Communion is served weekly at the church I attend, and the pastor offers a short exhortation -- a new one every week! -- about what God is doing in us, to us, for us, through us, by us as we partake in faith of the Lord's body and blood. I've appreciated discovering so much more -- celebration of grace -- in the Lord's Supper than just the very somber individualized reflection that has been so often encouraged in the church associations of my past. To illustrate what I mean by "celebration of grace," I've obtained permission by a teacher at our church, Ben Merkle, who filled the pulpit in place of our pastor a couple weeks ago, to post his particular communion exhortation here. (When he emailed it to me, it was all one long paragraph; I have taken the liberty to insert paragraph breaks, and some punctuation edits, where I see fit, to enhance readability and flow.)
by Ben Merkle:
In Hosea 6, God rebukes Israel, saying, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.” Jesus quotes this passage twice in Matthew. First, in Matthew 9, when the Pharisees are upset about the fact that Jesus has sat down at the same table as tax collectors and sinners to eat with them, Jesus tells them, “Go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” And then again in Matthew 12, the Pharisees became upset at Jesus’ disciples because they had plucked heads of grain and eaten them as they walked on the Sabbath, thus breaking the Pharisees’ understanding of Sabbath keeping. Jesus responded by quoting Hosea 6: “If you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.”
There are a couple of things that we should notice here. First, food is mercy. If all of this world speaks to us about God and his nature, if all of creation declares the character of God, and it does, then the purpose of food is to testify to us of God’s free mercy. "Here you go," He says to us, "eat up. Let me nourish you. Let me fill that cavernous emptiness inside of you. Let me serve you something hot to warm you up and make you feel better." Food is mercy.
Second, mercy terrifies the pharisaical mind. When grace is served up, free of charge, the pharisaical mind gets nervous and rushes in to tidy things up, to make some basic rules to reign the thing in, lest that mercy get out of control. Since food is God’s mercy, it should be no surprise to us that food and eating inspire a disproportionate amount of pharisaism in our flesh. It was at the dinner table that the Pharisees got uppity about the fact that Jesus was surrounding himself with tax collectors and sinners. And it was about on the subject of how the disciples ate that the Pharisees accused Jesus’ disciples of having broken the Sabbath. But both times, Jesus corrected them, telling them that God delighted in mercy over sacrifice.
God prefers his people to be enjoying his nourishment with gratitude rather than heaping up man-made rules and pharisaical scruples. This is true with food in general, and this is particularly true at this table, the Lord’s Supper. This table is at the center of all of our eating. It makes sense that of all the rituals God could have chosen for us to celebrate Jesus’ death, God chose a meal. Here is the heart of mercy, the gift of the Son. And here we celebrate it by eating.
However, if all the man-made scruples about what can and can’t be done at the Lord’s Supper, which Christians have imagined up over the past two millennia, were to be published, the world itself could not support the pile of books produced. Here, at the heart of mercy, we are prone to become the most pharisaical. But you need to know one thing to come to this table. God desires mercy and not sacrifice. God wants you to know Him more than the burnt offering. So come to this table. God wants to fill you up.
================================================================
Saturday, November 05, 2011
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Like My Father
I whistled today! Like my Dad!
Okay, so I've already known how to whistle for a long time; and I think that I can whistle rather nicely. I always enjoyed my Dad's whistling. It seems to me that he was quite talented (as far as talented whistlers go) -- very sharp, distinct, but not shrill. And I like to think that I can whistle a lot like my Dad.
But there's that extra whistle talent: you know that kind of whistle when, as a child, you're three houses down playing at the neighbor's for a few hours, and Dad steps out on the front porch and whistles for you to come home. I've seen some people put their pinky fingers in the corners of their mouth and let 'er rip; but again, my Dad was so talented, he didn't need to use his fingers, ... and boy, could he let 'er rip.
I've always wanted to be able to do that. And I've always told people that I've always wanted to be able to do that. I was telling my children about it again just last evening. But then the thought struck me: while I have tried before, I've never really tried that long and hard. If my Dad could do it, and I'm like my Dad, then I should be able to do it. Isn't it like ... learning to ride a bike? Or is it more like trying to add one cubit to your stature?
So today as I looked out my window and saw my wife getting into the van, I decided to try it. I tried it ten, fifteen, maybe twenty times, reshaping my mouth each time for finetuning. As my wife drove away and I turned back toward my desk, I gave one last attempt, and ... out she ripped!
Okay, so I've already known how to whistle for a long time; and I think that I can whistle rather nicely. I always enjoyed my Dad's whistling. It seems to me that he was quite talented (as far as talented whistlers go) -- very sharp, distinct, but not shrill. And I like to think that I can whistle a lot like my Dad.
But there's that extra whistle talent: you know that kind of whistle when, as a child, you're three houses down playing at the neighbor's for a few hours, and Dad steps out on the front porch and whistles for you to come home. I've seen some people put their pinky fingers in the corners of their mouth and let 'er rip; but again, my Dad was so talented, he didn't need to use his fingers, ... and boy, could he let 'er rip.
I've always wanted to be able to do that. And I've always told people that I've always wanted to be able to do that. I was telling my children about it again just last evening. But then the thought struck me: while I have tried before, I've never really tried that long and hard. If my Dad could do it, and I'm like my Dad, then I should be able to do it. Isn't it like ... learning to ride a bike? Or is it more like trying to add one cubit to your stature?
So today as I looked out my window and saw my wife getting into the van, I decided to try it. I tried it ten, fifteen, maybe twenty times, reshaping my mouth each time for finetuning. As my wife drove away and I turned back toward my desk, I gave one last attempt, and ... out she ripped!
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Only a Few Good Men?
I’ve been thinking a lot about Dr. Gordon Steinke’s article entitled "A Biblical Perspective of Marriage" in the Jan/Feb edition of the Communion together. Now I’d like to weigh in on the discussion.
I’ve heard Ravi Zacharias (perhaps quoting another) say, “Intent is prior to content.” This is not necessarily to say that intent is more important than content, but it does affect how we perceive what another says. For example, if my wife makes a joke about my German nose, I can laugh with her and enjoy the joke, but if a stranger tries the same joke, I probably won’t take it so well. Nevertheless, content should not be totally disregarded just because of the delivery: I dare you to refuse to pay a bill just because the mailman threw it in the mud. – At this point, it would not be wise for me to surmise Dr. Steinke’s intentions for his doctoral dissertation; but please give heed as I share some of the background reasons for my holding the views that I do.
I grew up in the wonderful home of a Church of God minister, his wife, and my three siblings. My father’s visions for our local church led him to do things which brought him under criticism from others within our fellowship. One such thing was the Christian school that was a ministry of our church for nine years. Ten years following our church’s beginnings enjoyed growth and apparent good health. God blessed our church such that we became known within our fellowship for our youth group.
But well into my teen years, I began making observations that were of great concern to me. As they began to come of age, my friends, who had grown up with me in the church and Christian school, were beginning to leave the Christian school, the church, and even the faith. Why? At the same time that my personal relationship with God began to blossom in more exciting and more intimate ways and opportunities to serve the church became more abundant, my friends who’d grown up in Christian homes were becoming less interested.
The next few stages of my life allowed me to observe a general ignorance of the Bible among all ages of the church folk. It was disappointing that the little children were not as familiar with the basic Bible stories as was I at their age, but who could blame them when their parents also seemed challenged with similar Bible quiz questions? Then as I was a candidate for the pastorate at various Churches of God, I saw many churches whose demographic consisted mainly of those just-past to way-past middle age. Of course, there were likely many healthy churches still around who wouldn’t have considered me as a viable candidate, given my youth and lack of experience. But the question still remains: Where are the youth who’ve undoubtedly had some start in these same churches where their parents still attend to this day?
For over twenty years now, I’ve been studying what I believe to be the cause of this problem. Of course, when answering any important question, statistical, philosophical, and psychological approaches should take a back seat to the Holy Spirit and His inspired Word. So what does Holy Scripture have to say about multigenerational faithfulness throughout church history? Indeed, this was a common problem throughout the history of Old Testament Israel, from which we gain insight for the New Testament church.
In Deuteronomy 5 and 6, the Holy Spirit inspires Moses, when speaking to the second generation rescued from Egypt, to remind them of that which their fathers who perished in the wilderness had failed to honor. Moses declares again the Ten Commandments and then “the first and greatest commandment.” Then he immediately follows that up with the command to “teach them diligently unto thy children,” and he adds some detail about how to do such. Then he immediately follows that up with a warning that they not forget God once He has blessed them with many good things in the new promised land. He assumes, if they are faithful to God’s laws and ways, that the children will ask, “Why do we do these things?” They are then to take advantage of such opportunities to teach their children about God, His Word, His will, and His ways.
But upon the death of Joshua’s generation, “there arose another generation after them, which knew not the LORD, nor yet the works which He had done for Israel” (Judges 2:10). How could this be? Except that Israel apparently hadn’t done as they were commanded (in Deuteronomy 6) just before entering the promised land. Israel then goes through seven cycles of disobedience, oppression, repentance, and deliverance throughout the period of the judges, ending with the High Priest Eli being cursed for not restraining his sons in their wickedness. Such a cycle is what we might expect if one generation is failing to pass on the faith to the next generation. And this cycle seems to have continued throughout history.
But what does all this have to do with marriage, which is what Dr. Steinke’s article addresses, correct? Well, the last record of Old Testament Israel before the Messiah takes center stage includes these words regarding the oneness shared by the married man and woman: “Did not He make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That He might seek a Godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.” (Malachi 2:15) So reasoning backward: If a Godly seed is lacking, there is apparently a problem at the marriage level. A moment later, the Holy Spirit inspires these very last words of the Old Testament as a final promise regarding the coming Messiah: “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.” (Malachi 4:5-6)
Are you following this? It is very obvious that the spiritual training of children is the responsibility first and foremost of the parents (much more so than the Sunday School teacher, the Christian school teacher, the youth leader, or even just the pastor). The environment of good teaching and preaching during one’s youth will most often not make up for the significant failures within the home.
So then is it enough to say that God has ordained the teaching and training of children to their parents and then leave it at that? Does the Holy Spirit gives us any further specifics? I’ll remind you of a couple: “Ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4). “Furthermore, we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: …” (Hebrews 12:9). – Now that sounds to me like male spiritual leadership.
I’m just getting started ...
I’ve heard Ravi Zacharias (perhaps quoting another) say, “Intent is prior to content.” This is not necessarily to say that intent is more important than content, but it does affect how we perceive what another says. For example, if my wife makes a joke about my German nose, I can laugh with her and enjoy the joke, but if a stranger tries the same joke, I probably won’t take it so well. Nevertheless, content should not be totally disregarded just because of the delivery: I dare you to refuse to pay a bill just because the mailman threw it in the mud. – At this point, it would not be wise for me to surmise Dr. Steinke’s intentions for his doctoral dissertation; but please give heed as I share some of the background reasons for my holding the views that I do.
I grew up in the wonderful home of a Church of God minister, his wife, and my three siblings. My father’s visions for our local church led him to do things which brought him under criticism from others within our fellowship. One such thing was the Christian school that was a ministry of our church for nine years. Ten years following our church’s beginnings enjoyed growth and apparent good health. God blessed our church such that we became known within our fellowship for our youth group.
But well into my teen years, I began making observations that were of great concern to me. As they began to come of age, my friends, who had grown up with me in the church and Christian school, were beginning to leave the Christian school, the church, and even the faith. Why? At the same time that my personal relationship with God began to blossom in more exciting and more intimate ways and opportunities to serve the church became more abundant, my friends who’d grown up in Christian homes were becoming less interested.
The next few stages of my life allowed me to observe a general ignorance of the Bible among all ages of the church folk. It was disappointing that the little children were not as familiar with the basic Bible stories as was I at their age, but who could blame them when their parents also seemed challenged with similar Bible quiz questions? Then as I was a candidate for the pastorate at various Churches of God, I saw many churches whose demographic consisted mainly of those just-past to way-past middle age. Of course, there were likely many healthy churches still around who wouldn’t have considered me as a viable candidate, given my youth and lack of experience. But the question still remains: Where are the youth who’ve undoubtedly had some start in these same churches where their parents still attend to this day?
For over twenty years now, I’ve been studying what I believe to be the cause of this problem. Of course, when answering any important question, statistical, philosophical, and psychological approaches should take a back seat to the Holy Spirit and His inspired Word. So what does Holy Scripture have to say about multigenerational faithfulness throughout church history? Indeed, this was a common problem throughout the history of Old Testament Israel, from which we gain insight for the New Testament church.
In Deuteronomy 5 and 6, the Holy Spirit inspires Moses, when speaking to the second generation rescued from Egypt, to remind them of that which their fathers who perished in the wilderness had failed to honor. Moses declares again the Ten Commandments and then “the first and greatest commandment.” Then he immediately follows that up with the command to “teach them diligently unto thy children,” and he adds some detail about how to do such. Then he immediately follows that up with a warning that they not forget God once He has blessed them with many good things in the new promised land. He assumes, if they are faithful to God’s laws and ways, that the children will ask, “Why do we do these things?” They are then to take advantage of such opportunities to teach their children about God, His Word, His will, and His ways.
But upon the death of Joshua’s generation, “there arose another generation after them, which knew not the LORD, nor yet the works which He had done for Israel” (Judges 2:10). How could this be? Except that Israel apparently hadn’t done as they were commanded (in Deuteronomy 6) just before entering the promised land. Israel then goes through seven cycles of disobedience, oppression, repentance, and deliverance throughout the period of the judges, ending with the High Priest Eli being cursed for not restraining his sons in their wickedness. Such a cycle is what we might expect if one generation is failing to pass on the faith to the next generation. And this cycle seems to have continued throughout history.
But what does all this have to do with marriage, which is what Dr. Steinke’s article addresses, correct? Well, the last record of Old Testament Israel before the Messiah takes center stage includes these words regarding the oneness shared by the married man and woman: “Did not He make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That He might seek a Godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.” (Malachi 2:15) So reasoning backward: If a Godly seed is lacking, there is apparently a problem at the marriage level. A moment later, the Holy Spirit inspires these very last words of the Old Testament as a final promise regarding the coming Messiah: “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.” (Malachi 4:5-6)
Are you following this? It is very obvious that the spiritual training of children is the responsibility first and foremost of the parents (much more so than the Sunday School teacher, the Christian school teacher, the youth leader, or even just the pastor). The environment of good teaching and preaching during one’s youth will most often not make up for the significant failures within the home.
So then is it enough to say that God has ordained the teaching and training of children to their parents and then leave it at that? Does the Holy Spirit gives us any further specifics? I’ll remind you of a couple: “Ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4). “Furthermore, we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: …” (Hebrews 12:9). – Now that sounds to me like male spiritual leadership.
I’m just getting started ...
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Salty Scandals
Jesus called His followers “the salt of the earth” (Matthew 5:13). One characteristic of salt, especially in Bible times, is its usefulness as a preservative. This is the idea behind God’s willingness to spare Sodom & Gomorrah for just 10 righteous. Those 10 would have been enough grains of salt to preserve these 2 cities with all their inhabitants. But God only found 4 grains, and 1 of them apparently had lost her saltiness – at least the right kind of saltiness (because she turned into a pillar of the stuff) – thus, she was "cast out as good for nothing."
I think one of the ways this works is that Godly behavior raises the standard for society. In a town with a high percentage of faithful Christians, even the nominal unbeliever probably feels compelled to behave himself. I.e., if the unbeliever’s Christian neighbors treat their wives splendidly, don’t yell at their children, put in a good day’s work, and celebrate their Sabbaths, then the unbeliever will be afraid of the scandal that would result if he cheats on his wife, abuses his children, or steals from his boss.
I think one of the ways this works is that Godly behavior raises the standard for society. In a town with a high percentage of faithful Christians, even the nominal unbeliever probably feels compelled to behave himself. I.e., if the unbeliever’s Christian neighbors treat their wives splendidly, don’t yell at their children, put in a good day’s work, and celebrate their Sabbaths, then the unbeliever will be afraid of the scandal that would result if he cheats on his wife, abuses his children, or steals from his boss.
Solomon Reforming Hollywood
DVD Special Features, especially “Behind the Making of [Such-n-Such a Movie],” are for those who lean toward the overly-obsessed end of the movie loving spectrum. That said, a tid-bit or two from the Special Features has caused me to ponder again the general hypocrisy of Hollywood personnel. It seems the rare exception to find an actor or actress worthy of having a fan-base.
I have often been disappointed to discover the split-ups of Martin & Lewis, Lucy & Desi, Sonny & Cher, Tom Cruise & Nicole Kidman, Mel Gibson & his wife of 20+ years. I’m glad Laurel & Hardy and Abbott & Costello didn’t split up, until I learn that Laurel & his wife did divorce and Costello was conceited enough to think that he could comedy routines just as effectively with a cardboard cutout for a partner. Elizabeth Taylor & Mickey Rooney had multiple spouses. – Okay, so what’s new? But there’s a great irony worth realizing that still comes from even the best Hollywood productions.
The popular hero is still the one who is honorable, a man of his word, dependable, courageous, persistent, and faithful to his one girl. He doesn’t flirt with other girls along his journey to rescue his damsel in distress. Our favorite heroine, though she desperately longs for the day that her desire for love will be fulfilled, holds on to the promises of her lover to return to her. She does not put her body up for sale until the Mr. Right comes along. She’s a one-man woman for her one-woman man.
We like (and we prove it with our dollars) the heroes & heroines who most closely resemble the lovers of the Song of Solomon. The hero is Charles Ingalls (Little House on the Praire) but not Michael Landon, William Wallace (Braveheart) but not Mel Gibson, “Cinderella” (EverAfter) but not Drew Barrymore, ….
The characters played by these actors tell us that being faithful to your spouse is good and right. The plot becomes complicated if the main male character kisses another woman besides the one that we all know he is supposed to love. The main female character becomes jealously offended, rightly so, and we sympathize with her. So why doesn’t it bother us that Mel Gibson has kissed Madeleine Stowe, Helen Hunt, Joely Richardson, Catherine McCormack, Isabel Glasser, Jodie Foster, and how many more? Or that any particular actress has been kissed by numerous actors, most if not all of whom are not, haven’t been, nor will ever be her husband in real life. –- Where are the Roy Rogers & Dale Evans of today? Go, Kirk Cameron!
I look forward to the day when we can highly regard not only the character played but also the player.
I have often been disappointed to discover the split-ups of Martin & Lewis, Lucy & Desi, Sonny & Cher, Tom Cruise & Nicole Kidman, Mel Gibson & his wife of 20+ years. I’m glad Laurel & Hardy and Abbott & Costello didn’t split up, until I learn that Laurel & his wife did divorce and Costello was conceited enough to think that he could comedy routines just as effectively with a cardboard cutout for a partner. Elizabeth Taylor & Mickey Rooney had multiple spouses. – Okay, so what’s new? But there’s a great irony worth realizing that still comes from even the best Hollywood productions.
The popular hero is still the one who is honorable, a man of his word, dependable, courageous, persistent, and faithful to his one girl. He doesn’t flirt with other girls along his journey to rescue his damsel in distress. Our favorite heroine, though she desperately longs for the day that her desire for love will be fulfilled, holds on to the promises of her lover to return to her. She does not put her body up for sale until the Mr. Right comes along. She’s a one-man woman for her one-woman man.
We like (and we prove it with our dollars) the heroes & heroines who most closely resemble the lovers of the Song of Solomon. The hero is Charles Ingalls (Little House on the Praire) but not Michael Landon, William Wallace (Braveheart) but not Mel Gibson, “Cinderella” (EverAfter) but not Drew Barrymore, ….
The characters played by these actors tell us that being faithful to your spouse is good and right. The plot becomes complicated if the main male character kisses another woman besides the one that we all know he is supposed to love. The main female character becomes jealously offended, rightly so, and we sympathize with her. So why doesn’t it bother us that Mel Gibson has kissed Madeleine Stowe, Helen Hunt, Joely Richardson, Catherine McCormack, Isabel Glasser, Jodie Foster, and how many more? Or that any particular actress has been kissed by numerous actors, most if not all of whom are not, haven’t been, nor will ever be her husband in real life. –- Where are the Roy Rogers & Dale Evans of today? Go, Kirk Cameron!
I look forward to the day when we can highly regard not only the character played but also the player.
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
"So Great a Cloud of Witnesses"
What an inspiring prayer I heard from a local pastor during our joint worship service (with Christ Church and Trinity Reformed Church) this past October 31st, aka Reformation Sunday and All Saints' Day. (check out the link)
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Make a Loud Noise
Psalm 100:1-2 – “Make a joyful noise unto the LORD, all ye lands. Serve the LORD with gladness: come before His presence with singing.” Psalm 98:4-6 – “Make a joyful noise unto the LORD, all the earth: make a loud noise, and rejoice, and sing praise. Sing unto the LORD with the harp; with the harp, and the voice of a psalm. With trumpets and sound of cornet make a joyful noise before the LORD, the King.” Psalm 98 speaks of the playing of instruments and singing “before the LORD, the King.” Verse 2 of Psalm 100 says to “come before His presence with singing.” We of Christ's church hope to be ever reforming in all areas of life and worship. This must certainly include our offering of music during our worship on the Lord’s Day. We believe Christ calls us to further mature in the way we sing for the Lord, to “make His praise glorious.”
So what if you show up to church some Sunday morning and one of the congregational song selections is a new one to you, one with which you are unfamiliar? Or what if, the opposite happens – you show up to church and one of the congregational song selections is an old one to you, one which we sang last week … and the week before that … and maybe even the week before that? What if you don’t enjoy singing too much? What if you can’t sing, at least according to your own observation and that of those around you? To all these questions, the Holy Spirit’s response is the same: “Make a joyful noise …, make a loud noise, and rejoice, and sing praise.” And we are to offer this “before the LORD, the King,” “before His presence.” If we are going to bring an offering before the LORD, including a musical one, we should do so with all our heart and with all our strength.
“Make a loud noise, and rejoice, and sing praise” with all your strength. So if we’re singing a new song and you make a mistake, make it loudly. If we’re singing an old song … again …, sing it loudly. If you don’t enjoy singing, tough – you’re commanded to sing and do so loudly. If you can’t sing, then make a noise and make it loudly.
Sing before the Lord
When the priests of Malachi 1 ask the LORD how they have despised the LORD’s name and polluted Him, He answers by saying (v. 7-8), “Ye say, ‘The table of the LORD is contemptible.’ And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? And if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil? Offer it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? saith the LORD of hosts.” They were bringing offerings before the LORD which they would not have brought before the governor.
One has to occasionally wonder, or certainly ought to periodically wonder, “If I were preparing a musical presentation for a dinner at the governor’s mansion tomorrow, would I do it the same way that I prepare and present my musical offering at church on the Lord’s Day?” Would I sing such that neither my wife beside me nor the guy in front of me can hear me? Would I refrain from singing because this song just doesn’t excite me anymore? Would my moment of practicing and my moment of actually presenting be one and the same?
The Psalmist makes clear that our singing is “before the LORD, the King” (Ps. 98:6). “Come before His presence with singing” (Ps. 100:2). We are not just singing with one another; we are not just singing to one another about the Lord. We are singing before the LORD, in front of Him. He is the Audience. So “whatsoever ye do,” including singing at church, “do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men” (Colossians 3:23).
Not Impressing the Lord
Combining I John 4:19 with the first and greatest commandment (Mark 12:30, Luke 10:27), we might say, “We love [the Lord our God with all our heart, and with all our soul, and with all our mind, and with all our strength,] because He first loved us” with His all. He initiated this covenant relationship. He loved us first.
Knowing that love is first and foremost an action before it’s an emotion, then loving God with all we’ve got means that our actions of obedience before the Lord is a response to His actions of grace toward us. So for corporate worship on the Lord’s Day, loving Him with all we’ve got means that we wear our “Sunday best,” present our tithes and offerings, and sing with all our might, not because we are trying to impress Him, as if we hope to present Him with something He’s never before seen or heard. He knows our thoughts afar off (Ps. 139:2), so how can we surprise or impress Him?
We are to “come before [the Lord’s] presence with thanksgiving” (Ps. 95:2); we are to “enter into His gates with thanksgiving” (Ps. 100:4); we are to “sing unto the LORD with thanksgiving” (Ps. 147:7). What are we giving thanks for? Well, what has the Lord done for you lately? We don’t have time to share all that God has done for even the youngest single covenant member here right now. But those things we have scheduled to do, the songs we have scheduled to sing, we can and must offer unto “the Lord our God with all our heart, and with all our soul, and with all our mind, and with all our strength,” … not because we can impress God; but we responsively offer our best with hearts of thankfulness to Him for giving us His best. Psalm 103:1-2 – “Bless the LORD, O my soul: and all that is within me, bless his holy name. Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits.”
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Don't Vote the Lesser of 2 Evils
Our country is not in great shape right now; and, from what I hear, even more of our significant freedoms have been stripped away with the passing of the recent huge National Health Care bill. One of the factors that have brought us to this place is voting "the lesser of two evils." This is not just my opinion; please follow the logic.
When you vote "the lesser of two evils," you're already admitting that the one receiving your vote is evil. You're admitting that the candidate is not balanced (morally, politically, whatever). The candidate you did not vote for is far left of center. The candidate you did vote for is not nearly as far left of center, but he is still left of center. So even when the winning candidate is the one voted for by you and all the other "lesser-of-two-evils" voters, the center has just shifted. That lesser-of-two-evils position is now the new center.
So the next time you vote the lesser of two evils, you move the center a little more to the left again. You make small compromises.
"Take 3 baby steps toward the cliff."
"Mother, may I?"
"Yes, you may."
Just one baby step every 4 minutes (or every 4 years as the case may be) toward the cliff still gets you to the cliff. Perhaps it gets you there slower than taking giant leaps (by voting the greater of two evils), but you are still moving toward the cliff rather than away from the cliff.
When you vote "the lesser of two evils," you're already admitting that the one receiving your vote is evil. You're admitting that the candidate is not balanced (morally, politically, whatever). The candidate you did not vote for is far left of center. The candidate you did vote for is not nearly as far left of center, but he is still left of center. So even when the winning candidate is the one voted for by you and all the other "lesser-of-two-evils" voters, the center has just shifted. That lesser-of-two-evils position is now the new center.
So the next time you vote the lesser of two evils, you move the center a little more to the left again. You make small compromises.
"Take 3 baby steps toward the cliff."
"Mother, may I?"
"Yes, you may."
Just one baby step every 4 minutes (or every 4 years as the case may be) toward the cliff still gets you to the cliff. Perhaps it gets you there slower than taking giant leaps (by voting the greater of two evils), but you are still moving toward the cliff rather than away from the cliff.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
It's 2010 already!?
I just realized that 2010 is more than half over, and I haven't submitted a single post yet this year. ... well, ... except for this one.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Baptized in Snow
Yep, I’m one of those who thinks an all-encompassing white blanket of pure snow is beautiful.
So as I proceed to defend it, I must confess that I am a bit biased. I like snow. Not year round, mind you; but a month or two (maybe even three?), I’m fine with that. But someone may wonder, "Why? Why snow? What good possibly comes from it? And don’t say that spring comes from it, as if banging your head on a brick wall is justified by how good it feels to stop."
Well, I would like to contend that God offers snow as an annual baptism – a re-telling of the need for the old to die, for the dead to be buried, and for new life to spring forth afresh. In the fall, things do just that: they fall. They fall down and die. They get raked, burned, or composted. That from which they fell looks lifeless. In the winter, these lifeless forms and their detachments are buried, in some places six inches under, in others six feed under. In the spring, things do just that: they spring. They spring forth, up, and out. They become green and look happy to be alive.
Still skeptical?
What is snow? It’s frozen water, it’s white, and it’s cold. God has shown in numerous times and ways that He brings new life and new creations out of water. "In the beginning … the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" (Gen. 1:2). "And God said, ‘Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear:’ and it was so" (Gen. 1:9). Then God started over with Noah and his family after covering the entire earth with water (Gen. 6-9). Then God gave Israel a new start by leading them with a cloud and bringing them through the Red Sea (I Cor. 10:1-2). Then John the Baptist, Christ Himself, and the apostles called people to signify their testimony of new life in Christ by being baptized in water. And, of course, babies announce to the world that a new life has arrived not very long after "the water breaks." So there should be no surprise that particular parts of our world look freshly new and alive after the frozen water of winter has receded.
So perhaps the symbolism is beginning to make snow more attractive to you, until you wonder, "But why cold? Why so cold? What beauty is there in coldness?" Again, I think the coldness represents death or at least the confirmation of death. When a body dies, it becomes cold; and vice versa: when things become very cold, they die. At absolute zero (which is probably pretty cold), things become inanimate, they stop moving. We bury things that are dead. And if they weren’t completely dead when we buried them, they will be. Death is essential. Why?
Enter white. If whiteness symbolizes purity, then why is something so deadly so white? Well, sometimes to rid the impurities from an object of desire, you have to destroy those impurities. Chemotherapy and radiation are attempts to kill cancerous cells. The problem with this is that chemotherapy and radiation do not simultaneously (or even eventually) replace those corrupt cells with fresh healthy ones. Replenishment must come via some other means. If that does not happen, then the entire body may die. – This is, of course, another way of achieving purification: rather than attack the particular impurities within the desired object, destroy the entire object itself – purification by death. When a field is covered with snow, no impurities are visible: no weeds, no bugs, nut’in’.
"But, but, -," you say, "but there’s nothing alive either! Yeah, there may not be any impurities visible, but neither are there any signs of life visible … in a field covered with snow or in a man consumed by chemotherapy. It may be pure now, but it’s dead. What good is that?"
Granted. But my point still stands. Purification, even if it’s by death, is still purification and can thus be symbolized by whiteness. But, given the overall picture, your point is still valid. "If there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. … For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." – 1 Cor. 15:13-19
But baptism with snow in winter happens at the beginning of the year. There is yet a resurrection in spring which we eagerly anticipate and plan to celebrate. But first, the dirty old man must die and become cold. And if he still twitches now and then after death, the coldness of burial will ensure that he completely dies. The world is now a bit purer, being cleansed from all unrighteousness. But remember: that is not the end of the story; it is only the beginning.
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit" (John 12:24). "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new" (2 Corinthians 5:17).
And God graciously heaps upon us His reminder of this every year.
So as I proceed to defend it, I must confess that I am a bit biased. I like snow. Not year round, mind you; but a month or two (maybe even three?), I’m fine with that. But someone may wonder, "Why? Why snow? What good possibly comes from it? And don’t say that spring comes from it, as if banging your head on a brick wall is justified by how good it feels to stop."Well, I would like to contend that God offers snow as an annual baptism – a re-telling of the need for the old to die, for the dead to be buried, and for new life to spring forth afresh. In the fall, things do just that: they fall. They fall down and die. They get raked, burned, or composted. That from which they fell looks lifeless. In the winter, these lifeless forms and their detachments are buried, in some places six inches under, in others six feed under. In the spring, things do just that: they spring. They spring forth, up, and out. They become green and look happy to be alive.
Still skeptical?
What is snow? It’s frozen water, it’s white, and it’s cold. God has shown in numerous times and ways that He brings new life and new creations out of water. "In the beginning … the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" (Gen. 1:2). "And God said, ‘Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear:’ and it was so" (Gen. 1:9). Then God started over with Noah and his family after covering the entire earth with water (Gen. 6-9). Then God gave Israel a new start by leading them with a cloud and bringing them through the Red Sea (I Cor. 10:1-2). Then John the Baptist, Christ Himself, and the apostles called people to signify their testimony of new life in Christ by being baptized in water. And, of course, babies announce to the world that a new life has arrived not very long after "the water breaks." So there should be no surprise that particular parts of our world look freshly new and alive after the frozen water of winter has receded.
So perhaps the symbolism is beginning to make snow more attractive to you, until you wonder, "But why cold? Why so cold? What beauty is there in coldness?" Again, I think the coldness represents death or at least the confirmation of death. When a body dies, it becomes cold; and vice versa: when things become very cold, they die. At absolute zero (which is probably pretty cold), things become inanimate, they stop moving. We bury things that are dead. And if they weren’t completely dead when we buried them, they will be. Death is essential. Why?
Enter white. If whiteness symbolizes purity, then why is something so deadly so white? Well, sometimes to rid the impurities from an object of desire, you have to destroy those impurities. Chemotherapy and radiation are attempts to kill cancerous cells. The problem with this is that chemotherapy and radiation do not simultaneously (or even eventually) replace those corrupt cells with fresh healthy ones. Replenishment must come via some other means. If that does not happen, then the entire body may die. – This is, of course, another way of achieving purification: rather than attack the particular impurities within the desired object, destroy the entire object itself – purification by death. When a field is covered with snow, no impurities are visible: no weeds, no bugs, nut’in’.
"But, but, -," you say, "but there’s nothing alive either! Yeah, there may not be any impurities visible, but neither are there any signs of life visible … in a field covered with snow or in a man consumed by chemotherapy. It may be pure now, but it’s dead. What good is that?"
Granted. But my point still stands. Purification, even if it’s by death, is still purification and can thus be symbolized by whiteness. But, given the overall picture, your point is still valid. "If there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. … For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." – 1 Cor. 15:13-19
But baptism with snow in winter happens at the beginning of the year. There is yet a resurrection in spring which we eagerly anticipate and plan to celebrate. But first, the dirty old man must die and become cold. And if he still twitches now and then after death, the coldness of burial will ensure that he completely dies. The world is now a bit purer, being cleansed from all unrighteousness. But remember: that is not the end of the story; it is only the beginning.
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit" (John 12:24). "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new" (2 Corinthians 5:17).
And God graciously heaps upon us His reminder of this every year.
A Kingdom Metaphor
Christ Jesus is Lord of all. The Christian church is His bride.
Imagine, if you will, a benevolent king over all the known world, in the process of ridding such world of all the putrescent effects of a rapacious tyrannical adversary. If the compassionate conqueror is such the good king that he graciously bestows many good things on all his subjects, and especially on those who serve him wholeheartedly, then many would have no problem submitting to such a king. If his wife the queen were to pass through town, many would wish to behold her glorious beauty, the abundance of dazzling adornments with which she and her immediate surroundings are adorned, and the mass of entourage which accompany her to serve her. Now suppose she were to pass through every town and village within the kingdom, led by her husband with the best of his army, and preceded by heralds who announce to all peoples: "The king is coming with his queen! All those whose hearts are so inclined are offered a place and position of service. Loyalty to their majesty, as best expressed by extending grace to his other servants and subjects, will be highly rewarded. Refusal to submit to his gracious lordship or failure to respect his beautiful bride will be answered by severe punishment. All are invited and encouraged to accept his offer, no matter your current social status or physical condition. Poor and rich, sick and healthy, old and young, weak and strong, friendless and famous, – come one, come all!"
Now who wouldn’t want to serve such a king and queen, especially someone who recognizes that the only alternative is continued slavery to the aforesaid dictatorial foe, the final state of which is destruction?
Imagine, if you will, a benevolent king over all the known world, in the process of ridding such world of all the putrescent effects of a rapacious tyrannical adversary. If the compassionate conqueror is such the good king that he graciously bestows many good things on all his subjects, and especially on those who serve him wholeheartedly, then many would have no problem submitting to such a king. If his wife the queen were to pass through town, many would wish to behold her glorious beauty, the abundance of dazzling adornments with which she and her immediate surroundings are adorned, and the mass of entourage which accompany her to serve her. Now suppose she were to pass through every town and village within the kingdom, led by her husband with the best of his army, and preceded by heralds who announce to all peoples: "The king is coming with his queen! All those whose hearts are so inclined are offered a place and position of service. Loyalty to their majesty, as best expressed by extending grace to his other servants and subjects, will be highly rewarded. Refusal to submit to his gracious lordship or failure to respect his beautiful bride will be answered by severe punishment. All are invited and encouraged to accept his offer, no matter your current social status or physical condition. Poor and rich, sick and healthy, old and young, weak and strong, friendless and famous, – come one, come all!"
Now who wouldn’t want to serve such a king and queen, especially someone who recognizes that the only alternative is continued slavery to the aforesaid dictatorial foe, the final state of which is destruction?
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
Communion Is So Much More
How often have we been expected, upon receiving the bread and grape beverage, to close our eyes and meditate somberly upon the painful process of death through which Jesus Christ went because of His love for each one of us? How hard does the pastor or administering speaker have to work to inspire an emotional response in the participating audience? I wonder if this is one of the big reasons why many churches do not practice communion more frequently. Imagine if you had to think of something new to say every week in order to help people understand the significance of eating a piece of bread, explaining it to be Christ's body, and of drinking a shot-glass full of grape juice or wine, representing Christ's blood.
I remember a story that Ravi Zacharias told of a minister explaining to him that the reason they didn't practice a particular event (such as communion) more frequently in church was because they didn't want people to lose the sacredness of it or to treat it too lightly. To which Ravi aptly responded, "Do you take the same approach toward collecting the offering?"
If you had to come up with a communion exhortation every week and if you're pretty sure that you would find it challenging to come up with something new after about the third week, then check these out. There are well over four hundred exhortations from the pen and lips of Pastor Wilson regarding "The Lord's Table." Perhaps if you do ever have to come up with something new, you can just steal one from there.
I remember a story that Ravi Zacharias told of a minister explaining to him that the reason they didn't practice a particular event (such as communion) more frequently in church was because they didn't want people to lose the sacredness of it or to treat it too lightly. To which Ravi aptly responded, "Do you take the same approach toward collecting the offering?"
If you had to come up with a communion exhortation every week and if you're pretty sure that you would find it challenging to come up with something new after about the third week, then check these out. There are well over four hundred exhortations from the pen and lips of Pastor Wilson regarding "The Lord's Table." Perhaps if you do ever have to come up with something new, you can just steal one from there.
God of the Means and the End
The following was submitted by Pastor Douglas Wilson (to his church via their email system and also on his blog) September 15, 2009:
********************************************************************************
"Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. The saying is trustworthy, for: If we have died with him, we will also live with him; if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us; if we are faithless, he remains faithful — for he cannot deny himself" (2 Tim. 2:10-13).
Paul is a thorough-going predestinarian -- all the elect are predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ. But he is no fatalist. Note what he is willing to do for the sake of the elect. He endures everything, he says, for the sake of the elect, so that they might obtain . . . what? What Paul believes them to be predestined to obtain is the salvation that is in Jesus Christ, along with eternal glory. Lesser hearts than Paul's reason fallaciously in one of two ways. They either say that enduring everything matters, so the elect must not really be elect. Or they say that election is real and that it matters, and that it is therefore not necessary to endure anything. Que sera sera. But Paul knows that God ordains everything, including the means that He has ordained to accomplish His intended ends.
Paul knows that the ordained destination is reached by the ordained road. And if the destination is reigning with him, then that is reached by enduring. If the destination is living with Him, the road is dying with Him. The saying is trustworthy. The God who ordained the harvest also ordained the planting. The God who ordained the pregnancy also ordained the sexual union. The God who ordained that a man reaps what he sows also ordained that a man sows what he reaps. Predestination does not make Paul shrug his shoulders whatever. It makes him roll up his sleeves, and any other response betrays a misunderstanding of what God has revealed.
There is a flip side, with an interesting twist. If we deny Him, He will also deny us. But if we are faithless (merely), He remains faithful. To be faithless to struggling sinners would not be to deny them; it would be to deny Himself. He will never leave us or forsake us -- despite our faithlessness.
Cordially in Christ,
Douglas Wilson
********************************************************************************
"Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. The saying is trustworthy, for: If we have died with him, we will also live with him; if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us; if we are faithless, he remains faithful — for he cannot deny himself" (2 Tim. 2:10-13).
Paul is a thorough-going predestinarian -- all the elect are predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ. But he is no fatalist. Note what he is willing to do for the sake of the elect. He endures everything, he says, for the sake of the elect, so that they might obtain . . . what? What Paul believes them to be predestined to obtain is the salvation that is in Jesus Christ, along with eternal glory. Lesser hearts than Paul's reason fallaciously in one of two ways. They either say that enduring everything matters, so the elect must not really be elect. Or they say that election is real and that it matters, and that it is therefore not necessary to endure anything. Que sera sera. But Paul knows that God ordains everything, including the means that He has ordained to accomplish His intended ends.
Paul knows that the ordained destination is reached by the ordained road. And if the destination is reigning with him, then that is reached by enduring. If the destination is living with Him, the road is dying with Him. The saying is trustworthy. The God who ordained the harvest also ordained the planting. The God who ordained the pregnancy also ordained the sexual union. The God who ordained that a man reaps what he sows also ordained that a man sows what he reaps. Predestination does not make Paul shrug his shoulders whatever. It makes him roll up his sleeves, and any other response betrays a misunderstanding of what God has revealed.
There is a flip side, with an interesting twist. If we deny Him, He will also deny us. But if we are faithless (merely), He remains faithful. To be faithless to struggling sinners would not be to deny them; it would be to deny Himself. He will never leave us or forsake us -- despite our faithlessness.
Cordially in Christ,
Douglas Wilson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
