MENU

Jesus
Tag Archive

On January 3, 2020 By In Theology

Psalm 80: A Song of Christmas Hope

Songs are both expressive and volitional. They give voice to and move us through a whole range of experiences and emotions.  People will often say that they were “moved” by a piece of music, and they are probably more right than they realize. Because music is a gift from God, and we are creatures made in God’s image, music takes us somewhere. 

Consider the psalms of David. These are songs of movement. They take us back, they move us forward. They ebb and flow in a way that is always directing our hearts and minds and communities toward a certain end. 

So is the case with repetition in the psalms.  Rather than retreading ground already covered, the repetition serves as a spiraling staircase leading us to higher ground. Repeating something is not just for the purpose of remembering, although that is immensely important. It’s also for the purpose of strengthening our longing and anticipation for what the song is leading us toward. 

Psalm 80 is one of those songs. It divides up into three sections by a chorus that is repeated three times. Depending on the liturgical tradition you are familiar with, repeating choruses in a song several times evokes different responses. Many of us have had some experience with choruses gone wild. We know what it’s like to be singing a song that feels more like being stuck in a whirlpool that wears you out with endless repeating circles rather than lifting you up in a spiraling ascent.  

But choruses, used rightly, can stir the waters in ways that help the song move us in the right direction. The chorus employed in this psalm is far from simple refrain as we will see.

(more…)

Read more

On December 8, 2018 By In Art, Culture, Family and Children, Scribblings, Theology, Wisdom

Advent and the Art of Arrival

Guest post by Remy Wilkins

“The best way that a man could test his readiness to encounter the common variety of mankind would be to climb down a chimney into any house at random, and get on as well as possible with the people inside. And that is essentially what each one of us did on the day that he was born.”

~ G.K. Chesterton, On Certain Modern Writers and the Institution of the Family

I love it when the hero arrives. I get chills when a fedora appears in shadow or when a farmboy watches two suns set. I get tickled every time someone knocks on Bilbo’s door. And although the joy of my introduction to the dear Baudelaire siblings that grey and cloudy day at Briny Beach was mingled with sadness, I still cherish the miracle of their lives.

The season of Advent, the time just before Christmas, is all about arrivals. It is a preparatory season for the celebration of the incarnation, his first coming, and it is looking forward to his second coming. The Messiah’s first arrival was both inauspicious, sleeping in a feeding trough, and universally portentous, declared by astronomical signs. His second coming is also grand and mysterious: no man knows the hour or day in which he comes. It’s a good debut. As a reader, I can get excited about this story. Anticipating the end is also great fun. I love it when stories are interrupted by better stories. (more…)

Read more

On July 14, 2015 By In Culture, Family and Children

The Coming Division Between Christ and Family

For many generations Christians or converts to Christianity in the West (Europe & America) did not have to sacrifice much. The reason was Western Christendom. Most of society was built on Christian laws and operated under a Christian ethic. If someone  got saved at a revival meeting they went out into a world, that for the most part, approved of their conversion and the actions that flowed from it.  If a preacher called a man to come to Christ, that repentance rarely meant that the man would lose his family or job for believing in Jesus. Christianity was the air that we breathed. It was not perfect of course. The cracks that were there are now causing the structure to collapse. But for a long time the Western world was a safe place for Christians and those who converted to Christianity.

This is changing rapidly.  Conversion to Christ in the West  will require more and more sacrifice as the years go by. In particular, we will find families divided. There will be other types of loss, such as jobs and money, but few things compare to being rejected by family. Losing family is a deep and painful wound. New Christians will not find their family members approving of them and their actions. Instead they will find themselves in the position of many Muslims who lose all when they choose Christ. Two Muslim brothers who came to Jesus described it this way:

Faith [in Jesus] often means the total rejection of culture, ethnicity, family, and friends. To find heaven’s glory in Jesus Christ, we Caner brothers lost our father. (Islam Unveiled)

Another example is Rosaria Butterfield who was a lesbian professor at a major university when she came to Jesus. In the account of her conversion she notes that not only did she lose her friends, they felt betrayed by her. They put their trust in her. They counted on her to support them. When she came to Christ, they felt like she had stabbed them in the back. While this was not her biological family, the bonds she felt with these people were as strong as natural family bonds.

Stories like these will become common as the years progress.  We will hear of sons being rejected by fathers and fathers rejected by sons. We will hear of children raised in homosexual homes converting to Christ and being rejected by their parents. We will hear of daughters being kicked out of homes for their faith in Christ. We will hear of Muslims rejecting family members for conversion, not in the Middle East, but here in America. We will hear of close knit groups who hate a member for leaving them and following Jesus. The possibilities are endless, but the probability of families, biological or otherwise, being divided by Christ get higher with each passing day.

How can the church prepare for this?

First, we must remind ourselves and tell those we evangelize that Jesus demands absolute loyalty. Family is not the highest good. Jesus is. You can gain your family and lose Jesus. You can hold to all sorts of wonderful family values, like the Mormons and the Muslims, and still burn in Hell. Jesus came to separate.

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10:34-38)

Family is important, but it does not trump Jesus Christ.  If we give the impression that family is more important than Jesus people will not make the choice to follow Jesus with their whole heart. They will be divided. We must declare without apology, that if the choice is Jesus or family, Jesus wins.

Second, our churches must be places where broken families integrate into God’s family of brothers and sisters. Single mothers, divorced folks, people recovering from sodomy and abortion, the abused, the sexually broken, etc. when they trust in Christ and are baptized should find a place in our churches to serve and grow. Widows must be cared for and orphans must be adopted. If our churches cannot or will not bring in these people then we are saying biological family trumps God’s family. We are saying you must come from a whole family in order to be part of God’s family. That is a grievous sin and shows disloyalty to Jesus. However, teaching this is not enough. Somehow, and it is not easy, we must create a tone, an atmosphere where broken families are welcome. A church that emphasizes family can make people from broken homes feel unwelcome. We must remember deep in our bones that we  too were broken (Titus 3:3) and outside of God’s family (Ephesians 4:14-22), but God in his grace adopted us and saved us.

Third, we must maintain strong families, but not idolize them. A good Biblical home is a wonderful witness of God’s grace to the watching world. We should teach and model what a Christian husband and wife look like. We should teach parents to raise their children in the discipline and admonition of the Lord. We should encourage our young people to get married and have lots of children.  But all of this must be done, not as an end to itself, but as a way to glorify God and build his kingdom. If we build the family for the sake of the family then we have made the family an idol. And God destroys idols. But if we build our families so they might serve Christ and serve His church, including those among us do not have families, then we are reflecting Biblical priorities.

Fourth, we should be grateful for the good relationships we have with non-Christian family members. For many of us, even though our family is not worshiping Jesus, we still get along. The relationship is not completely severed.  Of course, there is always a divide. No matter how much we love our family, if they do not trust in Christ there is chasm that cannot be crossed until they believe.  But God is kind. He gives common grace so we can enjoy their company and they our’s despite their lack of faith.

Finally, we should be thankful when our biological family is Christian. My whole family believes in the Lord Jesus Christ. He could have made me choose between Christ and my family as many Christians around the world have done. But he didn’t. God in his mercy has made my temporary, biological family part of my eternal, spiritual family.  The only proper response to this astonishing fact is gratitude.

Read more

On September 1, 2014 By In Books

Should Reformed People Read N.T. Wright?

It doesn’t happen quite often, but once in a while when I recommend a book or a quote by N.T. Wright on facebook, I will receive a question that goes something like this:

“Do you approve of N.T. Wright? Do you think it’s fruitful to endorse N.T. Wright? Or don’t you know that N.T. denies Justification by faith alone?”

I addressed the first question on facebook and I thought I’d make it available here. My response goes like this:

I think the question ought to be more nuanced. In other words, humans and their ideas, especially new humans recreated by God, ought to be analyzed more carefully and charitably. As a pastor I recommend Wright to my parishioners with the same enthusiasm I would recommend C.S. Lewis, Schmemann, and Martin Luther. I have disagreements with all of them, but charity allows me to communicate with these great thinkers and gain from what they offer, while expressing sometimes strong disagreements on some of their contributions.

Yes, Reformed people, in fact, Christians of all stripes should read Professor Wright. His profound insights, his vision for a renewed humanity in Christ, his invaluable defense of the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and his commitment to the historical, Biblical Jesus make him one of the most gifted teachers and scholars of our time and The Jesus Seminar’s worst nightmare.

But what about justification? Shouldn’t we stand for the principal article of the Church? And by standing shouldn’t we reject anyone who denies it?

First, N.T. Wright has written and clarified many of his statements. He stated again and again that he does not deny justification by faith alone. I take him at his word. But hasn’t he been unclear? To those who think so, he will always be. I and many others find Wright’s overall project to be fruitful, despite having disagreements with him at points. I find Kevin J. Vanhoozer’s humorous, but yet serious points on the Wright vs. Piper debate to be very helpful, and from what I hear from reliable sources, Wright agrees and finds Vanhoozer’s attempt to bridge the two paradigms extremely beneficial.

Secondly, the Reformation did not settle every issue. There are contemporary issues that still must be handled within our context. The Reformers did not exhaust the fullness of justification. There is indeed a robustly corporate view of justification that the Reformers–rightly preoccupied with Romish theological abuse–simply did not address explicitly in the 16th century. In this sense, Wright needs to be read and listened to attentively.

Thirdly, when one poses the question of whether we should eliminate such an author from our library because he is wrong on an issue, no matter how important the issue may be, he is betraying the charitable nature of the Christian vision and our personal libraries. Of course, he may choose to avoid Wright, and other authors who also had some questionable theological presuppositions (like C.S. Lewis), but his theological vision will be narrow, and his ability to articulate a vision of the world will stop at the wardrobe (to borrow from Lewis). Those of us who appreciate Wright prefer to open the wardrobe and see Narnia in all its beauty.

Finally, the West’s over-emphasis on the individual is tragic. The individual matters, but Adam himself knew that the individual is not alone. Just as the Trinity is not alone, so too man needs to be a part of something greater. “Community” is not just a buzzword no matter how often hipster Christian groups use it. In its biblical sense, community is the essence of the Christian experience. Paul’s vision was highly ecclesiastical. The individual who divorces from the community loses his ability to be truly human. He breathes and eats as a human, but his breathing and eating desecrates God’s intention to incorporate him into  a multitude. N.T. Wright offers immeasurable contributions on this subject.

Naturally, there is the possibility of over-emphasizing community, but that hardly seems to be the problem in our day. The reality is if you stress the community you get the individual, if you stress the individual you don’t get the community.

Should we read N.T. Wright? Yes. Read him often with the eyes of discernment. But again, discernment is the Christian’s best friend in any human activity.<>siteособенности текста для а

Read more

On August 1, 2013 By In Culture

The Lure of the Cool

“There is a…kind of temptation, which, I fear has not passed from me. Can it ever pass from me in all this life? It is the desire to be feared and loved by other men. Saint Augustine

Cool 2

We all want to be in the “in” crowd or as C.S. Lewis called it “The Inner Circle.” We have a desire to be in that circle of men who are accepted and adored.  Christians are not immune to this. In fact, I would argue that the desire to be cool drives more men to leave Christ than almost anything else in our age.

And so it is not surprising that Paul Raushenbush, the senior religion editor at the Huffington Post, wants Christianity to be cool. In this article he declares that to his great delight Christianity has once again become cool. How did this marvelous transfer from the kingdom of uncool to the kingdom of cool take place? The Pope declared that he would not judge gays and Desmond Tutu declared that he would rather go to Hell than go to a Heaven with a homophobic God. For Raushenbush it has been a good week for Christianity. Finally, after years of bondage to fundamentalism (aka, the Bible), we can move on and make Jesus, God, and the Bible into our own cool image. Let me point you to a few things of note. (By the way, Al Mohler disputes that the Pope meant what the media and Raushenbush thought he meant.)

First, Raushenbush states very clearly what uncool Christianity is: women are not equal, haters of science, degrading to the LGBT community, suspicious of other faiths, and pro-military. In order for Christians to be cool again they must do the following: deny the Biblical roles of men and women, accept evolution as fact, accept climate change as fact, accept the LGBT without calling them to repent and change, and accept people of other faiths as good, spiritual, ethical people who are all on the stairway to Heaven.  These things are battle lines.  Here is where the world is attacking. So many Christians, especially pastors and seminary professors, want to fight other battles. Why? They are cowards and like Raushenbush they do not want to be thought of as uncool, backwards, fundamentalist, or traditional. If we refuse to speak out on these points we have run from the battle. Now of course, we can do this badly and in an unbiblical manner. Our desire should be to fight the battle in a way that pleases our Lord. But we must fight. And I would take a man who fights badly over a man who doesn’t fight at all.

Second, do not read the words through your own eyes. Read them through their eyes. Many Christians will say, “Well I would not want to go to a Heaven where God hates gays either.” But this is not what they are saying. When Desmond Tutu says, “homophobic” he does not mean hatred of gays, which most Christians in our day oppose. He means any refutation of sodomite lifestyles is unacceptable. When they say, “climate control” they do not mean “godly stewardship.” They mean population control through birth control and abortion. They mean refusing to take dominion. They mean hatred of God’s established order. They mean a  pseudo-pantheism. Notice how his article ends. He invites his gay friends to a disco mass at his church. He notes how they enjoyed it and felt comfortable.  Then he says they may never go to church again.  “I don’t need them to become Christians.” In other words, he rejects everything Christianity is. He rejects Jesus, mercy, grace, Hell, judgment, the Trinity, and everything in between. When they talk about sodomy, climate control, etc. this is what they mean. Even the “pro-military” swipe, which I have some sympathy with, must be taken in context. Raushenbush does not mean what I mean when we talk about American foreign policy. The author establishes meaning, not the reader.

Third, men who teach these things are wolves. We do not like to say this. We waver. We shuffle our feet and look at the floor. We slink towards dialogue and compromise.  But make no mistake. Men who long to be cool and yet still be Christian are hirelings.  Men like Raushenbush, Tutu, Jim Wallis, Rob Bell, are butchers not shepherds. They hate the sheep, which Christ purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28) All around them sheep are bleeding and dying at their hands. One day they will be held accountable for the slaughter. The men who refuse to confront them will also be held accountable. (Ezekiel 34)

Napoleon Dynamite

Finally, guard your own heart. Raushenbush is a lost fool bound for an eternity in darkness if he doesn’t repent. It is easy to say, “That will never  be me.” But Saint Augustine understood the draw. He knew that his heart could easily be led astray by the desire to please men, the desire to be cool and powerful.  The world seduces us with her images of cool, young, sexy people. Our hearts tell us we can follow Jesus and be one of the in crowd. I can follow Jesus and not deny myself . I can follow Jesus and still love the world and the things of the world. I can follow Jesus and still be hip. I can follow Jesus and still be adored by the secular scientific community. I can follow Jesus and not be thought of as bigot or homophobe or hater of women. Brothers and sisters, it is not true.  Paul became like scum and refuse. (I Corinthians 4:13)  Jesus himself became a man of no reputation. He was despised, afflicted, and not esteemed. (Isaiah 53:3) Our father in the faith, Moses, left the glories of Egypt to suffer affliction with the people of God and live with the reproach of Christ. (Hebrews 11:26) Let us guard our hearts for the lure to be counted among the cool does not just sit in Mr. Raushenbush’s heart. It sits in ours.<>проверить популярность а

Read more