A thought (or two!) about Christmas:
(1) Without the Easter event, there would be no Christmas event. (2) Without the Christmas event, there would be no Easter event.
The former refers to the significance of our Lord's life; the latter refers to the significance of our Lord's humanity. The former refers to Jesus' ministry; the latter to Jesus' essence.
After all, Peter's confession that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matt. 16:16), was found to be (partially) wanting because Peter failed to understand the necessity of Christ's suffering and death (Matt. 16:21-24). Without understanding the necessity of the Easter event, our understanding of His birth, life, and ministry will be truncated. In fact, our understanding of the gospel itself will be flawed, failing to grasp the very power of the gospel in our weakness.
On the other hand, the Easter event must also be understood in light of the Christmas event. In other words, Jesus' death and resurrection is significant precisely because He was the God-man. John testifies that his own hands had handled and his own eyes had seen the Word of Life (1 John 1:1). This is no accident, no peripheral issue: Jesus is fully human. He breathed our air, sweated our sweat, cried our tears, bled our blood, felt our pain. He laughed and he wept; He felt the joy of friendship and the bitterness of betrayal; in other words, Jesus experienced our humanity in full. Without this man, exemplifying humanity in what we all ought to be, what we were made to be in the Garden, without this man there would be no Cross. Without understanding the significance of Jesus' humanity, the Cross is stripped of its meaning: it remains a theoretical doctrine. The significance of the Cross is precisely in this: Jesus the man stood in my place and bore the penalty that I justly deserve. As John Calvin so well puts it, "When we behold the disfigurement of the Son of God, when we find ourselves appalled at His marred appearance, we need to reckon afresh that it is upon ourselves we gaze, for He stood in our place." How can we behold this disfigurement, how can we "find ourselves appalled" unless He is fully flesh and blood?
Thus, the significance of Christmas: We understand Christmas rightly when we come to grips with His life lived, His necessary suffering and death, His receipt of my penalty. We understand Easter rightly when we come to grips with His humanity, fully and gloriously displayed in the fullness of His life, initially manifested on that first Christmas Eve. Let us, then, celebrate his birth with an eye ever toward the Cross and resurrection; let us celebrate his death and resurrection with an eye ever toward His birth, His humanity.
Merry Christmas-Easter, everyone!
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Monday, August 1, 2011
Slaves of Christ?
Are we, in the Western Church, so immune to our Master's call to slavery, and to our relative response to abandonment of ourselves, that we would rather use the term "servant" than "slave"? Perhaps, even when we go so far as to call ourselves "slaves of Christ," we still hold dearly to our personal rights and privileges so that the term loses its meaning? We sing our Hallelujah's and call Him Lord, yet fail to recognize that the Hallelujah, a recognition that our Exemplar's risen and exalted status came after his lowly state--even to the Cross--and calls us to the same; similarly, we call Him "Lord" but fail to recognize that we abdicate any claim to our own lives, our "rights" and "privileges", when we use the term.
Or at least I do.
Some beautifully pertinent quotes from Murray J. Harris, Slave of Christ (from the New Studies in Biblical Theology):
"In twentieth-century Christianity we have replaced the expression 'total surrender' with the word 'commitment', and 'slave' with 'servant'. But there is an important difference. A servant gives service to someone, but a slave belongs to someone. We commit ourselves to do something, but when we surrender ourselves to someone, we give ourselves up."
"If the language of slavery is offensive, the offence would have been considerably greater for those who lived in societies where slavery was intrinsic than for us for whom slavery is simply an unpleasant and embarrassing memory."
"The term doulos (slave) expresses both a vertical and horizontal relationship of the Christian, who is both the willing vassal of the heavenly Master and the submissive servant of fellow-believers. The term epitomizes the Christian's dual obligation: unquestioning devotion to Christ and to his people. But the vertical relationship is prior and the horizontal secondary. Christians are devoted to one another as a direct result of being devoted to Christ. When they serve each other, they are demonstrating and expressing their slavery to the Lord Christ."
"A slave of Christ is not a right reserved for the favoured few in the church but is the privilege of all believers, unrelated to their giftedness or their particular role in the church... It has become, in a Christian context, a title of exquisite honour describing accredited representatives of the risen Christ... (I)t gained (this) positive connotation...because the divine Master they were serving was kind and generous and himself had blazed an exemplary trail of lowly service. What all the douloi (slaves) of this Kyrios (Lord) gained through being associated with him was not so much authority and power as unparalleled honour and the assurance that their service, whatever its nature, was of supreme value, simply because it was done for him."
"It is one thing for us to follow a grand custom and stand during the singing of the Hallelujah Chorus at the unforgettable climax of Part II of Handel's Messiah and so celebrate the ultimate victory of Christ. It is quite another thing for us to bow the knee before the crucified and exalted Lord of the universe and receive the metaphorical piercing of the ear as a sign and pledge of our joyful and willing slavery to him as long as we live. If we do this, then when we stand in his presence at the conclusion of our lives, and ourselves sing the song of the Lamb, we shall hear those unforgettable words from our Master's lips, 'Congratulations, good and faithful slave!'"
________________
So we who have the honor of calling ourselves "Slaves of Christ" must come to recognize, through God's gracious saving work, that we are called to nothing less than the Cross, to die to ourselves, to abandon notions of self-aggrandizement in favor of the--far greater!--calling to slavery.
We slaves of our Jesus, we slaves of our God, we slaves of righteousness are under a different management and ownership, and He is a far more compassionate and more capable Master than any other.
Or at least I do.
Some beautifully pertinent quotes from Murray J. Harris, Slave of Christ (from the New Studies in Biblical Theology):
"In twentieth-century Christianity we have replaced the expression 'total surrender' with the word 'commitment', and 'slave' with 'servant'. But there is an important difference. A servant gives service to someone, but a slave belongs to someone. We commit ourselves to do something, but when we surrender ourselves to someone, we give ourselves up."
"If the language of slavery is offensive, the offence would have been considerably greater for those who lived in societies where slavery was intrinsic than for us for whom slavery is simply an unpleasant and embarrassing memory."
"The term doulos (slave) expresses both a vertical and horizontal relationship of the Christian, who is both the willing vassal of the heavenly Master and the submissive servant of fellow-believers. The term epitomizes the Christian's dual obligation: unquestioning devotion to Christ and to his people. But the vertical relationship is prior and the horizontal secondary. Christians are devoted to one another as a direct result of being devoted to Christ. When they serve each other, they are demonstrating and expressing their slavery to the Lord Christ."
"A slave of Christ is not a right reserved for the favoured few in the church but is the privilege of all believers, unrelated to their giftedness or their particular role in the church... It has become, in a Christian context, a title of exquisite honour describing accredited representatives of the risen Christ... (I)t gained (this) positive connotation...because the divine Master they were serving was kind and generous and himself had blazed an exemplary trail of lowly service. What all the douloi (slaves) of this Kyrios (Lord) gained through being associated with him was not so much authority and power as unparalleled honour and the assurance that their service, whatever its nature, was of supreme value, simply because it was done for him."
"It is one thing for us to follow a grand custom and stand during the singing of the Hallelujah Chorus at the unforgettable climax of Part II of Handel's Messiah and so celebrate the ultimate victory of Christ. It is quite another thing for us to bow the knee before the crucified and exalted Lord of the universe and receive the metaphorical piercing of the ear as a sign and pledge of our joyful and willing slavery to him as long as we live. If we do this, then when we stand in his presence at the conclusion of our lives, and ourselves sing the song of the Lamb, we shall hear those unforgettable words from our Master's lips, 'Congratulations, good and faithful slave!'"
________________
So we who have the honor of calling ourselves "Slaves of Christ" must come to recognize, through God's gracious saving work, that we are called to nothing less than the Cross, to die to ourselves, to abandon notions of self-aggrandizement in favor of the--far greater!--calling to slavery.
We slaves of our Jesus, we slaves of our God, we slaves of righteousness are under a different management and ownership, and He is a far more compassionate and more capable Master than any other.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
A Heilsgeschichte in Chi Major
Morning dew and evening breeze,
The sigh of wind—sweet shifting song
As trees in harmony sway ‘long
And He has given us the keys!
Sunrise caught in water drop,
Puts dimples in the perfect pond.
Sweet summer drizzle here and gone,
And we, from dirt to honored top.
His promise rings still in our heads:
“This golden plot is yours—partake!
Save one tree, all is for your sake!”
Sly snake assays his smarts and says:
“Is His promise life, indeed?
Take and eat! Know and see!”
The spotted fruit once spotted shines,
We took to live, now know we die.
Garden to desert; figs to thorns,
Now broken, now twisted, now torn.
His promise faintly dims our eyes:
“Death is one day doomed to die.”
A bit of fruit and nothing less,
We sold our souls for a pound of flesh.
Birthright turned from crown to pence;
Cheap, our prize had cost too much!
Our brothers fierce in anger turned
To put red hands to violence.
Echoes of former Tov M’od
Was strangled by some crouching sin,
Was twisted by our own device,
Still whispered our Creator’s ode.
And He, our Sovereign, enthroned
Great hesed gave the promised seed,
This theme had stretched the centuries:
“Deliver them who are your own!”
So Israel’s tutor, Pedagogue,
Might lead the nation to the prize.
The laud was ringing loud and long:
“Here His Christ, your Lord, your God!”
But she in blind self-righteousness
Had sold her soul for so much less.
Crown of thorns and garden tomb
Now broken corpse, deserted soul
His promise faintly dims our eyes:
“I am resurrection-life!”
The Son of Man and nothing less,
Redeemed our souls in righteousness.
The Cross: the unexpected means;
The Son of God and promised Christ
Upon the tree he sways and dies;
Once dead now risen owns the keys!
The sunrise on the tomb would bring:
The stone, the cloth, the empty bed,
Proclaims the truth of what he said,
And he, from slave to sovereign King!
His words, they ring still in our head:
“This bread, this cup is mine—partake!
Save one race, all is for His sake!
Body, blood, given instead:
This is promised life, indeed!
Take and eat! Know and see!”
Spotless bread and spotless wine,
We took to live, and with Him died.
And so our teacher, man-divine
Now leads His people to the prize,
Whose promise resonates our lives:
We, the branch, and He, the Vine!
The Son of God and nothing less,
Now owns our lives for righteousness.
Birthright turned from cross to crown;
Rich, this lavished grace to grace!
Now sends His Spirit, seals His prize,
And makes His name through us renowned!
Hope of future sinless days
Still wrestles with our crouching sin
But promises far better still,
And trumpets our Creator’s praise!
So He, our Sovereign, enthroned
Anticipated promise known,
His theme now trumpets through the age:
“Christ our King and we His own!”
The sigh of wind—sweet shifting song
As trees in harmony sway ‘long
And He has given us the keys!
Sunrise caught in water drop,
Puts dimples in the perfect pond.
Sweet summer drizzle here and gone,
And we, from dirt to honored top.
His promise rings still in our heads:
“This golden plot is yours—partake!
Save one tree, all is for your sake!”
Sly snake assays his smarts and says:
“Is His promise life, indeed?
Take and eat! Know and see!”
The spotted fruit once spotted shines,
We took to live, now know we die.
Garden to desert; figs to thorns,
Now broken, now twisted, now torn.
His promise faintly dims our eyes:
“Death is one day doomed to die.”
A bit of fruit and nothing less,
We sold our souls for a pound of flesh.
Birthright turned from crown to pence;
Cheap, our prize had cost too much!
Our brothers fierce in anger turned
To put red hands to violence.
Echoes of former Tov M’od
Was strangled by some crouching sin,
Was twisted by our own device,
Still whispered our Creator’s ode.
And He, our Sovereign, enthroned
Great hesed gave the promised seed,
This theme had stretched the centuries:
“Deliver them who are your own!”
So Israel’s tutor, Pedagogue,
Might lead the nation to the prize.
The laud was ringing loud and long:
“Here His Christ, your Lord, your God!”
But she in blind self-righteousness
Had sold her soul for so much less.
Crown of thorns and garden tomb
Now broken corpse, deserted soul
His promise faintly dims our eyes:
“I am resurrection-life!”
The Son of Man and nothing less,
Redeemed our souls in righteousness.
The Cross: the unexpected means;
The Son of God and promised Christ
Upon the tree he sways and dies;
Once dead now risen owns the keys!
The sunrise on the tomb would bring:
The stone, the cloth, the empty bed,
Proclaims the truth of what he said,
And he, from slave to sovereign King!
His words, they ring still in our head:
“This bread, this cup is mine—partake!
Save one race, all is for His sake!
Body, blood, given instead:
This is promised life, indeed!
Take and eat! Know and see!”
Spotless bread and spotless wine,
We took to live, and with Him died.
And so our teacher, man-divine
Now leads His people to the prize,
Whose promise resonates our lives:
We, the branch, and He, the Vine!
The Son of God and nothing less,
Now owns our lives for righteousness.
Birthright turned from cross to crown;
Rich, this lavished grace to grace!
Now sends His Spirit, seals His prize,
And makes His name through us renowned!
Hope of future sinless days
Still wrestles with our crouching sin
But promises far better still,
And trumpets our Creator’s praise!
So He, our Sovereign, enthroned
Anticipated promise known,
His theme now trumpets through the age:
“Christ our King and we His own!”
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Justice is Beautiful--A Footnote
Yesterday I posted on the aesthetic value of God's justice. I was reminded by a friend that I could be misunderstood at a certain level and I wanted to clarify a point. It is true that:
(1) God's justice will be beautiful in the eschaton.
(2) We will rejoice to see God's justice.
(3) God desires that no person perishes, but that all come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9).
There seems, then, to be a difference between God as the Reconciler, and God as the Judge. As Reconciler, God not only provides the means of salvation, but His desire is that mankind turns from sin and believes unto life in His powerful and effectual gospel. We herald the gospel of salvation knowing that God's general call is given with no regard to race, nationality, sex, or background (Gal. 3:28-29), and with the full knowledge that God is in the business of making friends out of His enemies (Rom. 5:6-8; Eph. 2:1-7).
This is, however, not to confuse God's reconciling activity with God's judging activity. He is not some grandfatherly figure, benevolently looking upon sin, smiling, and wagging His head. He is the Judge of the earth. He has set His purposes to setting the world right. We have the option to turn from our sin today and believe in His Christ, or reject His infinitely magnanimous offer. If we choose the latter, we may be sure that God's wrath is singular in purpose, unwavering in application, and absolutely, terrifyingly right.
Psalm 7:11-13 (NET Bible) 11 God is a just judge; he is angry throughout the day. 12 If a person does not repent, God sharpens his sword and prepares to shoot his bow. 13 He prepares to use deadly weapons against him; he gets ready to shoot flaming arrows.
(1) God's justice will be beautiful in the eschaton.
(2) We will rejoice to see God's justice.
(3) God desires that no person perishes, but that all come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9).
There seems, then, to be a difference between God as the Reconciler, and God as the Judge. As Reconciler, God not only provides the means of salvation, but His desire is that mankind turns from sin and believes unto life in His powerful and effectual gospel. We herald the gospel of salvation knowing that God's general call is given with no regard to race, nationality, sex, or background (Gal. 3:28-29), and with the full knowledge that God is in the business of making friends out of His enemies (Rom. 5:6-8; Eph. 2:1-7).
This is, however, not to confuse God's reconciling activity with God's judging activity. He is not some grandfatherly figure, benevolently looking upon sin, smiling, and wagging His head. He is the Judge of the earth. He has set His purposes to setting the world right. We have the option to turn from our sin today and believe in His Christ, or reject His infinitely magnanimous offer. If we choose the latter, we may be sure that God's wrath is singular in purpose, unwavering in application, and absolutely, terrifyingly right.
Psalm 7:11-13 (NET Bible) 11 God is a just judge; he is angry throughout the day. 12 If a person does not repent, God sharpens his sword and prepares to shoot his bow. 13 He prepares to use deadly weapons against him; he gets ready to shoot flaming arrows.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Justice is Beautiful
Having heard and seen the public outcry against Casey Anthony, can we really deny that God's final judgment will be a beautiful thing?
I haven't personally followed the trial, but I will make some observations regarding what I have seen and heard. I make no personal judgment in favor of or against Ms. Anthony as I have little knowledge of actual facts.
The judgment against Anthony, many believe, was surprising. The evidence against her leads even her supporters to believe that there is something terribly, terribly wrong, and if she herself didn't kill her daughter, then she had a direct hand in the murder. The evidence, mostly circumstantial, led to suspect her, but not to indict her. When our justice system fails to condemn sin, we rightly still desire justice. Conversely, I think that the public response would have been applause had she been found guilty.
We have, then, an innate sense of right and wrong, as well as an innate sense that, when someone has sinned, justice should be served--the world should be made right. For proof of this fact, just look at the various responses on the web and see the theme: "Where has justice gone?"
Is this not analogous to God's final judgment? Most of us don't really consider what the response to God's judgment will look like, but perhaps we should. God's justice is a beautiful thing, and God, as judge, doesn't ring His hands in the final judgment over condemning sin. The evidence was overwhelming, the verdict is in, the gavel falls, God's enemies (i.e., those who stand outside of God's mercy in Christ) stand for the verdict: guilty as charged.
God will one day set the world right, and this will be a beautiful thing.
Deuteronomy 32:39-43 (NET Bible) 39 "See now that I, indeed I, am he!" says the LORD, "and there is no other god besides me. I kill and give life, I smash and I heal, and none can resist my power. 40 For I raise up my hand to heaven, and say, 'As surely as I live forever, 41 I will sharpen my lightning-like sword, and my hand will grasp hold of the weapon of judgment; I will execute vengeance on my foes, and repay those who hate me! 42 I will make my arrows drunk with blood, and my sword will devour flesh – the blood of the slaughtered and captured, the chief of the enemy's leaders!'" 43 Rejoice, O nations, with his people, for he will avenge his servants' blood; he will take vengeance against his enemies, and make atonement for his land and people.
Revelation 16:5-7 (NET Bible) 5 Now I heard the angel of the waters saying: "You are just– the one who is and who was, the Holy One – because you have passed these judgments, 6 because they poured out the blood of your saints and prophets, so you have given them blood to drink. They got what they deserved!" 7 Then I heard the altar reply, "Yes, Lord God, the All-Powerful, your judgments are true and just!"
There are, of course, other references, but I think the point is made: God is the good Judge, and we should expect nothing less than justice rightly to be served.
A disclaimer, lest we forget our position, and lest we stand in judgment ourselves: we are not in the position of the judge, and Christians who personally judge Ms. Anthony need to be reminded, I think, of Paul's charge to the Corinthians: we judge (discern) among those who are within the Church, but we dare not judge (condemn) those who make no claim to be Christian. First Corinthians 5:12-13: "For what do I have to do with judging those outside (the Church)? Aren't you supposed to judge those inside (the Church)? But God will judge those who are outside (the Church)." After all, apart from God's grace in Christ, enabling us toward obedience through His Holy Spirit, we ourselves, sinners all, are condemned and condemnable.
I haven't personally followed the trial, but I will make some observations regarding what I have seen and heard. I make no personal judgment in favor of or against Ms. Anthony as I have little knowledge of actual facts.
The judgment against Anthony, many believe, was surprising. The evidence against her leads even her supporters to believe that there is something terribly, terribly wrong, and if she herself didn't kill her daughter, then she had a direct hand in the murder. The evidence, mostly circumstantial, led to suspect her, but not to indict her. When our justice system fails to condemn sin, we rightly still desire justice. Conversely, I think that the public response would have been applause had she been found guilty.
We have, then, an innate sense of right and wrong, as well as an innate sense that, when someone has sinned, justice should be served--the world should be made right. For proof of this fact, just look at the various responses on the web and see the theme: "Where has justice gone?"
Is this not analogous to God's final judgment? Most of us don't really consider what the response to God's judgment will look like, but perhaps we should. God's justice is a beautiful thing, and God, as judge, doesn't ring His hands in the final judgment over condemning sin. The evidence was overwhelming, the verdict is in, the gavel falls, God's enemies (i.e., those who stand outside of God's mercy in Christ) stand for the verdict: guilty as charged.
God will one day set the world right, and this will be a beautiful thing.
Deuteronomy 32:39-43 (NET Bible) 39 "See now that I, indeed I, am he!" says the LORD, "and there is no other god besides me. I kill and give life, I smash and I heal, and none can resist my power. 40 For I raise up my hand to heaven, and say, 'As surely as I live forever, 41 I will sharpen my lightning-like sword, and my hand will grasp hold of the weapon of judgment; I will execute vengeance on my foes, and repay those who hate me! 42 I will make my arrows drunk with blood, and my sword will devour flesh – the blood of the slaughtered and captured, the chief of the enemy's leaders!'" 43 Rejoice, O nations, with his people, for he will avenge his servants' blood; he will take vengeance against his enemies, and make atonement for his land and people.
Revelation 16:5-7 (NET Bible) 5 Now I heard the angel of the waters saying: "You are just– the one who is and who was, the Holy One – because you have passed these judgments, 6 because they poured out the blood of your saints and prophets, so you have given them blood to drink. They got what they deserved!" 7 Then I heard the altar reply, "Yes, Lord God, the All-Powerful, your judgments are true and just!"
There are, of course, other references, but I think the point is made: God is the good Judge, and we should expect nothing less than justice rightly to be served.
A disclaimer, lest we forget our position, and lest we stand in judgment ourselves: we are not in the position of the judge, and Christians who personally judge Ms. Anthony need to be reminded, I think, of Paul's charge to the Corinthians: we judge (discern) among those who are within the Church, but we dare not judge (condemn) those who make no claim to be Christian. First Corinthians 5:12-13: "For what do I have to do with judging those outside (the Church)? Aren't you supposed to judge those inside (the Church)? But God will judge those who are outside (the Church)." After all, apart from God's grace in Christ, enabling us toward obedience through His Holy Spirit, we ourselves, sinners all, are condemned and condemnable.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
On Christian Forgiveness (Part 2)
A Christian must be a forgiving sort of person.
A Christian must also be a forgiveness-seeking sort of person.
Have you ever noticed that when Jesus mentions the issue of anger in the Sermon on the Mount, He does not say, "therefore, don't be angry"? What does he say?
"You heard it said to the Ancients, 'Do not commit murder,' and 'Whoever commits murder will be subject to judgement. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment..." (Matt. 5:21-2).
Rather than saying, "Therefore, don't be angry" he says "Therefore, if your brother has something against you..." (Matt. 5:23-4). He goes on to discuss making friends with your enemy in the same passage.
The reason that we should seek the forgiveness of not only our Christian brother, but our enemy, is at least in part because they will have to reckon before God for their anger. God charges you, Christian, with the highest call: forgive those who have done you wrong, and seek the forgiveness of those who have something against you. You do the former because you are God's sons and daughters (that is, you are to act like your Father in heaven). You do the latter because you recognize that they stand liable to judgment for their anger against you.
How many times do we forgive our brother who sins against us again and again? Jesus says, "seventy times seven" (Matt. 18:22), or in other words, "as many times as he sins against you and seeks your forgiveness, you forgive him." Who should initiate the process of reconciliation if your brother sins against you? You should.
What if you have wronged them? You should seek their pardon if for no other reason than that they will answer to God for their own anger.
I realize this is a high call, impossibly high at times; Paul would, I think, say that this cannot be done "in the flesh" but "in the Spirit," that is, reliant upon the Holy Spirit's work in our lives. I can't be the only person who has felt justified in my own anger, especially when I have been wronged. I can't be the only person who has wronged someone else and felt like they deserved it. It is precisely in the moments of our weakness that God demonstrates the power of His gospel in our lives, and we choose to be instruments of either self glorification or God glorification.
God help us to act like His children, complete, whole, and responding to situations in His grace, reliant on His Spirit, working for His Kingdom.
A Christian must also be a forgiveness-seeking sort of person.
Have you ever noticed that when Jesus mentions the issue of anger in the Sermon on the Mount, He does not say, "therefore, don't be angry"? What does he say?
"You heard it said to the Ancients, 'Do not commit murder,' and 'Whoever commits murder will be subject to judgement. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment..." (Matt. 5:21-2).
Rather than saying, "Therefore, don't be angry" he says "Therefore, if your brother has something against you..." (Matt. 5:23-4). He goes on to discuss making friends with your enemy in the same passage.
The reason that we should seek the forgiveness of not only our Christian brother, but our enemy, is at least in part because they will have to reckon before God for their anger. God charges you, Christian, with the highest call: forgive those who have done you wrong, and seek the forgiveness of those who have something against you. You do the former because you are God's sons and daughters (that is, you are to act like your Father in heaven). You do the latter because you recognize that they stand liable to judgment for their anger against you.
How many times do we forgive our brother who sins against us again and again? Jesus says, "seventy times seven" (Matt. 18:22), or in other words, "as many times as he sins against you and seeks your forgiveness, you forgive him." Who should initiate the process of reconciliation if your brother sins against you? You should.
What if you have wronged them? You should seek their pardon if for no other reason than that they will answer to God for their own anger.
I realize this is a high call, impossibly high at times; Paul would, I think, say that this cannot be done "in the flesh" but "in the Spirit," that is, reliant upon the Holy Spirit's work in our lives. I can't be the only person who has felt justified in my own anger, especially when I have been wronged. I can't be the only person who has wronged someone else and felt like they deserved it. It is precisely in the moments of our weakness that God demonstrates the power of His gospel in our lives, and we choose to be instruments of either self glorification or God glorification.
God help us to act like His children, complete, whole, and responding to situations in His grace, reliant on His Spirit, working for His Kingdom.
Friday, July 1, 2011
On Christian Forgiveness (Part 1)
Jesus commands us to pray in the Lord's Prayer in a particular way. Part of this prayer includes the request for forgiveness. Jesus even includes the reason for the way we ask for forgiveness from God:
"forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors . . . For if you forgive people their sins, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive people, your Father will not forgive your sins." (Matt. 6:12, 14-15).
Let us bear in the back of our minds that our soteriology (doctrine of salvation) is not complete in this statement alone--far from it!--but there is a serious warning, and one that we neglect to our own detriment: If we claim Christ as our Lord, we need to be characterized as a forgiving kind of people. But what does it mean to forgive?
Two preliminary concerns: First, there seems to be a direct correlation between my forgiveness of others and God's forgiveness of me. More specifically, we might say that forgiveness seems to include both the person and the debt. There is, in other words, something "owed" by the offender to the offended party. Second, if I am to forgive as God forgives, then--and this is the $64,000 question--how does God forgive? The former issue is a matter of definition and the latter a matter of practice.
This presents us with some interesting insights. God has forgiven us, and this forgiveness is complete. Forgiveness, however, is not an emotion. If it were, then God could forgive our sins without the Cross. God in His sovereign plan could have just decided to overlook our sins. He could just have said, "I forgive you your sins" and been done with it.
But this is precisely not what happened.
In point of fact, God can forgive us precisely because Jesus stood in our place and bore the full weight of God's wrath Himself (Rom. 3:25). God's forgiveness, then, consists not in a removal of wrath, but a redirection of it. That is why Jesus' death on the Cross was and is so necessary. Without it, we have no forgiveness (Matt. 26:28; Heb. 9:22).
What, then, can we say forgiveness consists of? In God's forgiveness of our sins, it consists of our no longer owing the Judge of the earth. As Judge, God must "call it as He sees it," so our sin is sin and cannot be otherwise. We owed the Judge (we were guilty as charged). Therefore, forgiveness in this sense is a reckoning: our debts are paid in full because Jesus Christ paid the debt. We are reconciled to God because we are forgiven (Rom. 5:1), but let's not confuse categories.
Forgiveness is not an emotion. Forgiveness is the clearing of a debt owed.
A distinction needs to be made: we are not judges in our personal relationships. God, as Judge, must be the perfect Judge, and He cannot be otherwise. We, however, are not judges in the sense that someone who sins against us must pay the debt in full. We can say that something is "owed" between the offended and the offender, but we cannot say that the offended is acting as judge. Because God has graciously freed us from our debt, so we graciously free others from debts they owe us. In this sense, we can say that we forgive others (that is, freely reckon their debt as paid in full) just as God has forgiven us.
Christian forgiveness, therefore, is a personal choice. If we are the offended party in any relationship, it means that (1) we need to be ready to reckon another's personal debt (sin) against us as "paid in full"; (2) once this is accomplished, we no longer hold the bill--we gave up our right to the check!; (3) This will, of course, lead to reconciliation, mended relationships, and ease hard emotions, but let us not confuse the act of forgiveness with an emotion, as if we should wait for our emotions to catch up with our theology!
"forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors . . . For if you forgive people their sins, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive people, your Father will not forgive your sins." (Matt. 6:12, 14-15).
Let us bear in the back of our minds that our soteriology (doctrine of salvation) is not complete in this statement alone--far from it!--but there is a serious warning, and one that we neglect to our own detriment: If we claim Christ as our Lord, we need to be characterized as a forgiving kind of people. But what does it mean to forgive?
Two preliminary concerns: First, there seems to be a direct correlation between my forgiveness of others and God's forgiveness of me. More specifically, we might say that forgiveness seems to include both the person and the debt. There is, in other words, something "owed" by the offender to the offended party. Second, if I am to forgive as God forgives, then--and this is the $64,000 question--how does God forgive? The former issue is a matter of definition and the latter a matter of practice.
This presents us with some interesting insights. God has forgiven us, and this forgiveness is complete. Forgiveness, however, is not an emotion. If it were, then God could forgive our sins without the Cross. God in His sovereign plan could have just decided to overlook our sins. He could just have said, "I forgive you your sins" and been done with it.
But this is precisely not what happened.
In point of fact, God can forgive us precisely because Jesus stood in our place and bore the full weight of God's wrath Himself (Rom. 3:25). God's forgiveness, then, consists not in a removal of wrath, but a redirection of it. That is why Jesus' death on the Cross was and is so necessary. Without it, we have no forgiveness (Matt. 26:28; Heb. 9:22).
What, then, can we say forgiveness consists of? In God's forgiveness of our sins, it consists of our no longer owing the Judge of the earth. As Judge, God must "call it as He sees it," so our sin is sin and cannot be otherwise. We owed the Judge (we were guilty as charged). Therefore, forgiveness in this sense is a reckoning: our debts are paid in full because Jesus Christ paid the debt. We are reconciled to God because we are forgiven (Rom. 5:1), but let's not confuse categories.
Forgiveness is not an emotion. Forgiveness is the clearing of a debt owed.
A distinction needs to be made: we are not judges in our personal relationships. God, as Judge, must be the perfect Judge, and He cannot be otherwise. We, however, are not judges in the sense that someone who sins against us must pay the debt in full. We can say that something is "owed" between the offended and the offender, but we cannot say that the offended is acting as judge. Because God has graciously freed us from our debt, so we graciously free others from debts they owe us. In this sense, we can say that we forgive others (that is, freely reckon their debt as paid in full) just as God has forgiven us.
Christian forgiveness, therefore, is a personal choice. If we are the offended party in any relationship, it means that (1) we need to be ready to reckon another's personal debt (sin) against us as "paid in full"; (2) once this is accomplished, we no longer hold the bill--we gave up our right to the check!; (3) This will, of course, lead to reconciliation, mended relationships, and ease hard emotions, but let us not confuse the act of forgiveness with an emotion, as if we should wait for our emotions to catch up with our theology!
Thursday, June 30, 2011
The Hermeneutical Process (or: Travelling from Jesus Christ to Joe Christian)
I must admit that I am not a blogger, but I am willing to try it out. Now...what to write about?
My current topic, I suppose, should begin where I am currently working. It was my great pleasure to take a seminar on the Sermon on the Mount with Dr. Jonathan Pennington from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. It was, to my delighted surprise, enlightening, motivating, and challenging in unexpected ways.
One of the most interesting aspects of Dr. Pennington's material was his hermeneutical (interpretive method of the Bible) approach, and my hermeneutical assumptions have been at least challenged. For single-meaning-multiple-significance types such as myself, there is at least one problem that should be addressed: how do we bridge that gap between meaning and significance? I mean, it's one thing to go through a technical book on how to do this (Grasping God's Word by Duvall and Hays comes to mind); it's another thing entirely to be able to describe that fuzzy path, traveling from "meaning" (what it "meant" to the author and original audience) to "significance" (what it "means" for us today). Who can articulate this well? I am not saying this can't be done, but I, for one, cannot. The practice of preaching hinges on the preacher's ability to travel from meaning to significance week in and week out, but it's one thing to do it and another thing entirely to describe the process. It seems to me to remain in that blurry field of "art" rather than that concrete method of "science".
Dr. Pennington's approach is refreshing. He challenges the notion that significance should be considered separately from meaning. I note the following: (1) authorial intent grounds us in "meaning" (whatever that word might mean :D); (2) there is a certain trajectory in the history of interpretation that is intimately related to authorial intent--and we are in that history of interpretation; (3) correct or incorrect readings of the Bible are rather understood as "good" or "bad" readings (I recall his rather apt illustration of an infrared image with "good" readings represented as very hot, and "bad" readings respresented as very cold); (4) any reading of the Word of God that neglects the cultivation of our love for God and neighbor (Augustine) is suspect (a "bad" reading); obversely, any reading of the Word that cultivates our love for God and neighbor is, at the very least, a better reading than one that neglects it.
This, to me, is potentially freeing. I have been guilty in the past, particularly due to my penchant for correction and love for truth, of taking the sledge hammer of exegetical knowledge and, in a rather unloving way, correcting those with whom I disagreed. As I suspect it is true of many who are in biblical fields of work, my tithe of correct understanding sometimes neglected the weightier matters of love and mercy. I found myself straining out a parsed Greek word and simultaneously swallowing my apathy for God and my fellow man. Can a conservative accept the view, in our anti-post-modern understanding, that it is just possible that significance is an integral part of meaning? Is it possible for me to judge my friend's Jeremiah 29:11 bumper sticker and his technical misinterpretation of it as ignoble and incorrect at the same time that I regard his cultivation of his love for God and neighbor--a direct result of his misinterpretation!--as not only noble, but right?
My current topic, I suppose, should begin where I am currently working. It was my great pleasure to take a seminar on the Sermon on the Mount with Dr. Jonathan Pennington from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. It was, to my delighted surprise, enlightening, motivating, and challenging in unexpected ways.
One of the most interesting aspects of Dr. Pennington's material was his hermeneutical (interpretive method of the Bible) approach, and my hermeneutical assumptions have been at least challenged. For single-meaning-multiple-significance types such as myself, there is at least one problem that should be addressed: how do we bridge that gap between meaning and significance? I mean, it's one thing to go through a technical book on how to do this (Grasping God's Word by Duvall and Hays comes to mind); it's another thing entirely to be able to describe that fuzzy path, traveling from "meaning" (what it "meant" to the author and original audience) to "significance" (what it "means" for us today). Who can articulate this well? I am not saying this can't be done, but I, for one, cannot. The practice of preaching hinges on the preacher's ability to travel from meaning to significance week in and week out, but it's one thing to do it and another thing entirely to describe the process. It seems to me to remain in that blurry field of "art" rather than that concrete method of "science".
Dr. Pennington's approach is refreshing. He challenges the notion that significance should be considered separately from meaning. I note the following: (1) authorial intent grounds us in "meaning" (whatever that word might mean :D); (2) there is a certain trajectory in the history of interpretation that is intimately related to authorial intent--and we are in that history of interpretation; (3) correct or incorrect readings of the Bible are rather understood as "good" or "bad" readings (I recall his rather apt illustration of an infrared image with "good" readings represented as very hot, and "bad" readings respresented as very cold); (4) any reading of the Word of God that neglects the cultivation of our love for God and neighbor (Augustine) is suspect (a "bad" reading); obversely, any reading of the Word that cultivates our love for God and neighbor is, at the very least, a better reading than one that neglects it.
This, to me, is potentially freeing. I have been guilty in the past, particularly due to my penchant for correction and love for truth, of taking the sledge hammer of exegetical knowledge and, in a rather unloving way, correcting those with whom I disagreed. As I suspect it is true of many who are in biblical fields of work, my tithe of correct understanding sometimes neglected the weightier matters of love and mercy. I found myself straining out a parsed Greek word and simultaneously swallowing my apathy for God and my fellow man. Can a conservative accept the view, in our anti-post-modern understanding, that it is just possible that significance is an integral part of meaning? Is it possible for me to judge my friend's Jeremiah 29:11 bumper sticker and his technical misinterpretation of it as ignoble and incorrect at the same time that I regard his cultivation of his love for God and neighbor--a direct result of his misinterpretation!--as not only noble, but right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)