From Around the Web…
September 1, 2009
Some interesting, fun, informative, challenging, and edifying links for a Tuesday:
- Listen to Alistair Begg’s powerful pleading to adopt a “two-kingdom” theology for the practical benefit of Christ’s church (don’t let the music fool you – this is excellent).
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
- Ask yourself if your spouse and family are idols – and consider how the church sometimes promotes a “picket fence” idolatry.
- Listen to Derek Webb repent of just this sort of idolatry.
- Consider with T. David Gordon why the decline of cultural Christianity in the West may be good… really good.
- Take a seminary course from Covenant Theological Seminary’s Worldwide Classroom.
- Pray for the people of Thailand.
- Watch, as John Lennox talks about the Christian use of the mind and the problems of anti-intellectualism.
- Listen to recent episodes of The White Horse Inn, such as their excellent discussion on “Boredom and Entertainment.”
- Attend the Reformation Society of Pittsburgh conference, Mystery of the Kingdom.
- Read a very thoughtful review of the new American Patriot’s Bible.
- Read John and Noel Piper talk about why they keep their children in worship and offer helpful practical suggests on how to make it work.
How a Two Kingdom Theology Can Help You Drive a Bus
August 25, 2009
On August 19, 2009 the Des Moine Register carried a story about a city bus driver who refused to drive her bus because it carried a pro-atheist advertisement. According the article, the bus driver’s husband said, “to me, it’s kind of wrong to deny a person of their job because they have a belief.”
And it is precisely here where a solid biblical understanding of two-kingdom theology can help.
I appreciate the Christian commitment of the bus-driver and her sincere desire to do what she believe right. However, it seems to me that she did the wrong thing. Here’s why…
To begin, Jesus himself makes it very clear that it is God’s will for Christians to remain in this world. Specifically, in his high priestly prayer Jesus prays, not that God would take Christians out of the world, but that he would simply protect them from the evil one (John 17:15). Practically, this means that God has called Christians to live in a broken world that is infiltrated with sin and the influence of the evil one, and the challenge for the Christian (thus Jesus’ prayer) is to live a sanctified life in this world in testimony to the truths of the Gospel.
For our sake, what is important in Jesus’ prayer is the significance of this calling to remain in the world. Since we’ve not been taken out of the world this means that our normal expectation of life is daily encounters with corruption, sin, and evil as we live in the world. All people, even Christians, ride buses with racy, anti-Christian, or otherwise sinful advertisements – and as Christians we do this precisely because we are called by our Lord to live in the world.
Jesus makes the point most clearly when he was asked, “Is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar, or not?” (Luke 20:22). The debate would have been, “Can a faithful believer really give money in support of such a corrupt, sinful, blasphemous government?” Jesus answer? “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Luke 20:25). In other words, understand that you live as a citizen of two kingdoms, and you have distinct responsibilities within each. As a citizen of the world, you’ve got to pay taxes, even if the money goes to a corrupt government. And, as a city employee, you’ve got to drive that bus, even if the advertisements on it are corrupt. In fact, a strong argument could be made that to not drive that bus is the true sin – failing to do your job well, failing to serve your fellow man who needs to get to work on time.
Precious Words for Husbands from John Chrysostom
August 13, 2009
More from Chrysostom on the implications of our marriage to Christ. This time he comments on Ephesians 5:25:
Pay attention to love’s high standard. If you take the premise that your wife should submit to you, as the church submits to Christ, then you should also take the same kind of careful, sacrificial thought for her that Christ takes for the church. Even if you must offer your own life for her, you must not refuse. Even if you must undergo countless struggles on her behalf and have all kinds of things to endure and suffer, you must not refuse. Even if you suffer all this, you have still done not as much as Christ has for the church. For you are already married when you act this way, whereas Christ is acting for one who has rejected and hated him. So, just as he, when she was rejecting, hating, spurning and nagging him, brought her to trust him by his great solicitude, not by threatening, lording it over her or intimidating her or anything like that, so must you also act toward your wife.
Mark J. Edwards, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 195.
John Chrysostom on the Physical Implications of Being the Bride of Christ
August 13, 2009
On my study leave this week I am working on an exegetical study of Revelation 19:7-8:
“Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready; it was granted her to clothe herself with fine linen, bright and pure” – for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints. (ESV)
The focus of my studies revolves around the significance of the Bride, that is Christ’s church, making herself ready for “the marriage of the Lamb.” From a pastoral perspective I am asking, “How does the church prepare for its wedding day?” And, as John Chrysostom (c. 347-407) points out so well, to be betrothed to Christ carries not only spiritual implications, but physical implications as well. Here is what he says in his homily on 1 Cor. 6:15:
For supposing you had a daughter, and in extreme madness had let her out to a procurer for hire, and made her live a harlot’s life, and then a king’s son were to pass by, and free her from that slavery, and join her in marriage to himself; you could have no power thenceforth to bring her into the brothel. For you gave her up once for all, and sold her. Such as this is our case also. We let out our own flesh for hire unto the Devil, that grievous procurer: Christ saw and set it free, and withdrew it from that evil tyranny; it is not then ours any more but His who delivered it. If you be willing to use it as a King’s bride, there is none to hinder; but if you bring it where it was before, you will suffer just what they ought who are guilty of such outrages. Wherefore you should rather adorn instead of disgracing it.
Chrysostom’s point: Not even our bodies are our own since we are now wed to Christ. Indeed, this is what Paul teaches in 1 Cor. 6:15, “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?”
In a world in which promoscuity and sexual exploits are the norm, may we remember our true Bridegroom, and with the help of God’s grace may we physically prepare for the glorious wedding day that awaits.
Machen on Faith, Works, and the Enduring Power of God
August 10, 2009
From J. Gresham Machen’s Faith and Works:
So in the midst of a practical world, the Christian exhibits a practical life of love — a busy life of helpfulness, feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, receiving the strangers, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and the prisoners. And all that accomplished not by his own unaided efforts, not even merely by his own faith, but by the great object of his faith, the all-powerful God.
The Christian preacher, then, comes before the world with a great alternative. Shall we continue to depend upon our own efforts, or shall we receive by faith the power of God? Shall we content ourselves with the materials which this world affords, seeking by endlessly new combinations to produce a building that shall endure; or shall we build with the materials that have no flaw? Shall we give men new motives, or ask God to give them a new power? Shall we improve the world, or pray God to create a new world? The former alternatives have been tried and found wanting: the best of architects can produce no enduring building when all the materials are faulty; good motives are powerless when the heart is evil. Struggle as we may, we remain just a part of this evil world until, by faith, we cry: “Not by might, nor by power, but by Thy Spirit. O Lord of Hosts.”
Toothpaste, Courage, and the Protestant Church
July 31, 2009
Insight from David Wells’, The Courage to Be Protestant…
In February, USA Today carried a story about a study that found most Americans are more loyal to their toothpaste brand than their denomination.
The article quotes one cultural critic:
At first blush the findings may indicate that “the United States worships at the church of consumption,” but thinks there’s more to the numbers than that…. “When you actually think about it for more than 10 seconds, none of this is all that surprising and I don’t think it’s actually bad.” He said the statistics demonstrate that some of the age-old rivalries between Protestant denominations have simply dissolved. “Those distinctions, which seemed so important as the various Protestant churches were identifying and evolving … are really not that important to the average churchgoer in the United States.”
I had three thoughts as I read this article.
First, I have no idea what brand toothpaste I use.
Second, I have switched denominations several times in my life. So, in some ways, the statistics of the study are not that surprising. There are, of course, good reasons and bad reasons to change denominations. I have changed for both good and, lamentably, bad. The study apparently did not explore the reasons, good or bad, why people change.
Third, I was somewhat troubled by the comments of the cultural commentator above. It seems to me that he contradicts himself, first lamenting that it may look like we worship at the “church of consumption,” but then celebrating the fact that we are free to choose where to worship because theological distinctions are not that important anymore. If theological distinctions are indeed no longer important in choosing a church, then all that is really left is one’s preference for style. In other words we truly are worshiping at the “church of consumption.”
Here I am reminded of a few things David Wells says in his book, The Courage to Be Protestant:
The evangelical church, or at least a good slice of it, is nervous, twitchy, and touchy about consumer desire, ready to change in a nanosecond at the slightest hint that tastes and interests have changed. Why? Because consumer appetite reigns. And consumer appetites are very much alive in what used to be called the pew. Those who attend churches are now like any other customers you might meet in the mall. Displease them in any way and they will take their business elsewhere (p. 36).
These are challenging words, but I can’t help but think that Wells is right. One of the reasons we are more loyal to our toothpaste brand than to our denomination is because we care too little about theological distinctions (i.e. truth), and too much about our consumerist desires. As I’ve been preaching through the gospel of Luke I can’t help but think of the dangerous desires of Jesus’ disciples. They desired a kingdom of power and glory (Luke 9:33, 54; 11:46; 22:24, 49-50), but Jesus gave them the cross (Luke 9:22, 44), something they did not want nor understand at the time – but something they needed!
Well, none of this ought to surprise us. The Bible tells us quite plainly that this is simply how things are going to be. Paul speaks of the word of the cross as “folly” to those who are perishing (1 Cor. 1:18) and he also says, “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth (2 Tim. 4:3-4). In other words, the time is coming (and indeed is here) when “the church of consumption” will reign.
In this ecclesiastic climate, David Wells’ book is appropriately titled. It does indeed takes courage to be a Protestant, not because of persecution from outside the church, but from within. In his opening paragraph Wells makes this exact point, “The truths of historic Protestantism are sometimes no more welcome in evangelicalism than they are in the outside culture” (p. 1).
When Wells speaks of these rejected truths of historic Protestantism, he has in mind three foundational biblical truths (pp. 244-246): First, the truth that God is sovereign and that God alone grows the church; Second, the truth of human inability… we can pray, preach, counsel, and witness, “but God alone gives the growth”; and Third, the truth that God has ordained the means by which his church grows, namely, the preaching of the Word. In summary, Wells has argued that the church has lost the doctrines which allow God to be God over his church, the result being a powerful wave of pragmatism and the displacement of God as central in church life. This can be seen in the fact that people care more about their toothpaste brand than about the distinct theological understandings of God from one denomination to the next.
According to Wells the good news in the midst of all of this bad news is that the current ecclesiastic void left by pragmatic, consumeristic churches can be filled by courageous pastors, leaders, and congregations who are willing to let God be God over the church. Wells concludes his book with the following:
I believe today there is a deep yearning for churches in which God is God…. Churches, in fact, need to be communities that love the truth God has revealed and, in so doing, become serious and joyous about the God of that truth and intent upon serving him in his world. The church is not a business, not an experiment, not a product to be sold. It is an outpost of the kingdom, a sign of things to come in Christ’s sovereign rule, which is now hidden but will be made open and public. Then all the world will bow before him in recognition of who he is.
And this, I dare say, is the only answer we have for the church’s existence and service. It is the anticipation of that great day. It is pointing beyond itself to that great day. It lives in this world, but it lives because it has seen the glory of the coming of the Lord. This is the knowledge that changes everything. Business savvy, organizational wizardry, cultural relevance are simply no substitute for this. Unless the Lord rebuilds the evangelical church today, as we humble ourselves before him and hear afresh his Word, it will not be rebuilt (pp. 247-248).
Jonathan Edwards on “Pressing into the Kingdom of God”
April 29, 2009
Last Sunday I preached on Luke 16:16.
The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone forces his way into it.
There is a wide-ranging debate over what this passage means, but the most literal interpretation seems to be the best. That is, everyone who enters the kingdom of God forces his way into it.
To our Reformed ears, with our emphasis on grace alone, this may sound strange. If God saves, how is it that we must force our way into the kingdom? The answer is that although we are saved by nothing that we do, no one is saved who does nothing.
Take John the Baptist for example. Jesus mentions him as one who “forces his way into it.” Indeed, John was saved by the grace of God alone – not by anything he had done. In fact, John is the one who points out that it is Jesus who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29). Yet the knowledge of the kingdom of God and the saving work of Christ didn’t lead John to do nothing. Instead, John was a wild man, zealous in his message of repentance, forceful in his spiritual application of kingdom truths to the very end of his life. John was saved by grace, not by any work that he did, but that didn’t mean he did nothing. Instead John spent his life (and death) forcing his way into the kingdom.
Here, some may object that if they are earnest and zealous and forceful and take a great deal of pains in doing their Christian duties that they may then fall into the temptation of trusting in their own works or righteousness.
Not necessarily so, says Jonathan Edwards. Here’s his response to this objection in his sermon on Luke 16:16:
There is ordinarily no kind of seekers that trust so much to what they do, as slack and dull seekers…. A more awakened conscience will not rest so quietly in moral and religious duties, as one that is less awakened. A dull seeker’s conscience will be in a great measure satisfied and quited with his own works and performances; but one that is thoroughly awakened cannot be stilled or pacified with such things as these. In this way persons gain much more knowledge of themselves, and acquantiance with their own hearts, than in a negligent, slight way of seeking; for they have a gread deal more experience of themselves. It is experience of ourselves, and finding what we are, that God commonly makes use of as the means of bringing us off from all dependence on ourselves. But men never get acquantance with themselves so fast, as in the most earnest way of seeking. They that are in this way have more to engage them to think of their sins, and strictly to observe themselves, and have much more to do with their own hearts, than others. Such a one has much more experience of his own weakness, than another that does not put forth aand try his strength; and will therefore sooner see himself dead in sin…. It is therefore quite a wrong notion that some entertain, that the more they do, the more they shall depend on it. Whereas the reverse is true; the more they do, or the more thorough they are in seeking, the less will they be likely to rest in their doings, and the sooner will they see the vanity of all they do…. Those that go on in a more slight way, trust a gread deal more securely to their dull services, than he that is pressing into the kingdom of God does to his earnestness. Men’s slackness in religion, and their trust in their own righteousness, strengthen and establish one another.
Edwards is suggesting that the harder we strive to force our way into the kingdom of heaven, the more we will then naturally despair of our own righteousness and works, and trust only in the righteousness of Christ. Therefore, may we continue to force our way in, and while doing so learn to rest in Christ all the more.