MENU

Theology
Category

On October 16, 2020 By In Discipleship, Men, Theology

The Glory of Men

The book of Proverbs speaks about many different types of men. There is the wise man and the foolish man, the righteous man and the wicked man, the prudent man and the lazy man. It’s possible for a man to cross these divisions at different times in life, for wisdom issues a public call to everyone to heed her voice. But in a few places, Proverbs highlights a distinction that obtains in the normal course of life, one that goes beyond character or circumstances. The consideration of the young man and the old man is one such passage.

“The glory of young men is their strength, and the splendor of old men is their gray head.” (Proverbs 20:29)

Here Proverbs is dealing with something more than attitudes, dispositions, or actions: The physical attributes of strength and gray hair. There is a peculiar glory which attaches to man, as man, in different stages of his life. To be sure, part of man’s glory has to do with the soul and virtue. But part of man’s glory is also connected with the body and time.

Scripture not only acknowledges but celebrates a defining characteristic of young men: Strength. Most naturally, the verse in Proverbs refers to physical strength. It is not presented as an alien attribute discordant with man’s true nature. It is fitting and glorious for young men to be strong. This truth is echoed in other places in Scripture (1 John 2:14, 1 Cor. 16:13) and finds parallel witness in nature.

If this is the case, it follows that it is fitting and glorious for men to use and develop their strength. Physical strength can only be revealed in action and thus its purpose is more functional than ornamental (though an aesthetic aspect is not out of the question here). Furthermore, while genetics and hormones play a role in male maturation, strength still needs to be developed. It’s possible to be a weak young man. So strength as the glory of young men is both a given and a potency—it can be increased or diminished, and it must be maintained through discipline.

Physical strength is good and glorious, but it does not last forever, nor is it the only mark of a man. Youth eventually fades, and so does strength—especially once a man’s head grows hoary (1 Pet. 1:24). Yet this is not the end of man’s splendor. Viewing a man’s life from a wider angle allows us to see degrees of glory emerge. There is a time and season for everything. As a man becomes old, he does well to continue to cultivate his strength, but his distinctive glory does not lie in strength.

In Scripture, the gray-headed man is honorable (Lev. 19:32, Prov. 16:31). Gray hair can imply wisdom or gravitas, but more basically it indicates long life and thus the riches of experience. It is a good thing for a man to live long, to testify of the Lord’s faithfulness, and to see his offspring (Psa. 37:25, 128:6). As a man ages, the center of his glory rises from the body to the head. Young man is like a king, going from strength to strength. His influence and power tend more toward the physical. Old man is like a prophet, his influence and power center on his word and wisdom. And from one standpoint, this movement from strength to gray hair is a maturation, a transition to a better state (Ecc. 7:8, 9:16).

Given this reality, a young man should leverage his strength where it is most useful and fruitful: building and defending. He should also look forward to the transition to old age and consider what kind of elder he will grow to become. It is glorious to be young and strong, but a man’s destiny is not simply to flame out in his youth and expect old age to be a period of dreadful futility, where one is “shorter of breath and one day closer to death” (to quote Pink Floyd). Likewise, an old man should not pine for the days of his youth but embrace the glory of the aged and take his seat as judge, counselor, and prophet.

Young men, your strength is your glory. Old men, your gray hair is your glory. Despise not God’s gifts, but render thanks to Him, who gives power and strength and wisdom to all, and has made everything beautiful in its time.

Read more

On October 13, 2020 By In Culture, Theology

Patriarchy & the Masculinity of the Passion: A Response to Peter Leithart

Recently, I was involved in the Conversation at Theopolis Institute concerning the Manosphere. My long-time friend, Peter Leithart, a man to whom I am indebted for much of what I know of biblical theology, wrote one of the essays for the Conversation in which he addressed five different yet interrelated topics. The format did not allow me to engage a few of the topics Leithart addressed, so I would like to continue the conversation.

Two areas of Leithart’s essay that are of particular interest to me are 1) the patriarchy and 2) the masculinity of Jesus, particularly as it is expressed in his Passion.

The patriarchy is obviously on Leithart’s mind in the essay. Even though the word “patriarchy” was not used by the previous two authors in the Conversation, Leithart sees it as something of an undercurrent in their writing as well as a topic many of friends have broached. He homes in on the etymology of the word (making linguists everywhere shift in their seats wondering if he is going to build an argument based on strict etymology rather than usage/semantic domain). While Leithart is correct that the etymology of the word speaks of “father-source,” that is not generally how the word is used in normal parlance. Patriarchy is normally understood as “father rule” (arche can speak of a principality or rule as a derivative of being a “source” or “beginning”). Even if Leithart concedes the point that patriarchy refers to father-rule, I can see where the use of the term can be a little muddled in a context in which we are really talking about men, in general, ruling. Maybe it would be appropriate to use the term “androcracy,” man-rule. However, this does not need to devolve into a logomachy. The substance of the conversation concerns whether or not men should be the primary rulers in the home, church, and society and what that means in intersexual relationships in each of these spheres. (I might annoy the reader by using one or the other or both words throughout this response. Not many people up to this time in history have had a real issue with the word “patriarchy,” but I am an irenic guy. I can go with the flow in order to deal with the substance.)

Patriarchy/Androcracy is concerned with cultures–home, church, society–and not so much with interpersonal relationships between individual men and women generally. The questions are: Should these societies be ruled in a hierarchy with men in the primary place of rule? Should they be co-ruled so that men and women share the same type of authority? Should women be the primary rulers? Added to these questions, we must ask, Is the nature of authority and hierarchy from creation fluid so that it changes from one thing in the beginning to something else as creation matures into and throughout the process of new creation?

My position is that God created the man to be the primary ruler of the home, church, and society. The woman’s role includes rule with the man, but that rule is not the same kind and is subordinate to the man. Leithart emphasizes the co-rule of the man and woman, Adam and Eve, Christ and the church, noting that distinctions need to be recognized and the relationship between the two is asymmetrical (under #3 in his essay), but emphasizes that the church, for instance, should have an atmosphere of “neither male nor female” in accordance with Galatians 3:28. He did not have much space to work that out, so I hope this continuing conversation will bring some clarity on the nature of this asymmetrical co-rule.

Both of us ground our positions firmly in the Scriptures, appealing to them as the final authority. However, there are points at which we seem to be viewing the world through the lens of Scripture in different ways. That’s understandable. We all still have blurred vision. That’s why we have these conversations.

God’s authoritative revelation is the Scriptures. But God also speaks without words, a truth that we learn from what God himself says. In Psalm 19 we learn that “the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.” (Ps 19:1-3) What God creates speaks wordlessly in the substance of its creation, how it is created, and in what order he creates the various entities. Why did he create this animal this way over against the way he created another animal? Why did God not create all things at once instead of in the revealed sequence? All of these aspects of his creation speak; they are the revelation of God’s glory. We cannot have perfect or even proper understanding apart from special revelation, but looking through the lens of Scripture, we can interpret the creation, hearing what God says wordlessly through it. The Scriptures themselves teach this hermeneutic, particularly in this area of the rule of man.

In 1Timothy 2:9-15 Paul bases the proper order of the church principally on the fact that Adam was created first and then Eve. For this reason, a woman is not to teach or exercise authority over a man within the church. The same hermeneutic is used in 1Corinthians 11.8-9 when Paul says that the man was not made from the woman by the woman from the man. Paul concludes by the way and order of creation that the woman is the glory of the man and made in man’s image. From that point on there is a mutual dependence between the man and the woman because the man is born of the woman. Paul is not only teaching us what to believe, but he is also teaching us how to read the Scriptures as well as creation through the Scriptures. What Paul says about the nature and order of creation are not the limits of the way we are able to use this creational hermeneutic. Like Paul using allegory or parable in Galatians 4 to speak about how two women are two mountains or Matthew using Hosea’s phrase “out of Egypt I have called my son” to refer to Jesus, so in this creational hermeneutic we are given principles of looking at creation through the lens of Scriptural categories, precepts, principles, and patterns to interpret the creation.

For instance, in intersexual relationships, we can start with something obvious: the male and female anatomy. God commanded the man and woman to be fruitful and multiply, but there is no special revelation instruction on how this is to take place or who has what role in procreation. All of that is patently obvious to us now, but it is something that might not have been to the first man and woman (though I am sure they figured it out quickly!). The man and woman had to figure it out, apparently, through anatomy and “doing what comes naturally.” The man is obviously equipped to penetrate and plant seed in the woman because that is the nature of his body. The woman is equipped to receive the man and his seed as well as gestating and giving birth to a baby because that is the nature of her body. The woman’s sexual organs, her bone structure (especially in the pelvic region), and her breasts speak to tell us that she is the one to conceive, carry, give birth, and nurture a child. God speaks through the way he made us.

This is also true about the man’s bone density and muscle structure making him more tolerant of outside physical stresses that come with his revealed duty to work the ground and guard the Garden. God speaks through the structure of the man’s body, and that is interpreted through Scripture.[1]

This truth is also why scientific and socio-scientific evidence of sexual differences can be used to help us understand intersexual dynamics. Leithart does not dispute this but thinks that nothing normative can be drawn from the evidence. I believe that much of the evidence, when viewed through the lens of God’s creative process and the vocations of men and women specifically revealed, is instructive about the nature of reality (i.e., the way God created and sustains the world).

All of this gets us to the question of the patriarchy or the androcracy itself. Adam was created as the head of humanity. He is the source (patriarch in the way Leithart suggests is a more proper way to think of patriarchy) as well as an authority in whom is invested the destiny of mankind. The initial relationship between the man and the woman is not limited to marriage. James Jordan asserts (and I am certain Leithart agrees), the primary relationship between the first man and woman is as liturgical partners.[2] This first relationship is archetypal of societal structures. Men are given the position of rule. Androcracy structures the world and history. Adam is the head–source and authority–of the first creation humanity. Christ Jesus, the last Adam, is the head–the source and authority–of the new creation (cf. Rom 5.12-21; 1Cor 15:21-22, 45). Reality is structured as a patriarchy or androcracy. If this is true of the meta-structure of the world, how can it not be true of the smaller “worlds” created to reflect and live in harmony with that meta-structure?

The Scriptural declarations and commands, therefore, that men are heads of their wives and that only males may occupy the primary authoritative roles in the church (e.g., pastor) are not arbitrary commands or thin types. They are not merely superficial “roles” assigned to males that could just as well be handled by females, only held back by a bald prohibition by God. Androcracy is reality. Societies at every level are in tune with reality when there is masculine leadership. When women and children lead society, it is a curse (Isa 3:12) because it is a distortion of the created order.

None of this means that women have no sort of rule whatever. They do, but it is of a different sort and is subordinate to men’s rule. Neither does this mean that every woman must submit to every individual man. However, it does mean that where there are organized cultural situations, women should desire and submit to male leadership; they should want male/masculine leadership in society.

Women enjoy their own sort of rule, and they are quite powerful within a well-ordered androcracy, wielding influence with men as husbands and sons. They are co-rulers with man as Leithart points out. But their rule is of a different kind, in different areas, and is under the headship of men. This is not only proven from the creation and its typology into all societal relationships, but it is also proven in the relationship between Christ and his church. 

The church rules with Christ. The Bible is quite clear on this. But the church does not have equal authority with Christ. It is improper, for instance, to say, “The church is Lord” in the same way that we say, “Jesus is Lord.” We recognize that Christ is the head of the church, exercising authority over her. He has given authority to the church to rule with him, but he remains the authority over the church and is responsible for everything done by her. There is a division of labor between the man and the woman that is fixed and non-transferable. One might dare to say that men and women were made for specific purposes, and those purposes include different sorts of rule in relation to one another.

To reiterate, the patriarchy or androcracy is not a matter of choice; that is, it is not an option that God puts out there for us to implement in our homes, churches, or society at large. The androcracy is. It is reality, unalterably. We submit to it and accept our responsibilities to our blessing or fight God’s created order to our curse.

A thin complementarianism will not be able to withstand the assaults from the Feminist movement, especially when they see Scriptural commands as “culturally conditioned” and/or the fact that we have matured past those strictures and structures within the new creation. Jesus and Paul both appealed to the original creation with all of its structures as normative even in and throughout the new creation. The new creation is about restoring the old and taking it to its fullest glory, not growing out of it. Consequently, any appeal to a “neither male nor female” that muddles the hierarchy, first, has Paul contradicting himself because of his insistence on the differences elsewhere, and, second, is in danger of losing male leadership altogether because of the sheer wispiness of the foundations. 

Rejection of the androcracy was one reason for the fall and since then all men and women have fought this order. Men are sloths, not wanting to take their responsibility to love women by leading, protecting, and providing for them. Women are always pushing to rule men. All of this rebellion against androcracy or patriarchy does nothing but bring disorder and disharmony. We must get in line with God’s reality.

There have been many instances throughout history in which the patriarchy has been twisted so that men rule tyrannically, crushing those who have been given to their care. This has happened inside and outside the church. Consequently, when some hear the word “patriarchy,” there is a negative visceral reaction. But as with any other aspect of God’s creation, the abuse of some does not nullify the goodness of creation. Because gluttons abuse food does not negate the fact that food is a blessing from God. Because drunkards abuse alcohol does not mean that alcohol cannot be used to God’s glory.  Because some engage in illicit sexual activity does not mean that sex is to be abjectly rejected. So it is with the patriarchy (or androcracy, if that makes it more palatable). The answer is not to capitulate to a restructuring of God’s created order (the approach of Feminism, for example). Rather, it is for men to take up their responsibilities to be the men God called them to be.[3]

The patriarchy is not the only area of interesting conversation in Leithart’s response. Toward the end of Leithart’s essay, he spoke of Jesus’ manhood or masculinity. Masculinity cannot be defined succinctly, for it involves many things. However, there are some basics about masculinity that we know from Scripture as well as how we read creation with the spectacles of Scripture. God created man to lead, guard, and provide. He has a mission toward the world, and the woman, the feminine, is his helper. He is to act upon the world, changing it (dominion). He is not to be passive toward the creation. He is in submission before God and active toward the world.

Leithart notes that there were some aspects about Jesus that people in the Greco-Roman world have recognized as manly; namely, his acts of power. But then, in his death, he “subverts ancient masculinity” (under #4). He uses Aristotle’s model of male-female as active-passive respectively to say that Jesus undermined this understanding by becoming passive in his death.

But did he?

From the perspective of some, possibly. However, to frame even the crucifixion in terms of passivity is problematic. Jesus is far from passive. In his death, onlookers may see passivity, but he makes it clear before and throughout his trial, suffering, and death that he is in complete control. No man takes his life (passive). He gives it (active; cf. John 10:17-18). In laying down his life Jesus is acting upon the world and for his bride. He is being masculine. He is giving his life for a purpose; his purpose, his mission.

I’m not even sure that Jesus’ crucifixion would have redefined masculinity in the ancient world. Leon Podles in his book, Losing the Good Portion: Why Men are Alienated from Christianity, speaks of how Jesus is masculine in terms of Greco-Roman categories.[4] The Roman soldier at the cross certainly believed Jesus was a man and acting manly. He confessed “Truly this man was the Son of God” (Mark 15:39). Saying that the Greco-Roman world would have seen Jesus as other than masculine is questionable.

However, the Greco-Roman world would have understood Jesus’ masculinity is not the fundamental question. Does Jesus act in a masculine way as the last Adam? Is he masculine as God defines masculinity? Of course, the answer is, “Yes.” That masculinity does not show a “feminine side” at the cross. Jesus is masculine all the way through his suffering and death.

First, as stated, Jesus is giving his life, no one is taking it from him. This is his mission in submission to the Father. Jesus avoided death many times before the cross, and he made clear throughout his trial that he was not a helpless victim. Second, viewing the cross in isolation from the rest of Jesus’ acts, especially his resurrection, gives a truncated and distorted picture of what masculinity looks like. Jesus lays down his life and takes it up again. He is not a weak, effeminate, helpless victim, but one who remains in control the entire time doing exactly what he came to do.

The full picture of masculinity is not the crucifix, especially when interpreted as Jesus being passive. The full picture of masculinity is seen from the womb to being seated at the right hand of the Father, riding out on a white horse with King of kings and Lord of lords on his robe and thigh, destroying his enemies (Rev 19:16). Laying down his life was a vital part of his masculine mission, his mission as the Man.

As assaults on masculinity and the patriarchy relentlessly besiege the church, it is helpful to have these conversations and clarify why structures ought to be ordered the way they are and why men need not be cowered by assaults on genuine masculinity. I pray that this furthers the conversation for the health of the church and the glory of God.

[1] The examples could continue. If you are interested in further reflection on this, I highly recommend Werner Neuer’s book Man & Woman in Christian Perspective (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1991).

[2] http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/rite-reasons/no-86-liturgical-man-liturgical-women-part-1/

[3] Discussion of what constitutes a biblical patriarchy/androcracy goes far beyond the scope of this response. That will have to be another conversation at another time.

[4] See pp. 22-42.

Read more

On October 11, 2020 By In Discipleship, History, Theology, Wisdom

Jesus Is NOT Coming Soon!

When I was growing up, the churches I attended heavily emphasized the imminent return of Jesus. We even sang the song, “Jesus is coming soon / morning or night or noon / many will meet their doom / trumpets will sound / all of the dead shall rise / righteous meet in the skies / going where no one dies / heavenward bound.” Jesus could come at any time and rapture all of Christians out of here. Seven years of tribulation would start after this followed by Jesus returning to finish off the world and establish his millennial kingdom. We developed ways of thinking about how it would happen and when it would happen.

Everything in the news pointed to this imminent return of Jesus. The development of the European Common Market, the Illuminati, the Russian Bear coming from the north, China’s one million (or was it two million?) foot soldiers, a computer called “The Beast,” threats of computer chips in the right hand and forehead to buy and sell, Henry Kissinger’s name somehow adding up to 666, Israel becoming a nation again in 1948, the red heifer being bred in Jerusalem, talk of rebuilding the temple, and even unseasonably warm or cold weather (because you don’t know the times or seasons). Hal Lindsey wrote The Late Great Planet Earth in the ’70s. There were eighty-eight reasons why Jesus was coming in 1988. When that didn’t happen, the Gulf War in the early ’90s was a sure sign. I was working in a Christian bookstore during seminary in the early ’90s at the time and Armageddon, Oil, and the Middle East Crisis by John Walvoord was selling like hotcakes. (You can get it pretty cheap now!) There were movies such as A Thief in the Night and A Distant Thunder that dramatized the rapture and after-effects used to scare teenagers into a decision. The Left Behind series by Tim LaHaye is where I started losing touch with that part of the American Christian world, though I’m certain it remains alive and well. (They must be having a field day with 2020!)

The disciples had their own version of this when they were nearing Jerusalem in Luke 19. This is it. All the signs point to the kingdom of God coming immediately, which means that the old order is done away with and David’s victorious son is enthroned in Jerusalem. All of that would happen, but just not the way they envisioned it. Jesus had to instruct his disciples in the fact that he was not coming soon, at least not in the way that they were thinking.

To instruct his disciples in the time and manner in which the kingdom comes, Jesus tells a parable about a nobleman, ten servants, and ten minas (that’s money not little fish). (Lk 19.11-27) The nobleman (who is, no doubt, Jesus) goes away to receive a kingdom. He entrusts each of his ten servants with a mina apiece and expects them to do business and make a profit while he is gone. He will come back and evaluate what they have done, expecting that they have been faithful stewards, having made him a profit. Consequently, he must give them time to do what he expects them to do.

Jesus is working with a deep theme that begins with man’s creation and runs through all of history. The theme goes something like this: God creates and establishes his people, gives them commands and responsibilities, leaves them to do what he says, and eventually returns to evaluate their work, dispensing rewards and punishments. This is a pattern established before the fall. God created Adam, placed him in the Garden with specific commands (work and guard the Garden, don’t eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil), gave him help to complete his task, left, and eventually returned to evaluate what Adam did.

This is what God does with Israel over its history. Israel is created at Sinai, given commands and responsibilities, he leaves them to do what he says, and eventually, he comes to visit them in the Person of Christ Jesus to evaluate their work, dispensing rewards and punishments.

Jesus says that this is the pattern that he will continue to follow with his church. Jesus creates the church through his death, resurrection, ascension (the time he receives the kingdom; cf. Dan 7.9-14), and the pouring out of his Spirit at Pentecost. He gives gifts to the church through the Spirit. While he is gone, seated at the right hand of the Father, he expects the church to “make a profit,” investing the gifts he has given to see them multiply. What started with small gifts in the first century must be multiplied until all of the nations are discipled. (Mt 28.19) Jesus will come back when the time for this mission is completed, and each of us will stand before the judgment seat of Christ to give an account of the deeds done in our body, whether good or evil. (2Cor 5.10) Each of us will give an account for the stewardship Jesus entrusted to him/her.

This is typified every week in our worship-work pattern. On the Day of the Lord, the Lord’s Day, we gather in the presence of our King to be re-created through worship, instructed, and supplied with what we need to go out and do the work we have been called to do. As images of God, we are to go out and be productive, taking what the Lord has given us and making more out of it. But the Lord’s Day is also a day of judgment, an evaluation of the work we have done the past week; works that we are presenting to him through tithes and offerings, which include the bread and wine of the Supper. Jesus evaluates our works dispensing praise as well as rebuke.

These weekly patterns are microcosms of history, reminding us that we have responsibilities to be faithful stewards of what our Lord has put in our hands. One day these weekly judgments will give way to the final judgment. Our desire should be to hear on that day, “Well done, good and faithful servant!” 

Read more

On September 27, 2020 By In Discipleship, Theology

Little Man. Big Desire

The scene is quite comical. A wee-little man, the scoundrelous scoundrel in the region, goes as fast as his little legs will take him to climb a tree to see Jesus. This is no small thing (sorry for the pun). This little man was, well, a man, and a very wealthy man at that. He was well-known in a notorious sort of way. No one outside of his ne’er-do-well friends liked him because he was the chief tax collector who stole from them. While he was a small tyke, he had the power of the Roman army behind him to collect as much tax money as he wanted. (He may have been able to make you wear a mask while you paid your taxes if he had so desired.) Yes, Zacchaeus was a wee-little man, but he was a powerful, well-known man, and men, especially those of his societal position, did not go running after people or climbing trees in that day.

And that’s the point. Men didn’t do these things but children did. Woven throughout the story at the beginning of Luke 19 are these hints that Zacchaeus, this powerful, prominent man, is childlike. He has dignity and wealth, position and power in society, but he pursues Jesus like a child. We know from what Jesus said earlier to his disciples that if anyone will enter the kingdom, he must become like a child. He must realize that he is completely dependent upon Jesus as his Savior, willing to count his power and possessions as nothing that can save him. Zacchaeus seeks Jesus with childlike faith and because of that, Jesus grants him entrance into the kingdom.

(more…)

Read more

On September 22, 2020 By In Theology

Are you fun at parties?

I have a principle that I apply to people on social media. It’s the “are-you-fun-at-party” principle.” Social media brings the best and worst out of people, with “worst” currently winning the “best” by a 74% margin. It seems these days, the social cue is to go as bombastic as possible on everyone, especially those who are nearest to you in the theological scale.

The end-result of such antagonism MUST play a role in how one lives their personal lives. When someone responds to a post about the weather with “Because you hate Trump” I often have that subtle pastoral feeling that his wife or his kids are under some kind of manipulative environment walking on egg shells. When I read yuppy-millennials or thunder puppies act as if grandpa George has nothing to say or that his history is unimportant in any discourse because after all, “I speak the truth as I see it,” I immediately begin to fear for this individual’s closest family members. Not that anything cruel is taking place, but that the fingers that strike the keyboard are also the lips that speak to kids.

Yes, we may play the bifurcated role of introvert in public and extrovert and intellectual murderer of liberals on-line, but eventually, these things are revealed in a harmonious fashion. Eventually, the guy who stays up into the late hours fussing over the legitimacy of QAnon is the guy who has few acquaintances and whose acquaintances quietly whisper to one another at a party, “There he comes, don’t bring up anything political.”

The goal is for you to become the person on-line that you are in public. If your goal is to rally your Twitter gang into a frenzy at the first smell of political blood, know that these same gang members often make terrible friends and really bad cooks. They will stay with you only to a point and at the point where they think you are not going far enough, they will drop you with haste.

Be respectful? Yes! But be generous in mercy towards your on-line associates for your presentation on-line says a whole lot about who you are. I have no right to dictate how you write and to whom you write, but I do have a right to dictate whether you’d be fun at my party. And I like my parties filled with mercy, parody, and good discussions; all in a spirit of joviality and good manners.

Read more

On September 20, 2020 By In Counseling/Piety, Discipleship, Theology, Wisdom

I Once Was Blind…

“How many times do I have to tell you?” A question either thought or verbalized by parents, teachers, mentors, bosses, and pastors alike. Sometimes, no matter how many times we’ve heard something, we just don’t get it. We can’t see it. We don’t understand. If we are genuinely showing effort, our instructors will ordinarily be patient with us and go over the same material until we can see it.

Jesus has been teaching the twelve for a while. As Luke records it, Jesus has told the twelve on two occasions in plain language that he must go to Jerusalem to suffer, die, and rise again the third day (Lk 9.21-22, 43-45). Now he is telling them a third time, and, as with the previous two, they don’t get it. They can’t understand what he is saying (Lk 18.34).

(more…)

Read more

On September 15, 2020 By In Family and Children, Theology

The Heaven of Hospitality, Part 3

Introduction, Part 1, Part 2

Bonhoeffer spoke of three tables: a) the daily fellowship at the table b) the table of the Lord’s Supper, and c) the final table fellowship at the Last Day. We can say that for Bonhoeffer our daily meals are preparatory for future meals. After all, hospitality is eschatological. There is nothing more fitting for a table of kings and queens than to practice the habits of the eternal kingdom of our Lord.

One begins to see this eschatology in place when the very people you hosted in your home forms their own households and begin to share in that treasure of untold stories and laughter. Remember that your children are watching and they are likely going to imitate your patterns later in life. It happens, but very rarely have I seen inhospitable parents produce hospitable sons. The stories your offspring will tell will be of dreadful loneliness at home growing up or of experiences of joy around a table. Again, it is very rare that an inhospitable family rejoices around a table as a matter of practice. Rather, the hospitality of others produces the joy around the table when there is no one to host.

We can begin somewhere to explore the pleasures of hosting when we see it as a seed planted in the eternal garden of praise. To have someone enter your home and partake of your gifts of food is to allow someone to enter into the place of deepest secrets; we are allowing them to see the transparency of unkept yards, rogue Lego pieces, partly uncooked or overcooked meals, rambunctious children, and the regular messiness of life.

Yes, you should probably do some cleaning, but you should restrain from excessive cleaning lest you treat it as a mechanical showcasing of your home. As one sage puts it, “Your home should look like someone lives in it!” In order to do that, leave open invitations for the single and the widows to come by for a lentil soup or a Sam’s bought pizza on a typical weekday. Then, there will be only time to remove the occasional kids’ clothes lying on the couch.

If hospitality is eschatological, then every experience in hosting is a theological act. If hosting is eschatological, then every piece of pie served, every glass of wine, the spilled peas, the summer watermelon and the awkward pauses around a table is an act of grace. To be hospitable is to embrace heaven in an elaborate party or in a dinner of herbs.

Read more

On September 13, 2020 By In Discipleship, Theology

Threading Needles With Camels

The disciples were terrified. Jesus had just discouraged and depressed a rich man with his demands for entrance into the kingdom, and now he is telling his disciples how difficult it is for the rich to enter into heaven.

Here is this rich man in Luke 18.18-31, a faithful Israelite who is obviously blessed by God. He desires to be a part of this kingdom that Jesus is announcing because he believes that this is the inheritance long-promised to his fathers, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David. He asks Jesus how he might inherit the life of this promised age. Jesus tells him, in sum, that he must be faithful to the covenant. This faithfulness to the covenant involves adopting God’s way of life embodied in the commandments such as, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not bear false witness,” and “Honor your father and mother.” This man, with all sincerity, tells Jesus that he has kept these from his youth.

(more…)

Read more

On September 6, 2020 By In Discipleship, Family and Children, Theology, Worship

Jesus Loves The Little Children

As parents, we sometimes wonder if it is all worth it. We are tired from the week of work and all the activities in which we have engaged ourselves and our children. Getting ready for worship on Sunday and actually going is a hassle. We don’t want to feel that way, but if we are honest with ourselves, we do. Not only do we have to get ourselves ready, but we also have to get our children ready. Then, when we get them there, all they want to do is squirm, color, cry, and go to the bathroom; and those are just the teenagers! We’re not “getting anything out of it” and, apparently, our children aren’t “getting anything out of it.” Do they even pay attention? Do they understand what is going on? Have they thought about what a blessing it is to be in the presence of God? Apparently not. They don’t seem to be thinking about this at all.  All of this can be a bit overwhelming and discouraging at times, especially when you are worn out. Why bother?

“Why bother?” is a good question. Jesus’ band of disciples didn’t think it was all that important to have children in the presence of Jesus. Luke doesn’t tell us specifically in chapter 18 why the disciples rebuked the parents and tried to keep the children from coming into Jesus presence, but from the evidence gathered throughout the Gospel, we are on pretty solid ground to understand that they didn’t think that the children were important enough to be that close to the King. They’re not great warriors. They’re not intellectual giants. They’re not even potty-trained! They can’t possibly be useful because they are whining and crying as their parents are bringing them to be touched by the Messiah. Who has time for that? We need to make better use of our time and the King’s time. Jesus wasn’t pleased. He thought it was important that they are touched by him, so his disciples better start thinking that it is important that these children be touched by him.

(more…)

Read more

On August 30, 2020 By In Discipleship, Theology

Vindicated!

In the parables of the persistent widow and the Pharisee and tax collector in Luke 18, there is a common desire for justification. The widow desires justice. She has an adversary who is oppressing her, and she desires that this unjust judge set things right by declaring her to be in the right, her adversary to be in the wrong, and granting her what she is asking for.

The Pharisee and tax collector both go to appear before God’s throne, the judgment seat, at the temple. Each is calling upon God to render a judgment of vindication or justification. The Pharisee believes that judgment should be rendered based on his good works apart from the mercy of God. The tax collector desires God to rule in his favor based upon the provision of merciful propitiation. Both desire to be declared to be in the right, to be justified. Only the tax collector is, but Jesus’ words infer that this is the aim of the Pharisee as well.

(more…)

Read more