One of the clearest biblical themes is that of death and resurrection. Virtually every single biblical story includes these motifs. Whether these moments are actual terminations of human life or whether these are endings of human seasons, these themes pervade the biblical narrative. God loves to kill and make alive. He loves to judge and restore. He loves to see day one end to bring about day two.
However we parse this time of global existence, we can conclude with utmost certainty that God is ending and starting new things. We may read of deaths near us, but God is still working loudly in the silence of our existential dilemmas. God does not hide in times of chaos, but he shows himself even more clearly. In fact, in such times he gives of himself so that we may receive more of him daily. Lamentations says that his mercies are new each morning, which means that God constantly makes things alive that was perhaps dead the night before.
Consider even now how God is transforming the dynamics of life. Things we once took for granted are now things cherished. When common biblical sense prevails over dangerous habits, God is making something new. We are becoming more attuned to what matters most. This re-prioritization is a newness in our lives. We are finding out that certain things we once idolized were psychological icons that needed to be put down. God gives and takes away and he takes away and then gives. He is the God of death and resurrection.
At the beginning of time, when darkness and void prevailed, God brought light. In fact, his first creational act was to illumine, resurrect the world with his light. So too, human formation in times of uncertainty brings to the forefront our creation projects whether good or ill. We are often content in keeping our lives dark and void; to hide our prejudices and proclivities; to avoid the resurrection light of Yahweh. But God is an ever-present help shining our way and challenging our deaths by providing glimpses of resurrection.
The Coronavirus may be with us for some time. If we use this time to refill our sin prescriptions or to bask in the darkness and void, we will never know Easter joy. We will never know the goodness of God’s resurrection project for our lives. But if we see that every new phase of history–however small–are opportunities to experience death and resurrection, then we are entering into that blessed project. And to whom much is killed, much is resurrected.
Another week begins, and the topic is universally the
same in coffee shops (if you still frequent those), the workplace and worship
spaces. The #Coronavirusis trending more frequently than your
favorite five celebrities put together. Our culture has exchanged TMZ stories
for the primacy of the geeks who once made their living in the privacy of their
laboratory. These are now our modern-day celebrities. It’s safe to say the
experts surrounding this topic will probably consume the news cycle for the
foreseeable future.
Since this is the general trend, Christians must ask,
“How now shall we live?” Recently, I encouraged pastors to preach the Word on
the Lord’s Day without allowing the trends to dictate the church’s agenda. The
Church should be the last place where people come to educate themselves about
any virus or plague. The church should be that one place where we immunize
ourselves against such cultural ubiquity. What the church must provide in this
time is a heavenly normalcy that affords Christians a glimpse into the holy as
they experience the unholy of disease and death in the world.
Whatever the future holds, and I forbid myself from
acting like a prophetic epidemiologist, we know that the future belongs to
Jesus. After all, he has lived and reigned over every imaginable pestilence and
plague throughout history. He was Lord then and is Lord now. Christians often
forget that reality in times of crisis. It is a real danger. There is no more
excellent opportunity to flex our monergistic muscles than a scenario where we
envision ourselves as experts and when we can quietly act as lords over human
despair.
Of course, it is right and prudent to take measures,
but it is even more crucial to take good and necessary measures towards our
daily actions and reactions; to honestly examine ourselves in Lenten fashion to
see if we are living as Christ would have us in our day. One inevitable
temptation is the predicament of tomorrow. The anxious person will worry about
everything until he gets one thing right. He will worry about a thousand
things, and when that worry is finally validated, he will use that event to
justify his fears about the next thousand things. It’s an unhappy cycle. If the
things of today are sufficient (Mat. 6), then there are sufficient things to
occupy our faith today. In sum, opportunities abound in living out our faith in
times of peril. Our habits and rituals can be changed; our view of the world
and others can change, and we can discover in such a time of transition that
our priorities have been wrong for a long time.
In many ways, we lived exilically before any of this
came into being. But back then, there was no all-consuming Corona-Virus news;
there was just the mundane. Back then, many of us lived flippantly and
apathetic toward our Christian rituals. Times of peace more often than not
provide rationales for complacency. Thus, in times of uncertainty, we must remember
that usually, the best period for the church to sharpen and hone her worship
skills and practices is now. Biblical history bears this out. We can think of
Israel’s wilderness wandering as a time of exile. Israel had left Egypt and was
preparing to enter the Promised Land. But what was Israel doing for those 40
years? She didn’t have any real cultural influence since she had no homeland.
She was just a nomadic community moving through the wilderness without the
certainty of tomorrow. Still, faithful Israelites carried the tabernacle with
them through the desert so that corporate worship became their constant focus.
While we may not know what tomorrow brings, we do know who controls time and space and viruses. For the Christian, this is truly an opportunity for communities to find refuge in one true city. Whether we are worshipping together or in limited numbers in seven days, God’s gift of worship is ours. Whether in exile, free from alarm, or in between the times, worship is always ultimate. So, let the Christian see that the only worthy trend in this world is not the #Coronavirus but the worship of the Triune God.
It was a typical morning for my tribe. When I returned from the gym, it was still early. But my boys are ready to take on the day with zeal. We went for a walk around our peaceful neighborhood. The young warriors carried their sticks as a precautionary measure against wild creatures. As we leisurely strolled, we began singing through the Lord’s Prayer. “Deliver us from evil…” we roared. It’s a piece we sing every Lord’s Day and often at the dinner table, but this morning it took on a special significance.
Which Evil?
In our day, the natural evil in our minds is the Covid-19 with its aggressive demeanor towards the elderly and sometimes its fatal blow towards unexpected recipients. It’s all over ESPN at the gym, and it’s the featured article in any major newspaper. Its ubiquitous nature is obnoxious but expected. We live in an interconnected state of the human era. We may debate the hype or the unorthodox enthusiasm of the media, but the reality is we do not know what next week will look like for any community.
But is that truly the only evil of our day we sang
against this morning in our casual adventure? I believe there is something more
subtle than what this pandemic brings. It may take different shapes, but its
root is the oft obligatory “social distancing” experts are encouraging. That’s
a significant threat in this Corona Virus age. In the 14th century,
there was a plague outbreak in Florence, Italy. Renaissance author Giovanni Boccaccio noted:
Florentines “dropped dead in open streets, both by day and by night, whilst a great many others, though dying in their own houses, drew their neighbours’ attention to the fact more by the smell of their rotting corpses.”a
We can safely say it was a deeper plague than anything we are currently experiencing and probably will experience. But the results of such destructive forces led to another epidemic, the one of isolation. Boccaccio goes on to argue for the importance of preserving social forces and traditions even when the higher forces wish to de-activate our social practices, or we might say, those things which make us human.
Social Distancing vs. Scriptural Sociology
At this moment, people of all evangelical persuasions
are likely downplaying the self-quarantine incentive viewing it as a necessary
step towards the eradication of this virus and self-preservation. There is a
clear sense that in times of societal upheaval, we must do whatever it takes.
But this shouldn’t close our eyes to the consequences of isolating ourselves
from one another and our communities.
Should this pandemic force us into these isolated
environments, we need to be thoughtful about this new sociological phase of
history. The Scriptures are unwavering about the necessity of community and
social gatherings. Social distancing is the antithesis of the Scriptural
imperative. Even if necessary, we should grieve over it. Some appear to praise
social distancing as a noble gesture in an enlightened culture. Church
cancellations, colleges moving to on-line venues, sports events, and concerts
are now entering into unchartered territory with indefinite postponements.
Again, all good and necessary, but have we counted the cost of such actions?
God is not mentioned in the book of Esther. What does that mean? Why does a book of the Bible not mention God? While this can seem mysterious, the reality is that God is not absent in the story at all. He is all over it. In fact, the better way to describe it is that He is the main character. While there are lots of people acting in the story, no one character in the story is moving the story forward. Through the events of the story, we see that God is the one who is making everything happen. In this way, each character in the story is really more of a side character upstaged by God performing his sovereign plan.
God’s Plan
God’s sovereign design is emphasized at the beginning with Vashti refusing to obey the king’s request at his feast. If Vashti had not done this, then the rest of the story would not have happened. While Vashti was acting on her own account, God removed Vashti in order to make way for Esther.
When looking at Esther’s rise, we see that she did not choose to be queen. God put her there. And this position was not particularly nice. She was chosen by the king as an object to gratify his desires. But Esther did not remain passive in this event, rather she attempts to gain the king’s favor by following the advice of Hegai about what to take in with her to the king. But even this highlights that her role of queen was not her choice but one that was given to her. Which is to say, God turned the heart of the king to make her queen.
We see God’s sovereignty in Mordecai also. The story notes that he was from the tribe of Benjamin. This reference highlights and draws us back to other stories about Benjamin. One important story in Israel’s history is the story of King Saul who is also from the tribe of Benjamin. The story of Esther notes that Haman is an Agagite. While Haman may or may not be a direct descendant of King Agag whom King Saul fails to kill, the story of Esther does suggest that this story is at least an echo of that earlier story. God is at work telling a similar story through Mordecai. While Mordecai is a kind of Saul, called to defeat the wicked Haman, he actually does very little to bring this about. Mordecai angers Haman and that is about all he does. The real cause of Haman’s downfall is designed by God who is orchestrating the events.
Christians should know how to keep Sabbath. I am not saying this the way that some in our culture would say it. Some people say we need more rest because we are too busy, living crazy, distracted lives. These people suggest we need to do some yoga and find our inner guru stillness. That is not what I am talking about. I am suggesting that we are not doing enough with Sabbath. What we really need is to Sabbath harder. By that, I mean we need to have a better understanding and vision for Sabbath. This means we have more to do, not less.
In the fourth commandment, God commands his people to rest. He says work on six days and then rest on the seventh. This is a command. This is not an option. While it might seem like a command will dampen our joy, the reality is that obedience brings great joy and peace. This command is a wonderful gift so that we have one day out of seven to rest. This Sabbath rest is a gift to us because we are reminded what our rest should be founded on. It should be founded on something that God has done, not something we have done.
In Deuteronomy 5, it says that the Sabbath day is a memorial for what God has done for his people: once they were slaves in Egypt and God brought them out with his mighty hand. God has done this great work and so the people need to rest. In the new covenant, we celebrate and remember God’s work on Sunday, the first day of the week, the day Jesus rose from the dead. Our Sabbath rest is on the first day of the week because our lives are oriented around the Gospel. God has done a great work for us and we are to reflect and remember and celebrate that work. This is something American Christians need to do more.
Eric Liddell and Sabbath
The story of Eric Liddell is a wonderful lesson of how to Sabbath harder. In 1924, Eric was a runner who was going to compete in the 100m event at the Olympics in Paris. However, that year the 100m event was held on a Sunday. So Eric switched events, changing over to the 400m event. Eric refused to run on Sunday because he knew that was against God’s law. He honored God above men. Eric knew of the schedule issue ahead of time so he was able to train for a different event but this new event was still a huge challenge for him. It is crucial to see that while Eric honored God and kept Sabbath, this did not mean that Eric sat back and was passive about it all. Actually, he jumped in and worked harder. He trained for the 400m and he won that race.
The famous movie Chariots of Fire records the story well. The character Eric in the movie talks with his sister about being a missionary in China. He explains that he will be a missionary but that God also made him to be a runner. He says the great lines, “I believe God made me for a purpose, but he also made me fast. And when I run I feel His pleasure.” In this way, we see that Eric was not a snooty sabbatarian; he truly wanted to enjoy the good gifts of God in his life. He knew that God had called him to be fast and he wanted to use that gift to honor God.
After he won the 400m, Eric explained how he had won: “The secret of my success over the 400m is that I run the first 200m as fast as I can. Then, for the second 200m, with God’s help, I run faster.”
In this quote, Liddell is not saying that he ran 50% and then God added another 50%. Rather, the whole thing was a gift of God. By God’s grace, Liddell ran the whole thing.
That is the correct vision for Sabbath rest: we need it because that is where we are reminded that we cannot do what is required. We must run and strain for the goal but we cannot get there in our own efforts. We must look to God for our strength in order to run. Paul in Romans 9:16 says it this way: “So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.”
Sabbath as Surrender
Later in his life, Liddell went to China to be a missionary. He followed God’s calling on his life and he worked and served there for several years. He eventually gave his life there dying in 1945 in an internment camp. His last words are recorded to be: “It’s complete surrender.”
Liddell’s last words summarize the Christian life: it is surrendering everything to God. But this surrender does not mean that we remain still and passive and don’t have anything to do. Rather, It is a complete surrender to God’s will for our lives and so this means that we work harder and longer than we ever thought possible. But this comes from God’s strength, not from us.
There are two errors in how we approach Sabbath rest. One error is to think that rest means inaction: I just sit here and do nothing. Some might erroneously encourage us to a still quietness as if our problem is that we are too busy in life. But busyness is not the problem for Christians. The reverse is more often the case: we are too lazy. So Sabbath is not about finding an inner peace or quiet. True Sabbath rest is about action.
The other error is to think that I must do everything. God might save me, but I am the one who has to run the race. So I get out my running shoes and I run. I grit my teeth and I try to run harder and faster: as if God will be more pleased with me, if I can just do more things faster. But this is wrong too. My job is not to do what I think; my job is to do what God says to do.
This means that I must obey God all the way, every day. I must obey the command to glorify God but the reality is that this command is an impossible task for me. So it is only by God’s grace that I can fulfill the task before me.
The answer then is complete surrender. We must give it all up to God. In God’s command to rest on the Sabbath, he is not saying that the other six days are ours to do with as we please. All our days belong to God. He has claimed them all. There is nothing left over for us. In turning to God, we must surrender it all to him. Then God in his grace gives us back six days to serve and obey him.
Sabbath as Launch
In this discussion, it is important to emphasize God’s grace to us. It is all grace. I am not saying that we must do our part and then God adds his part. The truth is that all of it comes from him. God gives us the task to run and we must run our best. And we run only by God’s grace. And then God takes us even farther than we thought possible. And that is by God’s grace also. When it is all done and we reach the end, we will see that we had run because we had surrendered it all to God. He will get the glory because we were merely obeying what he had told us to do.
In Luke 17, Jesus says it this way, “Does [the master] thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I think not. So likewise you, when you have done all those things which you are commanded, say, ‘We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do.’” At the end, when we have run our hardest and in God’s strength we have gone even farther than we thought possible, we will say like Liddell, I didn’t do it. I just surrendered it all to God. I don’t deserve any praise. I was just doing what I was commanded to do.
In this way, we see that the Sabbath is not about us having a chance to rest or for us to get a chance to take a nap, although those things are good gifts from God. The true vision of Sabbath rest is that life is like a pole vault competition. The pole must be placed in a stationary spot, a spot that doesn’t move. This is not to keep the pole from moving, but because the pole is supposed to move. The stationary spot is the point from which something larger can be launched. Sabbath is like that spot for the pole. We set it there in God and in his great work of deliverance, and then He launches us farther than we ever thought possible.
Recently, I had the pleasure of reading a section of Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae. In this particular passage, Aquinas takes up the task of explaining why it was fitting for God to have made Eve out of one of Adam’s rib.
Now, to tell the truth, I wasn’t completely sold on how
Aquinas defended his position. That’s
not to say I disagreed with his conclusion; rather, I just didn’t think the
specific arguments he lines up to support that conclusion do the job. However, I thoroughly enjoy Aquinas’ style of
writing – usually referred to as a Medieval Scholastic disputatio[1]. So I thought it would be fun to try and
improve on Aquinas’ arguments while doing so in a “Thomas-like” voice and
style.
What is featured below is only my re-write of Aquinas’ respondeo section. I encourage you to read both the starting
objections as well as Aquinas’ original answers here.
On
the contrary, It is written: “And the rib
that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her
to the man”[2] and “Then the man
said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she
shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man'”[3].
I answer that, it was right
that woman was made out of Adam’s rib. Adam was the Alpha to Eve’s
Omega. He was the forming to Eve’s filling out of creation. It is
appropriate that Adam (as structure) gave his “bones” to Eve.
The first will be glorified by the last. Just like the tabernacle gave
the rudimentary form to God’s dwelling place, the temple then took that form
and expanded it to greater proportions and greater glory. The temple in
no way shamed the tabernacle for being more glorious, but rather shined glory
back at it, just as Solomon shined glory back to his father David, and (even
more related to this topic) just as the wife glorifies the husband.
Reply to
Objection 1. There are not only two ways for a
large thing to come from a small thing. For God created the heavens and
the earth out of nothing[4],
which would neither be addition nor rarefaction of pre-existing matter.
Therefore, God could have created a woman from a small rib. It is in the
glory and the pattern of God to make things which were not, just as He made
righteous sons out of those who were worthless rebels without an ounce of
righteousness of their own.
Reply to
Objection 2. First, it is not strictly true that
a rib could not be removed without pain. Anesthetics can take away the
pain. These anesthetics act much like a deep sleep, and so the deep sleep
that God puts Adam into might have been pointing to a similar effect.
Second, even if it is admitted that Adam felt pain when God took a rib from his side, it is not true to say that there was no pain before sin. Scripture only says that death came through sin[5], and we wrongly jump to the hasty conclusion that there was therefore no pain. We also take the passage saying “To the woman he said, ‘I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain, you shall bring forth children'” to mean that God introduced pain here. But this passage, by its wording, seems to imply the opposite – i.e. that pain increased rather than appeared for the first time, for it says that Eve’s pain will “multiply”. In order for pain to multiply, there would have to be pain there in the first place.
God is a
conversationalist. He speaks. He has always been speaking. Speaking is so much
a part of who God is that the second Person of the Trinity is called “the
Word” (Jn 1.1, 14). The Father is the Speaker, the Son is the Word, and
the Spirit is the Breath that carries the Word of the Father. God speaks within
the Trinitarian family eternally.
The
conversation of God was so full of love and life that, by it, he created the
heavens and the earth to join in. The apex of God’s creation was his own image:
man. To be the image of God means many things, but one of the primary meanings
is that man is a conversationalist. Man is made to speak.
The story of the Good Samaritan is well-known in our culture, not just among Christians, but by everyone. We have Good Samaritan laws that protect those who help people in distress from being sued if the rescue doesn’t go well. Presidents and other politicians have referred to the story of the Good Samaritan in their speeches to encourage certain policies. Back in 2018, Nancy Pelosi recited the entire story in her eight-hour speech on the floor of Congress to promote “The Dream Act.” (https://www.christianpost.com/news/nancy-pelosi-recites-the-good-samaritan-parable-praises-evangelical-leaders-in-8-hour-speech-216989/) There is a Christian mercy ministry run by Franklin Graham called “Samaritan’s Purse.” Christians have a health insurance replacement called “Samaritan Ministries.” The story of the Good Samaritan is well-known, well-loved, and well-used.
When a story like this becomes such a common cultural fixture, it becomes easy to assume we understand the story. Our American culture has taken the story, for the most part, in a very simplistic way, reading it as if it were one of Aesop’s Fables: a story that promotes a moral. In this case, the moral is “Do good for hurting people.” This, of course, is true as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go nearly far enough. There is quite a bit more to the story.
Francis August Schaeffer died twice. He died once May 15, 1984 at the age of 73. But he had died once before that, back in 1930. He was a senior in high school and he had just read through the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation. At that time, he was an agnostic and was thinking about throwing out the Bible permanently. But after he read through the Bible, he was struck by the truth of the Scriptures and his life was never the same. The day he submitted his life to the Truth, he died.
That first death shaped everything for Francis. His college career bent quickly toward ministry, specifically pastoral work. Even when his parents insisted on a more practical career, Francis knew that God had called him to ministry. Francis threw himself into studies and his work. He sought out those in need and ministered to them. One of his tactics was to catch up with students who had been drinking Saturday evening and help them get home and as part of his help, he got them to agree to come to church with him the next day. This would become a signature part of his ministry: befriend the needy who are close at hand.
Francis studied at Hampden-Sydney college and then later he went to Westminster Theological Seminary. He met his wife, Edith, when they both attended a talk given by a Unitarian who was arguing that “Jesus is not the Son of God”. Francis stood up and argued against the speaker’s erroneous position. Edith also stood up, agreeing with Francis. She quoted Dr. Gresham Machen in her response (Francis Schaeffer, by Colin Duriez, p. 30-31). This intrigued Francis. They met up later and began a friendship. The work of publicly defending the Christian faith defined their lives together. This was the beginning of many opportunities for both of them to work together and defend the truth.
When Francis was done with seminary work, he went on to pastor a few churches. One in Grove City PA, another in Chester PA, and then a third in St. Louis. During this time, he and Edith worked on ministry to young people. They created a Summer Bible School to minister to children which eventually developed into Children for Christ (p 59). Because of this work, the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions in 1947 asked Francis to tour Europe for three months and make a detailed report on thirteen countries. This was his first work in France and Switzerland. Francis and Edith were then asked by the Board to be missionaries in Europe. They were commissioned to work with the World Council of Churches. It was in Amsterdam where Francis first met Hans Rookmaker and an enduring friendship formed that lasted throughout their lives. One evening, Hans met up with Francis and they began talking about Jazz music, which Hans was very interested in. This sparked an extensive conversation and, as Edith reported, they spent the night wandering the streets, discussing Christianity and culture (p 77).
In the early 1950s, Francis went through something of a spiritual crisis which caused him to re-examine all of his beliefs about Christianity. He proceeded to work through these things in great detail over the next few months. Through this struggle, he became more thoroughly convinced of the truth of Christianity and how it answered what he called “the problem of reality.” His later book True Spirituality contains much of the ideas and philosophical problems that he wrestled with during that time. Through this spiritual struggle new fruit developed and Francis renewed his ministry to people in Europe and the seeds for L’Abri were planted.
At this time, he was ministering to people in Switzerland, but because of his work in a region that was heavily Roman Catholic he was asked to leave because he was proselytizing. They were kicked out Feb 14, 1955 (p 127). Even though they were forced out of one portion of Switzerland, they were granted permission to go to another part. He resigned from the missionary board in June of that same year and he and Edith decided to go to the tiny village of Huemoz and purchase Chalet les Melezes. They needed a down payment of one thousand dollars in order to make the purchase and they received a letter in the mail with that exact amount (p 131).
The work of L’Abri began and guests began to visit. Many of the first visitors were friends of the Schaeffer children who were now in high school and college. This work blossomed into more and more people coming. The ministry of the home was to invite all people who were interested in questions about reality and Francis would dialogue with anyone. This work brought many people from all around.
The work became so famous that a journalist from Time magazine made a visit in November 30, 1959. January 11, 1960 the article was published entitled “Mission to Intellectuals” (p 150). The ministry expanded into a tape ministry and a book ministry and eventually included two movies: How Should We Then live? and Whatever Happened to the Human Race? The book How Should We Then Live? is still an important read, forty years later. Other works include Escape from Reason and The God Who Is There.
Later at the end of his life, when someone asked Francis what the reason is for being a Christian, he responded by saying, “There’s one reason and only one reason to be a Christian, which is that you’re convinced it is the truth of the universe” (p 109). In 1978, he found out that he had cancer. Treatment for it was able to push it into remission and he continued his work for another six years.
His daughter records that at the end of his life, when Francis was on his deathbed, she visited with him. She says that he was going in and out of consciousness and “there were several occasions when he was much more lucid, and once I said, “Is it true?”–what a thing to say to a dying person–and he said, “It is absolutely true, absolutely sure” (p 204).
That scene captures the ministry of Schaeffer: a dying man who takes the time to answer the questions of another. And that question is the one that Schaeffer knew to be the most important one.
After his resurrection, Jesus gathered his disciples on a mountain and told them that all authority in heaven and on earth had been given to him. (Matt 28.18) Jesus was given rule over the nations.
It wasn’t always this way. Certainly, God is and has always been sovereign overall, but that is not the authority that Jesus is talking about. He is talking about the authority of a man to rule over creation. A man has never had this authority. To have man to rule and shape the culture of creation into the image of heaven was always God’s intention. God himself stated this intention to the man and woman at their creation (Gen 1.28). Heaven, God’s throne, would be God’s place of dominion, but he gave the earth to the sons of Adam (Ps 115.16). However, because of sin, man yielded his authority and future exaltation to greater authority to another being.
Here is the story of how the man, Jesus, became king.
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
