Aaron Renn notes, “America is in the midst of a slow-motion shift to a much lower-trust society.” The more our institutions fail, the more prone we are to distrust others, even those nearest us. In some ways, the challenges before us are challenges pertaining to the fifth commandment. The entire nature of communication and exchanges will add additional notes of skepticism to authority structures in our society. Who do we trust? How do we honor fathers and mothers who do not have a history of honesty and trust?
So, how does a biblical society rooted in authority and categories of honor succeed in an age where no one’s word is taken authoritatively? Renn notes that J.D. Vance’s email correspondences with close personal friends many years ago were revealed to the New York Times. Those emails offered personal information and back-porch chat between young men. Trust was broken. Intimacy was severed.
This is not exhaustive, but there are a couple of principles to remember when rebuilding a “high-trust” society:
a) Trust institutions and leaders that have a history of trust. If an institution has existed briefly and its history is marred by missteps, firings, and scandals, they are not worthy of your trust.
b) When looking for churches, see/check if they possess a DNA of durability and longevity. Have there been constant moves and changes in a short period of time among the leadership? Is there a consistency of message? Does the community manifest healthy interactions and practices? Is there fruit in their children?
c) When relating to other peers, keep intimate details close. Don’t overshare. Consider whether that person has a reliable story. Do you think that individual will repent readily? Does he/she affirm his/her weaknesses? Do they handle small personal details well or quickly disseminate information shared privately?
d) Finally, for more meaningful discourse, almost always choose face-to-face or phone conversations instead of email or lengthy chat exchanges. The value of personal interaction cannot be overstated. Our personableness doesn’t always translate well into words, or its interpretation can be misunderstood.
Our low-trust culture results from the failure of the trust currency in our culture. Government and ecclesiastical betrayals have led to a society of disinformation. Who can we trust? Who do we seek guidance? Who should we submit to? Who are my people? The answer to these questions must be rooted in a framework that allows longevity to shape our trust. Trust should not be given immediately. It needs to be built.
The mastermind behind the Paris Olympics opening ceremony, with his vast resources and power, created a spectacle that was a stark contrast to the beauty and order of Eden. Instead of using his power to create a harmonious environment, he allowed depraved creatures to roam that space, seeking affirmation and adulation from a world gone mad.
In Eden, the creatures moved, lived, and existed in God’s good pleasure. They were created, and therefore, they cherished their creator. But on that stage in Paris, these creatures re-invented themselves. Instead of doxology, they stood pridefully displaying their distorted postures and allegiance to the gods of the age. They denigrated God’s table of order, choosing a table of chaos.
That creator who designed and choreographed those liturgical movements in Paris used power to show what a world designed by Genesis 3 produces. The Christian should not be afraid of power, but he should use it to produce Edenic worlds, mini-Christendoms that show forth the worlds of Genesis 1 and 2 in their uncorrupted power and glory. Christians use power to show God’s artistic splendor and display heavenly realities in our daily liturgies.
I love it when various interests of mine converge in one place, and that’s the case with Romans 2:6-16. This passage brings together some of the themes I’ve emphasized in my teaching and writing on masculinity; of course, it’s also a key text in various so-called Federal Vision discussions, especially verses 6-7 and 13. When Paul says those who seek glory, honor, and immortality will be given eternal life, is he speaking hypothetically of those who seek to fulfill a covenant of works but obviously cannot? Or is that an actual description of what the faithful Christian life looks like? When he says the “doers of the law will be justified” is that hypothetical – if we could keep the covenant of works or keep the law perfectly, we could be justified by doing, but obviously that is not possible now? Or is it an actual description of what will happen to Christians at the final judgment, when our works are presented to the Lord and we hear the verdict, “Well done, good and faithful servant”?
I believe when Paul talks about God “rendering to each one, according to his works,” he’s not speaking hypothetically. I have developed the exegesis elsewhere (in essay form multiple times and sermon form multiple times with notes and further explanation), so I will not repeat that here. It should be obvious Paul is speaking of a real judgment to come at the last day. Likewise, when he talks about the “doers of the law” being justified in the eschatological judgment, it’s not hypothetical. He’s not talking about a covenant of works, or some kind of Pelagian system set up just to teach us we are sinners who cannot earn salvation. Rather, he’s talking about Christians, who conform imperfectly-but-truly to the law of God in their way of life. Christians do not fulfill the law perfectly, of course, but we do fulfill it to such a degree that we prove that we have been united to Christ by faith alone (cf. Romans 8:1-4). We are doers of the law, and we will be justified accordingly at the last day.
I especially love that line where Paul says God will give eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality. For Paul, this seeking is a matter of “patience” (a rough synonym for faith exercised over time in Paul’s writings, as we wait for God to keep his promises) and “well-doing” (a term for fulfilling the law in its new covenant form, which the Spirit empowers us to keep). But what does it mean to seek after glory, honor, and immortality? Some think it is a covenant of works, or even a pagan view, which Paul only mentions to refute. On the contrary, I think this is Paul’s way of summarizing what the Christian life is all about. As it turns out, it’s also a pretty good summary of what masculinity is all about. Let’s unpack it.
Unpacking Masculinity in Paul
If you were to talk to a church member and he was to tell you that he is seeking glory, honor, and immortality, you might think he’s left the reservation. You might wonder how a Christian could seek after glory and honor — isn’t that selfish? Isn’t that too works-oriented? Isn’t that arrogant? You might tell him immortality is a gift you receive, not something you seek after. But this misses Paul’s point. In reality, seeking after glory, honor, and immortality is exactly the shape of the Christian life. It’s what a saved life looks like, it’s what a life following Christ looks like, it’s what life in the Spirit looks like. Seeking after glory, honor, and immortality is not sin, it’s the essence of the life of faith and the way to eternal life.
What is sin? In the next chapter, Paul says sin is falling short of the glory of God. Sin is missing the target. The target is glory. That means hitting the target is glorious. Or, to put it another way, obedience is glorious. Righteousness is glorious. Those who live righteous lives will be covered in glory; those who want to be righteous will seek after glory because you cannot seek righteousness without also seeking glory. But, someone might ask, aren’t we supposed to seek after God’s glory, not our own? I would respond: Why pit our glory against God’s glory? When David defeated Goliath, God got the glory. But that glory was also lavished on David. David sought God’s glory on the battlefield and, in doing so, sought after his own glory as well.
Seeking Glory
There is no reason to think of God’s glory as a zero-sum game, as if God getting glory means his people cannot get glory, or vice versa. There is certainly a glory unique to God that cannot be shared with any creature. But there is also a kind of glory that God is happy to share with his people. Indeed, one aspect of God’s glory is surrounding himself with a glorious people. God does not want us weak and glory-less. It is God’s glory to make his people strong and to glorify them. The end goal of our salvation is our glorification.
On more than one occasion, I have heard the CREC and particular churches within the denomination labeled as “a cult.” This puts us right there with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Jim Jones, and David Koresh. Apparently, we are a dangerous heterodox group of over-zealous extremists following some sort of charismatic personality. Our Book of Confessions puts us in the stream of Reformational Christianity, but somehow, we are still labeled as a cult. Maybe it is our acceptance of paedocommunion, but that is far from new to the Christian faith. Maybe it is our optimistic eschatology, but many Christians have been optimistic about the kingdom of God in history. Perhaps it is because we have Doug Wilson, and, well, they just don’t like him. I don’t really think any of those particulars cause people to label us as a cult.
From my own observation (and this is my personal opinion), what seems to chafe the average American Christian about the CREC is the commitment. The commitment level of the average CREC family to attend worship regularly, participate in the church’s life, and live out the faith in a counter-American-cultural way is staggering for the modern American Christian.
I was teaching a Bible study on Judges 9 the other night and it occurred to me just how relevant this chapter is to many of our current issues. (We will eventually get audio up on the TPC website.)
First, anyone who wants a so-called “strong man” to rule should pay close attention to the beginning of this chapter. Abimelech offers to become king over the people of Shechem instead of Gideon’s 70 sons — why decentralize rule into 70 men when you can concentrate it on one man? Of course, as you might expect, when they accept Abimelech’s offer, it turns out to be a disaster.a
Abimelech was a revolutionary and revolution always breeds revolution.b Revolution always breeds anarchy, tyranny, or both, but it is never stable. Revolution leads to more revolution. Revolutions easily become rolling revolutions that steamroll everything in sight. Not surprisingly, Abimelech has rivals who rise up against him in a revolutionary way. A man named Gaal throws a big party, everyone gets drunk, Gaal curses Abimelech, and then inspires the men of Shechem to turn against him.c Abimelech manages to put the revolt down – the men of Shechem pay a huge price for their unstable political loyalties. But then Abimelech, power-hungry and over-confident from his victory, decides to try to expand his territory. He goes after Thebez, a peaceful Jewish town. He traps the people of Thebez in a tower when a woman drops a millstone on him and crushes his headd. Abimelech dies in a shameful and humiliating way, at the hands of a productive woman (note that a millstone is a domestic tool used for making bread).
One interesting thing about a number of stories in the Bible is that God often gives his people victory by causing the wicked to turn against one another. For example, when Gideon fights against the Midianites in Judges 7, the Midianites get confused and turn their swords on one another. This is the point: evil ultimately self-destructs. This is one reason we should be confident even in the face of so much cultural upheaval in our day. It’s not just that stupidity doesn’t work. It’s that evil doesn’t work. Living contrary to the way God made the world, living contrary to God’s law, will always bring disaster and ruin — which means the righteous will always inherit what the wicked leave behind when they fall. In our own day, we are not seeing the wicked turn on one another just yet, but we are seeing hints of it. For example, look at what progressive student protestors have done with progressive-run universities; the “L” and “G” have turned against the “T” amongst the alphabet people; etc.
Here’s another way to put this: Progressives will not make very much progress. Progressivism is a dead end. Think about what Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:1-9. Paul describes what people will be like in the last days.e Paul lists a number of vices in verses 2-5, and a great many of them sound a lot like modern-day progressives – people who are lovers of self, lovers of money, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, lacking self-control, lovers of pleasure, etc. But note what he says in verse 9: “The will not make very much progress.” Or “they will not get very far.”
That’s the bottom line: progressives will not make very much progress. And that should be a hopeful sign for us. Progressivism is not sustainable. It cannot go on forever. Progressives are only making progress into greater and greater evil. As they increasingly lose touch with reality, their movement will self-destruct and come to a grinding halt. The only question is whether or not God’s people will be ready, with millstones in hand, to get to work at building something better when the progressive movement gets crushed.
I realize that most guys who talk about the rule of a ”strong man” today in Christian nationalist circles are not advocating for it, but rather pointing to its inevitability given the collapse of our constitutional order. But this is still a point worth making. (back)
Think of the French Revolution — I always feel sorry for those French kids who have to memorize that period of history because it’s such chaos, with a constant cycle of regime churn and change — until the anarchy finally gives way to the tyranny of Napoleon’s dictatorship –- a true “strong man” if there ever was one. (back)
The party/orgy is another sign of revolutionary decadence. (back)
an obvious allusion to Genesis 3:15, with the twist that it is the bride/mother who crushes the skull of the serpent in the garden this time; cf. Romans 16:20 (back)
Whether you take “last days” here to reference the whole inter-advental age, the last days of human history, or the last days of the covenant doesn’t much matter for my point. Paul is giving us a principle here that applies in many situations. (back)
I realize that most guys who talk about the rule of a ”strong man” today in Christian nationalist circles are not advocating for it, but rather pointing to its inevitability given the collapse of our constitutional order. But this is still a point worth making.
Think of the French Revolution — I always feel sorry for those French kids who have to memorize that period of history because it’s such chaos, with a constant cycle of regime churn and change — until the anarchy finally gives way to the tyranny of Napoleon’s dictatorship –- a true “strong man” if there ever was one.
The party/orgy is another sign of revolutionary decadence.
an obvious allusion to Genesis 3:15, with the twist that it is the bride/mother who crushes the skull of the serpent in the garden this time; cf. Romans 16:20
Whether you take “last days” here to reference the whole inter-advental age, the last days of human history, or the last days of the covenant doesn’t much matter for my point. Paul is giving us a principle here that applies in many situations.
Anger characterizes our present culture. We live in a victimized, aggrieved, and, therefore, angry society. Anger is always simmering beneath the surface and frequently erupts. We will see more volcanic activity as campaigns ramp up and elections draw near. Battle lines are drawn. People will yell and scream at one another in person and online.
Our capitalist culture has learned to monetize anger. Anger is good business for social media influencers, whether non-Christian or Christian. Rage bait receives clicks; clicks are traffic, and traffic means money and fame. Anger is big business.
The broader challenge of interpreting 1 Corinthians stems from the fact that Paul sorts out a seemingly unending list of problems and we are privileged to hear (read) only one side of the conversation. Paul’s First letter (as we know it) may very well be a second or third letter, and we know from 7:1 that the Corinthian church had written to Paul, asking a series of questions. These other letters are now lost, and what remains for the church is 1 & 2 Corinthians. To make matters more interesting, the Greek language doesn’t use punctuation marks, so we have no quotation marks to rely on, nor do we have question marks to tip us off. Because of these hermeneutical hindrances, interpreters need to make sure that they are reading things in context, and this includes picking up on some of Paul’s linguistical ‘cues’ that are sprinkled throughout the text. We are not in a position to draw unassailable conclusions solely based on what a Greek word may or may not have meant. Sound interpretation requires contextual considerations, both in the immediate context and in the larger context of a particular epistle. While knowing some of the cultural background can be invaluable for doing exegesis, this, too, isn’t always a foolproof process. There are a lot of opinions regarding the cultural background of this particular passage, and it can be helpful to trace what may or may not have been the case regarding head coverings in the Roman city of Corinth. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, we need to be able to do the exegetical work necessary to reach our conclusions—cultural ideas notwithstanding.
My goal in this article is straightforward: to provide an exegetical interpretation of the text that (1) Consistently makes sense of all aspects of the passage; (2) Resolves any potential contradictions in the passage; and (3) Provides a healthy framework for interpretation that will hopefully alleviate besieged consciences that are struggling with whether or not to wear a head covering. Because there has been a recent uptick in advocacy for head coverings from various social-influencing pastors[1] who are (rightly) frustrated with feminism, I found it important to answer these questions by giving a biblical defense for abstaining from head coverings. Many pastors have seen first-hand the divisive nature of head coverings in a congregation, and because our culture continues to reject God’s ordering of the sexes, the allure of covering a wife’s head in response has become an increasingly exciting option for those wishing to establish patriarchalism in the home and church. I have no doubt that there are many men and women who read this passage and think to themselves, Why haven’t we been obeying this? Obedience to Scripture will always be, indeed it should always be, a motivating factor in the life of the Christian.
However, to suggest that the passage is ‘obviously pro-head covering’ is dishonest. It may be obvious to you because your righteous anger at our culture overfloweth and you’re looking for a fight. Furthermore, to suggest that ‘all of human history did this’ and ‘basically every theologian taught that a woman should cover her head’ is equally dishonest. Were head coverings argued for in the early church? During the Reformation? Yes. Still, there were others in the early church and during the Reformation who suggested otherwise. My point is this: there is no uniform position of adherence to head coverings throughout church history. An appeal to history just doesn’t work.
Many of us Gen Xers, Boomers, and Silents are staggered by the rapid descent of our society into sexual insanity. Sexual perversions have been present in all our generations. Quite frankly, older generations bear a great deal of responsibility for the present lunacy, but the rapidity of the Romans 1 sexual death spiral is bewildering. Identifying LGBTQ+ has become almost fashionable. According to a recent Gallup survey, LGBTQ+ identification in the U.S. is now at 7.6% of the population. One out of every five Gen Z (1997-2012) adults say they identify as LGBTQ+. In the past twelve years, the percentage of people identifying this way has doubled, with women outpacing men by two-to-one.
The problem is only in the sexual alphabet soup. Heterosexual sin remains a problem. One pornography site dwarfs visits to Amazon by seven hundred million more visits. When you throw in the sexually explicit content on social media, the numbers are staggering.
The Church has traditionally and historically confessed three purposes or functions for marriage. The WCF, for example, says: “Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife, for the increase of mankind with legitimate issue, and of the church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness” (24.2). We might summarize these three purposes as: procreation, protection, and pleasure, and I want to use these three as an outline for my remarks this afternoon.
Sometimes in God’s providence a couple will be unable to bear children. This may be due to age or physical disability or infertility or similar factors, but it should not ever be simply because the man and woman do not wish to be bothered. Children are a bother, but they are also an heritage of the Lord, a gift of God. The fact that this gift is sometimes inconvenient does not change its fundamental nature. God’s gifts sometimes don’t sleep well at night. They fuss when they are teething. They test the limits of mom and dad’s patience. In fact, God gives us children as a means of sanctification rather than simply for multiplication. When the Lord gives you a gift, you are supposed to say, “Thank you.” You should never say, “No, thank you” or “please give it to someone else.”
God created marriage, in part, so that human beings would have babies. But this was not only so that the human race would continue. God does not mean for us to bear vipers in diapers—he wants a godly seed. That means you must bring your children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Better never to have children than to neglect their spiritual formation. You are not merely raising future citizens. You are raising your own brothers and sisters in Christ. You will spend eternity with these little people, and they will not be little anymore. They will be glorious and glorified worshipers, so love them and lead as those who understand what God is making of them one day.
We are not only formalizing a marriage today; God is creating a new household. Aiden and Rachel, you are no longer independent people. You are becoming one flesh, and that unity is not for yourselves; it is for the glory of God, the growth of the kingdom of Christ, and the fulfillment of God’s eternal purpose to redeem and save the world. God will give you children as a gift of his grace, so be thankful for them when they come, and use those gifts well.
Marriage is also for the protection of the man and the woman. The Devil has many tools and enticements with which to lure and subdue the servants of Christ. Sometimes he even manages to use our own marriages against us. But marriage is not meant as a snare; it is more like a mine detector that helps us identify, avoid, and defuse threats along the way. You are to study each other, learn each other, and know each other so deeply and so well that you can sympathize when the other needs sympathy and refuse sympathy when the other needs to toughen up and be strong.
It was not good for man to be alone in the garden. Adam’s singleness was the first thing in all of creation that God said was not good. He needed a helper, someone to walk and work alongside of him, to help him fulfill his mission and ministry. The first world fell into sin and condemnation because Adam and Eve neglected this basic reason for their existence and relationship. Adam did not protect Eve when she was seduced by the serpent, and Eve did not help Adam when she gave him the forbidden fruit and led him to disobey God, even though he knew it was wrong. Both of them neglected their God-given responsibilities, and here we are, making marriages in Wray, CO rather than in the Garden of Eden.
Most people understand how a wife is able to protect her husband from the sexual temptation that is ubiquitous in this world. Aiden, there is nothing that a strange woman —whether in the workplace, on the roadside, or on a computer screen—has to offer in comparison to the delight and satisfaction that a godly wife can offer in your own bed. But you must protect her as well, not only from sexual impurity—though that too—but also from the more common dangers that surround women: the temptation to be vain or to measure her worth by her physical appearance, the appearance of her home, or worldly metrics. She may be threatened by sadness, discouragement, or the lies that the world whispers in her ear rather than the truth and promises God speaks to her heart. Rachel, you must keep Aiden strong and focused so that he can build the kingdom and battle the dragon every day, and Aiden you must keep Rachel happy and content in the way that you love her, praise her, and cleanse her daily with the water of the truth, God’s word.
Finally, marriage is for pleasure, the “mutual help” of the husband and wife. Being married is not always fun, but it can be and, most of the time, it should be. If you are not ever having fun, then something is wrong; you are doing it wrong. God did not bring you together to share misery; he gave you each other to create memories, share happiness, and help one another on the road to glory.
You may not always feel happy. There will be many things that are hard and heart- breaking in the days and years ahead. But you can choose to Rejoice in the Lord, always, and you should. You must. It is your God-given responsibility. The Lord does not ask you to rejoice in the bills, the baby’s colic, the boss’s godlessness, or the bumps and bruises in your own relationship. He commands you to rejoice in Christ, and to do so every day. Who God is, what Christ has done, and what he has promised to those who love him: these truths never change. They are objective, and they form the basis of our joy and hope. You must learn to look beyond the moment, to revel in transcendent joy. The house may burn down, the baby may be hospitalized, and our bank account may be empty, but Jesus died for us and rose again. Therefore we are loved and accepted by God, and the sufferings of this present time are not even worthy of comparison with the glory that awaits.
Aiden and Rachel, we have enough Christians who walk around looking like they were weaned on a dill pickle. We don’t need any more of that. God is calling you to joy today in your life together, just as he is calling you to eternal joy in union with his Son. Our lives are but a vapor, and your marriage may last seven days or seventy-five years, so make the most of it. Do not waste a moment being bitter, resentful, or ungrateful. Many enjoy joking about how miserable their marriage is. Let them be miserable, and heap coals of fire on their heads by being unashamed and unreserved in letting others see how much you enjoy one another. Your brethren should see you smile at one another across the room on Sundays, your neighbors should see you holding hands when you walk around the block, and your children should see you kissing in the kitchen… a lot. Marriage is a gift from God, and it is not wrong to enjoy God’s good gifts. In fact, it would be wrong, and I mean sinful, not to. So have fun, give thanks, and encourage each other, even when you have to do so through tears.
Aiden and Rachel, we love you and thank God for you. We thank God for his grace and mercy in your lives. We thank him for the kind of people you already are, and we are thankful for the kind of people we expect you will continue to become. We thank God for your relationship, and we look forward to seeing its fruitfulness in the years and decades to come. May the Lord richly bless you and continue to bless all of us through you. May your marriage glorify God and be faithful and fruitful in all the purposes for which he has established it: for procreation, protection, and pleasure, now and forever. Amen.
As summer heats upon us, many will be vacationing all over the country and the world. As a pastor, I have noticed that church members generally don’t think much about the role the summer season has on their lives as parishioners.
I am particularly troubled by Christians who treat vacation as a break from work and Church. To some, if vacation involves a Sunday, so be it. It becomes the ideal day to travel to your favorite summer destination. After all, you are not missing work; you are only missing Church.
Hebrews does not treat this subject lightly. The author forbids the non-assembling of ourselves. The Apostle treats forsaking the assembly as a kind of mini-schism. Hebrews calls us not to forsake the gathering, which is simply a re-affirmation of the motif explored all throughout the Old Testament Scriptures.
The angels and archangels engage in heavenly worship day and night, and we are invited to join in this duty of worship each time we are gathered together on the Lord’s Day. After all, God has made us one.
Vacation is no substitute for worship. Missing the Lord’s Day gathering on vacation for any trivial reason is to mock the veil-tearing, which gave us access to the heavenly throne of grace. It belittles the work of Christ, who conquered our divisions and united us to Himself.
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
