MENU

Theology
Tag Archive

On December 28, 2016 By In Theology, Worship

A Case for Working Hard in Worship: Eight Reasons to Sweat on Sunday Morning

From Couch to Warfare

There is a great app called Couch to 5K. It’s designed for people who have become comfortable with the couch and have an allergy to the treadmill. It’s an incremental approach to working out. As the weeks go by we become more accustomed to the patterns established and we long to achieve the final level when we run an entire 5K. It’s hard work. My proposition is very simple: Worship is hard. We cannot remain comfortable in our pews. We need to start running the race. We may not be ready to run a 5K, but we need to be headed in that direction. And like running, worship requires habits and consistency. I am calling you to burn your calories in worship not because I am a controversialist or a tyrannical trainer but because I want you to be a healthy sacrifice to God. In fact, the formal synonym for worship is liturgy. Liturgy comes from two words: “Work” and “people.” Therefore, worship or liturgy can be accurately defined as the work of the people. 

Our Lord was so righteously angry by the easy business transactions (easy worship) of the Temple that he turned upside down the world when he overturned the tables of the money-changers (John 2:13-16). Such audacity should be imitated by God’s people, but cautiously exercised in light of our sinfulness. So here is my attempt to cautiously turn a few tables upside down with the hope that some will decide to keep it that way rather than try to put it back up or mend the broken pieces. (more…)

Read more

On December 20, 2016 By In Theology, Worship

10 Questions Preachers Should Ask Before Sunday Morning

I have been a pastor for almost a decade. I spend between 12-15 hours each week thinking, researching, and writing before I deliver the first words in my Sunday sermon.a The process of writing my sermon goes through a lengthy journey each week. I contemplate several questions from Monday to Friday which force me to edit and re-edit my manuscript. There is no perfect sermon, but a sermon that goes through revisions and asks import questions has a much better chance of communicating with clarity than the self-assured preacher who engages the sermonic task with nothing more than academic lenses.

I have compiled a list of ten questions I ask myself each week at some point or another.

Question #1: Is this language clear? When you write a manuscript ( as I do) you have an opportunity to carefully consider the language you use. I make a habit of reading my sermon out loud which leads me to realize that certain phrases do not convey the idea clearly. A well-written sermon does not necessarily mean a well-delivered sermon. Reading my sermons out loud causes me to re-write and look for other ways to explain a concept or application more clearly.

Question #2: Is there a need to use high theological language in this sermon? Seminary graduates are often tempted to use the best of their training in the wrong environment. People are not listening to you to hear your theological acumen. I am well aware that some in the congregation would be entirely comfortable with words like perichoresis and Arianism. I am not opposed to using high theological discourse. Words like atonement, justification, sanctification are biblical and need to be defined. But extra-biblical terms and ideologies should be employed sparingly. Much of this can be dealt in a Sunday School class or other environments. High theological language needs to be used with great care, and I think it needs to be avoided as much as possible in the Sunday sermon.

Question #3: Can I make this sermon even shorter? As I read my sermons each week, I find that I can cut a paragraph or two easily, or depending on how long you preach, perhaps an entire page. This is an important lesson for new preachers: not everything needs to be said. Shorter sermons–which I strongly advocateb–force you to say what’s important and keep some of your research in the footnotes where it belongs. Preachers need to learn what to prioritize in a sermon so as not to unload unnecessary information on their parishioners. (more…)

  1. Thankful for great interactions before this article was published. It helped sharpen my points  (back)
  2. By this I mean sermons no longer than 30 minutes  (back)

Read more

On March 14, 2016 By In Politics, Theology

The End of the Evangelical Christian? A Response to Russell Moore

The rise of Donald Trump has caused Christians of all varieties to question their conservative bona fides. There are many reasons conservatives have chosen Donald Trump. Some have chosen the real estate mogul as the most suited to destroy the Washington machine. Some support the former Apprentice host as the voice of anger for those silenced by the mainstream media and the establishment GOP. Others find his open hostility to illegal immigration his most redeeming value. But while conservatives may have a few reason for voting for the Donald, conservative Christians, in particular, are having a more difficult time. After all, these conservative evangelicals are contemplating voting for someone who believes in God but has not sought God’s forgiveness. In Trump’s world, that is not a contradiction, and for some evangelicals, the contradiction is an acceptable compromise.a

The result has been unnerving for many evangelicals who are generally on the side of Ted Cruz; a conservative Southern Baptist from Texas, who speaks the evangelical language with extreme ease. They cannot fathom why conservative Christians have endorsed someone who does not understand the most fundamental of evangelical commitments.

Some evangelical leaders have embraced Donald Trump enthusiastically. Consider the very conservative Southern Baptist, Robert Jeffress, who endorsed Trump and referred to the Republican front-runner as a “great Christian.” Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. praised Donald as “a successful executive and entrepreneur, a wonderful father and a man who I believe can lead our country to greatness again.” (more…)

  1. While the passion for a Trump candidacy seems to be on the rise, a vast majority of Conservative voices on the right and liberal voices on the left have found  a surprising common ground: #nevertrump.  (back)

Read more

On March 4, 2016 By In Politics, Theology

Andy Stanley’s Big Frustration with Little Churches

Post by Uri Brito and Dustin Messer

In a recent sermon, Andy Stanley made the staggering observation:

When I hear adults say, ‘Well I don’t like a big church, I like about 200, I want to be able to know everybody,’ I say, ‘You are so stinking selfish. You care nothing about the next generation. All you care about is you and your five friends. You don’t care about your kids…anybody else’s kids.’ You’re like, ‘What’s up?’ I’m saying if you don’t go to a church large enough where you can have enough Middle Schoolers and High Schoolers to separate them so they can have small groups and grow up the local church, you are a selfish adult. Get over it. Find yourself a big old church where your kids can connect with a bunch of people and grow up and love the local church.

Stanley has since apologized in the way modern preachers apologize: via twitter. 

While we take him at his word (or tweet, as the case may be), this was not simply a slip of the tongue. While he may be sorry for the way in which he communicated the message—even sorry for a specific sentiment in the message—one can’t fake the sort of passion exhibited by Stanley as he described his antipathy for small churches. Again, we believe he’s genuinely sorry we’re offended, but Stanley clearly has heartfelt feelings about non-megachurches (microchurches?) that didn’t begin or end with the sermon in question. Below are three reasons we feel such a sentiment is harmful: (more…)

Read more

On December 24, 2015 By In Theology

The Upside-Downness of the Gospel: A Look at the Beatitudes, Part VI

Part V, Part IV, Part III, Part II, Part I

G.K. Chesterton does a splendid job in demolishing the rationale of unbelievers. His great work entitled Orthodoxy is an apologetic for the Christian faith. Orthodoxy, which means “true and right thinking,” has fallen on hard times in our day. Thinking and living the Orthodox faith, the true biblical faith given to us once and for all, [1] is seen as hard, burdensome; “Why can’t we simply experience and privatize the faith?” But what we believe should influence the way we live. Chesterton understood this, and he understood that far from heavy and tedious, orthodoxy was “perilous and exciting at the same time.”[2] To be Orthodox for Chesterton was the sanest thing a human being could be.[3]

At Providence, we confess weekly the great Nicene Creed. By confessing the creed, we are confessing to one another that we are orthodox; that we believe what every Christian should believe. But more than that, we are also stating that we are willing to live out this creed, even if it means the mockery and verbal assaults of the world.

As we continue our short study on the Beatitudes, we need to be aware that living as Jesus called us to live is also our creed; it’s our way of life. You cannot affirm the incarnation of Jesus without living incarnational lives.

As we come to the second part of this poem, Jesus is building upon each beatitude.

Jesus says in verse 7:  “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.”

Exodus 34 says:

The Lord passed before him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness…”[4]

Jesus is Yahweh in the flesh. He embodies all mercy, because he became a merciful and faithful high priest,[5] so that He might become our substitute; the one who took our place and restored us. Yahweh is the embodiment/enfleshment of mercy. He was merciful in creation by giving Eden to Adam and Eve, and He was merciful when He gave the world to Abraham’s heirs.[6]

Of course, we need to cultivate mercy. But we don’t cultivate mercy to be merciful to ourselves, rather be merciful to others, just as God was and is merciful to us. To be merciful is an act of compassion; an understanding that there are those around us who are in need. And the way mercy looks like is by taking action on behalf of others.[7]

All of us here have felt the intense sting of our sins at one time or another. Our sins have left us paralyzed and broken. They have caused chaos. But in that dark night of the soul, as a believer in Jesus Christ, you find through repentance the forgiveness of sins and the ever-present mercy of God for you. When no one was forgiving, when no one was reaching out to you, God extended His right arm and pulled you out of your distress and depression and restored you. Why are we to extend mercy to others? Because God, in Jesus Christ, understood our plight and when others were merciless, He showed mercy.[8] You were broken in sin and in God’s mercy, He re-made you. But don’t be mistaken: your scars will remain, but they will not remain so you can grieve over a past sin, rather, so you can remember God’s mercy toward you in the present.

And it is this mercy that causes you not to be introspective, but extraspective[9] towards God and your neighbor; to look outside yourself. (Pause) People of God, how are you showing mercy to those who most need it? Showing mercy means to act on behalf of your neighbor; to alleviate a little of the pain, angst, and guilt.

Our hope is found in a God who continually showers us with deepest care and love. We may not receive the gratitude from the world nor from those we show mercy, but the pleasure of God should be sufficient for us. In his incarnation he has shown the world what mercy looks like; to show compassion to people that would show him little; to love and to live mercifully to a merciless world.
[1] Jude 3.
[2] Taken from the kindle edition of Orthodox.
[3] Ibid.
[4] English Standard Version
[5] Hebrews 2:17.
[6] Romans 4:13
[7] Peter Leithart, lecture on Matthew 5.
[8] Some of these ideas come from David Powlison’s excellent article I am making all things new http://www.ccef.org/i-am-making-all-things-new-0
[9] Powlison’s language.

Read more

On September 29, 2014 By In Politics, Theology

My Debt to Christian Reconstructionism

I came to Reformed theology through a very different door. While many of my friends were coming to it through the mainline Reformational figures–R.C. Sproul, et al.–I came through the doors of Christian Reconstructionism. I had heard and read Gary North before I ever heard of the popular Calvinist names of John MacArthur and John Piper. The first Gary North article I read as a young college student was on six-day creationism. At the time I felt rather offended by the suggestion. There was a type of dogmatism in Gary’s words that left an impression on me. It was not just that six-day creationism was right, it was that it was needed for all of life. Looking back, I think I am today much more sympathetic to that claim than when I first read it. I now pastor a congregation whose denomination embraces six-day creationism. But it wasn’t that which drew my attention. It was the claim that the Christian faith needed a cohesive, all encompassing paradigm. I was used to separating matters. And the thing about matter is that it is composed of atoms. And atoms are happily atomized. Keeping things distant from each other helped create this divided theology. What hath creation to do with eschatology? I answer this question very differently today because of Christian Reconstructionism.

North was on to something. He still is today publishing vociferously. He is filled with youthful vigor as he writes 2-3 essays a day. The man truly redeems the time. It was through North that I heard about Christian Reconstructionism. A friend of mine from college had been engaged with that movement for some time, and so one day he came into my room and offered me his Christian Recons. collection of journals. I took them all. I still have a few today. Most of them are available on-line for free. CR (Christian Reconstructionism) opened a vast world. In it, there was rich Reformed theology. There was the sovereignty of God topic, usually summarized b y the TULIP, but in the CR world that sovereignty spoke to areas like economics, history, education, and more. I had previously been exposed to the sovereignty of God only over individual salvation. I fought that battle for a while, but eventually gave in. It was too persuasive. Thanks to Michael Horton’s Putting Amazing Back into Grace. a But then CR told me that the sovereignty of God needed to be even more prominent in my thinking. How prominent? As prominent as the world. It further taught me that Reformed is not enough. That is, you cannot simply live with your systematic theology tattooed all over your body (metaphorically speaking), but you needed it tattooed all over the world. The law of God needed to be more than a reminder of an objective standard, but a reality lived out by the nations.

In short, CR’s emphasis on the totality of Jesus for all of life consumed me. It still does to this day. Differences aside–and I do have concerns; concerns with how that theology is articulated and pastorally communicated within the vestiges of this movement–the CR movement opened the world to me. I had been isolated for a long time. My denominational loyalties kept me imprisoned to a narrow view of life that lacked beauty and didn’t translate into much tangible fruit. But with CR, I was always struck by how much a small movement had produced. The movement was not new per se. It came from a long line of thinkers. Calvin embraced some of it in his Deuteronomy Commentary–though at other places he seems to contradict himself; I do have a theory as to why–ask me–Bucer spoke unabashedly about theocratic principles, the Puritans thought that the Gospel needed to be far more than a heart declaration, but a declaration that needed to affect its environment in tangible ways.

As the years have passed, I’ve had the privilege to meet many of these modern Reconstructionists, though I never met R.J. Rushdoony. My admiration continues for many of their insights. And many of those insights seem to be even more relevant today as this nation continues to entangle itself morally, socially, and in other ways in a fashion that belittles its glorious Puritan heritage.

CR led me to where I am today. It taught me to see the world in a more wholistic fashion. It taught me to appreciate elements of this world that I never thought would interest me. Paul says we are to give honor where honor is due. As I get a bit older and reflect upon my last 15 years of theological engagement I become more grateful for those early influences. I am learning not to despise them, despite some differences. I am learning to appreciate their incredible hard work in doing, saying, writing, and speaking ideas that were and are so contrary to the current evangelical ethos.

With this in mind, I’d like to offer five Reconstructionist principles that have helped me to think more biblically and that have shaped me today. Many outside of the CR movement may share these same ideas, but they were and are very central to Reconstructionist ideals. And yes, I am aware that CRs differ on a host of issues.

First, I am indebted to the labors of James B. Jordan b who taught me to think about the world through new eyes. Jim has always emphasized a healthy biblicism. He argues that the reason so many in the evangelical world fail to understand the implications of the Bible is because they suffer from a flawed hermeneutic. They have atomized revelation because they have failed to see the thread that runs through all of Scriptures. JBJ says that God’s revelation is not a piece of literature, it is God’s word, which means that it is layered with great mysteries that only the wise can see. Jim argues for the lunacy of unbelief. The reason unbelievers cannot understand the Bible is because without the Bible they are profoundly insane. It’s not that they can’t understand truth nor that they are incapable of saying anything true, but rather that they are theologically insane, and hence incapable of coherently formulating or speaking harmoniously truthful about the world.

Second, I am indebted to Gary North’s principles of economics. Though he has written so much about capitalism and its implications in society, I am more interested in his economic focus for the Church. His writings on tithing and its implication for the Church have shaped my understanding of the centrality of the Church. North argued that the Church is the center of charity.

Third, I am indebted to Rushdoony’s powerful expositions on the nature of education and the necessity of a distinctly Christian understanding of the Lordship of Jesus over the training and nurturing of our children (Deut. 6). Rushdoony says that education is inescapably messianic. Your children are either being nurtured by the true Messiah or a false one.

Fourth, I am indebted to Greg Bahnsen’s powerful ways of communicating Van Til’s apologetic. Were it not for Bahnsen’s popularizing of Van Til, Van Til would have remained a figure at Westminter Seminary’s archives. I know that some have continued Van Til’s legacy without the help of CR, but what was unique about Bahnsen’s popularizing of Van Til was that he saw Van Til’s model of “no neutrality” applying to a host of issues, beyond the apologetics methodology debate.

Finally, I am indebted to Gary Demar’s American Vision ministries (I should add the late David Chilton). It was through Gary’s book, Last Days Madness, that I was awakened to the flaws of Dispensational theology and the richness of Preterism. Gary has dedicated much of his career to awakening the evangelical mind to an alternative eschatology. His words have not gone unheeded. Many have begun to question their understanding of Revelation, and adopting a more consistent biblical method for understanding that glorious book.

For these reasons, and I am certain many others could be mentioned, I am indebted to Christian Reconstructionism. Reformed Theology has been enriched by the contributions of these scholars.<>продвижение а план

  1. The irony here is that Horton is decidedly anti-Reconstructionist  (back)
  2. some of these figures like James Jordan are no longer a part of that movement, though he was a very influential figure in it in the early days  (back)

Read more

On September 29, 2014 By In Theology

What’s wrong with being Gospel-Centered?

Guest Post by Rev Dr Steve Jeffery, Minister at Emmanuel Evangelical Church, London, England (Blog, Facebook, Twitter)

Well, come on, what could possibly be wrong with the insistence that all of our thoughts and actions about every aspect of our lives – politics and science and economics and education and childrearing and art and work and sport and everything else – should be determined in relation to the gospel?

Nothing at all. So far, so good. Three cheers, and then some.

But there’s a potential problem lurking in the background. The key question is this: What do you think the gospel is?

Suppose we get the gospel right. Suppose you believe that the gospel is the glorious annnouncement that Israel’s God has at last returned to Zion (Isa 40:9) in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, who has been declared with power to be Israel’s true King and the World’s true Lord and Judge (Rom 1:1-6); that this Man is David’s greater Son, and has now been exalted to sit on David’s throne (1 Tim 2:8); that therefore the creation which was once ruled by a rebellious man of sin and dust and death is now ruled by a perfect Man of righteousness and glory and life (Gen 1-3; Rom 5; 8; 1 Cor 15); and that this Man invites and commands all people and all nations to bow before him and receive from him forgiveness of their sins, adoption into God’s family, empowering by the Holy Spirit, and a renewed vocation to bring every aspects of their lives into conformity with God’s inspired and infallible word, the Bible (I’ll leave you to dig out the remaining couple of hundred biblical references – I’m running out of space).

This being the case, there is no problem with affirming that every aspect of our lives should be determined in relation to the gospel. Three cheers for the Gospel-Centered movement

However, suppose we get the gospel wrong. Or, if not wrong, perhaps a little shrunken. Suppose, for example, we think of the gospel in narrower terms, as the proclamation that we’re sinners before a holy God and a righteous Judge, and that God has provided in the crucified and risen Jesus Christ the salvation we need to be put right with him. This is gloriously true, of course, as far as it goes. This is one aspect of the gospel, one perspective on the gospel – a perspective that highlights the gospel’s implications for the salvation of an individual human being. But we’ll encountered all kinds of problems if we identify this as the gospel in toto, and then start to think about all the other aspects of our lives.

The problem is that it is not at all obvious how this message of individual salvation in itself has much relevance for politics and science and economics and education and childrearing and art and work and sport and everything else. If we think of this as “the gospel,” we’ll be right in what we explicitly affirm but wrong in what we implicitly deny. For by conceiving the gospel too narrowly, this view overlooks the fact that the gospel has any relevance beyond the salvation of individual people, since it mistakenly identifies one (vital and glorious) aspect of the gospel (the promise of salvation for sinners) with the gospel as a whole (the declaration of the Lordship of God in Christ over all creation).

To take one example: if we ask what relevance this restricted vision of the gospel has for secular work, we’ll probably struggle to find any connection beyond the (true and important) insistence that we should try to evangelize our colleagues. We’re unlikely to grasp the rich Reformed and biblical doctrine of the dignity of secular vocation: the wondrous truth that all of our work – whether banking or preaching or childrearing or busdriving or whatever – has dignity in the eyes of God not merely because it is what he gave us to do, but also because it is what He Himself is doing in the world through his redeemed-in-Christ human vicegerents to fill and subdue all creation to his glory (Gen 1; Ps 8; Heb 2; etc).

So there’s nothing wrong with being gospel-centered. We just need to make sure that we get the gospel right.<>реклама в газетах стоимость

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 June 9, 2014 By In Theology

Pneumatology in Baptism, Part III, The Baptism of Moses

by Guest Writer, Joshua Torrey

Read Part I & II

The Baptism of Moses

After addressing the clear union of water and Spirit in the story of Noah and Peter’s teaching, some might conclude that the matter of baptism is settled. But there are more Old Testament references to be incorporated to validate and expand the doctrine of this interpretation. Through the seed of deliverance in Noah came the great Patriarch Abraham and the Scriptures tell us that through Abraham God began to build a people to provide a Savior and Blessing, found in Jesus Christ, for the entire world. The remainder of the Old Testament is filled with “how to recognize Him when He gets here” type of material.

One of these important Old Testament reminders and pointers to Christ comes with the story of Moses. He like Noah is a savior. But this time he saves all of Abraham’s family (seed) from the land of Egypt. The early portions of the book of Exodus set the stage for this salvation of Israel,

8 Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. – Exodus 1:8

23 During those many days the king of Egypt died, and the people of Israel groaned because of their slavery and cried out for help. Their cry for rescue from slavery came up to God. 24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. 25 God saw the people of Israel—and God knew. – Exodus 2:23-25

The contrast between these two passages is important. Pharaoh’s lack of knowledge led to persecution and trials for Abraham’s seed. This Pharaoh ceased to “know” the blessings of God through the faithful deliverance of Joseph (a subject matter all its own). As a result the people of Israel were forced into slavery and their lives were made miserable. Despite Pharaoh’s rejection God chose to bless Israel. Pharaoh responded by taking things to the highest level: He attempts to kill the covenant children of Israel (Exo 1:15-22). The importance of this event and its relationship with children will be fully developed later but this event does cast a looming shadow on the tenth and final plagues sent by God. For now it is against this death of Israelite children that the great arm of the Lord is revealed and He does this through “knowing” His people. As seen with Noah, this means that God is acting in favor and mercy towards His covenant people. And so through the faithfulness of two Levites (Exo 2:1) God brought forth a deliverer. And once again He used an ark (H8293),

2 The woman conceived and bore a son, and when she saw that he was a fine child, she hid him three months. 3 When she could hide him no longer, she took for him a basket made of bulrushes and daubed it with bitumen and pitch. She put the child in it and placed it among the reeds by the river bank. – Exodus 2:3

Before addressing the reintroduction of God’s saving basket/ark, it is interesting to note that Moses upon birth is declared “good” (H2896). This is the reason given in the Scriptures for the saving of Moses and it is an element of the story that gets repeated in the New Testament (Acts 7:20; Heb 11:23). Since good is rarely used in the Hebrew concerning people (Genesis 24:1; 26:7; 1 Sam 9:2; 16:12 among the exceptions) the description surely stands out. In two cases it is associated with women found at wells (Gen 24:1; 26:7) and in two others it is the kings of Israel (1 Sam 9:2; 16:12). In every case the individual is clearly being marked out to bring deliverance (the kings) or new life (the Godly wives of the patriarchs) to God’s promised seed. Moses stands in this tradition and the Scriptures mark him out. And it is this marker that explains the actions of his mother.

The English translation hides the symbolism of the Hebrew word tebah (H8293). Moses’ mother truly built “an ark made of bulrushes” to deliver her son. The parallels to Noah are fairly obvious. Pharaoh has declared that all Hebrews shall be “cast into the Nile” (Exo 1:22) to die by water. Moses too is cast into the waters that are meant for death but the Lord delivers him through an ark. This is done not only for the deliverance of Moses but to bring salvation to the people of Israel. One can speculate if Paul’s concept of being “buried with him [Christ Jesus] by baptism into death” (Rom 6:4) is influenced by this out-of-death typology for baptism.

The very name Moses means “to be drawn out.” It stems from a Hebrew verb used only in David’s baptism/deliverance from Saul (2 Sam 22:16-20; Psa 18:15-19). In Moses’ example, God brings forth “new land” from the waters of death. Moses’ rise up out of the water once again reminds us of the baptism of Jesus Christ (Matt 3:16; Mark 1:9). Through baptism, Moses is now capable of saving His people and providing new life. Even more graphically, the ark carrying Moses is delivered from “the reeds” (Exo 2:3). This is the same Hebrew word to describe the baptism of Israel and the conquest of Pharaoh (Exo 15:4). Moses is lifted up from the very death that consumes the armies of Pharaoh (we’ll see more of this is the next section).

The Holy Spirit has no direct link to this story and the symbolism found in Noah is obvious. Sinfulness and death abounds. God has once again “remembered” His covenant people and had godly people build an ark. God has used this ark to perform a baptism of deliverance and instituted a man to deliver His people. As Moses is tightly linked to Noah so also he is to Jesus Christ. In fact the example of Moses brings into focus the particulars concerning Jesus’ baptism under John. Moses, like Christ, was baptized before His ministry began and both spent a full time (40 years/40 days) in the wilderness. Jesus Himself was saved from the arm of an evil king (Matt 2:13-15). He was even delivered to and from Egypt like Moses.

But how does this apply to the baptism practiced by the church? As already seen, Moses’ baptism prepares him to lead Israel through one large baptism to save all of the people. This story points forward to Jesus Christ and the church. Jesus would participate in a baptism in order to start a ministry that would lead to a baptism for God’s people. He would be baptized in John’s “baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3) and then send His disciples out proclaiming “repentance and forgiveness of sins” (Luke 24:47). We know that Christ’s baptism was water and Spirit. Now it is to be seen how Moses’ baptism in the Red Sea is also a union of water and baptism.<>поддержка а цены украинарейтинг ключевых слов google

Read more

On October 4, 2013 By In Theology

Reviewing Kirk Cameron’s “Unstoppable”

by Uri Brito

The thought of spending $12.50 on a movie frightens me. I am perfectly content watching my favorite latest series on Netflix. The thought of going to a movie theater no longer appeals to me as it did ten years ago. So what would compel me to visit the theater this time? I confess, I was intrigued. I have been following Kirk Cameron for some time now. Kirk’s rise to stardom occurred occurred in the late 80’s with Growing Pains. Since then, Cameron has come to Jesus and turned his career toward the Christian movie industry. His official entrance into the evangelical scene came in the 2000 movie, Left Behind. In those days, Cameron had drunk deeply of Tim Lahaye’s best sellers. The Left Behind series became a sensation. The 16-part novels emphasized the rapture, a popular evangelical doctrine of the end-times. The “Rapture” occurs when Jesus calls His Church home. The vision of falling airplanes, tightly folded clothes, and millions of people disappearing has become more than fiction; to many, it is Christianity in its purest form. And Cameron’s movies became the face of it.

Fast forward several years. Cameron’s involvement in broad apologetic and evangelistic work with Ray Comfort has given him some notoriety. He has spoken courageously on a host of moral issues and has received the type of media persecution expected from those who are antagonistic to the exclusivity of Jesus.

Cameron’s personal journey led him to some interesting theological figures. His youthful appeal can be deceiving. Kirk has actually become a fine thinker. And the greatest proof of his ability to engage the world of the Bible intelligently is his latest movie entitled “Unstoppable.” Originally presented to an audience of 10,000 people at Liberty University, Cameron explores the traditional question of theodicy: “If God is sovereign, why does He allow bad things to happen to good people?” a

A Case for Christian Activism

The theme song summarizes the basic thrust of the movie. There is a time to speak and that time is now. Cameron’s investigation provides an apologetic for Christian activism. The former Growing Pains star is now calling Christians everywhere to grow up. Speak for Christ. Defend Christ. The whole world has become a platform for the Christian vision.

This journey seeks to offer some answers to the broad questions of good and evil. Instead of entering into the philosophical arena, Kirk enters into the narrative of redemptive history. The drama of life is being enacted in this great stage. Unstoppable presents a narrative theology that is often unheard of in the evangelical pulpit. This narrative is both compelling and rich. It is a story that starts in the beginning.

Narratival Theology

Through very rich imagery, Cameron takes us through the formation of man. Man is created with authority and that is most clearly seen in his ability to name animals. In doing so, Adam mimics His Creator. God gives man a mission to heavenize earth.  The heavenification project began in the Garden. Adam then is put to sleep and, from his side, God forms woman, who is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone. This beautiful, poetic, creative act, now puts man and woman at the center of God’s great plans for history.

Man was to have dominion over all things. And the first great test they faced came in the form of a beast. Adam should have smelt it a mile away. He should have crushed it. But the compelling drama goes from the safety of the garden into the danger of the forbidden fruit. Adam’s sin plunges humanity into chaos. But in the middle of this cosmic betrayal, God does not betray His creation. He makes a promise (Gen. 3:15). Even after Adam and Eve leave the garden He continues to provide for them.

But the narrative continues in bloody fashion. Humanity experiences its first death: the death of a son, the death of a brother. God then places on Cain the first true mark of the beast.

At this point, Kirk Cameron explores the persuasiveness of this narrative. This is a narrative, he argues, that would not sell. In Genesis, the Creator of the world destroys His own creation when He sent a great deluge to drown humanity in their sin. Why would the Protagonist do this? It is here when Cameron shines in his narration. He argues that God packs the whole world in a wooden box and then re-opens the box (the ark) to a new and better world. The new world is born through tragedy. The story is persuasive because it does not hide the consequences of sin.

The Theology of Unstoppable

Unstoppable is a short commentary on Genesis, which is consequently a commentary on the whole Bible. The great rainbow (bow) serves as an instrument of war. God took that instrument and directed it to His only begotten Son at the cross. At the cross, Christ was brutally murdered by His own creation. But it is precisely at the cross, argues Cameron, that “Jesus flips death on its head by dying for His enemies.” After death came life. Life burst from the grave. In fact, every graveyard is a garden. And one day, “each seed will burst into a new world.”

It is in this resurrection theme that Cameron transforms the question of evil into a case for the God who redeems humanity and will bring humanity from the dust of the earth into a new creation. Cameron takes the death of his young friend and uses it as an example for how grieving is not the end of the story. God’s purposes are unstoppable.

This is not your typical Bible story telling. Cameron weaved into his narrative a robust view of creation. Creation is not something to be despised or rejected. Creation was not left behind by its God. Creation is being redeemed by its Maker. Redeemed humanity united to the Final Adam, Jesus Christ, is now commissioned to disciple the nations and make the glory of God known.

Evangelicals will be deeply shocked by its overwhelming optimism. Cameron does not end in lament, but in triumph. The Christian vision is not an escapist one. It is a mission grounded in resurrection joy. And because of this, evil does not have the final word. God cannot be stopped. His purposes will be accomplished in history. His glory will be known from sea to sea.

DVD AVAILABLE
JANUARY 28, 2014

CHURCH SHOWINGS BEGIN NOVEMBER 15!<>mobile rpg games onlineконтекстная реклама adwords

  1. Inherent in the question, is “How can He allow bad things to happen to Christians?  (back)

Read more