My Christian life began as a Baptist. I grew up Baptist and went to a Baptist college. Graduated with an MDiv from a Baptist seminary, served as a Baptist youth and music minister, and finally as a Baptist pastor. That was quite a chunk of my life. While children are important to Baptists, baptistic theology views children as “outsiders” until they come to their crisis conversion experience … which probably happens from 6-8 and then again, maybe several times after puberty (because they realize that they weren’t “really” saved when they were younger). Children are to be evangelized in the most basic sense; you know, like we would do the man on the street. So, we have classes and even children’s church aimed at getting them to “ask Jesus into their hearts.”
Baptistic theology doesn’t incorporate children in the way that Reformed theology does. That’s not a slam on my Baptist brothers. It is just a fact.
The Church celebrates the Ascension of our Lord today. Since most churches are not able to have Thursday services, traditionally, many of them celebrate Ascension on Sunday. But in our day, the Ascension of Jesus is barely mentioned in the evangelical vocabulary. We make room for his birth, death, and resurrection, but we tend to put a period where God puts a comma.
If the resurrection was the beginning of Jesus’ enthronement, then the ascension is the establishment of his enthronement. The Ascension activates Christ’s victory in history. The Great Commission is only relevant because of the Ascension. Without the Ascension, the call to baptize and disciple the nations would be meaningless. It is on the basis of Jesus’ enthronement at the right-hand of the Father that we image-bearers can de-throne rulers through the power and authority of our Great Ruler, Jesus Christ.
The Ascension then is a joyful event, because it is the genesis of the Church’s triumph over the world. Further, it defines us as a people of glory and power, not of weakness and shame. As Jesus is ascended, we too enter into his ascension glory (Col. 3:1) This glory exhorts us to embrace full joy. As Alexander Schmemann once wrote:
“The Church was victorious over the world through joy…and she will lose the world when she loses its joy… Of all accusations against Christians, the most terrible one was uttered by Nietzsche when he said that Christians had no joy.”
A joy-less Christian faith is a faith that has not ascended. Where Christ is we are. And we know that Jesus is at the right hand of the Father. He is ruling and reigning from his heavenly throne. The Father has given him the kingdom (Psalm 2), and now he is preserving, progressing, and perfecting his kingdom. He is bringing all things under subjection (I Cor. 15:24-26).
We know that when he was raised from the dead, Jesus was raised bodily. But Gnostic thinking would have us assume that since Jesus is in heaven he longer needs a physical body. But the same Father who raised Jesus physically, also has his Son sitting beside him in a physical body. As one author observed:
“Jesus has gone before us in a way we may follow through the Holy Spirit whom he has sent, because the way is in his flesh, in his humanity.”
Our Lord is in his incarnation body at the right hand of the Father. This has all sorts of implications for us in worship. We are worshipping a God/Man; one who descended in human flesh and who ascended in human flesh. He is not a disembodied spirit. He is truly God and truly man.
As we consider and celebrate the Ascension of our blessed Lord, remember that you are worshiping the One who understands your needs because he has a body just like you and he rejoices with you because he has a body just like you.
Hidden in the smoke that ascended from the altar that sat in the forecourt of the Tabernacle and Temple was a prophecy, a shadowy type of what was to come. The worshiper brought his offering to draw near to God. Indeed, the word he heard that we translate as “offering” is more literally “near-bringing.” There were several different types of these offerings or near-bringings, each with its own emphasis on what happens in our relationship with God. One of these near-bringings was called the ascension offering. Translations confuse us because they focus on the action taken upon the offering and not what the offering is doing. You will read “burnt offering,” but the Hebrew word emphasizes ascending or going up; yes, the offering goes up in fire and smoke, but it is going up.
After having drained the blood from the animal, skinned it, cut it into pieces, and washed it, the priest put the pieces that were to be offered on the altar, head first, followed by all of the other parts (see Lev 1). The fire set by God himself was a consuming fire, but it was a friendly fire. The fire turned the offering that represented the worshiper into smoke that passed through the smoke of the incense altar, which is the prayers of the saints (Rev 8.4), and united with the glory cloud of God in the Holy of Holies. The worshiper ascended through the mediation of the holy substitute to draw near to God, to join him in his enthroned rest to enjoy his work.
Jesus’ ascension is the fulfillment of this smoky type. His death and resurrection–his blood shed and his body transformed–were not the end of his work. All of his work was leading to his ascension and enthronement. It is no mere bland historical fact that the disciples see Jesus “lifted up” so that a “cloud” takes him out of their sight as they stare into heaven (Ac 1.9-11). Jesus is the near-bringing, the offering, that draws near to God to sit enthroned with him to enjoy his work. He is seated at the right hand of the Father after his ascension, reigning until he has put all enemies under his feet, the last of which is death, which he will conquer at our resurrection (Mk 16.19; Ac 2.34-36; Heb 12.2; 1Cor 15.20-28).
United to Christ Jesus, our substitute, we join him in his ascension, seated with Christ Jesus in heavenly places, reigning with him until our common enemies are put under our feet (Eph 1.20-22; 2.6; see also Rom 16.20). Each Lord’s Day renews this covenant, assuring us of our present and future glory. In the Spirit, we ascend into heaven, incorporated into God’s glory cloud in praise to rule with him.
San Francisco’s Catholic Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone has barred House Speaker Nancy Pelosi from receiving the Lord’s Supper. Pelosi is an Italian-American who comes from a notable political family with long ties to the Democratic Party. Her father Thomas d’Alesandro, Jr., had served in the US House of Representatives (1939-1947) and as mayor of Baltimore (1947-1959), the latter office subsequently occupied by Pelosi’s brother Thomas d’Alesandro III (1967-1971). As a Roman Catholic, Pelosi is in principle subject to the teachings of her church, as reflected in at least some of her political stances. With respect to climate change, she attributes her own position to her faith tradition: “For me, it’s a religious thing: I believe this is God’s creation, and we have a moral obligation to be good stewards.”
However, on abortion she is at variance with her church’s teachings. According to section 2271 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church,
You may have seen the absolutely horrific report on sexual sin and sexual abuse in the Southern Baptist Convention that was released earlier this week. The report is the fruit of an extended independent investigation into claims made against various Southern Baptist leadership and congregations. I have not looked into the report in any detail but it is an absolute travesty. The report documents cases of adultery, fornication, and child molestation. In some cases, offenders were able to move from church to church, multiplying their victims. Those who tried to sound the alarm were silenced. Far too many in the Southern Baptists denomination were obviously more concerned with protecting their “brand” than doing what is best for victims. They used their polity (a commitment to the autonomy of each local church) as an excuse for not warning churches about predators hopping from one congregation to the next. Some leading pastors in the Southern Baptist Convention, including former president J. D. Grear, have argued that the Bible only “whispers about sexual sin” — a claim that was incredibly foolish when it was made and now sounds like complicity in the cover up. The entire sordid ordeal is a massive black eye for all Christians, even those of us who are not Southern Baptist.
What makes it even more unfortunate is that we live in a time when there are all kinds of excellent resources available to churches and pastors to aid in detecting and dealing with abuse. There is really no excuse for church leaders to not have well established protocols for addressing abuse claims.
There are many lessons the broader church can take away from this mess. Obviously, making sure that you only have qualified leaders is a must. Do not confuse giftedness and personal charisma with holiness. Making sure abuse claims are taken seriously and the proper authorities inside and outside the church are involved is also a must. At TPC, we partner with MinistrySafe to help us in this area MinistrySafe provides an online training course for everyone who works with children. They are also able to provide highly competent guidance and counsel if and when an issue arises. We had the entire leadership of the CREC go through MinistrySafe pastors training at our General Council meeting several years ago. To my knowledge, the CREC is the only denomination that has done something like this, but it is highly necessary; church leaders simply must be informed about abuse, how to handle abuse claims, and how to get the best care for abuse victims.
One other note: As so often happens in our culture, tragedies are immediately politicized and weaponized to further an unrelated agenda. I’ve already seen people arguing that the Southern Baptist scandal happened because the denomination is committed to a male-only pastorate, or that this case proves that all churches are full of sexual hypocrites and therefore the church should not be listened to when it speaks about homosexuality, transgenderism, etc. While any scandal like this should drive a church to humbly repent, we should also recognize that Satan uses things like to seek to silence faithful churches from teaching the truth about men, women, marriage, and sex. As tragic as the Southern Baptist sex abuse problem is, it will also be tragic if that scandal is used to steer the entire denomination in a progressive direction, which is clearly what some are going to try to do with it.
The school shooting in Texas yesterday was yet another tragedy of senseless evil at work in our world. We can grieve with those who grieve, even at a distance, and we can certainly pray for the community in Uvalde. Sadly, as with abuse scandals, mass shootings tend to be quickly transformed into political talking points about race, gun control, mental health, or some other agenda. This a ridiculous response: We are not going to stop horrific acts of violence like this with one more gun control law, and everyone in their right mind knows that. Knee-jerk emotional responses do not change the world in a positive way. But there was one thoughtful thread on Twitter that someone alerted me to yesterday. Ali Beth Stuckey asks the question: If the one commonality among all of these shooters is that they are young males, does that indicate something significant? Her response does not say everything that probably needs to be said about the issue, but she raises some good questions. The young men perpetrating these wicked acts are certainly not victims, but their actions do point to a much wider social sickness and spiritual rot that surrounds us.
This is an important book that demystifies Postmodernism. The book is thirty years old but still accurate for today’s world. When the book was written, the postmodernist project was a small seedling which made it hard to see all the parts. Today, the postmodernist project has grown up into a forest and all the parts are clearly visible right in front of us. This book is like a user’s manual for the world we live in today.
Here are three key reasons this book is important to read.
First, this book offers helpful definitions on many of the key terms that are around us all the time: postmodernism, social construct, queer theory, and intertextuality.
Here are some of the most important terms and definitions from the book.
Objectivist: those who believe that truth is objective and can be known (pg. 47)
Constructivist: those who believe that human beings make up their own realities (pg. 47)
Queer Theory: culture as suppression of homosexuals (pg. 53)
Intertextuality: culture is texts interacting with other texts (pg. 52)
Deconstruction: dismantle the paradigms of the past and bring the marginal to the center (pg. 57)
Social Construct: these paradigms are useful fictions, a matter of “telling stories” (pg. 57)
The second reason this book is important is that it clearly shows how the postmodernist project is ultimately aimed at destroying the individual self. That can seem like a strange claim to make given that our culture is so obsessed with identity. Let me explain.
The Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco Salvatore Cordileone announced last week the excommunication of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The Archbishop has cited Pelosi’s refusal to back down from her public advocacy of abortion, which conflicts with the moral positions of the Church, Christian tradition, and the Holy Scripture.
Many news outlets have strangely described the event as the “denial of communion” (Washington Post) or a “communion ban” (Fox News) rather than excommunication. One criticism of the excommunication comes from Whoopi Goldberg – who once pretended to be a nun in a movie and now pretends to speak with even greater erudition than the Archbishop. Goldberg claims, “This is not your job, dude! You can’t — that is not up to you to make that decision.”
Whoopi: "The archbishop of San Francisco is calling for speaker Nancy Pelosi to be denied receiving Communion because of her pro-choice stance … this is not your job, dude. That is not up to you to make that decision." pic.twitter.com/TCSe0t6XLY
— Washington Free Beacon (@FreeBeacon) May 23, 2022
The term excommunication itself literally means “out of/from communion” and is from very simple Latin: “ex” and “communicatio.” I believe the modern American sees phrases like excommunication as harsh and as with a sense of permanence, yet this is not the historic understanding of the term. The process of removing a Christian from communion is not related to any particular sin, but rather the obstinate refusal to repent. While various sins certainly place individuals in a grave position at odds with Christian teaching in faith and morals, it is impenitence alone that leads to formal excommunication.
The historic understanding of excommunication is lost on many who would rather paint the church’s role in excommunication as harsh, judgmental, and unloving – yet the act of excommunication is by the witness of Christ and his Apostles an act of love toward the wayward. God’s grace is fully present and offered in the pronouncement of excommunication as a final call away from sin and into the free gift of forgiveness – over even the most notorious of sins.
Did Jesus Teach Excommunication?
Just a few lines down from, “Judge not, that you be not judged.” (Matthew 7:1) our Lord Jesus also says, “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire” (v. 19) and “‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'” Jesus clearly expected that there would be situations that demand separation and even destruction from those who departed from his “narrow gate” (v. 13-14) and the, “will of My Father in heaven.” (v. 21). Jesus also passes down the authority to enact this separation through his Apostles with his own words, “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:19).
St. Paul explicitly continued the practice of excommunication and explains that the act might be for the benefit of those engrossed in sin, “deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” (1 Corinthians 5:5) St. Paul saw excommunication as having the power to save, not as a malicious act to permanently destroy. The Geneva Bible includes these helpful notes, “The goal of excommunication is not to cast away the excommunicate that he should utterly perish, but that he may be saved, that is, that by this means his flesh may be tamed, that he may learn to live to the Spirit.”
Does the Church Excommunicate for Politics?
Goldberg contends that, “The archbishop of San Francisco is calling for speaker Nancy Pelosi to be denied receiving Communion because of her pro-choice stance…” While this statement is partly true, Archbishop Cordileone claims that the decision is “purely pastoral, not political.” The idea that an activist Bishop might wield the keys of the kingdom for political reasons is rightly to be feared, yet the issue of abortion is not simply political. There is a plainly spoken and unbroken witness in the Christian tradition from the first-century Didache (“you shall not abort a child or commit infanticide.”) through today in defense of the unborn. There is no doubt that ancient Christians consistently held that life in the womb was to be protected and the taking of this life was a sinful breech of the commandment to “do no murder.” Again, it should be reiterated that Cordileone has not excommunicated Pelosi for a belief about abortion or even “the grave evil she is perpetrating”, but rather forobstinately refusing to repentof her advocacy of abortion.
The Archbishop’s position to excommunicate a powerful governmental figure for their support of a grave evil is not new and has precedence in church history. In 390, Bishop Ambrose of Milan excommunicated Emperor Theodosius, claiming that the “The Emperor is in the Church, not above it.” The same could be argued today, in that SpeakerPelosi is in the Church, not above it. Emperor Theodosius’s excommunication was directly related to his role in the massacre of 7,000 men, women, and children in Thessalonica. After eight months outside the church, Theodosius kneeled his heart in penitence and was restored to communion. Through excommunication, the same grace and hope for restoration is offered to Pelosi.
The emperor himself had not driven a sword into a single individual, just as Speaker Pelosi does not herself scrape out a baby using a metal curette, yet the policies supported and advocated by Speaker Pelosi have contributed to the deaths of millions of unborn children through legal abortion in the United States. The Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood’s research arm, estimates the number of annual abortions to be over 800,000. (from 2017 figures)
In response to the Archbishop, Pelosi has openly criticized the church’s positions, accused the hierarchy of hypocrisy, and went on to receive communion at a church outside of the Archdiocese. Perhaps this speaks to Pelosi’s character or perhaps to the weakness of discipline in the Roman Church, but it certainly is not representative of a spirit of humility or of respect for her claimed ecclesiastical tradition.
The Practical Prayers of Excommunication
During the formative years of my Christian walk I sat under a church that prayed each week for those who had strayed from the Christian faith. We would pray for those who are not saved, but also for those described as “under discipline” (or “excommunicated”). Each week we would recite the names of those under discipline and ask, “that our Lord would bring them to a place of repentance and restore them to the fellowship of Christ’s church.” Seeing them actually return to answer these prayers was always a powerful testimony. My own tradition speaks to excommunication in the Articles of Religion, “XXXIII. Of excommunicate Persons, how they are to be avoided.” Here again, excommunication is affirmed but with the goal that such treatment, “as a heathen and publican” (see Matthew 18:17) would result in reconciliation, penance, and received back into the full fellowship of the church.
During the COVID era, I had the opportunity to deliver a few talks via zoom to men’s groups around the country on the legacy of Abraham Kuyper. One of the prevailing themes of these talks was a hearty focus on Kuyper’s doctrine of common grace.
Kuyper made a distinction between special grace and common grace. “Special grace” had to do with church life (ecclesiastical matters) and “common grace” focused on things pertaining to culture and society. Kuyper believed that post-reformational theology focused almost exclusively on “special grace.” The basic features of their controversies dealt with the sacraments, church architecture, church polity, and issues regarding the clergy. Now, to be clear, the Reformers did deal with issues outside the church, but because they were fighting and continued to fight church/liturgical abuses in the 16th century, those topics carried the day.
When Kuyper comes on the scene in the 19th century, he’s living in a day of cultural confusion. He doesn’t think the church is preparing men and women to do their jobs well in the culture. Thus, Kuyper develops this robust view of grace that focuses on the Christian’s contributions to society as image-bearers. If you are a painter, how do your painting skills reflect God’s grace? If you are a politician, how are you applying your Christian faith to particular agendas? You may say it was the outworking of the cobbler’s paradigm in Luther’s reformation.
Kuyper wanted to see how the Christian faith would be applied to public theology. Dutch scholars at the time thought the doctrine of common grace was absolutely ridiculous and considered worldly by many. He even argued that unbelievers contributed certain graces to society that Christians should enjoy, take and transform (Matt. 5:45; Luke 6:35).
The entire endeavor opened a new vista to public theologians seeking to incorporate biblical thought into society. If God has bestowed upon mankind good gifts, then mankind is indebted to the Creator God. There is mutuality, an exchange of blessings between God and man. God grants and men return thanks with offerings. Even unbelievers participate in such gift-giving despite their unbelief. They may assert that they are not offering such blessings, but their inventions and their opinations on the plague of transgenderism (thanks Bill Maher!) offer the church greater confidence in her labors.
Common grace does not act contrary to special grace; common grace validates special grace. It strengthens societally what is already true ecclesiastically.
A soft answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
~ Proverb 15.1
The assumption when reading this Proverb is that the soft answer is the wise response and the harsh or, literally, the painful word is the foolish response. The larger context might even push us toward that understanding as a pattern of “wise-then-fool” contrasts follow. (For example, “The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouths of fools pour out folly.” 15.2) To deescalate a situation, to bring water to fiery embers about to burst into flames with a soft answer, is generally a wise approach. Your great aim in dominion is to bring peace because peacemakers are in a favored position with God as God’s sons (Mt 5.9). The fool receives a real or perceived insult and fights fire with fire creating an even larger fire. Painful words escalate the tensions many times to the point of doing irreparable damage to a relationship. Soft answers are, many times, the ways of the wise, and painful words are, many times, the ways of a fool.
To lay this down as a template for every situation is unwise. The wisdom in this proverb is deeper, I believe. There are times when soft answers can be foolish and painful words can be wise. The fruit is the same–soft answers turn away wrath and painful words stir up anger–but it will be bad fruit. There are times that soft answers seek to avoid wrath that needs to be stirred up with a painful word. In another proverb, we hear, “Faithful are the wounds of a friend…” (27.6). A man needs to be reminded that when a true friend wounds him, that wound is for his good. Why does he need to be reminded? Because when someone wounds you with a painful word, the initial response is anger in self-defense. Painful words stir up anger.
Consider also Wisdom incarnate, the Word made flesh, who spoke all the right words in the right way. The aim of the Peacemaker was not always immediate peace. He was not always trying to turn away wrath with soft answers. On several occasions, Jesus used painful words that stirred up anger. Those words along with his corresponding actions stirred up anger in the Jews so much that they crucified him. If he had spoken soft words in those situations in order to turn away their wrath, he would have been in sin. Jesus was playing the long game. His great aim was peace, but to have that peace in the future, he had to stir up anger in the present.
There are times that “winsomeness” is a cover for compromise just as there are times when “hard words” are the mouth-sewage of a fool. There are times that we use soft words to avoid confrontation because we know that the person to whom we are speaking will become angry if we tell him what he needs to hear. In that situation, this is nothing short of cowardice possibly under the cloak of a “soft answer turning away wrath.”
Neither the man inclined toward conflict avoidance nor the man who loves to throw verbal hand grenades is justified in his disposition. Wisdom calls us to think in every situation concerning what words are appropriate for the people and situation. We cannot lay a one-size-fits-all template down, expect it to be the right thing in every situation, and then condemn others who don’t use our template as being compromisers or contentious.
Are you avoiding confrontation with a person with soft words because that it is what is best for him and the situation, or are you thinking about your personal comfort, not considering the long-term bad fruit that is being produced by your cowardice? Do you fight fire with fire to protect or build up your ego, or are you using hard words because the short-term anger that is aroused is necessary for long-term health? “This is just the way I deal with things” is not adequate. That, many times, is the statement of a lazy man who doesn’t want to think through situations.
Soft answers turn away wrath. Painful words stir up anger. Which words you need to use, well, that depends.
I know I am a rebel here, but Veggie Tales was a pontification in silliness. For a series of evangelical cliches, the show provided an enormous amount of basic morality without the ethos of Jael. That show and a series of other unfortunate events in the sterilization of the evangelical mind provided the stimulation for an unobjective Christendom among young evangelicals where everything is up for debate and dogma becomes heretical.
Phil Vischer–the storyteller behind Veggie Tales–has emerged as the most vocal proponent of what I have called, “sophisticated footnoting.” He thrives in nuances and caveats and oh! the complexities of this whole darn thing of abortion.
Think about it: these last two years have been the most magnified sight into the devious and devilish devices of Democrat powers and evan-gelly leaders. They have sought to endanger our health, history, and hope. They have tortured the American conscience by putting friends against friends at the Thanksgiving table; they have filled the cup of wrath by instilling fear as a commodity and currency. Democrats–both pagans and Bud-Light evangelical varieties–offer misery and betrayal to morality and classical mores and yet, Phil, wants to find common ground.
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
