You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘God the Father’ category.
This Sunday’s cover story, “The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy”, for The New York Times Magazine is nothing new. I wrote several years ago, in “When the Fertility Clinic Meets the Abortion Clinic: A Modern Paradox,” about a similar article in the Los Angeles Times. In fact the only thing that has changed in these four years are the numbers. The reasons and the response are the same things that have been around since the first abortion and if we were to go back further to the origins of infanticide. When reading these articles, or the responses to them, they are so predictable that they almost appear to be scripted. With that I hope to take a departure from the typical response and argue that the real issue here is not life, it is not choice, and it is not even murder. The real issue is sovereignty.
Let me explain what I mean. In her June article, “Yes, Abortion is Killing. But It’s the Lesser Evil,” Antonia Senior explains how having a child changed her perspective regarding abortion. After explaining the lack of a consensus regarding a scientific or philosophical definition of life she concludes,
What seems increasingly clear to me is that, in the absence of an objective definition, a foetus is a life by any subjective measure. My daughter was formed at conception, and all the barely understood alchemy that turned the happy accident of that particular sperm meeting that particular egg into my darling, personality-packed toddler took place at that moment. She is so unmistakably herself, her own person — forged in my womb, not by my mothering.
Any other conclusion is a convenient lie that we on the pro-choice side of the debate tell ourselves to make us feel better about the action of taking a life. That little seahorse shape floating in a willing womb is a growing miracle of life
She then explains that such conclusions have resulted in a movement aimed at separating feminism from “fertility control.” However, she views this as entirely incompatible with the central aim of feminism exclaiming, “The single biggest factor in women’s liberation was our newly found ability to impose our will on our biology.” The freedom of women then depends upon one thing the unencumbered exercise of the will.
With a shocking candor she concludes,
As ever, when an issue we thought was black and white becomes more nuanced, the answer lies in choosing the lesser evil. The nearly 200,000 aborted babies in the UK each year are the lesser evil, no matter how you define life, or death, for that matter. If you are willing to die for a cause, you must be prepared to kill for it, too.
For Antonia Senior, and I would argue for all of us, the principal issue is sovereignty, a woman’s ultimate right to impose her will upon herself and upon others.
Sovereignty occurs vertically in the form of worship, we could use other words but the concept remains the same. We either rejoice in the sovereignty of the God in whose image we are made or we deny it by worshipping any number of god’s made in our image. Horizontally human interaction exists upon a continuum of two extremes; escape and conflict. Both extremes end in death and both are false exercises of sovereignty. At the extreme end of escape is suicide where the sovereign self claims sovereignty over the self by taking one’s life. At the extreme end of conflict lies murder where the sovereign self claims sovereignty over another by taking another’s life.
The first two articles mentioned, “The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy” and “The abortion debate brought home,” regarding reduction, which let’s be honest is a clever play on words to sanitize something far more grisly and sinister, bring another exercise of sovereignty into the question, namely in vitro fertilization and the creation of life. Imposing one’s will upon one’s own biology may require medical assistance and donated eggs which is where our current discussion often begins. With in vitro fertilization, when multiple embryos are transferred, there is always the possibility of multiple embryos implanting and when multiple babies are not wanted or the mother is unable to give birth to multiple children then one or more of them must be put to death. In 1988 Dr. Mark Evans penned guidelines for this procedure stating that “most reductions below twins violated ethical principles.” Things have changed over the past 23 years; the medical community has rethought its ethics and is now willing and able to reduce your pregnancy to one. “The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy” ends with a counterintuitive conclusion. After choosing to reduce their pregnancy to one child the author asks the women what would happen if they miscarried to which one of them replied, “I’ve come to realize there’s only so much we can control. There’s a point where you just have to let nature take its course.”
After all this talk of a woman’s complete control of her own fertility comes the tragic conclusion that “there’s only so much we can control.” Ultimately you cannot impose your will upon your biology because ultimately you are not sovereign. Your sovereignty is an illusion.
How are we to respond to this? Should we call our senator or state representative? Should we start building picket signs and begin protesting abortion clinics? No, we must respond with the Gospel, in word and deed. We must respond in the same way that God responds to humanity’s first act of false sovereignty in the garden, with grace and the promise that in Christ we will be liberated not unto self but from self and sin and set free to worship the one true Sovereign. Any other response is incalculably inadequate and nearsighted.
This past Sunday I was reading the “Faith and Values” section of The Lexington Herald Leader and came across an interesting article entitled “Evangelicals must rethink mission.” It was written by Chuck Queen the senior pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church in Frankfort, KY and the title immediately piqued my interest. You can read the article in its entirety by clicking on the link above as only excerpts and critique will be given below.
He begins by urging us to rethink mission an then points the reader to Luke 4:18-19 and explains that Jesus is not mandating “a triumphalistic missionary enterprise that seeks to impose a particular set of beliefs and culture on people who have a different set of beliefs and culture.” Rather the mission of Jesus “was a mission to the poor, the disadvantaged, the oppressed, and the spiritually blind. . . . Jesus realized that spiritual oppression from sin could not be separated from economical, political, and social oppression from the powers that be.”
I agree Jesus did not come to impose a particular culture; however, I always find it odd to hear individuals claiming “Jesus was concerned about the total person” and then reducing his ministry to a mere social ministry. How can Jesus minister to the total person if He comes only to shape their sociopolitical circumstances and not their belief structures as well?
The article continues:
Jesus’ vision for humanity was that of a world under God’s rule where peace, compassion, and distributive and restorative justice prevails. When a crowd of people tried to get Jesus to stay in their town Jesus said, “I must proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God (God’s vision for the world) to the other cities also; for I was sent for this purpose” (Luke 4:43).
Jesus intended his community of disciples (the church) to be an outpost for the kingdom, reflecting the values and characteristics of God’s new world. But the church is not the kingdom, though it is part of the kingdom. The kingdom of God is much broader and wider than the church. So catching people into the net of God’s kingdom may or may not involve catching them into the net of the church.
The kingdom of God as it pertains to humanity is about human beings becoming more truly human; that means becoming the persons and communities God intended for us to be. It is not about propagating a particular brand of belief or doctrine. For Christians, Jesus is the representative, quintessential, revelatory human being on what it means to be human.
At this point I am beginning to wonder if he is just stringing together quotes and pithy sayings to make his version of Jesus sound cool. It is quite ironic that he speaks of Christ’s global vision and global kingdom, even going so far as to describe it as a place “under God’s rule where peace, compassion, and distributive and restorative justice prevails,” and yet he has the audacity to claim that the kingdom is not about doctrine. Maybe he thinks his readers are not listening or are too dumb to notice that he is giving us a doctrine of the kingdom.
As for the kingdom being larger than the church I agree the kingdom is global, as Abraham Kuyper has so vividly stated, “there is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine’(1)!” However, Queen oversteps his bounds by claiming that “catching people into the net of God’s kingdom may or may not involve catching them into the net of the church.” The church as the body of Christ is an outpost of the kingdom and a witness to the redemption and reconciliation that will extend to the whole of God’s creative order. Such an outpost is necessary because it exists amidst a world in need of reconciliation and redemption; a world of rival kingdoms and rival kings. What is the use of such an outpost within Queen’s theology where both those within and those without are members of the same kingdom? Maybe a kingdom divided against itself can stand after all.
Again I agree Jesus is the ideal human; however, we must frame this within the larger context of the imago Dei. Humanity was made in the image of God, that image was holistically and pervasively corrupted by the fall. Jesus comes as “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15) and so redeemed humanity is being restored into the imago Christi. It is in this sense that Jesus is the ideal human, He is the ideal human in that He is the exegesis of God; in Christ we have the attributes of God demonstrated in concrete form. This is a problem for Queen as it undercuts his theologically amorphous version of God. Queen’s god cannot have his attributes concretely demonstrated because he cannot be described by “a particular brand of belief or doctrine.”
Now for some tidbits on Jesus:
For Christians Jesus is the way that leads to truth and life; though he is not exclusively the way for all people. A God of love would not be so stingy as to exclude vast numbers of humanity who happen to be born into non-Christian cultures.
Is it just me or do you recall Jesus arguing to the contrary of Queen’s statement? What does he mean by “God of love?” Whatever he means he is not using this in the sense that Scripture does (see here for a more thorough treatment of this.)
After all of this he concludes:
The mission of the church is to proclaim, teach, manifest, and work for the kingdom of God, not get people to believe what we believe about Jesus. And yet, as Christians, we invite people to be disciples of Jesus because we know that by following Jesus, God’s dream for the world can be realized.
What is the point? Who cares? If it does not matter what one believes about Jesus then why talk about him at all? If there are other, broader, more kingdom oriented ways to realize “God’s dream for the world” then why limit ourselves to the narrow perspective of Jesus and the church?
This is what makes emergent rhetoric on mission so absurd. After all their talking all and arguing that mission is not about doctrine but “peace, compassion, and distributive and restorative justice” we are left with nothing. We have an inconsequential Christ, a narrow and largely irrelevant church, and a god who is so theologically amorphous that he is hardly worth knowing.
Chuck if there is salvation outside of Jesus then why should your church waste their time looking like bigots by promoting some narrow-minded Jewish messiah who is practically useless to the rest of humanity?
(1) Abraham Kuyper, “Sphere Sovereignty,” in Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, ed. James D. Bratt (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1998) 488.
Please read Eric Bryant on Reaching the “Hard to Reach” for the background on this post. I hope that what follows does more to build off of what Bryant has written than to tear it down. I read his blog, his books, and have heard him speak on several occasions. I appreciate the evangelistic thrust of his writing and his continued emphasis on xenos; while we do differ at points I hope this post conveys that appreciation.
Principle #1: Christ Creates Community. (Bryant’s 1st Principle)
I mean this in two ways. First, Christ creates all things and all things are a reflection of His, i.e. God’s, attributes. So in this sense all community is a reflection of the intertrinitarian community. Second, as we are specifically speaking of the church we must also understand that Christ has created the church as His body to physically bear witness to Himself. Bryant argues that “cause creates community” and this is true; however, various causes create various communities which reflect the nature of the cause. Here we are forced to be more specific and focus upon the creator of community and subsequently the giver of cause, Jesus Christ.
Principle #2: Christ Transforms Humanity. (Bryant’s 2nd-5th Principles)
I appreciate Bryant’s 2nd-5th principles and my only critique is that, once understood within the biblical framework of the imago Dei, they become the same principle. Man was created in the image of the triune God this image was marred in the fall and now redeemed humanity is being transformed into the image of Christ. We must “develop authentic friendships with those [we] know” (Principle 4) because we were created in the image of a relational God and are being transformed into the image of a relational Christ. We must “meet the needs of those around us” (Principle 2) because we have been made in the image of a God who provided for those needs in the garden and are being transformed into the image of a Christ who met those very needs during his earthly ministry. Finally, we must “reach out to Xenos” (Principle 3 and 5) because we have been made in the image of a missional God and are being transformed into the image of a missional Christ who came to seek and save the lost. I think it is important to remember that these things take place within the context of relationship, not a “Christian” welfare system or environmental agency. We meet the needs of those whom we have relationships with as those needs become apparent to us and as we understand the context in which those needs can be properly met. Furthermore, we must understand that changed individuals create changed culture and so our approach to environmental and social issues comes through engaging individuals with the gospel and not through engaging social policymakers through legislative process.
For a further explanation of the imago Dei I recommend reading this essay.
Principle #3: Christ Leads His Church. (Bryant’s 6th and 7th Principles)
And we are His disciples whom He commanded, with the Great Commission, to make other disciples who will in turn make disciples who will do likewise. This process will not be complete until Christ calls a people from every tribe and language and people and nation. We must not be prone to self-centered spiritual myopia, but must look beyond ourselves and our circumstances toward what God is doing and is going to do among the nations. Then we must live and work towards the fulfillment of this great vision. Bryant’s 6th and 7th principles have a similar thrust; however, I want to focus beyond what God is doing in your particular locale to what God is doing throughout history and around the globe.
Extended Critique―Principle #5: Allow people to belong before they believe.
Under this principle Bryant writes, “We should never allow our convictions to become a litmus test for friendship. In fact, we should actively pursue friendships with people – even people with whom we may disagree. Go to www.mosaic.org/faq for more on the staff process at Mosaic.” In a sense this is redundant and simply expounds what is means to “reach out to Xenos.” Furthermore, I thoroughly agree that “we should never allow our convictions to become a litmus test for friendship” and that “we should actively pursue friendships with people – even people with whom we may disagree.”
Eric has commented below and I think his comments thoroughly clarify this point. Also I would recommend reading The Suicidal Missionary where in a comment following the post he exclaims, “I am calling for the proclaiming of the gospel AND embracing of all those who need to repent.” I think that is the heart of what it means to allow people to belong before they believe.
My friend Todd recently posted on Isaiah 6 as it pertains to the order of salvation in “Confronted by Glory- What Isaiah 6 Teaches Us About the Process of Salvation” and then as it pertains to repentance and salvation in “Confronted by Glory- Two Practical Questions from the Experience of Isaiah.” I would commend his posts to you. While Todd focused on Isaiah’s immediate response to this vision I want to focus on the later part of this passage as it also has much to teach us.
After Isaiah beholds the glory of the Lord, responds to it in broken humility over his sin and the sin of Israel, the atoning sacrifice is applied to his guilt and sin, and then, in verse 8, the story continues:
And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Then I said, “Here am I! Send me.” And he said, “Go, and say to this people:
‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand;
keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’
Make the heart of this people dull,
and their ears heavy,
and blind their eyes;
lest they see with their eyes,
and hear with their ears,
and understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed.”
Then I said, “How long, O Lord?”
And he said:
“Until cities lie waste
without inhabitant,
and houses without people,
and the land is a desolate waste,
and the LORD removes people far away,
and the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land.
And though a tenth remain in it,
it will be burned again,
like a terebinth or an oak,
whose stump remains
when it is felled.
The holy seed is its stump.”
Isaiah hears the intertrinitarian conversation as the Lord asks Himself “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Having just seen the Lord upon His throne and experiencing His atoning sacrifice for sins Isaiah exclaims, “Here am I! Send me.” The prophet cries out, “I will tell of your glory, I will make your gracious atonement known!” The Lord’s reply is devastating as He exhorts Isaiah to proclaim, “Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive” and command him to “Make the heart of this people dull . . . [lest they] turn and be healed.” Isaiah, having just experienced the Lord’s atoning sacrifice for sins, would not be proclaiming that great salvation to his people; no, his message was one of judgment and its purpose was to harden Israel’s heart so that she would not turn to the Lord in repentance.
Upon hearing this Isaiah replies asking, “How long, O Lord?” There are two primary ways in which Isaiah’s question has been interpreted; first, “how long must I proclaim this message?” and second, “how long will their hardness persist?” or “how long until you save your people?” Based upon Isaiah’s emphasis upon the fulfillment of YHWH’s covenant promises and subsequently his understanding of the blessings and curses of those covenants (cf. Deuteronomy 28; 30:1-10) the later understanding of his reply best fits within the context of his ministry. In this sense Isaiah cries out “How long until your people repent and you restore your blessing to them?” The Lord’s reply glimmers with the same hope promised in the covenants, though Israel will be scattered in exile and the Promised Land laid to waste a stump, a remnant, will remain. A remnant of which Isaiah later prophecies, “And the surviving remnant of the house of Judah shall again take root downward and bear fruit upward. For out of Jerusalem shall go a remnant, and out of Mount Zion a band of survivors. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this” (Isaiah 37:31-32).
We must regain Isaiah’s missional understanding of the Lord, his missional zeal for his people, and his missional petition on their behalf. We must come to view God as Isaiah did; as a God who sends and saves, who graciously self-discloses Himself, and who makes atonement for His people. We must be broken over our sin and over the sins of our culture responding in humble obedience. We must not respond triumphalisticly as a politicized evangelicalism seeking moral legislation nor as an incensed evangelicalism in protest of sin. No, we must respond in broken intercession crying out “How long will our cities be ravaged by the worship of idols? How long will this people persist in self-reliance? How long will they perceive your invisible attributes and continue to suppress the truth in unrighteousness? How long will they harden their hearts against you? How long will they keep on hearing, but not understand? How long will they keep on seeing, but not perceive? How long will you make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes? How long until they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts? How long until you turn them to yourself that they may be healed? . . . How long, O Lord?”
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14
I want to briefly look at the incarnation from a slightly different perspective this Christmas and I hope that it is a benefit to you, particularly in the way you understand and live out the missio Dei. It will help if you understand one of the central presuppositions to my theological method. In his work, According to Plan, Graeme Goldsworthy, commenting on Genesis 1, explains, “There is no suggestion of a self-evident standard of goodness and harmony outside of God . . . God, who is the source of both, must define them by setting forth an arrangement that is the expression of his goodness and harmony” (93). When God declares the creation to be good He is in fact declaring its conformity to and expression of His intrinsic goodness. As such I would understand all theological study, from hamartiology to ecclesiology, to be a study of the attributes of God, as He has seen fit to reveal them. For example, by studying soteriology we can see the sovereignty and gracious disposition of God. With that said my primary concern here is to briefly examine what the incarnation reveals about the character of God, particularly as it pertains to the missio Dei.
The incarnation demonstrates the unmatched sovereignty of God as He brings His plans to fruition and His purposes to pass (Genesis 3:15; Micah 5:2; Acts 4:24-28).
The incarnation demonstrates the humility of God (Philippians 2:5-11) lest we read this verse and think that humility is merely a character trait of Christ and not the entire Trinitarian community it is important to note the definitive other centeredness of God; God the Father has given Christ “a name that is above every name” (Philippians 2:9), God the Son glorified God the Father (John 17:1-5), and it is through God the Spirit that we worship God the Father and the Son (Philippians 3:3).
The incarnation demonstrates the immeasurable and lavish grace of God (Ephesians 1:4-15). Concomitant with grace is God’s longsuffering patience (I Timothy 1:15-16).
The incarnation demonstrates that God is a relational being; this is seen in both Christ’s numerous prayers to the Father (Mark 1:35; 6:46; 14:32ff.) and in His relationship with His disciples, family, and friends (John 2:2, 11, 12; 11:1-44).
The incarnation defines the missio Dei as Christ declares, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you” (John 20:21; see also Luke 19:10; John 13:31-32; 17:1-5). This is a profound statement and one that has not received due consideration at that. Just as God the Father has sent Christ so He also sends His Church. This is a clarion call for the modern church to rethink both its theology and methodology. Indeed, it is a call to not only an incarnational Christology but an incarnational ecclesiology/missiology as well!
There are those who would argue against such an incarnational ecclesiology claiming that it diminishes the theological significance of the incarnation of Christ. Would we say the same thing of Paul? Would we argue that II Corinthians 5:18-21 diminishes reconciliation? Not in the least. Rather, we would rejoice that just as “in Christ God was reconciling the world to Himself” now, as ambassadors, as representatives, as mediators sent on behalf of Christ, God is “making his appeal through us.” Do you grasp the significance of the incarnation and an incarnational ecclesiology as it pertains to our ministry of reconciliation? Christ who, “in his body of flesh by his death” reconciled us to God (Romans 5:10; Colossians 1:21-22) now sends the church so that through her God may make His appeal. In the same way the church incarnates, gives flesh to, the sufferings of Christ as Paul both exclaims (Colossians 1:24-29) and promises (Romans 8:17; II Corinthians 1:5; Philippians 1:29-30) and the author of Hebrews exhorts (Hebrews 13:11-14). In the same way we see that Epaphroditus gives flesh to the service and love of the church at Philippi (Philippians 2:25-30).
So let us rejoice at the incarnation and rejoice even more that God has not left the world without a physical witness but that He continues to make His appeal and reveal Christ’s sufferings through His church, whom He has sent just as He sent His Son.
Lately I have been thinking about the easy-believism that is so prevalent in American churches and their general disconnect between faith and practice. I generally see this occurring on two fronts, each of which is equally dangerous, yet one has been largely ignored as of late.
A Dead Orthopraxy
The first front is made up of liberals and emergents; theirs is a gospel that radically alters the lifestyles of those who embrace it yet it ultimately lacks sufficient doctrinal content to truly be considered a biblical gospel. While they may in many senses be considered orthodox in praxis this movement’s impetus is a set of social concerns and not the life-giving gospel of Jesus Christ and as such their orthopraxy is a dead one. To phrase it simpler their gospel restructures their lifestyle yet it fails to transform their belief structure. This movement has received prolific critique lately and as such it is not the focus of this post. If you are unfamiliar with the emergent church then I would recommend the following link (here).
A Dead Orthodoxy
The second front has largely been ignored recently and as such presents a far subtler danger. This second front is comprised of some conservatives and fundamentalists; theirs is a gospel that radically alters the doctrinal beliefs of those who embrace it yet it ultimately lacks sufficient doctrinal content to truly be considered a biblical gospel. While they may in many senses be considered orthodox in belief this movement’s impetus is a set of truth claims and not the life-giving gospel of Jesus Christ and as such their orthodoxy is a dead one. Again, to phrase is simpler their gospel restructures their belief structure yet it fails to transform their lifestyle. While these churches will affirm the basic tenets of “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” their conduct argues to the contrary. I think several examples of this will suffice to prove my point.
- They deny the manifold glory of God by failing to teach and laboring to learn the deep things of God (Mark 12:30; II Peter 3:16-18)
- They deny the lordship of Christ by endorsing the salvation of countless voluntarily inactive members (Hebrews 10:25).
- They deny the sanctifying work of the Spirit by failing to discipline members in sin (Matthew 18:15-17; I Corinthians 6:9-12).
- They deny the efficacy and infallibility of the Scriptures (Isaiah 55:10-11) by failing to shepherd the flock (I Peter 5:1-5) and by refusing to engage in biblical counseling and “referring” their church members to secular psychologists (II Timothy 3:16-17).
- They deny the fundamental essence of the church by allowing inactive and sinning members to continue in membership (I Peter 2:9).
- They deny the interdependent nature of the church by failing to exhort the congregation to hold one another accountable (I Corinthians 12:12-13; Colossians 3:16).
These churches have been given a pass for far too long. Their verbal assent to the doctrines of Scripture apart from the proper practice thereof is far more than institutionalized hypocrisy, it is a false gospel.
Momentum