Kuyperian, Author at Kuyperian Commentary

On July 7, 2021 By Kuyperian In Culture 1

The Necessity of Messy Homes

We have had an abundance of children and adults in our house between Saturday and Monday. We probably fed over 40 people combined. Eggs, toast, butter, coffee, whiskey, beer, soups, and none of those things in that exact order. The whole thing was a glorious mess; the kind of mess that makes the kingdom of God glorious. Almost all of them were saints from our congregation who took time out of their holiday weekend to help our family do some heavy lifting, and others were just dear friends who are familiar enough with our tribe to come through our home as they please and others were sweet family members visiting. We loved the entire process, and the process creates a sense of normalcy that is utterly uncomfortable in our culture.

The discomfort stems from a sense of neatness that is unrealistic and also prohibits the world of hospitality that many evangelicals wish they had more of, but does not believe is sustainable if they have a steady number of guests in their home. The reality, however, is that Marie Kondo was made for dinner parties of three (mom, dad, and Tommy), and while practical at some level, it can become easily unhealthy at other levels. Our general policy is that we clean when guests come over, which means we clean often, and with our eager tribe of children, cleaning is much more effective, especially with Sargent Wifey. But the expectation–one I am constantly adjusting to as a Latin man who grew up with impeccable clean homes–that things must be always a certain way and that the home must maintain the correct Asian procedural methods of a certain short lady (how racist of me!) is utterly unrealistic and squashes the culture of hospitality. A home without guests doth not spark joy in the kingdom.

I am not suggesting we forsake those habits of cleanliness, but I do suggest we loosen our commitment to certain habits as pre-requisites for hospitality. How many opportunities have been missed because we assumed that such and such a person would look down on us if they saw our house a certain way, the clothes on the couch, the boys’ room in utter chaos, etc? *And as a sweet little footnote, if dads are not invested in the cleaning, let their steaks burn a thousand deaths.I remember a time many years ago when I was having a conversation with a young family with two little kids. The conversation was about our church’s focus on hospitality, to which the father replied: “One day we will have time for that.” Now, I was quite a young pastor in those days, and my boldness was low in the Richter scale, but today I would simply say, “If you wait for the right time, when the “right” time comes, it will always feel like the wrong time.” That’s the case because hospitality is built on the foundation of crying babies and broken toys. It’s a gift you learn to give others with plenty of practice.

I was having a conversation with three dads last night in the kitchen of a dear friend while 15 kids ran around us and in the middle of a very “important” point I was trying to make, my littlest one interrupted with an urgent call from nature. I made the passing comment that parents have conversations in fragments in such settings. That should be absolutely normal and expected.

The entire stage and adaptation to such scenarios set the stage for even greater hospitality in the future. You can tell that the families that thrive in the hospitality department didn’t simply start to host when their kids turned 12, but that they have learned the art of hospitality when their kids were 12 days old. They did it and they still do it, and their children will continue to do it. In fact, the glorious thing about the messiness of houses and toy rooms and unfinished house projects is that it reflects the ongoing growth of the kingdom of God filled with messy humans, broken rooms, and unfinished discipleship programs for civilization. But we can’t wait until the eschaton comes in order to begin practicing kingdom habits; we practice them as the very means for kingdom growth.

On May 4, 2021 By Kuyperian In Theology Like

Some Thoughts on Interpretive Maximalism

Guest Article by Gary Demar

There have been some comments recently about the Interpretive Maximalism of James B. Jordan. This has been an ongoing discussion for nearly 30 years.

An article by Pastor Uri Brito from 2015 posted on Facebook brought the topic to my attention again: “James B. Jordan and Interpretive Maximalism.” Since I’ve known Jim since the mid-1970s and have benefitted from his works over the years, I thought I would weigh in on the subject. Since the posting of Pastor Brito’s article, Jim’s wife, Brenda, has died after a long and courageous battle with cancer and Jim has had a stroke.

For Jim’s comments on Interpretive Maximalism, check out his article “What Is Interpretive Maximalism”? Begin with it if you are not familiar with the subject and then read the following.

One of the most frustrating things about Bible commentaries is that many of them concentrate on minutia while often missing the biblical theological message of the text and its relationship with the rest of Scripture. The grammar, setting, audience, and other interpretive principles are important and necessary. The Bible was written to a particular audience at a particular period of time. Knowing these things is extremely important. Sometimes, however, the forest is missed because so many trees get in the way.

Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the World

James B Jordan provides a provocative introduction to Christian worldview using Biblical world models and symbols, making the claim that this was the way God has chosen to set forth how we are to think about His world and about human history.

The first readers of the Law, Prophets, and Writings and the New Testament gospels, Acts, and letters did not have commentaries or access to Ancient Near Eastern Studies at their disposal. What they did have was a growing corpus of what we know today as Scripture. They were expected to glean from Scripture what God wanted them to know. They didn’t always get it, but Jesus expected that they should and would:

• Then Jesus said to them, “O foolish ones, how slow are your hearts to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and then to enter His glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He explained to them what was written in all the Scriptures about Himself (Luke 24:25–27).
• Jesus said to them, “These are the words I spoke to you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.” Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures (24:44–45).
• Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops (1 Cor. 9:9–10).
• Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come (1 Cor. 10:11).

Jesus gave His disciples a lesson in biblical theology on how all the Bible points to Him, not only a few verses here and there. As a result, the Bible — the whole Bible — needs to be read this way. This means to understand the whole Bible we need to be intimately acquainted with the whole Bible and its details and its thematic connections, for example, from the head crushing of the serpent (Gen. 3:15), Jael’s tent peg through the head of Sisera (Judges 4:21), the unidentified woman who crushed the head of Abimelech (9:53), David’s death blow to the head of Goliath (1 Sam. 17), Jesus’ head crushing at Golgotha — place of a skull — (Mark 15:22), and the promise that God would soon crush Satan under the feet of the early Christians (Rom. 16:20). This is no easy task. But by doing so, we will see the many connections of themes found in every part of Scripture always asking the question, Why did the Holy Spirit mention this or that?

Often when I got stuck on a text, I would call Jim and ask his thoughts on the passage. He would always point me to other places in Scripture where the same theme is dealt with. For example, after reading many commentaries on 2 Thessalonians 2 dealing with the man of lawlessness, I called Jim. He told me the answer is found by comparing what Paul wrote with similar language and themes found elsewhere. After taking this biblical theological approach, it was amazing what I was able to deduce from the Bible alone. Over time, I found other writers who had done something similar, for example, Johann Christian Schoettgen’s Commentary on 2 Thessalonians 2.[i]

(more…)

On March 23, 2021 By Kuyperian In Culture 2

Discussing Kuyperianism at the Reformed Rebel Network

Wonderful to join Grant Van Brimmer at RRN. Check out their previous episodes and support their Patreon page!

On January 25, 2021 By Kuyperian In Church, Politics 1

What Have the Last Four Years Accomplished? And What Have They Revealed?

Guest Post by Rich Lusk

“The old alliances are dead.”
– Theoden
“The world is changed…
I feel it in the water…
I feel it in the Earth…
I smell it in the air….
Much that once was is lost. For none now live who remember it.”
— Galadriel
“Our list of allies grows thin.”
— Elrond
“All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.”
— Gandalf
“The West has failed.”
— Denethor

Now that the Trump era is over, at least as far as his Presidency is concerned, it’s worth taking a look back at what happened in the 4+ years that he dominated the political and cultural landscape. I am convinced that Trump himself is nowhere near the most important thing that has happened. Rather, Trump exposed and accelerated trends that were already in motion. The Trump era brought to the surface and revealed many things that had been hidden from view. This has been an apocalyptic moment in American history.

I am most interested in what has happened to the evangelical and Reformed church context in which I am a pastor, but that cannot be considered apart from the political trends that have generated so much discussion and division.

Obviously, and understandably, Trump was a very divisive figure. His foibles, real and imaginary, are well known because we have been bombarded with them 24/7 for years now. There is no question he is something of an egomaniac, and could often be his own worst enemy. Policy-wise, he was generally conservative and should be applauded for many things he did (e.g., building a strong economy until COVID hit, gaining energy independence, removing the nation from entangling alliances, taking seriously the China threat, brokering Middle East peace deals, etc.) as well as things he did not do (e.g., no new wars, respecting states rights in regard to COVID responses, etc.). But I do not think Trump himself is the most important barometer of the church’s health at this point — indeed, far from it. While it is virtually impossible for me to reconcile any kind of support for Biden/Harris with Christian faith, I can certainly understand why many Christians have been reluctant to throw their support behind Trump. Frankly, I can sympathize with many of the criticisms of Trump that came from the “never Trump” camp….until I consider what the alternatives to Trump were. Making a Christian case that Trump has serious issues is not that hard to do. Making a Christian case that he is somehow worse than the alternatives that were available to us is virtually impossible — and “never Trumpers” never seemed to grasp that. Making a case against Trump is not the same as making a case for the Democrat options (or any other available options), which is what “never Trumpers” needed to do. “Never Trumpers” failed to develop any kind of alternative vision to Trump, even at a theoretical level. Nevertheless, they continued to cast aspersions on Christian and conservative Trump supporters. But this was an entirely unhelpful strategy. Caring about the political realm and expressing patriotic convictions are not necessarily signs of idolatry and voting for Trump in ’16 or ’20 does not necessarily mean one has sold his soul to the devil; indeed one can argue it was the best and most prudent course of action. But, again, how Christians feel about Trump is NOT the best litmus test for where we are anyway. So what is?

(more…)

On January 21, 2021 By Kuyperian In Church, Culture 3

Cursed Cursing

Guest Post by John Unger

Everywhere and in almost every conversation that one might hear these days, whether in public discourse or on social media, the F- word appears. A generation ago, this curse was rarely employed, and when used publicly, would not only astonish and appall the hearers but also bring shame and dishonor on the speaker for his brazen vulgarity. In the passing decades, the employment of this curse became more common and in vogue, its use coming to be called “dropping an F-bomb”, which startles the hearers with its bold force and brashness.

In the last several years however, the F-word has become more commonplace, permeating daily life and discourse. Rather than a “shock and awe” megaton shell falling from the sky, it has morphed into constant, random, rapid gunfire, read and heard in social media interaction, public television, and casual discourse. On streets, in stores, restaurants, buses, malls, etc., it matters not the age, sex, region, race, sexual orientation, education, status, title, ad infinitum: the F-word truly is an equal-opportunity curse word. In print, the oft-attempted replacement of letters in the word – #### – fails to mask our cultural comfort level with this once-shunned curse word, and its near-ubiquitous use at present. Even our President in a recent speech employed the F-word, in an overtly macho attempt to communicate the high stakes involved in attacking America.

Historically (in the Christian West at least), the cursing of someone or something usually contained a reference to God and the eternal realm, as in “God damn ***!”, or “Damn ***!”, or someone might pronounce, “Go to hell!” upon another, or simply invoke the name “Jesus Christ!” in expressing their anger at a situation, thing, or person. The employment of “hell”, “God” or “Jesus” in cursing demonstrates that even in our folly and anger, we intuitively know and have sense enough to call upon a heavenly God and Jesus Christ as the Sovereign Lord and Creator, Who owns and judges all men and all things. Even in suppressing our knowledge of God (Rom. 1:18), we invoke Him to vindicate our personal cause and make things right for us – however twisted and wicked our desires might be, in our moments of anger and pride.

(more…)

On January 11, 2021 By Kuyperian In Church Like

Should Churches Meet During COVID-19?” Part 3

Read Part 1, Part 2

By Joel Nelson, Guest Series

Christian Liberty and Witness to the World

Scripture teaches that even as much as something may be permitted within the context of Christian liberty, it is not always wise or profitable to exercise that liberty. Galatians 5:13-14 teaches, “…Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” And four times in Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians he writes, “All things are lawful for me, but…” Even though permitted, there are times where it does not build up, edify, or show love to a neighbor by exercising a particular freedom. Is the freedom to conduct civil disobedience in this case, by worshiping as a physical, corporate body (as opposed to scattered individuals and families joined only in a spiritual or technological sense) a situation where it is permissible, but not profitable due to the potential negative witness or “stumbling block” to nonchristian neighbors and passers-by?

To properly address this concern, we must begin with what is clear and then progress to interpreting wisely the unclear. The clear command is not to neglect to meet together, per Hebrews 10:24-25: “And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.” This command was given in the face of war and impending distress. And this is not an isolated, one-off command that is only applicable in this context, but rather the instruction throughout the Old and New Testament to the covenant community.[i]

“Death Has Lost Its Sting”

Can these commands to meet together as a community be set aside for an undefined, but limited time, such as for the plague or a pandemic or even a viral outbreak with an all-ages case fatality rate far under one percent? There are arguably instances where there would be wisdom in considering the option of temporarily doing so— as long as all ministry activities were not suspended. The historical record of the church, including the writings of many of the Protestant Reformers, does give precedent for this. But these measures should be temporary, with a clear end, and reserved for truly dangerous circumstances. It is one thing to consider whether to “go aside” for a time to avoid waves of plague with a death rate of over 30%, but another matter entirely to also do so for recurring seasonal viruses. As previously noted in this essay, during severe plagues many pastors, bishops, deacons, and even Christian laypeople did not go into hiding but rather displayed remarkable courage in the face of death. The basis for such courage is the resurrection of Jesus Christ: because of the resurrection, death has lost its sting (1 Cor. 15:55). As the apostle Paul wrote, if there is no resurrection— if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, our faith is in vain— then we are of all people most to be pitied (1 Cor. 15:14-19). But since Christ has in fact been raised from the dead as the firstfruits, then the eventual destruction of death is certain (1 Cor. 15:20-26). It is this confidence that has given Christians the courage to face lions, hostile kings, persecution, plagues, and more throughout history. Death is not the ultimate end for those who belong to Christ.

As Paul wrote to the Corinthians, Jesus “must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death” (1 Cor. 15:25-26). The Biblical record is clear that the resurrected Christ has overcome death and will destroy death, and Christians have the confidence that this will happen. But modern societies do not have the confidence that this will happen. Kimbell Kornu has noted that modern medicine is thus attempting to overcome death by the scientific method, by exalting man’s domination over nature until man himself becomes the final object of dominion (Theopolis Conversations, May 2020). Exhibiting this lack of confidence, when reminded of the risk of death, of man’s fragility, even kings and rulers cower and hide. In the face of this fear, many of mankind’s terrified responses end up resembling little more than pagan rituals, technologically-advanced versions of rain dances until rain finally falls, self-flagellation until the pestilence ends, sacrificing the weakest so that victory over an invading tribe may be won, or wearing talisman objects until the harvest is safely brought in. The viral outbreak of 2020 has revealed the primal terrors of an unconverted world, whose technological and scientific advances were supposed to be its lord and savior but whose gods failed. It is as C.S. Lewis warned: each new power won by man is a power over man as well. Like the Midianite army before Gideon’s 300 men, terror incites men to attack the one thing they still have some semblance of power over: other men.

(more…)

On January 8, 2021 By Kuyperian In Culture, Discipleship 3

Should Churches Meet During COVID-19?”, Part 2

By Joel Nelson, Guest Series

Read Part 1

Purpose of Weekly Church Gatherings

The Body of Christ is called not to imitate the practices of the world, including its darkness and fears, but rather to walk as children of light to try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord, and to take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness but instead expose them (Eph. 5:9-11). The cultural contrast necessitated by walking in the light, and exposing the works of darkness, may be uncomfortable. It may be foreign, even shocking to the sensibilities of those outside the church. This should be expected when two cultures collide. But even so, some may question whether it is prudent or appropriate for this contrast to be exhibited during a time of societal upheaval. Specifically, when the rest of society comes to a standstill and goes indoors out of fear of contagion, should the church situated in today’s world follow society’s lead and also retreat, or should it continue to meet to worship, sing and pray? We will now focus on this question.

For context, the arguments in this essay are predicated upon specific assumptions regarding the church, its union with Christ, and its position in the world.[i] It is assumed throughout this essay that the primary purpose of weekly assembled gatherings of the covenant people of God is worship, not evangelism to nonchristians. Within this context, evangelism takes the form of members of the church body going out from the weekly assembly to the world to witness and evangelize. Thus, the purpose of the assembled gathering is not primarily that of outreach, or attracting those outside to come in. Rather, as Jeff Meyers wrote in The Lord’s Service, it is a family gathering for access to the sanctuary.

In fact, within this assembly of the baptized covenant community, the assembled saints before YHWH’s throne may be so counter-cultural, so unique compared to ordinary society and civic gatherings, that the unbeliever who enters may be “convicted by all, called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you” (1 Cor. 14:24-25). The nature, format, even style of the corporate assembly is modeled on heavenly patterns, not on the whims and styles of contemporary cultural practices (whether legislative assemblies or modes of entertainment such as “TED Talks” or music concerts). It follows, then, that the culture of that assembly will not be congruous to outside cultural practices as well. Peter Leithart notes in The Baptized Body that “the church, as the body of Christ made up of baptized believers, is a separate culture, a separated and holy people” from that of the surrounding world. And as a separate culture, rather than a religious organization within an existing culture, “it has its own internal political and social configuration, its own language, rites, and disciplines.” As such, “what will outsiders think of our worship practices” ought not to be the deciding factor or overarching concern of the local church body.

(more…)

On January 1, 2021 By Kuyperian In Church, Culture Like

“Should Churches Meet During COVID-19?”, Part 1

By Joel Nelson, Guest Series

Introduction

The one-two punch of the global COVID-19 outbreak will result in the year 2020 being remembered as one of the most divisive and life-changing years in at least two generations. Old customs and established procedures slipped away in a matter of days in March 2020, and only eight months later seem almost entirely forgotten by some. Many seem to welcome these developments, viewing the dismantling of what once existed as a blank slate for construction of a new world order. The use of the word “unprecedented” to justify all manner of societal changes and suspension of long-held legal and sociopolitical traditions in the year 2020, is, for lack of a better word, unprecedented. The response of many churches during the last eight months largely mirrors the rest of society: either a complete shutdown and move to “virtual” meetings reliant on electronic devices and high-speed Internet connections, or implementation of measures such as so-called “social distancing” and mandatory imposition of face coverings (the vast majority of which, aside from some medical-grade N95 respirators, have little ability to filter viral particles which are measured in nanometers). The purpose of this essay is not to critique these changes on political or medical grounds, but rather to address the church’s response to government edicts and orders. Specific consideration will be given to the mission and witness of the church, present and historical, and the challenges imposed by government edicts and orders.

Historical Accounts

This essay will first consider several historical accounts of how Christians have responded to prior plagues and pandemics. The historical record reveals many instances in which, during past plagues (with a death toll much greater than that of COVID-19), the church stood out for its resolve to keep going about her mission even as societies effectively shut down. The church historian Eusebius cited a letter written by Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, regarding the witness of Christians in contrast to pagans during a fifteen-year plague in the third century:

“Many terrible things happened to us also before this. At first we were driven out, persecuted, and killed, but we kept our festival even then… But the brightest festival of all was kept by the fulfilled martyrs, who feasted in heaven… Most of our brethren showed love and loyalty in not sparing themselves while helping one another, tending to the sick with no thought of danger and gladly departing this life with them after becoming infected with their disease… The best of our own brothers lost their lives in this way—some presbyters, deacons, and laymen—a form of death based on strong faith and piety that seems in every way equal to martyrdom. They would also take up the bodies of the saints, close their eyes, shut their mouths, and carry them on their shoulders. They would embrace them, wash and dress them in burial clothes, and soon receive the same services themselves. The heathen were the exact opposite. They pushed away those with the first signs of the disease and fled from their dearest. They even threw them half dead into the roads and treated unburied corpses like refuse in hopes of avoiding the plague of death, which, for all their efforts, was difficult to escape.”

In the middle and latter part of the sixth century, plague broke out in the Frankish Empire and had an estimated death toll of nearly 1 in 3 cases. It was significant enough to postpone the Festival of the Presentation in the year A.D. 543 by four months. Subsequent outbreaks continued for more than fifty years. Yet historian R. A. Markus observed that in writings preserved from that time, such as those of Evagrius and Gregory of Tours, there is no evidence of deep spiritual crisis among church leaders. Despite panic, famine, rioting, and political upheaval, there is little evidence that the mission of the church was changed or drastically transformed. Ministry went on and opportunities for evangelism increased.

In A.D. 591, the second year of the papacy of Gregory the Great, Gregory urged bishops to use the opportunity afforded by the plague to admonish and exhort pagans to convert, stating that “the closer the last judgment, the more we must fear the strict Judge.” Despite the plague having been present for nearly fifty years, this is a rare mention in Gregory’s writings. The plague did not bring ministry and evangelism to a halt—the shepherds continued shepherding their flocks.

In A.D. 1348, the plague arrived in Europe. Cycles of widespread death from the plague would persist for more than three hundred years. Although understanding of contagion was in its infancy at the time and various local councils did at times attempt separation or isolation methods— whether separating the sick from the healthy or closing city gates— there was no method to gain completely the upper hand over the spread of disease. The shadow of death hung over civilizations for generations upon generations. Europe during this time has been described by Philip McNair as a “death-oriented society.” This would have set a particular context for ministry, but as in Gregory’s time, it did not result in widespread suspension of pastoral duties.

(more…)

On December 23, 2020 By Kuyperian In Culture Like

The Danger of Servant-Leadership

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

Guest Series from Pastor Rich Lusk

The conversation over masculinity also has implications for how we understand the “servant leader” model of leadership in the home. Servant-leadership, as commonly understood in evangelical circles, has taken quite a beating in recent years, and rightfully so. Obviously, the servant leadership model is biblical because it derives from Jesus: he said the first shall be last; he is the Son of Man ( = New Adam), possessing authority, but he came among us to serve; he said the greatest of all is the one who becomes slave of all; he was exalted because he humbled himself and promises the same pattern to us; he stooped to wash the disciples feet even though he was Lord over them all. But the “servant leadership” model is all too easily twisted, and this has become the Achilles’ heel of complementarianism.

The real problem is that complementarianism has produced a lot of beta “nice guys” who think the way to get what they want is by giving others what they want. It’s what Robert Glover calls a “covert contract.” You see it in the Al Mohler quote Aaron Renn has called attention to when describing a man’s sexual relationship with his wife: Mohler suggests the man qualifies himself for sex and will (presumably) get the sex he desires by becoming what he thinks his wife wants. But I have done enough marriage counseling to know it does not work that way. A man who makes himself subservient is not going to faithfully execute the office of husband, and he is not going to win the respect of his wife over the long haul. A wife does not need or want her husband to be a “Yes man” to her. She needs him to lead her.

This is the real issue with “servant leadership.” Under this model, anytime a husband does not let the wife have her way, he can be accused of failing to serve her. And so practically, the marriage becomes no different from an egalitarian or feminist marriage where the woman runs the show. The man is only “allowed” to use his authority in ways that have his wife’s permission, whether explicit or implicit. He is only “allowed” to use his authority in ways his wife approves of which means he has no real authority at all. Instead, her emotions and felt needs come to rule the marriage. If the husband and wife disagree, the only way forward is for him to give in because otherwise, he would become a tyrannical patriarch, forcing his own will on her rather than serving her. Jesus would (presumably) give the wife what she wants, so the husband should too. If Jesus died for his bride, how can any husband refuse to give his wife what she desires? How can he say “No, honey, we’re not going to do that,” when he is supposed to serve her? Thus, “servant leadership” morphs into subservience; the head becomes the helper and the helper the head. This is Satanic role reversal accomplished in the name of Scripture. It is overthrowing the marriage’s built-in authority structure, which leads to chaos and confusion.

Feminists will never give in to their husbands because to do so is to allow herself to be controlled by him and that’s the one thing she cannot allow; thus she will continue to defy her husband in order to prove she is a real feminist. But the complementarian wife can get the same result by telling her husband, “You’re not serving me like Jesus. How can I follow you as my leader unless you serve me?” And thus the beat of the gynocentric order goes on. Basically, the “servant leader” model becomes a way for a wife to exercise control over her husband since he can be accused of tyranny or being self-serving any time he does not go along with her wishes. The “servant leader” model all too easily allows her to exercise veto power over anything he wants to do because she can shame him for not being the servant she’s been led to expect and thinks she deserves. She can play the “Jesus card” anytime she wants to trump her husband.

The problem, of course, is this is NOT how Jesus serves his church and so it is NOT what “servant-leadership” should be taken to mean. When Jesus died for his bride, he was not responding to a felt need. He was certainly not letting the bride determine the shape of his mission. In the Gospels, Jesus always leads the way and the disciples follow behind; they do not always even know or understand where he is taking them, but he keeps leading (cf. Mark 9-10). Or consider the picture in Revelation 19, with Jesus out in front, his disciples following in his train as he rides into battle. While Jesus serves his bride, and does allow her to give counsel (prayer), he never asks her permission to do anything and she always has to submit to him even when he does something contrary to her wishes. In other words, he serves her by ruling her. In the complementarian view, the man leads by serving — which means he does not really lead at all; in the gospel (patriarchal) view, the man serves by leading — his leadership is actually a form of service. The complementarian husband all too easily becomes a figurehead rather than a functioning head, and in that way, he actually fails to be like Jesus.

(more…)

On December 16, 2020 By Kuyperian In Culture 2

How Resurrection Theology Shapes Our View of Masculinity

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Guest Series from Pastor Rich Lusk

Unfortunately, too many accounts of Jesus’ manhood stop with the cross. Podles has pointed out this is a uniquely Western problem. The Eastern church tends to focus much more on the risen Christ. This Western version of Jesus stuck on the cross truncates our understanding of what he has done and who he is; it certainly truncates the lessons about manhood we can glean from his example. This truncation bleeds over into teaching on marriage when Ephesians 5:21ff is used to teach husbands that loving their wives like Christ loves the church means always giving her her way, keeping her happy at all times, and so forth. Instead of the strong, transformative, efficacious love of Christ as the model, we have a weak, effeminate love. If we reduce Christ’s love to what he did on the cross — and then we think of the cross primarily in passive terms — we can actually turn a husband’s headship into its opposite. The head becomes the helper. The wife’s felt needs become the measure of the husband’s faithfulness. The wife’s emotional state actually becomes the highest authority in the home. The man who should be a Christ-figure becomes a simp. But Jesus is not a simp.

The missing element here, as in so much of Western theology is the resurrection. Years ago during the so-called “Federal Vision” controversy, I was astounded at how many Presbyterian and Reformed theologians basically had no place in their theology for the resurrection. They affirmed it as a historical fact. They affirmed its importance, but they did not ascribe any special soteriological significance to it. Everything terminated on the cross. But, to paraphrase Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, a dead Christ cannot save and neither can a dead Christ provide us with the model of manhood we need. For these, we must look to the resurrection.

Christ’s resurrection is his justification/vindication — and therefore it is our justification/vindication as well. Christ’s resurrection is the inauguration of the new creation. We share in his resurrection life and that new creation even now, though more is still to come in the future. And finally, in the resurrection, Christ fulfills his commission as the New Adam, the Last Adam, the one who has total dominion over heaven and earth. As the risen one, he is King of kings and Lord of lords. As the risen one, he promises to bring judgment on his enemies. Indeed, in 70 AD he uses the might of Rome to destroy the primary persecutor his bride, the unbelieving Jewish people, an act of justified vengeance and violence that he prophesied many times during his earthly ministry (e.g., Matthew 23-24). The risen Christ kicks enemies and takes names.

(more…)