to faithfully interpret individual scriptural texts.
Part two consists of six chapters. Here Goldsworthy establishes his foundational presuppositions regarding God’s self revelation to humanity. In so doing, the author points out the universality of theology. Theology is simply speaking words about God – and every human being does this all of the time. We may speak true or untrue words about God, but we all do theology. Goldsworthy helpfully points out in this section that Christ is the full revelation of God and we know Christ through the Scriptures. This leads us to one of the most important parts of the book, Christ and His redeeming work as summed up in the Gospel, informs how we interpret Scripture (see page 55). This issue will be discussed at more length below.
Goldsworthy continues his discussion by showing the reader how God has progressively revealed Himself in Scripture. The farther along the reader goes in the storyline of Scripture, the more we come to know about God and the plan of redemption.
Goldsworthy finishes this section by establishing that faithful interpretation of Scripture begins and ends with Christ. This includes taking into consideration the literature genre, historical context, and the actual revelatory content of any given passage that the reader is working with.
Part three is the longest section of the book at 18 chapters. Goldsworthy walks the reader through the storyline of the Bible and lays out the major themes of Biblical Theology. For a helpful visual aid, see the chart on page 80. In 154 pages, Goldsworthy spells out how the Gospel of Jesus Christ is central in all of Scripture and how all of Biblical Theology points us toward Him.
Goldsworthy’s conclusion is summed up in the chart on page 232 and this is the crux of his entire argument. God progressively reveals Himself to His people throughout the biblical storyline. This revelation can be divided into four categories: Kingdom, God, Mankind, and World. This issue will be discussed at more length below.
Part four concludes the book with two chapters. Here, Goldsworthy’s goal is to show the real life process of Biblical Theology in the context of the life of the Church. His two test cases are: “What is God’s will for my life?” and “Is there life after death?” These are admittedly brief statements, but Goldsworthy is aware of this and intentionally did not want to lengthen the book for his readers.
Strengths of ACCORDING TO PLAN
The strengths are many, so I am going to confine myself to three points. First, Goldsworthy’s statement on page 55 that Christ is the interpretive key to all of Scripture is immensely important. He lays out a “Christian approach to the Old Testament.” Goldsworthy writes:
As Christians, we must return to the principles of Old Testament interpretation dictated by the New Testament. When Jesus says that he gives the Old Testament its meaning, he is also saying that we need the Old Testament to understand what he says about himself. Jesus drives us back to the Old Testament to examine it through Christian eyes, teaching that it leads us back to him.
In doing biblical theology as Christians, we do not start at Genesis 1 and work our way forward until we discover where it is all leading. Rather we first come to Christ, and he directs us to study the Old Testament in the light of the gospel. The gospel will interpret the Old Testament by showing its goal and meaning. The Old Testament will increase our understanding of the gospel by showing us what Christ fulfills.
I believe it is hard to overestimate the importance of these two paragraphs for the Church. We must read the entire Bible as Christians. And this means we must approach the text with the expectation that it can only be rightly interpreted in view of the person and work of Jesus Christ. Think long and hard about this as you read passages like Luke 24 regarding Jesus’ teaching on the Emmaus Road.
The second strength to discuss is Goldsworthy’s conviction of how progressive revelation is centered on Jesus Christ. This is laid out in the chart on page 232, but the entire 18 chapters of part three drives the reader to this conclusion. The Old Testament points forward to Christ and the New Testament looks backward to Christ.
To summarize his conclusion: The Kingdom begins as the original creation (generation). God has revealed Himself as God, the Creator. Adam and Eve are Mankind and the World is Eden. This is where the “Kingdom pattern [is] established.” Then, after the Fall, the regeneration of the Kingdom is foreshadowed. God begins to progressively reveal Himself as God and then as LORD. The regeneration of mankind begins in God’s call and covenant with Abraham and his descendants first, and then in Israel, and then specifically in David’s line as king. The regenerated world is revealed as Canaan and then centers on the Temple in Jerusalem during the reign of the Davidic kings. So here the “Kingdom [is] revealed in Israel’s history.” After this comes the regeneration revealed in prophecy. God is still revealing Himself as the Covenant God whose name is the LORD. Mankind has been narrowed down to the faithful remnant of Israel. And the World is now prophetically identified in the New Temple and Jerusalem. So, the “Kingdom [is] revealed in prophetic eschatology.
It is at this point that Goldsworthy’s interpretive scheme really comes into focus. The stage is set for the “regeneration for us and in us and in the whole of creation” to begin. And it begins in Jesus Christ. So, God reveals Himself in His Son, Jesus Christ. Mankind is found in Jesus Christ – the faithful Man of God. And the World is found in Jesus Christ – as the firstborn of all creation, the first one to be fully glorified after resurrection and the one who begins to reverse the curse of sin. So, the “Kingdom [is] revealed in Jesus.” [Note that Goldsworthy’s theological usage of these words in no way suggests universalism, the idea that all people will be saved in the end. This summary would become unwieldy in length if I reproduced all of his argumentation. Suffice it to say that Goldsworthy explains his position fully and adequately in the chapters of ACCORDING TO PLAN.]
And at this point, the accomplishment of redemption is now applied to us. So, God has now revealed Himself as Trinity. Regenerated mankind is made up of those who are “in Christ.” And the regenerated world is where Christ is. His Kingdom is invading this present darkness. This marks a period of transition that will be consummated in the Age to Come. There, God still reveals Himself as Trinity. Mankind is at that point the people who are literally in the presence of God. And the world is the New Heaven’s and the New Earth.
All I have done here is taken the chart on page 232 and written it out in paragraph form. But, what you have here is the storyline of Scripture. What you have is the foundation for doing Biblical Theology.
The final strength I will discuss is Goldsworthy’s overall confidence in the Word of God. Scripture, when rightly interpreted, is sufficient because in the Bible the Church hears the voice of her Savior. So, the practical concerns of everyday life are spoken to in the Word of God. Our responsibility is to read and hear and see what the Lord says.
Weaknesses of ACCORDING TO PLAN
As far as weaknesses go, there were not many. One I will mention was a strange statement on page 221 about Jesus Christ being our “alter ego.” I think that is an unfortunate phrase because it suggests that Christ’s Spirit in us, conforming us to His image, might only be a figment of our imagination. I am sure this is not what the author intended to convey, but I wish he had worded the statement differently.
Further Thinking in view of ACCORDING TO PLAN
There is need for further thinking after reading this book. The obvious starting place is drawing out more details on practical theological issues by building on these principles. The Church needs a steady diet of Scripture rightly interpreted in order to be doers and hearers of the Word. Also, for preachers and teachers, we must take care to handle individual passages carefully while using these principles so that each sermon exposits the individual text and does not turn into the same sermon every week with a different starting point.
All in all, this is an excellent introduction to Biblical Theology. It is nearly 20 years old, but if you have not read it yet, buy a copy or get one at your library and read it soon. Your Bible study, preaching, and Christian life will be stronger for it. ACCORDING TO PLAN by Graeme Goldsworthy comes highly recommended for everyone.
Jason Sturkie
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Alcohol
My goal in this post is not to give an exhaustive presentation of the biblical teaching on alcohol. Rather, this is meant to simply raise five points regarding the issue for the purpose of engaging in discussion. Comments are welcome, humility is encouraged.
Five Points:
1. Sin of Drunkenness
2. Good Gift of Wine
3. Not Causing Others to Sin
4. Not Sinning Against your Conscience
5. Need for Wisdom
The Sin of Drunkenness
The Bible uniformly condemns drunkenness as sinful. From the first mention of alcohol, we hear the Spirit of God telling us to beware of this sin. Noah’s wine is the first mention of alcohol in the Bible, and Noah got drunk off of it, leading to far-reaching family consequences. The sin of drunkenness is explicitly condemned by the Apostle Paul in Ephesians 5:18. Also, there are several passages in the Proverbs that link drunkenness with foolishness. This is not necessarily stating that drunkenness is a result of stupidity. Rather, the biblical definition of a fool is one who either states or acts in such a way as to declare that there is no God. So, when the fool is a drunkard, he is allowing alcohol to be his master, rather than the Lord. See Proverbs 20:1.
The Good Gift of Wine
This aspect of biblical teaching is often overlooked in the discussion about alcohol. Briefly, the Bible states in several places, in both Testaments, that wine is a good gift from God and He has given it to us for our joy.
· Psalm 104:14-15 You cause the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine and bread to strengthen man’s heart.
· Deuteronomy 14:22-26 "You shall tithe all the yield of your seed that comes from the field year by year. And before the LORD your God, in the place that he will choose, to make his name dwell there, you shall eat the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and flock, that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always. And if the way is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, when the LORD your God blesses you, because the place is too far from you, which the LORD your God chooses, to set his name there, then you shall turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the LORD your God chooses and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household.
· Isaiah 25:6-9 On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. And he will swallow up on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death forever; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the LORD has spoken. It will be said on that day, "Behold, this is our God; we have waited for him, that he might save us. This is the LORD; we have waited for him; let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation."
· John 2 – I will not quote this passage, but it is the wedding a Cana. Jesus turned the water into wine. It was good wine. The master of the feast said so.
· Matthew 26:29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom."
Lest we think that Jesus perhaps only used non-alcoholic wine, there are several things we need to remember. First, and least importantly, there is no evidence whatsoever that suggests anyone made or was able to make non-alcoholic wine in the first century. Second, and of middle importance, the master of the feast at the wedding of Cana suggested that the wine Jesus made was better than the wine that had been previously served. Now, I am no wine connoisseur, but I doubt he would have suggested that non-alcoholic grape juice was better wine than the previous wine. And third, and this is of highest importance, the Scriptures teach us that Jesus was called a glutton and a drunkard. No one gets the reputation for being a drunkard by being a tee-totaler. Rather, if we are to believe the Scriptures here, we are constrained to admit that Jesus must have drunk normal wine just like everyone else, and that wine must have been alcoholic, to at least present the possibility of legitimately accusing Jesus of being a drunkard.
The Weaker/Stronger Brother
Romans 14:20-23 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.
These verses are in the context of a long argument Paul is making regarding weaker and stronger Christians. The weakness and strength describes the Christian’s faith. The flow of the entire chapter begins with Paul establishing that the Master of every Christian should be the Lord. Each person should be convinced in his own mind and focus on the work of Jesus Christ and His gospel. God will be the one who holds us accountable for our actions. Therefore, Paul tells us not to put a stumbling block in the way of our brother. Rather, we are to walk in love.
So, Paul is telling the stronger brother, “if you exercise your freedom in such a way that it causes a weaker brother to stumble, then you have not only caused that weaker brother to sin, but you yourself have sinned because you are not walking in love.”
So, how do we do this in everyday life? I do not believe that Paul is calling us to live in a bubble or in our cellar and never come out in public lest we do something that someone else thinks is a sin. He covered that earlier in the chapter – the one who abstains must not pass judgment on the one who partakes and vice versa. Regarding alcohol, I understand Paul to say that the stronger brother may be able to exercise his faith in God by enjoying his freedom to partake of alcohol (obviously, without getting drunk). The weaker brother may believe that all consumption of alcohol is sinful. In this case, it would be a sin for the stronger brother to cause the weaker brother to stumble, by causing the weaker brother to partake in alcohol and therefore sin against his conscience.
I do not believe it is a sin for someone to drink alcohol (without getting drunk) in the presence of someone who thinks all consumption of alcohol is sinful because of their particular understanding of the biblical teaching on the issue. Paul, again, has already covered this. We are not to pass judgment on these issues because God will hold us accountable and judge us for our actions (see Romans 14:1-12).[1] The issue of stumbling is not about differing interpretations of Scripture. Rather, the issue is about someone actually causing someone else to act contrary to his conscience and perform an action that they are convinced is a sin. These are two different things.
To spell it out – Bill is a Christian who partakes of alcohol without getting drunk. George is another Christian who thinks all consumption of alcohol is sinful. If Bill causes George to drink alcohol, Bill has caused George to stumble into sin because George has just acted contrary to his conscience. And therefore, Bill has also sinned, because he did not walk in love.
To spell out another possible situation: Bill is a Christian who partakes of alcohol without getting drunk. George is a Christian who thinks all consumption of alcohol is sinful. Bill and George find out about the other’s differing interpretation of Scripture. Bill and George, in brotherly love (hopefully) discuss their varying interpretations of Scripture for the purpose of better understanding Scripture. Bill remains unchanged in his understanding. George remains unchanged in his understanding. George never consumes alcohol, despite Bill stating that he believes it is not a sin to do so. Neither Bill nor George has sinned. However, as I understand Paul, if either of them judges the other one as sinning, they are breaking the command of Scripture: i.e. If Bill judges George for not enjoying a good gift of God (the wine) or if George judges Bill for partaking of something that, if used to excess would be sinful, then Bill and/or George would be guilty of sin.
Now, it is important to also stress that Paul calls us to live at peace with one another. So, for the believer who thinks it is ok to drink without getting drunk – he should not understand his freedom to include flaunting alcohol in the face of different minded Christians. That would be contrary to peace. But that does not mean that this issue should never be discussed. There are ways to discuss the relevant Scriptural passages without breaking the command for peace and love. In fact, Romans 14:14 suggests, by Paul’s example, that those with weak consciences should have their consciences better informed by Scripture. Also, the strong brothers need to have their consciences checked by Scripture.
The Christian Conscience
This leads us to a brief discussion of the Christian’s conscience. Your conscience is not your Lord. Jesus is Lord. Therefore, we should strive as best we can to inform our consciences according to biblical teaching. But assuming you are diligently pursuing this goal, your conscience should be respected. The Lord has designed you this way and warns against searing the conscience. Therefore, if upon Scriptural study and reflection, you come to the conclusion that the Bible does in fact teach that alcoholic consumption is sinful, you should not consume alcohol. If you did, you would be sinning against your conscience which is directed by your understanding of Scripture. Again, this does not mean that further discussion and study on the topic is not prudent and useful – but for the time being, your mind is convinced. Do not sin against your conscience.
The Need for Wisdom
The final issue to remember is that we are called to use wisdom, regardless of which side of the issue we are on. It requires wisdom to know how to apply the diverse teachings of Scripture on this subject particularly. It takes wisdom to know how your culture will approach the subject. In other words, alcohol is not an issue that is as cut and dried as other issues. This is not because the Bible does not mention the issue. Rather, it is because the Bible mentions alcohol in many different contexts. Some contexts refer to sin – the sin of drunkenness. Some contexts refer to worship and rejoicing – Psalm 104. Therefore, as with all such subjects in Scripture, we are called to meditate upon the word day and night and seek the mind of Christ and ask the Spirit of God to conform us to the image of Christ.
There are many more things that could be said. And whichever side of the issue you are on, there are faithful Christians who disagree with you. Therefore, we should pray for humility and wisdom so that we can walk with one another in love.
**Update** - July 15, 2010
One issue I failed to mention: if you are constrained by a church covenant that calls its members to abstain from all alcohol, then you should abstain from all alcohol. To ignore the church covenant that you have submitted to by being a member of that church would be sin. Also, you may have voluntarily associated with a group of people or organization that stipulates they will abstain from alcohol. If that is the case, you should abstain from alcohol as a member of that group. Or, you should break your association as a member of that group. Example: Southern Seminary stipulates that all of its students abstain from alcohol while they are students of the school. Even if a student believes it is not sinful to drink alcohol, they should not drink alcohol while they are a student at Southern. To do so would be to sin, because, by voluntarily associating with the school, you agree to submit to the stipulations of the school. To break those stipulations would be to break your own word. If a stipulation were deemed unscriptural or unreasonable, you should break the voluntary association before breaking the stipulation. So, in our example, if a student at Southern thought drinking alcohol were more important than keeping the voluntary association with Southern, they should withdraw from the school before they partake of alcohol. If that is your decision, your prudence and priorities might be questioned, but at least you would have kept your word.
[1] Lest anyone think that this is license to commit any and all manner of sins – beware. We are not to sin so that grace may abound, or so that God will be seen righteous in judging us, or any other excuse we could come up with to commit sins. Rather, Paul’s command for us to refrain from passing judgment is on matters of conscience where there may be a legitimate disagreement over what the Bible teaches about a given subject. No one, on biblical grounds, can disagree with the statement “drunkenness is a sin.” Many people, on biblical grounds could disagree with the statement “all consumption of alcohol is sinful.”
Monday, February 15, 2010
JESUS IS A BETTER MESSIAH THAN...
Jesus Christ is a better Messiah than Superman, Harry Potter, and Duncan McLeod the Highlander. That may seem like a strange claim, but it is true. So, I want us to think through some of the messiah figures who are presented as options in our culture and the literature that ensues. I am using literature here very loosely – it includes movies, television, internet blogs, and books.
So, before we begin, why I am I qualified to speak on such figures as Superman, Harry Potter, and Duncan McLeod of the clan McLeod? Currently, I am 6 episodes from the end of season 3 of Smallville, the story of Superman as a high school student. I have seen (at least parts of) every Superman movie. Though I am not well versed in the comic books, I am familiar with the different iterations of the storyline thanks to the great worldwide research network called Wikipedia. As far as Harry Potter goes, I have read all seven of the books. I have seen all of the movies to date, some multiple times. I have spent several hours in debate over the various subtleties (if there are any) in the storyline with some likeminded friends. And as for the Highlander, I have seen all of the movies, watched all of the TV episodes (I think) and have even read some of the fan fiction online. (I can hear my brother laughing at me right now.)
The goal of this essay is to understand how each of these fictional characters are presented as messiah figures in their various worlds for the purpose of providing solutions to universal human problems of sin, death, war, and general evil of every kind. DISCLAIMER!!! I will be discussing the ending of the Harry Potter series. If you do not want to know how that story ends, (if you are only a movie watcher) then don’t read this post.
Superman is the messiah figure in the world of Smallville and Metropolis. It is a reality that looks just like our reality. So, the fictional aspect of this storyline has to do with the existence of the characters only, everything else could very well be a description of real life. Clark Kent is actually an alien sent by his father from Krypton to Earth. Humanity is described as a flawed race. Kal-el (Superman, Clark Kent) is sent here to save us – as the Smallville theme song so ably declares. Superman is put forward as a moral example. Even though he does make some mistakes in judgment as a teenager, he is genuinely remorseful of his mistakes. And as an adult, Superman is presented as a moral exemplar. Some describe Superman as a god. He does have a weakness, but it is not from this world. Kryptonite is the only thing that can stop Superman. His purpose in life is to stop disasters, save people’s lives and generally promote peace.
Jesus is a better Messiah than Superman. Superman is not human. Jesus Christ is fully human. Superman is not divine. Jesus Christ is fully God. Why is this significant? If Jesus is to provide salvation for fallen human beings, He must be fully human Himself. If Jesus is to provide salvation for an innumerable multitude of fallen human beings, His sacrifice must be of infinite worth. Therefore, Jesus Christ must also be fully God. If Jesus is not fully God and fully Man, then we have no salvation in Christ. So, despite the most recent Superman Movie’s attempt to show Superman die while saving humanity from destruction and then have a kind of resurrection, any actual accomplishment of substitutionary atonement is impossible. Superman simply is not equipped to pay for the sins of the world. Only Jesus Christ is. Therefore, the Superman messiah figure reduces to a moral example form of salvation where humanity is asked to simply act like this “greater” person. And if we all succeed in that, the world will be a better place. It is a gross underestimation of the total depravity that comes from sin. Jesus is not simply our example; Jesus takes our place as the perfect Human Being and the Infinite God. Also, notice that Jesus does not come in the incarnation grasping for all the glory that is His as the Second Member of the Trinity. Jesus willingly humbles Himself as a servant even unto death on the cross. There is no spectacular show of power, at least, in the sense of flying or super strength. Jesus comes in meekness and displays His glory and power in His death on the cross.
Harry Potter is the messiah figure in his world of Hogwarts and England. Here, reality is presented as something different from the real world. If you know the way, you can find Diagon Ally and Hogwarts, and the Ministry of Magic. They are places veiled by magic and typically inaccessible to normal human beings. Well, Harry is not presented as a moral example in all aspects. He has some good qualities about him: loyalty, bravery, good work ethic, a desire to save life. But, he is not above breaking the rules to get by. Harry is filled with and shielded by a very old and strong magic (love) that allows him to survive the attempt on his life by Lord Voldemort (the bad guy). At the end of the story, Harry absorbs the full attack of Lord V and apparently dies. It is actually unclear in the text whether Harry dies or not. But, there is an apparent death and resurrection of Harry Potter. And then he is able to fight Lord V and ultimately destroy him. There is a very clear attempt in the storyline to present Harry as absorbing evil and overcoming it with a sacrificial death. Then of course, in the “resurrection” he is about to go back and fully put down the enemies of good.
Well, Jesus is a better Messiah than Harry Potter. Number one, Jesus is sinless. Harry was clearly presented as committing sins. Number two, Harry is only able to defeat evil that is “out there” in his supposed death and resurrection. The evil is in Lord V and his wicked followers. Jesus does not merely have enemies who are “out there.” Jesus must search out and kill all the sin that is within His own people. Jesus, who knew no sin, became sin upon the cross. The point of the Gospel is that your sin and my sin are nailed to the cross in Jesus Christ and, by grace through faith in Him, His righteousness is imputed to us as a result of our union with Him. So, Jesus is sinless, morally perfect, but does not simply fight against some external enemy of God – He fights and conquers the sin that dwells within us in accomplishing our salvation.
Duncan McLeod. Now, some of you might not see Mac as a messiah figure. But, I think he is. He is always fighting bad guys. He is always trying to protect the life of others in danger from the bad guys. And, he is immortal. In fact, on the TV show, McLeod actually is able to absorb evil from the wicked immortals he defeats and then has something called a dark quickening. This is where the evil within him overpowers him, and he turns into a bad guy. His victory only comes about when the good inside of him battles against the evil inside him and overcomes. Also, there is an eschatological aspect of Highlander. If an evil immortal wins in the end, then the world will be ushered into a reign of darkness. If McLeod (or presumably another good immortal) wins, then the world will be ushered into a reign of peace.
And so, Jesus is a better Messiah than Duncan McLeod. For starters, McLeod is clearly sinful. They don’t even try to hide that. Secondly, like Superman, McLeod is only able to serve as an example for other people. He is not actually able to transform anyone into a better person. As far as the eschatology goes, there may be a question as to who will win in the end in the world of Highlander, but there is no question in the real world. Jesus’ victory over the Kingdom of Darkness is not only assured, it is already in process. At His death and resurrection, Jesus defeated Satan, death, hell, sin, and the grave. We rightly now ask, “Death, where is your sting?” The culmination of the victory will be at the Second Coming of Christ. And the amazing news of the Gospel is that Jesus is not only going to finally defeat Satan, but He is going to bring us into the joy of that victory. That is why the Apostle Paul is able to tell believers that the God of all peace is going to crush Satan under your feet (Romans 16:20). And that brings us to our last point. McLeod is immortal, but he cannot grant eternal life to anyone. Jesus Christ, the Author of Life, promises eternal life to all who simply turn from their sins and trust Him for salvation in faith.
Now, what is the point of this mega-exciting post? Much of our beliefs are shaped by popular culture. There is a reason why people enjoy watching and reading about characters like these. For most, it is not because they want to learn how to block an avada kedavra curse, or understand the political inner-workings of the Kryptonian government. Rather, it is because these messiah figures, and the storylines they come with, attempt to answer a longing that every human being has. We all need to be saved. We all recognize, when we are honest, that there is an enemy that we cannot defeat and we need someone to fight for us. The danger with these counterfeit messiahs is that they cannot save, not only because they are not real, but because even if they were real they would not be able to offer true salvation. Jesus Christ alone offers the hope and life and salvation that we desperately need.
Now, is it a sin to read and watch these kinds of stories, or should we only read the True Story in our Bibles? Of course, if we are only watching and reading these fictional works with subpar messiahs in lieu of the True Story, then we had better pick up our Bibles and get to reading. But, apart from the neglect of the study of the Word of God, I do not believe reading and watching these things is necessarily sinful. Some individual episodes or portions of the story may be sinful – and you need to watch and read with wisdom and discernment. Also, it is possible to get sucked into a fictional world and neglect the real world where you have real responsibilities to family, work, and Church. But that applies to any number of things that we enjoy doing in our lives.
In conclusion, read and watch and listen to the fruit of our popular culture with discernment. An alternative salvation story is presented over and over again. If we do not have the discernment to recognize those alternative stories and the Scriptural chops to show ourselves and our friends how Jesus is superior, then we will find ourselves as confused as the lost world. The confusion arises because we are indoctrinated on how to respond to a messiah by the storylines that we are constantly exposed to. As Christians, we need to be aware of what our neighbors and family members are taking in so that we can discuss it and speak truth grounded in the Word of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, because it is only in Christ that we find a storyline that explains reality and proclaims a salvation that is more real than anything else.
So, before we begin, why I am I qualified to speak on such figures as Superman, Harry Potter, and Duncan McLeod of the clan McLeod? Currently, I am 6 episodes from the end of season 3 of Smallville, the story of Superman as a high school student. I have seen (at least parts of) every Superman movie. Though I am not well versed in the comic books, I am familiar with the different iterations of the storyline thanks to the great worldwide research network called Wikipedia. As far as Harry Potter goes, I have read all seven of the books. I have seen all of the movies to date, some multiple times. I have spent several hours in debate over the various subtleties (if there are any) in the storyline with some likeminded friends. And as for the Highlander, I have seen all of the movies, watched all of the TV episodes (I think) and have even read some of the fan fiction online. (I can hear my brother laughing at me right now.)
The goal of this essay is to understand how each of these fictional characters are presented as messiah figures in their various worlds for the purpose of providing solutions to universal human problems of sin, death, war, and general evil of every kind. DISCLAIMER!!! I will be discussing the ending of the Harry Potter series. If you do not want to know how that story ends, (if you are only a movie watcher) then don’t read this post.
Superman is the messiah figure in the world of Smallville and Metropolis. It is a reality that looks just like our reality. So, the fictional aspect of this storyline has to do with the existence of the characters only, everything else could very well be a description of real life. Clark Kent is actually an alien sent by his father from Krypton to Earth. Humanity is described as a flawed race. Kal-el (Superman, Clark Kent) is sent here to save us – as the Smallville theme song so ably declares. Superman is put forward as a moral example. Even though he does make some mistakes in judgment as a teenager, he is genuinely remorseful of his mistakes. And as an adult, Superman is presented as a moral exemplar. Some describe Superman as a god. He does have a weakness, but it is not from this world. Kryptonite is the only thing that can stop Superman. His purpose in life is to stop disasters, save people’s lives and generally promote peace.
Jesus is a better Messiah than Superman. Superman is not human. Jesus Christ is fully human. Superman is not divine. Jesus Christ is fully God. Why is this significant? If Jesus is to provide salvation for fallen human beings, He must be fully human Himself. If Jesus is to provide salvation for an innumerable multitude of fallen human beings, His sacrifice must be of infinite worth. Therefore, Jesus Christ must also be fully God. If Jesus is not fully God and fully Man, then we have no salvation in Christ. So, despite the most recent Superman Movie’s attempt to show Superman die while saving humanity from destruction and then have a kind of resurrection, any actual accomplishment of substitutionary atonement is impossible. Superman simply is not equipped to pay for the sins of the world. Only Jesus Christ is. Therefore, the Superman messiah figure reduces to a moral example form of salvation where humanity is asked to simply act like this “greater” person. And if we all succeed in that, the world will be a better place. It is a gross underestimation of the total depravity that comes from sin. Jesus is not simply our example; Jesus takes our place as the perfect Human Being and the Infinite God. Also, notice that Jesus does not come in the incarnation grasping for all the glory that is His as the Second Member of the Trinity. Jesus willingly humbles Himself as a servant even unto death on the cross. There is no spectacular show of power, at least, in the sense of flying or super strength. Jesus comes in meekness and displays His glory and power in His death on the cross.
Harry Potter is the messiah figure in his world of Hogwarts and England. Here, reality is presented as something different from the real world. If you know the way, you can find Diagon Ally and Hogwarts, and the Ministry of Magic. They are places veiled by magic and typically inaccessible to normal human beings. Well, Harry is not presented as a moral example in all aspects. He has some good qualities about him: loyalty, bravery, good work ethic, a desire to save life. But, he is not above breaking the rules to get by. Harry is filled with and shielded by a very old and strong magic (love) that allows him to survive the attempt on his life by Lord Voldemort (the bad guy). At the end of the story, Harry absorbs the full attack of Lord V and apparently dies. It is actually unclear in the text whether Harry dies or not. But, there is an apparent death and resurrection of Harry Potter. And then he is able to fight Lord V and ultimately destroy him. There is a very clear attempt in the storyline to present Harry as absorbing evil and overcoming it with a sacrificial death. Then of course, in the “resurrection” he is about to go back and fully put down the enemies of good.
Well, Jesus is a better Messiah than Harry Potter. Number one, Jesus is sinless. Harry was clearly presented as committing sins. Number two, Harry is only able to defeat evil that is “out there” in his supposed death and resurrection. The evil is in Lord V and his wicked followers. Jesus does not merely have enemies who are “out there.” Jesus must search out and kill all the sin that is within His own people. Jesus, who knew no sin, became sin upon the cross. The point of the Gospel is that your sin and my sin are nailed to the cross in Jesus Christ and, by grace through faith in Him, His righteousness is imputed to us as a result of our union with Him. So, Jesus is sinless, morally perfect, but does not simply fight against some external enemy of God – He fights and conquers the sin that dwells within us in accomplishing our salvation.
Duncan McLeod. Now, some of you might not see Mac as a messiah figure. But, I think he is. He is always fighting bad guys. He is always trying to protect the life of others in danger from the bad guys. And, he is immortal. In fact, on the TV show, McLeod actually is able to absorb evil from the wicked immortals he defeats and then has something called a dark quickening. This is where the evil within him overpowers him, and he turns into a bad guy. His victory only comes about when the good inside of him battles against the evil inside him and overcomes. Also, there is an eschatological aspect of Highlander. If an evil immortal wins in the end, then the world will be ushered into a reign of darkness. If McLeod (or presumably another good immortal) wins, then the world will be ushered into a reign of peace.
And so, Jesus is a better Messiah than Duncan McLeod. For starters, McLeod is clearly sinful. They don’t even try to hide that. Secondly, like Superman, McLeod is only able to serve as an example for other people. He is not actually able to transform anyone into a better person. As far as the eschatology goes, there may be a question as to who will win in the end in the world of Highlander, but there is no question in the real world. Jesus’ victory over the Kingdom of Darkness is not only assured, it is already in process. At His death and resurrection, Jesus defeated Satan, death, hell, sin, and the grave. We rightly now ask, “Death, where is your sting?” The culmination of the victory will be at the Second Coming of Christ. And the amazing news of the Gospel is that Jesus is not only going to finally defeat Satan, but He is going to bring us into the joy of that victory. That is why the Apostle Paul is able to tell believers that the God of all peace is going to crush Satan under your feet (Romans 16:20). And that brings us to our last point. McLeod is immortal, but he cannot grant eternal life to anyone. Jesus Christ, the Author of Life, promises eternal life to all who simply turn from their sins and trust Him for salvation in faith.
Now, what is the point of this mega-exciting post? Much of our beliefs are shaped by popular culture. There is a reason why people enjoy watching and reading about characters like these. For most, it is not because they want to learn how to block an avada kedavra curse, or understand the political inner-workings of the Kryptonian government. Rather, it is because these messiah figures, and the storylines they come with, attempt to answer a longing that every human being has. We all need to be saved. We all recognize, when we are honest, that there is an enemy that we cannot defeat and we need someone to fight for us. The danger with these counterfeit messiahs is that they cannot save, not only because they are not real, but because even if they were real they would not be able to offer true salvation. Jesus Christ alone offers the hope and life and salvation that we desperately need.
Now, is it a sin to read and watch these kinds of stories, or should we only read the True Story in our Bibles? Of course, if we are only watching and reading these fictional works with subpar messiahs in lieu of the True Story, then we had better pick up our Bibles and get to reading. But, apart from the neglect of the study of the Word of God, I do not believe reading and watching these things is necessarily sinful. Some individual episodes or portions of the story may be sinful – and you need to watch and read with wisdom and discernment. Also, it is possible to get sucked into a fictional world and neglect the real world where you have real responsibilities to family, work, and Church. But that applies to any number of things that we enjoy doing in our lives.
In conclusion, read and watch and listen to the fruit of our popular culture with discernment. An alternative salvation story is presented over and over again. If we do not have the discernment to recognize those alternative stories and the Scriptural chops to show ourselves and our friends how Jesus is superior, then we will find ourselves as confused as the lost world. The confusion arises because we are indoctrinated on how to respond to a messiah by the storylines that we are constantly exposed to. As Christians, we need to be aware of what our neighbors and family members are taking in so that we can discuss it and speak truth grounded in the Word of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, because it is only in Christ that we find a storyline that explains reality and proclaims a salvation that is more real than anything else.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Raising Old Questions in View of New Disasters
In the wake of the massive crisis in Haiti, we have seen some true horrors and some true evidence of grace. Also, we have seen some people take an opportunity to use the earthquake and the death of many to raise some questions about the nature of God. I am specifically referring to David Bain, a philosophy lecturer at the University of Glasgow; however, many have raised these same questions many different times in history. Bain quotes David Hume, 18th century philosopher, to frame the issue: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is impotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” In other words, if the God of the Bible exists, the One revealed as omnibenevolent (all-good) and omnipotent (all-powerful), then why does evil exist? Many have used this very question as a foundation to deny the very existence of God.
Bain distinguishes between two different kinds of evil. One: “the awful things people do, such as murder,” and Two: “the awful things that just happen, such as earthquakes.” He then attempts to cite various theologians who suggest possible answers to the first point revolving around human free will, and then he cites other theologians who suggest possible answers to the second problem revolving around an “ends justifies the means” tactic called soul-making. To get a clear understanding of Bain's position, read his article. I will not take the space to summarize it here.
In coming to his conclusion, Bain quotes Immanuel Kant saying that we shouldn’t exploit people; “we mustn’t use them as mere means to our ends.” According to Bain, "[God] inflicts horrible deaths on innocent earthquake victims so that the rest of us can be morally benefitted.” Bain closes out his article stating that traditional believers in God, as revealed in Scripture, cannot answer these questions and, therefore, should question the existence of their God.
How do we respond to these issues? First, we must be very careful in the wake of tragedies like the earthquake in Haiti that we do not purport to speak for God when God has not specifically spoken. Scripture is the only written special revelation of God’s will. Therefore, when tragedies like this occur, we cannot claim to know details of God’s secret will. He simply has not told us the answer to these questions. Yet, that does not mean that God has not told us anything. Scripture does reveal to us many things that we can say regarding tragedies like these in general. And, more importantly, Scripture reveals to us the character of God through His Gospel.
Regarding specific evil that results from human actions, what does Scripture say about this? Genesis 3 presents to us a theological framework that shows all human beings are sinful by nature. Because of the choice of our first parents, humanity fell into sin. This is called original sin. We all are, therefore, born into sin. This means that, apart from any special work of grace by the Holy Spirit conforming us to the image of Christ, every action any human ever commits will be sinful. We act according to our natures, and our natures are sinful. This is why the Gospel proclaims that we need a new nature (described as a new heart, or being born again).
So, Bain asks, why couldn’t God create people who would only freely choose to do good? Before I respond, we can strengthen Bain’s question in one of two ways. One: why didn’t God only create people who would be saved by Christ and then completely sanctified such that they only choose to do morally good things? Two: why didn’t God create a world in which the Fall never occurred? Essentially, the result of both of these scenarios would be the same; the problem of human caused evil would be solved.
To respond, we need to look at Romans 9. In a very closely argued discussion regarding the sovereignty of God over the salvation or damnation of people, Paul comes to verses 21-24. “Has the potter no right over the clay to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory – even us who he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?” (Rom. 9:21-24 ESV) The Apostle Paul is saying something that should humble us and terrify us and cause us to rejoice greatly in the grace of God. God has the right to save some people and not save other people. And it has absolutely only to do with the exercise of His free mercy and grace by His own sovereign will. Some are vessels of wrath for the purpose of displaying God’s glory in His wrath. Some are vessels of mercy for the purpose of displaying God’s glory in His grace. For a full discussion of this passage, see John Piper’s The Justification of God.
The important thing to recognize in Paul’s discussion here is the radically God-centered reasoning that is presented. Ultimately, the salvation and judgment of mankind is for the purpose of displaying the glory of God. We will return to this idea below.
Regarding evil events that occur in nature, like earthquakes and tsunamis, how does Scripture call us to think about these things? Here, let us turn one chapter back in Romans to Romans 8. Paul is reveling in the implications of the truth of the Gospel: no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (v 1), and how all believers are sons of God and heirs with Christ (vv 14-17). Then, in verse 18 Paul begins to discuss the present sufferings of this age. “For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.” (Rom. 8:19-22 ESV) Here, Paul is specifically talking about things like earthquakes and tsunamis. This is natural evil, natural suffering, the suffering of creation itself. Where does this suffering come from? Creation has been groaning because it was subjected to decay under the curse of sin. When will creation stop groaning? Verse 23: And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.” We and creation itself are waiting for redemption in Christ.
Again, notice the radically God-centered argument here. The curse of sin subjects human beings and all creation to decay and death because the wages of sin is death. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Sin is only defined in terms of falling short of God’s glory. Also, notice the remedy. It is redemption, salvation by grace, restoration and ultimately consummation of not only our human bodies, but all creation. And this is all done by God’s grace and for His glory.
This is quite different than the position Bain sets forth, and then quickly pulls down as insufficient: soul-making – allowing evil to happen so that people will be able to fully realize their potential to be morally good, or brave, or whatever. This is ultimately a man-centered approach to reality. It is no wonder that Bain rejects it quickly. One wonders though, why does Bain stop here and not move on to the more robust biblical position of a God-centered reality that exists for His glory?
Does the existence of evil require us to abandon our belief in God? Does the Bible fail to give a sufficient explanation for these things, even if the Lord does stop short of providing us every, or even most, details? I hope that this brief look at two passages in Romans will at least give us a starting point when these kinds of questions arise in our churches, families, and work places.
Yes, evil exists. And we weep in the face of such tragedies. But, that must never allow us to minimize sin. The Bible does not do this, and we must not either. However, this must not lead us to despair in the face of evil, for the Bible proclaims the Gospel of the grace of God in Jesus Christ as our only hope. Jesus died for our sins and rose again. By faith in Him, we are saved. And, Jesus has promised that He is going to make all things new. So, we are not only looking forward to the redemption of our bodies, we are looking forward to the redemption of the entire cosmos on the Day when Christ returns. And if we can learn anything from the Apostle Paul, it is that the glory of God in Christ Jesus is the ultimate goal of history and God will not fail to accomplish that goal. God is all-powerful and all-good. God has allowed evil to exist in His creation for a specific amount of time. And God has revealed to us in Scripture that His glory is the end goal of all things. Why should we believe all these things and not turn away from the faith handed down once and for all? We should believe because Jesus is alive, and the resurrection of Christ guarantees the accomplishment of salvation for all who believe and the redemption of the entire cosmos.
Jason
Bain distinguishes between two different kinds of evil. One: “the awful things people do, such as murder,” and Two: “the awful things that just happen, such as earthquakes.” He then attempts to cite various theologians who suggest possible answers to the first point revolving around human free will, and then he cites other theologians who suggest possible answers to the second problem revolving around an “ends justifies the means” tactic called soul-making. To get a clear understanding of Bain's position, read his article. I will not take the space to summarize it here.
In coming to his conclusion, Bain quotes Immanuel Kant saying that we shouldn’t exploit people; “we mustn’t use them as mere means to our ends.” According to Bain, "[God] inflicts horrible deaths on innocent earthquake victims so that the rest of us can be morally benefitted.” Bain closes out his article stating that traditional believers in God, as revealed in Scripture, cannot answer these questions and, therefore, should question the existence of their God.
How do we respond to these issues? First, we must be very careful in the wake of tragedies like the earthquake in Haiti that we do not purport to speak for God when God has not specifically spoken. Scripture is the only written special revelation of God’s will. Therefore, when tragedies like this occur, we cannot claim to know details of God’s secret will. He simply has not told us the answer to these questions. Yet, that does not mean that God has not told us anything. Scripture does reveal to us many things that we can say regarding tragedies like these in general. And, more importantly, Scripture reveals to us the character of God through His Gospel.
Regarding specific evil that results from human actions, what does Scripture say about this? Genesis 3 presents to us a theological framework that shows all human beings are sinful by nature. Because of the choice of our first parents, humanity fell into sin. This is called original sin. We all are, therefore, born into sin. This means that, apart from any special work of grace by the Holy Spirit conforming us to the image of Christ, every action any human ever commits will be sinful. We act according to our natures, and our natures are sinful. This is why the Gospel proclaims that we need a new nature (described as a new heart, or being born again).
So, Bain asks, why couldn’t God create people who would only freely choose to do good? Before I respond, we can strengthen Bain’s question in one of two ways. One: why didn’t God only create people who would be saved by Christ and then completely sanctified such that they only choose to do morally good things? Two: why didn’t God create a world in which the Fall never occurred? Essentially, the result of both of these scenarios would be the same; the problem of human caused evil would be solved.
To respond, we need to look at Romans 9. In a very closely argued discussion regarding the sovereignty of God over the salvation or damnation of people, Paul comes to verses 21-24. “Has the potter no right over the clay to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory – even us who he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?” (Rom. 9:21-24 ESV) The Apostle Paul is saying something that should humble us and terrify us and cause us to rejoice greatly in the grace of God. God has the right to save some people and not save other people. And it has absolutely only to do with the exercise of His free mercy and grace by His own sovereign will. Some are vessels of wrath for the purpose of displaying God’s glory in His wrath. Some are vessels of mercy for the purpose of displaying God’s glory in His grace. For a full discussion of this passage, see John Piper’s The Justification of God.
The important thing to recognize in Paul’s discussion here is the radically God-centered reasoning that is presented. Ultimately, the salvation and judgment of mankind is for the purpose of displaying the glory of God. We will return to this idea below.
Regarding evil events that occur in nature, like earthquakes and tsunamis, how does Scripture call us to think about these things? Here, let us turn one chapter back in Romans to Romans 8. Paul is reveling in the implications of the truth of the Gospel: no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (v 1), and how all believers are sons of God and heirs with Christ (vv 14-17). Then, in verse 18 Paul begins to discuss the present sufferings of this age. “For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.” (Rom. 8:19-22 ESV) Here, Paul is specifically talking about things like earthquakes and tsunamis. This is natural evil, natural suffering, the suffering of creation itself. Where does this suffering come from? Creation has been groaning because it was subjected to decay under the curse of sin. When will creation stop groaning? Verse 23: And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.” We and creation itself are waiting for redemption in Christ.
Again, notice the radically God-centered argument here. The curse of sin subjects human beings and all creation to decay and death because the wages of sin is death. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Sin is only defined in terms of falling short of God’s glory. Also, notice the remedy. It is redemption, salvation by grace, restoration and ultimately consummation of not only our human bodies, but all creation. And this is all done by God’s grace and for His glory.
This is quite different than the position Bain sets forth, and then quickly pulls down as insufficient: soul-making – allowing evil to happen so that people will be able to fully realize their potential to be morally good, or brave, or whatever. This is ultimately a man-centered approach to reality. It is no wonder that Bain rejects it quickly. One wonders though, why does Bain stop here and not move on to the more robust biblical position of a God-centered reality that exists for His glory?
Does the existence of evil require us to abandon our belief in God? Does the Bible fail to give a sufficient explanation for these things, even if the Lord does stop short of providing us every, or even most, details? I hope that this brief look at two passages in Romans will at least give us a starting point when these kinds of questions arise in our churches, families, and work places.
Yes, evil exists. And we weep in the face of such tragedies. But, that must never allow us to minimize sin. The Bible does not do this, and we must not either. However, this must not lead us to despair in the face of evil, for the Bible proclaims the Gospel of the grace of God in Jesus Christ as our only hope. Jesus died for our sins and rose again. By faith in Him, we are saved. And, Jesus has promised that He is going to make all things new. So, we are not only looking forward to the redemption of our bodies, we are looking forward to the redemption of the entire cosmos on the Day when Christ returns. And if we can learn anything from the Apostle Paul, it is that the glory of God in Christ Jesus is the ultimate goal of history and God will not fail to accomplish that goal. God is all-powerful and all-good. God has allowed evil to exist in His creation for a specific amount of time. And God has revealed to us in Scripture that His glory is the end goal of all things. Why should we believe all these things and not turn away from the faith handed down once and for all? We should believe because Jesus is alive, and the resurrection of Christ guarantees the accomplishment of salvation for all who believe and the redemption of the entire cosmos.
Jason
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
On Leading Worship: Four Observations from the Outside
I am not a Worship Pastor. I have no formal training in worship leading, as it is typically defined today. I am not a Music Minister. However, I would like to offer some observations on worship leading. These are the things I like to see and hear in our church, and these are things I like to see and hear in other places as well.
The idea for this post came about as I was listening to the music CD from Together for the Gospel 2008. This was led by Bob Kauflin. I have listened to the music CD several times in the past week and was struck by the model he presented.
1. Congregational worship leading is not a concert. In listening to Kauflin lead the large congregation at Together for the Gospel, there is no hint whatsoever that he is performing for them or trying to cover the singing of the body with his own microphone enhanced voice. In other words, the focus is taken off of the individual leader and placed ultimately on God and penultimately upon the corporate worship of the body.
2. Congregational worship leading must be saturated in Scripture. By this I simply mean that Scripture should direct and inform each and every song that we sing. I do not advocate limiting the songs we sing to Scripture verses put to music. However, if the songs we sing are not directly informed by Scripture, then our worship is flawed. God has revealed Himself to us through the Word. In that revelation, we receive truth about who God is and how He is honored by His people. Therefore, to attempt to worship God with anything other than scripturally informed and scripturally directed singing would be the height of arrogance and probably tantamount to idolatry. A good worship leader is one who submits himself and the songs he leads to Scripture.
3. Congregational worship leaders need to know the songs they are leading. Now, by this I do not simply mean that the leader needs to know the words, the melody lines, and the rhythm of the song he is leading. Much more than that, he needs to know what the song means. He needs to know where the song is going. When he does, he will be able to guide the congregation through tempo changes and vocal inflection and simple volume changes to signal that something significant is coming. In other words, by the way the leader sings the song, the congregation should be able to gather clues that will help them to understand the meaning of the song. This will assist the congregation, who may or may not know the song and may or may not be musically inclined, to grasp and engage in the worship to the best of their ability.
4. Congregational worship leaders should be free to guide the congregation toward specific truths found in the songs being sung. Here I do not mean that the leader should feel the need to do a free style rap during the invitation and speak every line that the congregation just sang. You may have heard examples of pastors doing this during the invitation after a sermon. Instead, what I mean here is that the worship leader who knows the song well (see above) will be able to interject comments that will not distract from the singing but instead draw attention to important points of truth or serve to lead the congregation to know what they should sing next. If this cannot be done as an enhancement to the worship experience then the leader should refrain from doing it. But, if done well, it can be a great aid to the congregation who may not know what part of the song should be sung next. And, certainly, it will be an aid to the congregation who may be so absorbed in simply trying to sing the song correctly that they are not primarily hearing the truth and praise that is coming out of their own mouths. My own personal experience confirms this last point. There have been many times when I was trying to sing a song that I was unfamiliar with and at the end of the song had no idea of the truth I had just been singing.
A few final thoughts. Singing is not the only form of worship. We should strive to avoid putting a dichotomy between the singing portion of our service and the preaching portion of our service (or any other portion, for that matter). Both are acts of worship. Also, I am not suggesting that the “Worship Pastor” is the only pastor who leads in worship during the service. I’m just trying to use convenient nomenclature. There should be at least one Worship Pastor who reads this post, and he should feel free to interact, challenge, and correct me on these ideas.
Jason
The idea for this post came about as I was listening to the music CD from Together for the Gospel 2008. This was led by Bob Kauflin. I have listened to the music CD several times in the past week and was struck by the model he presented.
1. Congregational worship leading is not a concert. In listening to Kauflin lead the large congregation at Together for the Gospel, there is no hint whatsoever that he is performing for them or trying to cover the singing of the body with his own microphone enhanced voice. In other words, the focus is taken off of the individual leader and placed ultimately on God and penultimately upon the corporate worship of the body.
2. Congregational worship leading must be saturated in Scripture. By this I simply mean that Scripture should direct and inform each and every song that we sing. I do not advocate limiting the songs we sing to Scripture verses put to music. However, if the songs we sing are not directly informed by Scripture, then our worship is flawed. God has revealed Himself to us through the Word. In that revelation, we receive truth about who God is and how He is honored by His people. Therefore, to attempt to worship God with anything other than scripturally informed and scripturally directed singing would be the height of arrogance and probably tantamount to idolatry. A good worship leader is one who submits himself and the songs he leads to Scripture.
3. Congregational worship leaders need to know the songs they are leading. Now, by this I do not simply mean that the leader needs to know the words, the melody lines, and the rhythm of the song he is leading. Much more than that, he needs to know what the song means. He needs to know where the song is going. When he does, he will be able to guide the congregation through tempo changes and vocal inflection and simple volume changes to signal that something significant is coming. In other words, by the way the leader sings the song, the congregation should be able to gather clues that will help them to understand the meaning of the song. This will assist the congregation, who may or may not know the song and may or may not be musically inclined, to grasp and engage in the worship to the best of their ability.
4. Congregational worship leaders should be free to guide the congregation toward specific truths found in the songs being sung. Here I do not mean that the leader should feel the need to do a free style rap during the invitation and speak every line that the congregation just sang. You may have heard examples of pastors doing this during the invitation after a sermon. Instead, what I mean here is that the worship leader who knows the song well (see above) will be able to interject comments that will not distract from the singing but instead draw attention to important points of truth or serve to lead the congregation to know what they should sing next. If this cannot be done as an enhancement to the worship experience then the leader should refrain from doing it. But, if done well, it can be a great aid to the congregation who may not know what part of the song should be sung next. And, certainly, it will be an aid to the congregation who may be so absorbed in simply trying to sing the song correctly that they are not primarily hearing the truth and praise that is coming out of their own mouths. My own personal experience confirms this last point. There have been many times when I was trying to sing a song that I was unfamiliar with and at the end of the song had no idea of the truth I had just been singing.
A few final thoughts. Singing is not the only form of worship. We should strive to avoid putting a dichotomy between the singing portion of our service and the preaching portion of our service (or any other portion, for that matter). Both are acts of worship. Also, I am not suggesting that the “Worship Pastor” is the only pastor who leads in worship during the service. I’m just trying to use convenient nomenclature. There should be at least one Worship Pastor who reads this post, and he should feel free to interact, challenge, and correct me on these ideas.
Jason
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
What does 1 Thessalonians 5:22 mean?
Are we to abstain from all appearances of evil or all kinds of evil?
In our Wednesday Night Service at Donalds Baptist, we have just come back to our study of Thomas Brooks’ Precious Remedies Against Satan’s Devices. We had gone through the first six devices before the Christmas season and now we are back at Device #7. Brooks’ point was to avoid, abstain from, and flee all occasions for sin. It is an excellent admonition.
In thinking back through the discussion, a few questions come to mind. What does Paul mean when he tells us to abstain from every form of evil? I have always heard this verse quoted as abstaining from all appearances of evil. Is there a difference? I think so.
The Bible describes Jesus Christ’s ministry to the outcasts of society, the drunkards, tax collectors, and prostitutes, as one in which He was accused (wrongly so) of participating in their sins. See, for example, Matthew 11:19. In other words, Jesus did not mind appearing evil in that way. And certainly, Jesus and Paul are not at odds here. So, what is going on?
It seems the best translation of 1 Thessalonians 5:22 reads “Abstain from all forms of evil.” Now, this is a fairly clear-cut command from the Apostle. There is no such teaching in Scripture that says you can commit “small degree” sins but you must never commit “large degree” sins. Instead, Scripture uniformly condemns the practice of any and every sin. Jesus condemns hatred of your brother equally with murder of your brother. He condemns lust equally with adultery. So, no form of evil is allowed.
But back to the appearance of evil, what do we make of the way Jesus acted and the commands of Romans 14:13 for example? (Even asking the question this way shows that there is no contradiction here. God does not contradict Himself, ever.) The Apostle Paul is making a specific command in Romans 14:13. The pertinent clause is, “decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.” Paul tells us that, in love for our brothers and sisters in Christ, we must be aware of who is around us and aware of what we are doing. To use Brooks’ language, we must never be the cause of someone else’s occasion for sinning.
Jesus never did that. Jesus ministered to all kinds of sinners. But He never participated in their sins with them. Hebrews 4:15 makes that clear. But Jesus absolutely was accused of appearing to be evil. Jesus offended the Pharisees by the way He ministered the Gospel, but He never caused them to sin. They did sin, to be sure, but not because Jesus led them to it. So, we are talking about two different things here.
When you are ministering to your brothers and sisters in Christ, and when they are ministering to you, the goal is to become more like Christ. A corollary to that goal is to abstain from all forms of evil. Yet, the way your ministry may play out could look to some people as evil. Your job is to make sure it is not evil. Are you breaking any explicit or implicit commands of Scripture? Are you sinning against your conscience? Are you causing your brother or sister to sin against his or her conscience? If the answer to those questions is no, then proceed to the glory of God. To your critics, your actions may appear to be evil, but your critics will be wrong. And the Bible does not command us to avoid that kind of appearance of evil.
So, how do you know when you are offending your critics with the free offer of the Gospel to all kinds of people struggling with all kinds of sins, versus when you are actually causing your critics to stumble? Here we need to understand the difference between offending someone and causing someone to stumble. Note well: the only offense that ever comes should be that of the offense of the Gospel. We should seek to never offend anyone in and of ourselves. Often, the style or manner in which someone presents and applies the Gospel will be contrary to the liking of someone else. That may offend them, but that is not the same as causing them to stumble into sin.
Here is an illustration I heard from my preaching professor in Seminary. He told us of a preacher a couple of decades ago who decided to grow a full beard in the course of his ministry at a particular church. It just so happened that the area that church was in, culturally, considered a beard as evidence of immaturity and radicalism. Nevertheless, he grew his beard and continued to preach. Finally, one Sunday, a lady came up to him after the service quite agitated. She said, “Preacher, your beard is causing me to stumble.” (Let it be understood here that she did not mean it was causing her to lust after him or anything like that, she was simply angry that he was wearing a beard despite the cultural milieu.) He said, “Ma’am, my beard is offensive to you, but it is not causing you to stumble. If it were, you would have grown one yourself.”
Therefore, expect to be criticized by people for the sake of the Gospel. The Gospel is offensive. But, strive to never cause someone to stumble into sin, for that itself is a form of evil from which we are to abstain by God's grace and for His glory.
Jason
In our Wednesday Night Service at Donalds Baptist, we have just come back to our study of Thomas Brooks’ Precious Remedies Against Satan’s Devices. We had gone through the first six devices before the Christmas season and now we are back at Device #7. Brooks’ point was to avoid, abstain from, and flee all occasions for sin. It is an excellent admonition.
In thinking back through the discussion, a few questions come to mind. What does Paul mean when he tells us to abstain from every form of evil? I have always heard this verse quoted as abstaining from all appearances of evil. Is there a difference? I think so.
The Bible describes Jesus Christ’s ministry to the outcasts of society, the drunkards, tax collectors, and prostitutes, as one in which He was accused (wrongly so) of participating in their sins. See, for example, Matthew 11:19. In other words, Jesus did not mind appearing evil in that way. And certainly, Jesus and Paul are not at odds here. So, what is going on?
It seems the best translation of 1 Thessalonians 5:22 reads “Abstain from all forms of evil.” Now, this is a fairly clear-cut command from the Apostle. There is no such teaching in Scripture that says you can commit “small degree” sins but you must never commit “large degree” sins. Instead, Scripture uniformly condemns the practice of any and every sin. Jesus condemns hatred of your brother equally with murder of your brother. He condemns lust equally with adultery. So, no form of evil is allowed.
But back to the appearance of evil, what do we make of the way Jesus acted and the commands of Romans 14:13 for example? (Even asking the question this way shows that there is no contradiction here. God does not contradict Himself, ever.) The Apostle Paul is making a specific command in Romans 14:13. The pertinent clause is, “decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.” Paul tells us that, in love for our brothers and sisters in Christ, we must be aware of who is around us and aware of what we are doing. To use Brooks’ language, we must never be the cause of someone else’s occasion for sinning.
Jesus never did that. Jesus ministered to all kinds of sinners. But He never participated in their sins with them. Hebrews 4:15 makes that clear. But Jesus absolutely was accused of appearing to be evil. Jesus offended the Pharisees by the way He ministered the Gospel, but He never caused them to sin. They did sin, to be sure, but not because Jesus led them to it. So, we are talking about two different things here.
When you are ministering to your brothers and sisters in Christ, and when they are ministering to you, the goal is to become more like Christ. A corollary to that goal is to abstain from all forms of evil. Yet, the way your ministry may play out could look to some people as evil. Your job is to make sure it is not evil. Are you breaking any explicit or implicit commands of Scripture? Are you sinning against your conscience? Are you causing your brother or sister to sin against his or her conscience? If the answer to those questions is no, then proceed to the glory of God. To your critics, your actions may appear to be evil, but your critics will be wrong. And the Bible does not command us to avoid that kind of appearance of evil.
So, how do you know when you are offending your critics with the free offer of the Gospel to all kinds of people struggling with all kinds of sins, versus when you are actually causing your critics to stumble? Here we need to understand the difference between offending someone and causing someone to stumble. Note well: the only offense that ever comes should be that of the offense of the Gospel. We should seek to never offend anyone in and of ourselves. Often, the style or manner in which someone presents and applies the Gospel will be contrary to the liking of someone else. That may offend them, but that is not the same as causing them to stumble into sin.
Here is an illustration I heard from my preaching professor in Seminary. He told us of a preacher a couple of decades ago who decided to grow a full beard in the course of his ministry at a particular church. It just so happened that the area that church was in, culturally, considered a beard as evidence of immaturity and radicalism. Nevertheless, he grew his beard and continued to preach. Finally, one Sunday, a lady came up to him after the service quite agitated. She said, “Preacher, your beard is causing me to stumble.” (Let it be understood here that she did not mean it was causing her to lust after him or anything like that, she was simply angry that he was wearing a beard despite the cultural milieu.) He said, “Ma’am, my beard is offensive to you, but it is not causing you to stumble. If it were, you would have grown one yourself.”
Therefore, expect to be criticized by people for the sake of the Gospel. The Gospel is offensive. But, strive to never cause someone to stumble into sin, for that itself is a form of evil from which we are to abstain by God's grace and for His glory.
Jason
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)