You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘The Gospel’ 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.
Below are the posts I have written for our church blog, provPRESS, over the past year. I have been writing several posts for Missio Dei that will be up soon as well as a 24 week Bible study that should be completed this summer. I hope the following posts will tide you over in the mean time.
- Writers’ Wednesday – God’s Greater Glory
- Writer’s Wednesday – Beyond Megachurch Myths
- Writer’s Wednesday – Kingdom of Priests
- Writer’s Wednesday – What’s so Great About the Doctrines of Grace?
- Writer’s Wednesday – The Cup and the Glory: Lessons on Suffering and the Glory of God
- Writer’s Wednesday – Between Two Worlds: The Art of Preaching in the Twentieth Century
- Theology Thursday – A Missionary God
- Writer’s Wednesday – The Legacy of Sovereign Joy
- Theology Thursday – Roland Allen
- Writer’s Weekend – The Hidden Smile of God
- Theology Thursday – SBTS Reviews Brian McLaren’s New Kind of Christianity
- Sunday Special – Matt Chandler on the Gospel and Suffering (T4G 2010)
- Theology Thursday – What are Rights and Why Do We Prefer Them Over the Gospel?
- Writer’s Wednesday – What Does God Want of Us, Anyway? A Quick Overview of the Whole Bible
- Theology Thursday Part Une – Biblical Theology in the Life of the Church
- Theology Thursday Part Deux – What Is God’s Global Urban Mission?
On Sunday nights we are working through the church’s doctrinal statement; these are my notes from last Sunday. I hope you enjoy them.
―Justification, Regeneration, Repentance, and Faith―
V. Of Justification
We believe that the great Gospel blessing which Christ secures to such as believe in Him is Justification; that Justification includes the pardon of sin, and the promise of eternal life on principles of righteousness; that it is bestowed, not in consideration of any works of righteousness which we have done, but solely through faith in the Redeemer’s blood; by virtue of which faith His perfect righteousness is freely imputed to us of God; that it brings us into a state of most blessed peace and favor with God, and secures every other blessing needful for time and eternity.
VII. Of Grace In Regeneration
We believe that, in order to be saved, sinners must be regenerated, or born again; that regeneration consists in giving a holy disposition to the mind; that it is effected in a manner above our comprehension by the power of the Holy Spirit, in connection with divine truth, so as to secure our voluntary obedience to the gospel; and that its proper evidence appears in the holy fruits of repentance, and faith, and newness of life.
VIII. Of Repentance And Faith
We believe that Repentance and Faith are sacred duties, and also inseparable graces, wrought in our souls by the regenerating Spirit of God; whereby being deeply convinced of our guilt, danger and helplessness, and of the way of salvation by Christ, we turn to God with unfeigned contrition, confession, and supplication for mercy; at the same time heartily receiving the Lord Jesus Christ as our Prophet, Priest and King, and relying on Him alone as the only and all sufficient Savior.
Introduction
A Humbling Reminder ― I Corinthians 6:9-11
I think it is helpful to begin any discussion of salvation with the realization that we are in desperate need of it and that it is not something which we can carry out for ourselves; rather, salvation is something which has been carried out on our behalf, it is both divine in origin and accomplishment. God has, is, and will save us.
The Order of Salvation ― Beginning with the order of salvation helps us in several respects.
- It results in praise.
- It fosters humility.
- It guards against error.
Next to each term is the Roman numeral to which it corresponds in our doctrinal statement. These topics are covered in both Community Training and in Wayne Grudem’s Christian Beliefs: Twenty Basics Every Christian Should Know which you read for community training.
Election (IX)
Gospel Call (VI)
Effectual Call (VI) ― Regeneration (VII)
Repentance and Faith (VIII) ― Justification (V) ― Adoption ― Sanctification (X) ― Perseverance (XI)
Glorification (XVIII)
I. Regeneration
A. Definition
Regenerating is the act of God by which the spiritually dead are brought to life, “thus restoring the person’s intellectual, volitional, moral, emotional, and relational capacities to know, love, and serve God.”[1] Within scripture this is often spoken of in terms of new life or new birth.
B. Explanation
- First and foremost regeneration is a monergistic act (Ezekiel 36:26; John 1:13).
- Second, regeneration is wholly an act of grace (Ephesians 2:1-10).
- Third, regeneration is a result of the gospel (I Peter 1:23).
- Fourth, regeneration is mysterious (John 3:8).
- Fifth, regeneration is inextricably connected with our union with Christ (I Corinthians 15:23).
- Sixth, regeneration results in faith, repentance, and obedience (Galatians 5:22-23; Ephesians 2:10; I John 3:9, 5:1).
C. Regeneration and the Effectual Call
Regeneration and effectual calling are two sides of the same coin. One speaks to the divine call (John 6:44) and the other to the divine enablement to respond to that call (John 6:65). “Effective calling is thus God the father speaking powerfully to us, and regeneration is God the Father and God the Holy Spirit working powerfully in us.”[2]
II. Repentance and Faith
A. Preliminary Considerations
Repentance and faith are inseparable; they are two sides of the same coin. Grudem explains that they are both related to the word “turning;” we turn from sin (repentance) and turn towards Christ (faith).[3] In such a sequence neither precedes the other; this is simultaneously a turning to and a turning from.
B. Repentance
1. Old Testament Terminology
- nacham – “to become remorseful . . . to regret something”[4] (Job 42:5-6)
- shub – “to turn around, repent” (II Coronicles 7:14)
2. New Testament Terminology
- metamelomai – “to regret”[5] (Matthew 21:32)
- metanoeo – “to change one’s mind or purpose, hence, to repent”[6] (Matthew 3:2)
At the most basic level repentance “involves a change in the outward life because such a change is a result of the change of inward opinions.”[7]
3. Definition
Repentance is therefore the abandonment of sin which results from godly sorrow over one’s sin.
Biblical repentance has intellectual, emotional and physical properties. It requires a radical change in both our way of thinking, feeling, and living.
4. Explanation
- First, repentance is a voluntary act enabled by regeneration; therefore maintaining both divine sovereignty and human responsibility (See “Regeneration” above).
- Second, repentance is necessary for salvation (Mark 1:14-15; Acts 3:18-20; see Romans 2:4-5 for a description of the unrepentant).
- Third, while repentance marks the beginning of new life it must also continue throughout life (Matthew 6:12).
- Fourth, repentance is a result of hearing the gospel.
C. Faith
1. Terminology
Within the New Testament there are two terms used to express the idea of faith; the verb, pisteuo, and the noun, pistis. They carry the basic meaning of faith, trust, confidence, or belief.
2. Definition
A biblical definition of faith has three aspects an action, a content, and an object. With this in mind I think it is best to define faith as a confidence (action) that Jesus Christ (object) has accomplished what He has promised in the gospel (content).
3. Explanation
- First, faith is a voluntary act enabled by regeneration; therefore maintaining both divine sovereignty and human responsibility (See “Regeneration” above).
- Second, faith is necessary for salvation (John 3:16).
- Third, while faith marks the beginning of new life it must also continue throughout life (Galatians 2:20).
- Fourth, faith is a result of hearing the gospel (Romans 10:17; Hebrews 4:2).
III. Justification
A. Old Testament Terminology
- sadaq (hiphil form) – “declare righteous, justify . . . vindicate the cause of . . . make righteous, turn to righteousness.”[8]
B. New Testament Terminology
- dikaioo – “to declare, pronounce righteous.”[9]
C. Definition
“Justification is God’s action pronouncing sinners righteous in his sight. We have been forgiven and declared to have fulfilled all that God’s law requires of us.”[10]
D. Explanation
I want to take this definition and break it down into several smaller statements which we can clearly see in Romans 3:20-26.
- First, justification is a declarative act of God (Romans 3:20).
- Second, justification is possible because of Christ’s propitiatory work (Romans 3:22, 24, 25) not because of personal merit. Furthermore, this maintains God’s justice as the sentence for our rebellion has been carried out on Christ.
- Third, in justification God imputes Christ righteousness to us (Romans 3:22).
II Corinthians 5:21 also illustrates the link between justification and imputation. Would someone please read that for us? How does this relate to Romans 3?
Colossians 2:13-14 illustrates another stunning fact about justification, would someone read that for us?
- Fourth, in justification God cancels our record of debt and its sentence of condemnation (Colossians 2:13-14). We read that He has canceled the record of debt that opposed us as well as its legal demands. Debtors would usually write their own records of indebtedness. Here Paul uses the word χειρόγραφον which is a combination of two words “χειρ” meaning hand and “γραφή” meaning writing. So we have this handwritten record which actively opposes us. Paul also mentions the legal demands of this record. The word here is δόγμα, which is where we get the word dogmatic. A dogmatic position is one which you are unwilling to give up. The legal demands which Paul is describing are unwavering and fixed. God has canceled this debt and these demands. Ancient scribes would write upon paper made of papyrus or vellum and unlike modern ink, ancient ink did not absorb into the paper but rather sat on top of the paper. As paper was expensive, scribes would often wipe this ink off and reuse the paper. That is what the word “canceling” means God has literally wiped our slate clean.
Application
•
•
•
•
•
•
[1]Bruce Demarest, The Cross and Salvation: The Doctrine of Salvation, Foundations of Evangelical Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1997), 293.
[2]Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Bible Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 700.
[3]Ibid., 709.
[4]Ludwig Koehler and Walters Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. and trans. Johann Jakob Stamm, Benedikt Hartmann, Ze’Ev Ben-Hayyim, Eduard Yechezkel Kutscher, Philippe Reymond, and M. E. J. Richardson (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers, 2001), s.v. “נחם.”
[5]Ibid., s.v. “שׁוב.”
[6]G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (New York: T & T Clark, 1999), s.v. “μεταμέλομαι.”
[7]Ibid., s.v. “μετανοέω.”
[8]James P. Boice, Abstract of Systematic Theology (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1887), 383.
[9]Koehler and Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, s.v. “צָדֵק.”
[10]Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, s.v. “δικαιόω.”
[11]Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 968.
This is the second post in a series (Part 1) explaining Acts 8:26-40. This post in particular is aimed at addressing Brian McLaren’s post “Synchro-blogging on Sexuality.” He begins by explaining:
I knew from my many years as a pastor that sexual orientation was not a choice . . . So, I was uncomfortable with the conventional approach, but I was unsure how to construct an alternative that was equally faithful to Scripture and faithful to the reality I saw in human beings who came to me as their pastor, friend, and family member. Over many years, that alternative has become more and more clear, and surprisingly (to some), it was a passage of Scripture that opened the way for me to see it.
He goes on to tell that “Acts 8 was waiting with a story that is more powerful than many have realized.”
What follows is his explanation of Acts 8:26-40 and its implications for our understanding of human sexuality. Prior to addressing his explanation his motivation must be examined. He begins by explaining that he knew, by means of experiential knowledge, that sexual orientation was not a choice. Furthermore he sought out Scripture which would conform to his experience of reality. Yes, Scripture should accurately describe reality; however, we must also recognize what Scripture has to say about reality as we experience it. It is expressly clear from Scripture that the reality which we experience is a world at war. It is a world where man is at enmity with God, where man is at enmity with his fellow man, where man is even at enmity with himself, and where man is at enmity with creation. Within such a world these questions cannot be answered by experience rather they must be revealed by one who is not plagued by the curse which has beset our world. Answers based upon experience are like developing a theory of human sexuality based upon the horrors of D-Day. McLaren’s mistake is that he views his experience within a fallen world as normative. This thought will be returned to in part 3 of this series.
Turning to McLaren’s explanation of Acts 8 there aspects of his argument that we can agree with, although at points necessary critique will be given. Ironically at the outset McLaren makes much of the eunuch’s inability to fit within “the traditional family,” “to become heterosexual,” and to be “categorized in traditional sexual roles” he also notes that the eunuch exists in a “not-part-of-the-created-order sexual category.” This admission has no bearing upon what follows in his argument; although he admits that this man’s sexual identity has been profoundly affected by the fall he does little to speak of how redemption in Christ addresses this issue. McLaren also notes that:
He [the Ethiopian eunuch] has come to Jerusalem to worship God, but has, no doubt, been turned away- first because of his race and second because of his sexual identity: the Hebrew Scriptures explicitly excluded both Gentiles and people in his nontraditional, not-part-of-the-created-order sexual category.
One would have hoped that McLaren would have done his homework at this point and note the greatness of redemption in Christ, sadly he does not. There is no mention of Old Testament prophecy concerning eunuchs and foreigners or of prophecy concerning the coming Messiah whose inheritance is the nations, whose salvation will be made known among the nations, and around whom the nations will gather in praise. Instead McLaren gives the impression that the Old Testament has nothing to offer except condemnation. Furthermore the text itself paints a far different picture that the one given by McLaren. Rather than being turned away from worshipping in Jerusalem it would appear that he actually worshipped in Jerusalem and obtained a fairly costly scroll containing some or all of Isaiah’s prophecy. This mistake is poor exegesis at best or pure eisegesis at worst.
McLaren continues to explain the text as he tells of how Philip ran to the eunuch’s chariot and asked if he understood what he was reading. Then he explains:
The man invites Philip into the chariot and asks if the writer was writing about himself or someone else – a question that suggests this man feels the prophet is talking about him in his sexual otherness: he too will have no descendants; he too has been rejected, misunderstood, despised, shamed … he too has been brought like a sheep or lamb before people with cutting instruments.
At this point McLaren’s exposition is laughable both in his treatment of the New Testament narrative and the Old Testament prophecy. Even a cursory reading of Isaiah 53 lends itself to quite a different understanding of the text than McLaren’s suggested lamentation of “sexual otherness.” The propitiatory tone of the text is unmistakable. Thus the eunuch’s question becomes one which asks “Who is it that has taken our grief, our sorrows, our transgressions, our iniquities, and given himself as an offering for our guilt so that we may be accounted righteous and have peace with God? Is it the writer or another of whom he speaks?” McLaren also notes that like the eunuch this “man of sorrows” had no descendants (v.8). Again McLaren has failed to do his homework. The word here means generation (דור) if Isaiah had intended to speak of His descendants he would have used זרע as found in verse 10. He appears to be using the NIV which poorly renders verse 8 and stands at odds with most other translations by translation דור as descendants. What the text is asking is “Did any of his contemporaries, the people of that generation, consider that he had been put to death for their sins?” The text is not mourning his inability to have children. Even more problematic for McLaren’s translation is that verse 10 speaks of how this suffering servant will see His offspring whose iniquities He has bore and whom He has made righteous. The text is clearly at odds with McLaren’s interpretation.
McLaren continues, “Philip explains that this passage can be read to describe Jesus, and he shares the good news of Jesus and the kingdom of God.” McLaren so distains exegetical certainty that he must put words into Philip’s mouth at this point as he notes that Philip explains “the good news of Jesus and the kingdom of God” as one of many readings of Isaiah 53. This is a messianic prophecy it is not enough to say that it “can be read to describe Jesus” this text describes Jesus, that is what the text is doing and any reading which does otherwise is not faithful to the text.
Ultimately McLaren concludes:
Neither race nor sexual identity was an obstacle for the apostles in welcoming a new brother into the community of faith. . . That’s why I am among those who dissent from the conventional approach and attitude, appealing back to Philip’s even more ancient church tradition.
Simply saying that “neither race nor sexual identity was an obstacle for the apostles” fails to do justice to the issue as we find it presented in Scripture. These were big issues that they took time to work through as they grasped the nature of redemption within the New Covenant. So we cannot say that these were non-issues it took time for them to understand the extent of redemption in Christ. At the same time we must recognize that ultimately Scripture declares, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). The gospel transcends the barriers which previously separated humanity, these barriers are still real and yet they have been overcome by the unity brought about by redemption in Christ. Ultimately, however, McLaren’s conclusion is both incorrect and it belittles the Gospel because of its failure to take into account the pervasive affects of the fall and the glorious riches of redemption in Christ.
In the upcoming and third post in this series we will examine the pervasive affects of the fall and the glorious riches of redemption in Christ as we seek to correctly understand what Scripture has to say on this issue.
Eric Bryant, the author of Peppermint-Filled Piñatas: Breaking Through Tolerance and Embracing Love, recently posted on “Hindus, Homosexuals, and the Hard to Reach.” He has written similar things before (see the audio file below) and I appreciate what he has to say; however, I also think there is room for critique. I have posted his seven points below and look forward to your thoughts; don’t forget to drop by his site as I know he would appreciate the feedback as well.
Principle #1: Cause creates community.
Our cause = moving people to become the person God created them to be.Principle #2: Meet the needs of those around us.
We need to seek to meet the physical, emotional, economic, and spiritual needs of those around us. We should be pursue helping change the environment and change the individual who is looking for change.Principle #3:Reach out to Xenos
Hospitality means loving strangers. A similar word, “hospice,” means “a safe place.” Our homes, our businesses, and our churches should become safe places for strangers to experience kindness and love.Principle #4: Develop authentic friendships with those you know.
OIKOS is the Greek word for household (family, neighbors, co-workers and friends)Principle #5: Allow people to belong before they believe.
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 http://www.mosaic.org/faqfor more on the staff process at Mosaic.Principle #6: Raise up a team of leaders to replace you
MPAC = Ministry through a pastor, assimilator, and catalyst
We need to make decisions based on who is not yet here rather than who has been here the longest.Principle #7: Start Over
Catalyzing Community: starting a small group, a ministry, a non-profit, or even a church (Download MP3 Here)
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?”
I hope the title caught your attention and I hope that this brief post challenges the clean Victorianesque way in which many of us read Scripture and our clean Victorian lives and our clean Victorian churches. Have you ever heard a sermon giving more than a cursory explanation of what an eunuch is? I have not. I have heard the clean version of how eunuchs played a critical role in the government of many nations at that time; how they guarded concubines in the harems and protected the emperors of Rome. At later times they became important figures in the history of music as castrati were renowned for their vocal prowess. What I haven’t heard is a lengthy exposition of how such procedures, which were performed in the early stages of life, had profound physical, physiological, and psychological effects upon an individual due to hormone depravation.
Lest we let our American obsession with power and celebrity affect the way we read this text another reminder is necessary. Yes, the text does indeed note that he was the treasurer for an Ethiopian queen; however, he did not come to this position due to his wisdom or financial savvy. No, rather he has been genetically engineered, in a most primitive way, so that he can perform certain tasks within the government and as such he and those like him were expendable. Yes, he has authority and he has influence but he has been engineered for this role.
With such basic expositions of this text have we truly recognized its significance? Is this merely a cheap incantation to be read before the congregation at baptismal ceremonies? In Isaiah 56 we find that both the salvation of the eunuch and foreigner promised. Later in acts we read the story of Cornelius and see the Spirit is poured out upon this gentile and his household. I mean no disservice to the story of Cornelius but is it not equally profound that God would choose to save this transgender man? Even more amazing is that Irenaeus noted that this Ethiopian eunuch became a missionary among his people, which does much to explain the church history there dating back to the first century.
How do you think this text should challenge our understanding of mission and how are we to go about this mission? How would you respond if God called one of these children to Himself? How would you respond if after having irreversible surgery and hormone therapy God chooses to send one of these individuals out as a missionary? Would your church send the Ethiopian eunuch out as a missionary? Would your church call him as pastor? Aside from the likes of men like Brian McLaren and Rob Bell, whose answers are not answers at all, no one seems to be addressing these issues. I am not asking a question with regards to lifestyle here, Scripture both answers that clearly and demonstrates the power of the gospel to change lives. In the age of designer babies (see here) and transgender children (see here) we must wrestle with the fact that while lifestyle change through the gospel is possible undoing physical, physiological, and psychological change rooted in genetic manipulation is a different process entirely.
“You can take or extract payments on a debt from others’ sin in many ways: by withholding forgiveness, by dwelling on the wrong, by being cold and aloof, by giving up on the relationship, by inflicting emotional pain, by gossiping, by lashing back or by seeking revenge against the one who hurt you . . . . Your other choice is to make payments on the debt and thereby release others from penalties they deserve to pay. . . . This may involve fighting against painful memories, speaking gracious words when you really want to say something hurtful, working to tear down walls and be vulnerable when you still feel little trust, or even enduring the consequences of a material or physical injury that the other person is unable or unwilling to repair.”(1)
(1)Sande, Ken, The Peacemaker: A Biblical Guide to Resolving Personal Conflict (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2004), 207-208.
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