The created order was in disarray. This disorder was deeper
and more serious than the unformed and unfilled state of the original creation.
While the darkness and the deeps required a great amount of wisdom and power to
overcome, they were not hostile. Sin changed all that. Sin introduced a
death-sting that fought to keep things separated that God intended to be
unified. The sleep of Adam from which he awoke to the glory of Eve became a
sleep from which he would not awake. He would lie there ripped in half without
resurrection glory. He would return to the dust from which he was made.
Sin’s death was not limited to our individual bodies. This
death was the enemy of life as God intended. Anything that separated what God
purposed to be joined together was death that needed to be overcome. From the
beginning, God purposed that all humanity be caught up in his eternal
fellowship as Father, Son, and Spirit as one worldwide family. Proverbs 8.30-31
poetically allude to this as Yahweh and Wisdom mutually delight in one another and
in the sons of men. This delightful union and communion are what Paul speaks of
to the Ephesians when he says that God’s eternal plan revealed in Christ Jesus
was to unite all things in Christ (Eph 1.9-10). Without the presence of sin,
this would have been a friendly process of maturity (a truth I explained in the
article Incarnation
Anyway). Sin latched on to this process, fighting it tooth-and-nail,
refusing to allow death to move into the resurrection of unity between God and
man and man with man.
I wish to offer just a couple of initial thoughts on the psychology of conversion towards woke and social justice ideologies. The task seems rather complex, and I do not wish to offer the final word but a mere word on a somewhat layered conversation. This is a primer’s worth of articulation on the subject.
This post stemmed from some questions raised by some fine people in my recent post on Paul Tripp. Some sent me private questions, and some others opined on the note. The gist is that several people expressed how much they have appreciated Paul Tripp’s work in the past and cannot understand how he could make such dramatic shifts culturally. They are wondering what causes such magnificent theological and cultural changes. For the record, I restate my level of appreciation for Tripp and his labors on a variety of counseling themes.
Nevertheless, trajectories are a real thing, and some prophets can see these things more accurately and astutely than I do. My own assessment is that these trends stem from a set of priorities.
Over the years, many of us have been completely shocked by movements among Reformed people who hold to the Catechisms, Confessions, and Creeds, but yet have sold their ideologies to the biggest woke bidders. I have detailed many of these over the years, but I want to offer just a brief summary as to why this manifestation is so evident in our day.
It is first and foremost essential to note that these movements happen slowly for most and are fast-paced for a few. These theological movements generally occur when perspectives begin to change in little things. Big changes occur through a thousand microscopic ones.
The classic example of this is the Republican political leader who makes remarkable speeches on the dangers of leftist sexual ethics and how modern attempts at distorting traditional marriage are dangerous. That healthy dogma begins to lose stamina when his son comes out as a homosexual. Suddenly, the strong assertions rooted in Genesis 1-2 begin to lose their vigor and eventually–as we have seen many times–that politician succumbs to social pressures and changes his view of sexual ethics affirming that homosexuality is something brave and bold and that we ought to listen more attentively to those in that community.
I argue that these changes are perspectival. If we break them down to existential (experiences), situational (cultural-historical), and normative (the authority of the Bible) we can arrive at a more accurate interpretive model for how these stalwarts move incrementally towards woke and BLM rhetoric.
The Church was in controversy against false leaders in the days of Jesus, in Athanasius’ 325AD, in Luther’s 1517, in Bonhoeffer’s 1940, and our own in 2021. The Church moves and conquers one square inch after the other, but never easily. She seeks to take the land with the expected opposition. When we say, “Jesus is Lord,” the world responds: “Only in your faith.” When the Church says, “this is my Father’s world,” they say, “Only in your little secluded world of fanatics.” This privatized faith is not the real thing; it’s the skim milk the world has expected from our banquets.
The Christian Church is antagonized by her own timidity. We think the world, the flesh, and the devil will give us a few inches here and there willingly with a thank you card attached to it. But that’s not how it goes. The Church receives nothing from the world for free, for the world is at enmity with God; the world wants unhindered pluralism, and she wants you to give up your inches of gain for 30 pieces of silver.
The sooner we discover that we are heirs of Abraham destined to take the entire world that rightly belongs to King Jesus, the better. The apathy and complacency will only delay the blessings God has in store for his people.
The reason we are so captivated by the claims of Jesus is that he has proven that all authority and power belong to Him and no one can take that from his hands. We cannot cease to press his claims because every inch is an inch he died to secure. The real estate market has one owner, therefore we should not be timid disciples but bold proclaimers in word and deed.
There is a celebratory parade going on in certain camps exalting the virtues of grace over the Bible Belt religion. The strategy is to find ways to ridicule the training of many of us who grew up under mom and dad’s religious education in the South. They argue that we have been strangled by the legalism of local independent baptist/evangelical churches and therefore we have suffered much for it. Of course, the political point is that such a generation created the evangelical Trumpers, and for many, that was and will always be a bad, bad, boy moment. But among these tribes growing up in the Scofield Bible generation, some made the great escape and they can now tell the story of how grace transformed them from those religious meanies.
Russell Moore goes so far as to refer to this kind of religious upbringing as “toxic” and that those who remain Christians are examples of “survivors.” Now, a few footnotes:
First, many of us can sit down and share some stories that are cringe-worthy of our upbringing in independent churches and many of us probably have a share of stories that ruined our appetite for certain things. That is true.
Second, since I am in the Reformed persuasion side of things, I have plenty of humorous stories about eschatology charts and walking down the aisle for the 4th time in a week-long revival extravaganza and of being terrified–ahem 1999!–that the rapture was coming.
Finally, I can also share how many of my friends were driven away from the church later in life as a reaction to what they perceived as rigorous and often graceless training. Much of their assessment is true.
Much could be added to this list and I have shared them on numerous occasions on various platforms. I join the frustration with what is considered and defended as “Fundamentalism” in my part of the world. In fact, my own father was a graduate of Bob Jones University and even had a subscription to “The Sword of the Lord.” In fact, when I was in college, I eagerly ran to my box to find the latest edition to read the latest sermon. I hope this proves that I was a teenage-mutant-dispy.
Now, here is where “Amazing Grace” meets “I Come to the Garden Alone:” the critique of Southern religion or Bible-Belt Religion fails because it assumes ideas of grace are somehow immune to abuses. It assumes that some alternative to fundamentalist religion was pure and provided the gravitas to carry us through our lives. It assumes that the only kind of training that is fruitful is the one that limits the boundaries of duties and increases the garden of grace.
While it would have been lovely to grow up in a richer theological environment, with festive sounds of Psalm-singing all around, I would not trade my history. My Bible-Belt upbringing made me cherish this phase of life and in many ways prepared me to embrace life with firmer conviction. You see, one of the things that folks like Moore fail to grasp is that the myriads of Bible verses we memorized were being used to form a backbone and a hunger for more; that Bible-Belt training prepared us to embrace healthier habits only because we knew our Bibles well. At one time I had over 400 verses memorized and that sits within me like a balm for my soul, though I can’t remember all the commas and thous any longer.
While so much of the formation of the fundamentalist world is flawed, it shaped many of us to see the Bible as the authoritative revelation of God’s world, good ol’ hymn-singin’ as good medicine for the soul, and responsibility and duty as vital to formation. And of course, we could add more, but you didn’t come from that world without grasping those three elements.
To speak of it as “toxic religion” is a simple way of dismissing it and treating it with utter contempt while showing how grace is better than all of that stuff. But “grace” has been used during this COVIDsteria season as a baseball bat to religious liberties and as a way of conveying “Love Thy Neighbor” in the most egregiously legalistic way possible. Moore and his tribe have joined the “grace” forces to ensure that such regulations and jabbery were instrumental in the re-shaping of society.I am all about grace for breakfast, lunch, and supper, but when it is divorced from clear mandates and when it does not come shaped by a bold Christendom, I want none of it. And while some may claim they survived “that toxic religion” and now found this “grace-free religion,” I can guarantee you that the latter comes with a cost. What you claim as “survival” probably will produce a generation of teenagers who won’t survive leftism, but will feel the bern and certainly won’t be cheering for Brandon.
Ultimately, what we have here, is an example of ingratitude. Gratitude looks at the past and despite all the flaws can still see how God was shaping our humanity and providentially caring for our souls through Fanny Crosbie and AWANA. It’s really how we should look at our Bible-Belt past–with gratitude for that ol’ time religion.
The fifth duty of the assembly toward one another is to confront and forgive sin. No doubt, this is the requirement that causes the most consternation for Christians. Of all the duties listed in this series, this is the command that many churches neglect altogether. That shouldn’t be the case. Confronting sin is never fun or easy, but it is a command from God. We must obey it, and he will give us the strength to do so.
Step one: Keep it private
Consider the instruction from Jesus himself in Matthew 18.
If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother (Matthew 18:15)
Jesus
establishes that you are deputized to confront those who sin against
you. If someone sins against you, you have the authority to go to
them privately and try to make amends. The goal is for the offender
to repent and for you to forgive him. The intent of this process is
not to humiliate the offender, but to bring about reconciliation.
Popular
belief would have you think that confronting sin is unloving and
vindictive. But does that sound like something Jesus would approve
of? No. Confronting sin is actually based on love. It is a good and
gracious thing, and your demeanor must reflect that. You do not
confront someone with anger and disrespect. You approach them with
kindness and gentleness.
How should Matthew 18 work in practice? If a fellow assembly-member sins against you, you start by keeping it as quiet as possible. You’re supposed to deal with it privately, with that person alone. You should clearly explain your grievance, citing Bible verses as necessary. Ideally, the person will confess his fault and ask for your forgiveness. You must then forgive him (Matthew 18:22, Colossians 3:13).
The fourth duty that assembly-members have toward one another is the giving and receiving of gifts.
All members of the assembly have gifts that God has given them, and those gifts are to be shared with others. Whatever skills, expertise, or knowledge you have is for the benefit of all. Each person is a unique image of God with unique traits and perspectives. Each person has interests and abilities that are not identical to anyone else. You are to share your gifts with others, and they are to share their gifts with you.
Consider the following passages:
There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit…given to each one for the profit of all…the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you” (1 Corinthians 12:4, 7, 21)
As each one has received a gift, minister it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God (1 Peter 4:10)
Peter says that we are to “minister” our gifts to one another. That’s a profound command that should not be dismissed easily. It’s a ministry of yours to share your gifts. Maybe you’re a musician, a mechanic, a doctor, a math genius, or a babysitter. Maybe you’ve learned wisdom from life experiences. Whatever the case may be, the Bible views your gift as a benefit to the whole assembly. Don’t think that you have nothing valuable to offer! You do. Each member — clergy and layperson alike — plays a vital role in the life of the assembly.
I write out of concern for your soul. You have been outside the authority of a local church for too long. And this may be for a variety of reasons, among them your ignorance about membership in the first place. So, here are nine observations concerning membership I want you to keep in mind:
1) Baptism gives you access to God’s gifts and promises anywhere. To be a member is to be formalized into a particular covenant community somewhere.
2) Membership is kingly citizenship before the Second Coming; one cannot roam alone on earth because earth’s life is to be modeled after heavenly life which is communal (Mat. 6:10).
3) Don’t expect me to listen to your interpretation of the Bible when you don’t listen to the rules of the church for whom Christ died. To take up your cross and follow Jesus is also to follow his Bride.
4) Hebrews 13 says that you are to submit to the leaders over you. When you decide to remain autonomous concerning church membership you are refusing to obey this imperative. You cannot submit to a leader when you despise the church he serves.
5) It is true that finding a church comes with difficulties. One needs to find a place where not only the creed is followed but where praxis lines up with your particular values and vision. However, this is not a reason to “shop” around endlessly.
6) When someone says to me, “I’ve looked for a church & can’t find a place,” they are generally saying, “I don’t want to find a church because it will infringe too much on my liberties,” or “I can’t find a place that holds to every little detail of doctrine I subscribe to.”
7) Membership is testing your obedience to the fifth commandment and your allegiance to a greater society.
8 ) Membership is a sign of a healthy Christian community. Those who refuse to join a local church are acting in accordance with their own creeds and symbols. Those who join are acting in accordance with the church’s historic creeds and symbols.
9) In sum, unless you are in a deserted part of the country where no Trinitarian churches exist or on brief temporary assignment somewhere, it is your Christian duty to join a local Trinitarian congregation whether it lines up with all your distinctives or not.
I pray God leads you speedily to a local body. Your soul depends on it.
Last week, our church hosted a Vacation Bible School that included the story of “David and Goliath” as one of the Bible stories. I was responsible for the “Bible story station” that introduced the characters, the meaning behind the story, and its application. Groups would spend twenty minutes with me and then return later in the day for ten minutes of reflection and prayer.
Our VBS theme’s package included scripted lessons that a leader could simply read with sample questions and ideas for applications for various age groups. Our materials were produced by the Methodist publisher Cokesbury and generally faithful to the Biblical story. They were also insightful about how to manage the attention of younger students, but like all modern children’s curricula – do not expect much from the child.
On Bite-Sized Lessons
Exercises like this always cause me to question how much of Sunday’s sermon is actually understood by my youngest congregants. The VBS curriculums seem to assume that children need everything delivered in such easily digested, bite-sized pieces. Perhaps this level of VBS is meant for children who may have never been to a church. But not even two minutes into my introduction of David and Goliath it was obvious that my group of eight and nine-year-olds were already very familiar with the details of the story—down to the number of stones that David collects. The study guide wanted me to focus on “facing bullies” and “overcoming adversity” but the kids had heard it all before.
Caught off guard, I went into “Rev. Clowney Mode” and thought I would pivot into teaching how Goliath’s downfall points to Christ. Now completely off script, I asked the students, “So what happened to Goliath next?” A few hands went up. One young man was so excited to share that I decided to ignore his impatient “I know! I know!” and call on him anyway. “David cut his head off!” For some strange reason, this scene wasn’t included in the coloring sheets and didn’t make it into any of the suggested drama skits for the day. Go figure.
And, “and then what happened?” I asked. The students looked at each other, shrugged, and back to me. Here I explained that King David eventually took the giant’s skull to Jerusalem, to be buried just outside of the Holy City of Jerusalem.
I asked them to consider Goliath a type of serpent, reminding them that “coat of mail” that we see described as his armor in 1 Samuel 17 is more akin to a breastplate of snake scales. I then asked them to remember the Garden of Eden and to consider the promises made to Adam and Eve after their expulsion, chiefly that a descendent of theirs was to crush the head of the serpent. I pointed out that in our Scripture reading, David’s stone “sunk” into Goliath’s head. David was Adam’s great-great (times thirty-five generations) grandson and he was well aware of the promises to his family’s line. He and all future generations would remember David as the son of Adam who had crushed the serpent with a stone to the head.
Yet David was only fulfilling part of that promise. David’s battle with Goliath was looking forward to when the Messiah would destroy the true serpent and undo mankind’s death curse. David anticipated this when he brought Goliath’s skull back to Jerusalem as a covenant sign of God’s future faithfulness. For the very place that David buries Goliath’s skull is to become the very same spot that Jesus is to be crucified: Golgotha.
David with the Head of Goliath, circa 1635, by Andrea Vaccaro
As James B. Jordan points out:
“Golgotha is just a contraction of Goliath of Gath (Hebrew: Goliath-Gath). 1 Samuel 17:54 says that David took the head of Goliath to Jerusalem, but since Jerusalem was to be a holy city, this dead corpse would not have been set up inside the city, but someplace outside. The Mount of Olives was right in front of the city (1 Kings 11:7; 2 Kings 23:13), and a place of ready access. Jesus was crucified at the place where Goliath’s head had been exhibited. Even as His foot was bruised, He was crushing the giant’s head!”
Biblical Horizons Newsletter No. 84: Christ in the Holy of Holies The Meaning of the Mount of Olives by James B. Jordan (April, 1996)
I had gone way off course from the VBS script. I was talking about burying a giant’s skull and Christ crucified, where the script had this as its closing reflection: “If you wonder how you can face challenges that might seem bigger than you, remember that with God you can find what you need to help you meet your challenges.”
At reflection time they returned eager for more juicy details about David’s bloodlust, only for me to remind them of Christ’s present promises to conquer sin and that perhaps us miserable sinners are more like Goliath than David in the story. We deserve a stone to the head for our life of war against God. And like Goliath’s lifeless skull outside of Jerusalem, our only hope was the blood dripping down from the saviour on the cross.
On Practical, Relevant Preaching
The need for a “practical application” and the lure of relevance or accessibility has detached the Christian meaning of David versus Goliath from its place in the story of the Gospel. King David as a historical figure with a natural and spiritual lineage leading to Jesus is of no real consequence in the VBS version. While I have no doubt that this story also presents a great opportunity for character building in giving us examples of overcoming adversity, let’s not limit David to the realm of mere fable.
After all, popular authors have done much better than pastors with this self-help approach. For example, Malcom Gladwell parlayed the underdog notion of David and Goliath into a New York Times Bestseller back in 2015 when he connected this story to all sorts of character applications. Everything from the religious sacrifices of the French Huguenots to the jumbled but noble struggle of dyslexics. In Gladwell’s applications, the whole idea of the story was simple: what we saw as disadvantages in the small-statured shepherd boy, were actually his secret weapons against the Philistine giant. David had it in him the whole time, everyone else just couldn’t see it. Is this the message of Christ?
We must contend that the Holy Spirit did not include the battle with Goliath to add a Hebrew hero to the Aesopica. David’s battle must be more than a story for inspiring courage and spurring on self-development. We have not faithfully taught any passage of Scripture without connecting it to the story of Christ’s redemption. Or as Rev. Edmund Clowney put it, “Preachers who ignore the history of redemption in the preaching are ignoring the witness of the Holy Spirit to Jesus in all the Scriptures.”
Rev. Clowney was Professor Emeritus of Practical Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, where he served for over thirty years, sixteen of those as president. He authored several books, including The Unfolding Mystery: Discovering Christ in the Old Testament.
Esoteric Speculations
Grounding our teaching in the story of Christ also prevents the fetishizing of obscure details in the Hebrew text. I was recently asked to lead a book study through Michael S. Heiser’s book The Unseen Realm. While leading the study, I quickly learned that the generation of men taught under “relevant preaching” styles had missed out on the necessary theological framework to hang the Old Testament narratives. They craved the order and structure The Unseen Realm offers. Unfortunately, Heiser’s book reads like he has just recently unlocked a secret code to understand the Bible through special ancient symbols and obscure language clues.
Speculations about Nephilim, angels, and giants creep in and have the power to wedge an artificial gap between our historical theology and our new pet passages. Men like Othmar Keel, Meredith Kline, and Gregory Beale have been offering us similar approaches to Biblical symbolism while staying within Nicene orthodoxy and the historic church. And of course, James Jordan offered a very accessible compendium of Biblical symbolism in his book Through New Eyes.
How much did Goliath’s armor weigh? Were his ancestors fallen angels? Did the giants survive the flood? Does new Philistine DNA evidence prove the existence of bronze-age giants? The depths of the Biblical text are inexhaustible, or as D.A. Carson put it in his book The Gospel as Center, “The Bible is an ever-flowing fountain…” but wild speculations detached from the story of salvation are not equal to seeing Christ in every passage of Scripture. To see Christ in every God-breathed passage is to drink from the living stream, while a desire for obscurity inevitably leads to the brackish waters of pseudo-scholarship based in the mysteries of pseudepigraphon and cliches of post-modern religious studies.
Teach Christ
There’s nothing foolish, redundant, or mediocre about Christ-centered preaching. Those who love the Lord will never tire of hearing how Christ is present on every page. Those who are far from him desperately need to hear him speak to every area of life. Let us never grow weary in taking captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. (2 Corinthians 10:5)
Various articles have attempted to answer that question recently. But before we can try to offer a rationale for such a spectacular question, we need to observe that some are entirely comfortable allowing this trend to continue. After all, music plays a minimal role in their worship expressions. Others find the issue of congregational singing irrelevant due to the trained praise bands that lead worship each Sunday. “Let the professionals lead.”Certain environments encourage people to hear and feel the music rather than sing it. And some groups have placed such high priority on the preached word that the very idea of a singing congregation seems secondary, if not tertiary in the priority list. But on to better things.
Fortunately, there are a vast amount of churches and leaders that still treasure congregational singing and long for a time when men return to the old-fashioned task of singing God’s melodies. The cruel reality is that we are far from the mark. In my many visits to evangelical churches over the years, the few men who opened their mouths timidly read the words like a child attempting to spell out his phonics assignment.
Timid singers make for timid Christians.
Let’s Begin with Singing Anything in Church, Shall We?
I am not arguing for a particular style of music. That would be to ask for too much. I think we need an incremental strategy. I am arguing for men to sing whether through projected song lyrics, Fanny Crosby classics, or Scottish Psalter. I am imploring for men to take up their holy charge and lead by example. Set the tone and watch the little lions roar.
There is a more insidious reason why men do not sing. One author boldly observed:
“Look around your average Evangelical church and you’ll likely see a 3 to 1 ratio of women to men. And of the men who actually do attend, you can see on about half of their faces that they’re only there because their wives want them to be there. The other half are there because they genuinely want to be there.”
We have succumbed to a kind of cowardly environment where instead of men leading the women with their voices and character and fervor, the women are attempting to make up for the lack of interest in their own husbands. How often have I encountered the scenario where women hunger to learn and grow in their Christian walk, but husbands are content with the slobberiness of impious entertainment.
Evangelical men are wanted. But they are lacking. They lack leadership and the ones who make it to church after their wives’ brave attempt to persuade them the night before, sit still in a silence resembling a preserved ritualized mummy.
Yes, there is certainly much to blame for the weakness of the evangelical man. And there is much to commend in female saints who tirelessly bring their children to church on Sunday morning while their husbands engage in their rock-n-roll fantasies. May God curse their dreams.
I have always loved theological discourse. I had my share of interactions in high school and made a few of my classmates endure the cadence of my naivete. Of course, whatever I believed at the height of my 18th birthday was pure Gospel, unadulterated. From my views on the Sabbath to Supralapsarianism (the latter which never appealed to me, btw), everything I spoke was spoken with the conviction of a seasoned dogmatician. And in those days, I was not well-read, which added an additional percentage of hubris to my declarations.
One thing that permeated those early years from 18-22 was my impeccable ability to convince myself that what I argued was passionately serious and seriously passionate. It came from my deep inner being saturated with certainty.
Take, for instance, the renowned doctrine of Calvinism with its soteriological vigor. When I first embraced the soteriology of Calvinism I believed firmly that I was embracing the sine qua non of theological hierarchy. Again, I defended it fervently around my sophomore in college as if it were the highest and most significant element of Christendom. As I have written in a previous post, I had to do a repentance tour for my unfavorable debating techniques.
But I have always loved the discourse. I loved the dialogue late at night in the hallway. I loved pulling out my Greek text and looking at particular pericopes and savoring James’s words together with others. All those conversations prepared me for graduate studies both at the Masters’ and Doctoral levels. Indeed, good conversations, especially around theology, shall save the world. I still hold to that, even though I abused my place at various times.
But here is the nuance to this process, which most of us who do this for a living and the studious parishioners must consider. And it hit me again when I read it from my old mentor, John Frame, who wrote:
“Don’t lose your sense of humor. We should take God seriously, not ourselves, and certainly not theology. To lose your sense of humor is to lose your sense of proportion. And nothing is more important in theology than a sense of proportion.”
The discourse is not the end-all. At the end of a long exchange of words, friendships are the end-all. Communion is the heart and reason for the discourse. If we lose our closest allies in the process of doing theology, we lose theology at its best, which is often the result of taking ourselves too seriously; of lacking the comedy of life which makes every encounter and relationship more valuable.
A regular comment I have made to my congregation over the years is that a man can speak the truth in a thousand ways, but if love is not the companion of the truth it rarely communicates effectively. I am certain I won a thousand debates in college. I was a disciplined Bible student, but as I look back I also know I lost half of those debates because I failed to achieve the telos of human discourse, which is to lead my companion to a better understanding of God and love for neighbor.
We have lost our sense of proportion in doing theology because theology is no longer the domain of the good, but the domain of the greedy. There is all the time in the world for the righteous anger of good theologians opining against real evil. That too is a form of theological discourse. But mostly, in our unique communities, our discourse needs to happen more often with cigars and drinks in a sacred environment of peace and humor.
The present evangelical scene is already too primed for destructive interactions. To do theology well we need a sense of proportion. Not everything can be life or death, but everything should be light and best around a table. All things are best when the discourse happens around the mutual agreement on proportion.
When theology loses that sense, we fail to do it as well as it should. Theology–the study of God–is the story of everything that is good, true, and holy. When it is a tool of rhetorical pugilism, it quickly loses its appeal. But when it is a tool of discovering corporately the goodness of life, the splendor of the Bible, and the majesty of God it is then the best life offers.
If that process succeeds, more often than not, and if we can make our theologizing a source of joy, we may even contemplate our role as angelic, for the angels–as Chesterton notes–can fly because they can take themselves lightly.
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!’Abraham Kuyper
