How do I know I am saved?

In a ridiculously lengthy but fruitful series of comments left on a recent post on Susan's (a.k.a. Halfmom) blog, the topic of "assurance of salvation" was brought up in this way:

People who have been saved seem to know they have been saved. Since I have no idea whether I am saved or not, I presume I am not.

My sympathies go out to Estelle and all those who wrestle with such painful doubts. The reason is: I too was torn up over this very issue. All my life I grew up believing that everyone who believes that Jesus Christ died for the forgiveness of his sins (the believing person's sins, not Jesus') would have the gift of eternal life (e.g., John 3:16). But during my freshman and sophomore years at Michigan State, a nagging doubt crept up from time to time: Do I really believe that? What does it really mean to believe? Do I believe it enough? Faced with the reality of a hell of eternal torment that would never, ever cease, I had cause for alarm.

In addition, a few things I've read recently have really provoked me to think more deeply about assurance of salvation and the nature of faith. If we are justified through faith, if faith is what unites us to Christ and keeps us in communion with all his benefits, then what is such a "saving faith"? Can I or should I know that I possess saving faith? This is a matter of no small importance, for it is our Father's desire that we "draw near [to God] with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water" (Hebrews 10:22). We as rebellious covenant-breakers need assurance that we have found pardon and rest in Christ if we are to rightly glorify God's mercy at the Cross.

Alpha and Omega

I'm in a little bit of "deep water" right now. Whether due to miscommunication or misunderstanding, I'll have to wait several weeks before obtaining an Illinois provisional teaching certificate. (I was told it could be up to eight weeks.) What that means for me is that until I receive it, I'll be working only a "substitute" for decreased pay and no benefits. But just when I find it easy to freak out in anxiety and forget my Father, I need to remember a "bumper sticker" from my friend Jenn's Facebook profile:


(Sorry it's kind of small.) I don't know if this is some sort of kitsch slogan, but either way I believe these are sound words to live by. When we live by Jesus' words, that he is the Alpha and the Omega, we have to acknowledge that no matter how big are our problems or how perilous our evils, it is God who got not only the first word, but also the last. The reality of every evil, difficulty, and anxiety is encompassed by even greater God-reality. He conquers over all our woes, and he will bring all those who trust in his Son with him to outlive them all in the end. We won't live bump-free lives, but we know that the bumps aren't the whole story; God, our loving and supremely powerful Father, is. Even now he weathers storms with us and carries us through, and in hope he will bring us home in the end.

Why do you say, O Jacob,
and complain, O Israel,
"My way is hidden from the LORD;
my cause is disregarded by my God?"
Do you not know?
Have you not heard?
The LORD is the everlasting God,
the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He will not grow tired or weary,
and his understanding no one can fathom.
(Isaiah 40:27-28)

Don't Look a Gift Horse, er, Church in the Mouth To See if It Chews the Cud; Neither Look at its Hooves to See if They Are Cloven

With my move to Chicago's western suburbs comes a new church. As I've been involved with several Reformed/Presbyterian churches over the past few years and have seen increasingly the worth of Reformed theology, it's a little hard for me to leave that for an Evangelical Free Church. I have developed understandings (which are always developing, of course) about corporate worship, soteriology, church government, and eschatology which would, at least in part, be left behind with my new church.

In chapters 10-11 of the Acts of the Apostles, Peter has a dream in which the Lord Jesus urges him to eat from a cornucopia of animals which would normally be unclean under the Jewish ceremonial law. Peter is in shock, but he learns through it that God has opened the way for "unclean" Gentiles to himself. This is soon confirmed at Cornelius's house, where the Holy Spirit is given to many Gentiles. Peter concludes that "if God gave them the same gift [of the Holy Spirit] that he had given us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?" (11:17). Barnabas comes to the same conclusion that the Gentiles in Antioch likewise were approved by God, since they bore "evidence of the grace of God" and were "true to the Lord" (11:23).

Peter had to yield his prior notions of what constituted the people of God and the marks of their worship, as God opened the door of salvation to everyone (cf. Acts 15). As good as the ceremonial laws in which Peter believed were, they were no longer allowed to supercede the true badge of God's people: faith in Jesus as the Messiah, given and sealed by the Holy Spirit. God's judgments overrode those of Peter or any other Jewish Christian.

In similar fashion, I've got things that I value about worship and doctrine. But what really is more important: valuing good and valid theological understandings, or loving the very people whom God has himself chosen? We're called as the church to love those everywhere who belong to Christ, regardless of denominational preferences, and that call includes me. The question is: Will I love doctrines or even personal preferences (however rational or biblical they may be) more than people? Am I somehow above them?

At the end of his letter to the Galatians, in which he deals with controversy over "marks of the true church," Paul urges the Galatian Christians in every opportunity to "do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers" (Galatians 6:10). In a family, children don't get to choose their own brothers and sisters, but they are called to put aside their sibling rivalries and live in loving unity (cf. Psalm 133:1). In the same way, we're a "family of believers" because Christians are born not according to our own human wills, but by God's Spirit (John 1:12-13; 3:1-8). Faith only comes from God, so it's his choice that counts. Who am I, then, to question the church I'll be joining, those who are loved by God and given his Spirit? Who am I to look suspiciously--even ungratefully--at God's very own provision for me in people whom I can build up and who also will build me up?

Fear That Freezes, Fear That Frees

Moving to a new locale is a big deal. My future is filled with “what ifs”: What if I don’t like my new school? What if I think my town is boring? What if I don’t make friends? What if I don’t fit in at church? What if my relationship ends? What if I’m all alone? Fear like this often has a tendency to paralyze me. But Jesus speaks to his disciples about this fear that freezes:

I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him. Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows. (Luke 12:4-7)

The Holy Spirit has graciously reminded me of the truth of this passage (even though I’m having difficulty really grasping it and finding rest at this point). Jesus is telling his disciples—his friends—about persecution and trials that will come as they follow him. They had heard their Master speak about how the religious leaders had not only killed all of God’s previous prophets, but also that they would persecute and even kill the apostles whom Jesus would send (Luke 11:47-51). Jesus was telling them not to fear the very people who would oppose them and even put them to death!

The reason Jesus gives for confidence is odd: They should fear God alone, because only he has the power to determine eternal life and death. Upon a cursory reading, it seems that Jesus is warning his disciples that they too are in danger of hell. But what I believe he’s really saying is this: “You are my dear friends; and in me you are dear to God. No detail of your circumstances will ever slip by his notice or be dropped from his hands. He watches over flittering birds; how much more will he guard you who bear his own image! You have nothing to fear in this world except the God who loves you.”

Leaving a situation in life in which I was growing more and more comfortable and stepping out into a big Question Mark is difficult. But faith calls me to live not by what if but by what is: the reality of Christ's grace, which works its power in my weakness (2 Corinthians 12:9). The truth is that even if all else changes, my life is not over. My path does not dead-end. Life with God is never hopeless. I am often tempted to think in despair, If all my fears above come true, this is all a loss; I will have nothing; what will I do then? But if I have God and even God alone, I have nothing less than if I were to have God and every other worldly blessing. “[God’s] divine power has given us everything we need for life . . . through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness” (2 Peter 1:3). Therefore I am free to take whatever may come, moving forward in hope, because I can know the Almighty, the Commander of Angel Armies,* as my caring, all-powerful, all-wise, all-loving Father who rejoices in doing good to me (Jeremiah 32:41).

_______________
*In the Old Testament God is frequently called YHWH Tsavaoth, the “LORD of hosts” (NIV “LORD Almighty”). These “hosts” are the legions of angels who fight at God’s bidding for the good of his people Israel.

On the Move

The news is in: I'm moving to Chicago--well, to its southwestern suburbs, to be precise. After nearly three seemingly futile months of seeking employment up here, I have been offered a job teaching high school chemistry and physical science in Plainfield, Illinois, only twenty minutes from Olivia. She and I are so excited!

Though I'm reluctant to write anything about this right now because I hate to write hastily composed babble, I think one thing is in order: a word of thanks. It's easy for me to want to write about more "profound" things such as determining God's will, but really one thing is needful: giving thanks. "Be joyful always; pray continually; give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus" (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18). There isn't really anything more "spiritual" than simply doing these things.*

It goes without saying that it is God who has opened and shut doors and whose Spirit has provided direction and persistence for Olivia and me. It is he who has continued to give us the faith needed to see fullness beyond convenience and to trust in our Rock more than our own feelings. It is he who continues to allow Olivia and I to communicate with one another (however effectively or not). And above all it is only the shed blood of his beloved Son Jesus which allows us free access to the Holy One's throne in prayer (Hebrews 10:19-22).

But Jesus has brought us to God in this matter and intercedes for us more than just at the heavenly throne; he has been doing so through the members of his body on Earth. I owe just as much gratitude to everyone who has said a prayer for us and asked that a job would be opened up for me. Thank you!

Of course, this new job means I have a lot on my plate in the next month, thereby necessitating that I "pray continually." In only four weeks' time I will need to spend a week at home in Michigan, say my goodbyes to friends in Richmond, find a place to live near Plainfield/Bolingbrook, move all my stuff, and prepare for school! My first day "on the job" is August 14, and the first day with students is August 21. But I did nearly as much last year in the same amount of time, so I know it's doable in the Lord.

____________
*I think it's instructive that the (Reformed) Heidelberg Catechism organizes its teaching around the three themes of guilt, grace, and gratitude. The whole of the Christian life is to be one of gratitude for our reconciliation to God and all aspects of his faithfulness and love.

Of Commas and Complaints, Part II

Why do we have grammar? The easy answer is this: to preserve clear communication. If I choose to conjugate verbs any which way I so choose or to rearrange parts of a sentence however I please, do I fault you for misunderstanding me? In the oft-quoted (and oft-misued) words of poet John Donne, "No man is an island." We are in relationship with others, whether we like it or not; and the strength of our relationships and the effectiveness of our communication depend upon the clarity of what we say and write. Grammar matters.

My latest "grammar gripe" is one that is proliferating profusely: failure to place commas in a series. A series is when three or more related words or phrases are placed in a list. Here are a few examples:

Her job required her to pack quickly, to travel often, and to have no personal life.*

The colors of Old Glory are red, white, and blue.

Unfortunately, no real consensus exists about whether or not to use the second or final comma in a series. Some people see commas as replacements for the conjunction "and"; thus a comma before the word and is redundant and unnecessary. However, others see the comma as indicating a pause in speech that demarcates separate items. Here are two examples from the most recent edition of Newsweek magazine that illustrate why I strongly favor the latter function of commas:

"He [George Carlin] was mild-mannered, well read and polite to a fault--all while casually dropping F-bombs." (Kevin Smith, "Remembering a God. A God Who Cussed.")

We'll leave the inconsistent hyphen usage aside for now to focus on the effect of the author's comma (mis)usage. Was Carlin three separate things: (1) mild-mannered, (2) well-read, and (3) polite to a fault? Or does "well read and polite to a fault" serve as an appositive describing or defining his mild-manneredness? "He was mild-mannered, that is, well read and polite to a fault." Do you see the confusion caused here by failing to separate the latter two adjectives with a comma?

"I think he [Abraham Lincoln] embodies those qualities that are the very best in America: upward mobility, an embrace of the future and an ability to stand fast on principle while acknowledging the other side of the debate." (Barack Obama, quoted by Jon Meacham, "The Stories We Tell Ourselves")

This is perhaps less unclear, as the series is introduced by the fact that there are multiple qualities Obama wishes to point out. But we run into the same problem again: Are there three qualities in Lincoln, or is his upward mobility illustrated or defined by embracing the future and diplomatically standing fast on principle?

Here's one final example:

"We are looking for a house with a big yard, a view of the harbor and beach and docking privileges."*

Does your dream house have (A1) a view of the harbor and beach and (A2) docking privileges, or does it have (B1) a view of the harbor and (B2) beach and docking privileges? What is comprised in the view? What privileges do you have? It would be much clearer simply to add the final "serial comma": "We are looking for a house with a big yard, a view of the harbor, and beach and docking privileges." (Version A could be clarified by writing "a view of the harbor and the beach.")

Perhaps I'm being overly picky on what isn't even a matter of consensus among style experts. But as long as I continue to stumble over a missing flick-of-the-wrist's ink, I'll continue to contend for that second comma.

_______
* Thanks to Merriam-Webster's Standard American Style Manual for these examples.

Hope for Anglicans

Perhaps from a desire for ecumenical unity, I have been following the ups and downs of the global Anglican Communion for the past few years. As you may be aware, deep-seated controversies have arisen between conservatives and liberals among the Anglican churches (including the Church of England and the Episcopal churches in North America). The real issue at stake is the authority of Scripture and its traditional, orthodox interpretations by church leadership. This has shown itself most painfully among the liberals in their muddling of sexual standards, going so far as to bless same-sex unions and ordain clergy who openly practice a gay lifestyle.

Most recently, the conservative/orthodox GAFCON (Global Anglican Future Conference) met in boycott of the Lambeth conference, held every ten years. As I read through the most recent updates of this conference on BBC News, three things struck me. (1) In reading the GAFCON statement, I was amazed by the sense in which their council embodied both a commitment to the purity of the gospel under the authority of canonical Scripture, as well as eagerness to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:3). Of course, this meeting was not quite on par with Acts 15 or the seven ecumenical councils that defined historic Christian orthodoxy in Christianity's first millenium (or four councils, as the GAFCON statement claims). But I sense a similar spirit in which such "apostolic" things are still going on today, the Holy Spirit guiding and purifying Christ's body from all defilement.

(2) I am amazed at how far some of the liberals' understanding of biblical doctrine departs from orthodoxy. Conservatives such as me are perplexed at how anyone can openly bastardize "clear teachings" from the Bible. (See especially Bishop Andrus's last point here, concerning the Great Commission.) But I'm learning that what's always at stake in these debates is whether or not we presuppose the authority of God's Word over us and our own reasoning and human principles (cf. Colossians 2:8).

(3) The Anglicans pushing for orthodoxy and loving reform in the Communion are by and large from "Global South" countries, namely, those in Africa. The doctrinal and moral collapse and "enfeebled witness" of the European and North American churches shows that we are no longer in a Christianized realm. The heart of Christianity is moving southward more and more. This is certainly an indictment of compromise--Christ removing unfaithful churches' lampstands, as it were (Revelation 2:5). But is is also a glorious sign of the gospel's triumph; the message of Christ will not be snuffed out by the world. "The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it" (John 1:5). Though weaknesses and syncretitistic compromise are ailing parts of the Communion and thereby weakening the church as a whole, yet other parts of the body are growing in health and strength. I especially praise the Anglican leaders in Zimbabwe who are fighting against the despotism of Robert Mugabe, who won another rigged election and was sworn in on the Bible. Apparently Mugabe believes only divine action can overturn his rule--and it shall.

"Give Thanks in All Circumstances"

At the present time, it's looking like Olivia and I might be stuck states apart for another year, she in Chicago and I in Richmond. I have a June 30 deadline to be released from my contract with Henrico County. But last week, when our frustrations and anxieties were about to get the better of us, I noticed a Bible passage I had written on my kitchen whiteboard: "Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you" (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18). I had to pause and think: Why do I possibly have to be joyful and give thanks about in our circumstances? And why is it that just now did I pay attention to what I've had written on my whiteboard for months? You think you're pretty funny, eh, God? Though I don't think it's necessary to share a ton about us, I think posting a few things that came to mind while praying with Olivia later that night would be worth passing on. Perhaps this will help you, too, to be thankful and joyful in whatever is happening in your own life.

(1) It's a near miracle that Olivia and I ever met in the first place, let alone grew in a relationship for this long while separated by such a gulf. Everyone else says that long-distance relationships are certainly improbable and unlikely to succeed, if not impossible.

(2) Back in the winter we were going through some times of deep uncertainly (chiefly on my end), over which I nearly called it all off. But spring break was a renewing blast, and we've only grown since then.

(3) We've managed to grow in patience and willingness to understand one another's needs and concerns.

(4) We're learning our role as God's created servants--the life we were made for. As we are broken of our ability to control every aspect of our lives and relationship according to our own timetables, God is teaching us that it is he who is in control. As our Lord, we cannot even begin to call into question his wisdom and decisions for us. His thoughts and ways far surpass ours and beyond suspicion; our role is simply to accept it all with gratitude and awe. (This is essentially the message of the whole book of Job, especially chapters 38-41.)

(5) Duh! I have a great, attractive girl with an infectious laugh, a bright smile, beautiful eyes, and lush blonde hair. She loves baseball and the outdoors, wants to do missions, loves the Lord, treasures the Word, and speaks to me God's truth where it's needed. She's patient with me, takes an interst in my activities and pursuits, and even finds me attractive (short height and decreasing musculature included).

What do you have to be thankful for today?

(6) . . . And could I forget? In typical "God fashion," as he waits until the last moment to stretch our faith and force us to prayer, two schools contacted me today about interviewing for science teaching openings! Thanks to any and all who have prayed for this.

Baptism VI: Baptism is Eschatological

Now that school is out for the summer and I have a little more time on my hands, I’m picking up where I left off several months ago in my discussion of the sacrament of Christian baptism.

In Titus 3 Paul tells of how God mercifully saved us “through the washing of regeneration and the renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life” (vv. 5-7).

What is this “washing of regeneration” through which God has saved us? That is, what is regeneration, and how is it a “washing”? In a word, regeneration or rebirth is the work of the “living water” of the Holy Spirit in uniting us to Jesus Christ. In union with him by faith, his Spirit not only cleanses from the stain of sin (as in our sinful nature, not just sinful deeds), but he also remakes us as God’s children for “newness of life” in Christ (cf. Rom. 6:3-4). Commenting on John 3:3-8, John Murray explains being "born of water and the Spirit” in this way, which certainly applies equally well to Titus 3:5:

Entrance into the kingdom of God could only be secured by purification from the defilement of sin. The water of purification is as it were the womb out of which must emerge the new life which gives entrance into and fits for membership in the kingdom of God. This is the purificatory aspect of regeneration. Regeneration must negate the past as well as reconstitute for the future. It must cleanse from sin as well as recreate in righteousness. (Redemption Accomplished and Applied, p. 98)

This sounds an awful lot like Noah and the flood, in which God also judged and renewed by water. He erased the old world in which sin abounded in all its ugliness and rebellion and simultaneously re-created the world, as it were, in hope and peace. Water both wiped out the old in judgment as well as birthed the new. Peter teaches this in saying that “the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and . . . by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished” (2 Pet. 3:5-6).

But Peter also explicitly says that the Noahic flood was a shadow or type that finds its fulfillment in Christian baptism. “In which [the ark] a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you--not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:20-21, NRSV).* Baptism is an even greater saving and recreating event than the Flood ever was!

So we see that baptism involves a watery “flood” that condemns unrighteousness and recreates in righteousness and hope. Even though God will again destroy the world, he will recreate it as “new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (2 Pet. 3:7, 13). Interestingly, Jesus speaks of this same event in Matthew 19:28 as “the regeneration” (Greek palingenesia, “rebirth”; ESV “the new world,” NIV “the renewal of all things”). The only other NT use of palingenesia is in Titus 3:5. Our spiritual rebirth is a foretaste of the great recreation of the coming age (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15), the future reaching back into the present.

But if this regenerating salvation-flood that eradicates that old and forms the new finds its fulfillment in the waters of baptism, in what way can we link baptism with the “washing of regeneration” in Titus 3:5? Peter explicitly states that baptism does not have its efficacy in the outward washing itself (1 Pet. 3:21); the water works only by the word of God (2 Pet. 3:5). It is perhaps best, then, to understand it this way: Just as washing with water is seen and experienced visibly in baptism, so is the inner, spiritual cleansing promised in the gospel visibly offered to believe in. For all who by God’s grace repent and trust in Christ, they are not merely washed with water externally; they are also cleansed within. Thus we can call it a “washing of regeneration.” (See also Ezekiel 36:25-29a, where cleansing, rebirth, water, and the Holy Spirit are all linked in God's new covenant promises.)

God does not sport with us by unmeaning figures, but inwardly accomplishes by his power what he exhibits by the outward sign; and therefore, baptism is fitly and truly said to be “the washing of regeneration.” . . . It is therefore the Spirit who regenerates us, and makes us new creatures [not the water ritual itself]; but because his grace is invisible and hidden, a visible symbol of it is beheld in baptism. (John Calvin, Commentary on Titus)

Note also that this “washing of regeneration” is done by the Holy Spirit, who is “poured out on us richly” (Tit. 3:6). Where else do we read of the Spirit being “poured out”? Pentecost. When the apostles begin preaching of Christ in many languages, it is because God had fulfilled his promise to pour out his Spirit on all people—a promise to be fulfilled only in “the last days” (Acts 2:16-21, 33; cf. Joel 2:28-32). This outpouring sheds abroad God’s love in our hearts, marking us no longer as slaves but as his children, heirs in hope of our eternal inheritance.

Therefore we can say that baptism is eschatological. (Eschatology is the study of the “last things,” the future kingdom of God.) It’s not so important to think about the link between baptism and the future as it is to realize that the regeneration in Christ it signifies is both real and necessary for entering the kingdom. And it is a regeneration not somewhere off in the distance, but one that has happened to you if you believe in Jesus. You have a new hope and a new identity. A new power is at work within you, and sin no longer has mastery over you. The coming destruction of sin and rebirth in everlasting life and righteousness are offered and pledged in baptism to all who embrace Jesus as their Savior and Lord—and for those of us who do, we possess even now the beginnings of our great future hope.

___________

*I prefer the NRSV over the ESV here because it more clearly indicates that baptism is the antitype (Greek antitupon) of the Flood. A type is a pattern or foreshadowing that finds its deeper fulfillment in a future counterpart, its antitype. Think of the type as the mold into which a plaster sculpture is poured; it provides the shape but lacks the substance. The antitype is the plaster that fills the mold's form. This means that the events of the Flood were always meant to point toward their greater, eternally significant counterpart, baptism.

Four More Days!

I have only four more days of school, and my first year as a teacher will be over! Hopefully then I'll have more time to think and write, especially as I finish up some reading from class and commence studying the book of Genesis. But until then, I feel like I've either been so busy with other things (mentally and emotionally, at least)--namely, so-far-unsuccessfully trying to find a new job in the Chicagoland area--that I haven't thought of anything creative, new, or otherwise beneficial to post on here.

My third-period chemistry students sporting the tie-dyed shirts they made.

It really has been a blessing to look back on this year. It's pretty amazing to look back and realize how much smoother everything has become about being a teacher: planning lessons, grading work, keeping on top of absent students, tackling the VA Standards of Learning (SOL) tests (94% pass rate!), and all that. I remember how back in the fall I was freaking out all the time, constantly fatigued and stressed out, with a new challenge every day. Every day is still a challenge, and hormonal, emotional teens will never cease being teens; but it's easier. And best of all, I survived. Olivia reminded me of the encouraging fact that no matter what's on the horizon, I'll never be a first-year teacher again. The question is now: Where will I be a second-year teacher? (Thank God that at least my contract with Hermitage High School/Henrico County has been enthusiastically renewed, and that I like Richmond and HHS. T-minus one day until my contract is due . . . .)

Wouldn't you want to move 900 miles for this girl, too?
Apparently we are "sickeningly photogenic."

Of Commas and Complaints

Yesterday in class we discussed the invalidity of using "word studies" in theology, because words can have wide semantic ranges, and a word's meaning is determined by its context(s). How one author uses a word or phrase may differ across time. There's no denying that languages change, though they once did so much more slowly than in today's age of text messaging and e-mail. Sometimes my students actually say "IDK" when trying to communicate, "I don't know." Naturally, I meet them with a blank, perplexed look. When I reprimanded another student for accosting a female student in the hallway, he replied angrily, "Man, why you gotta run up on me like that? You know I was jus' tryin' to baaanng." Translation: "Why are you concerned about what I'm doing to her? I was trying to flirtatiously hump her so that she'd be my girl and I could get a little action." Yes, the English language is in flux. But this fluidity leads to communication problems.

A few years ago I read an entertaining book about the development and misuse of punctuation marks. It made me more aware of just how much the English language has changed in its spelling and structure. But being the son of a long-time Business Grammar teacher, I've been raised as somewhat of a "grammar Nazi." (I was also a county spelling bee champ back in the day.) So I lament inexpressive, miniscule vocabularies, typos, and mechanical errors.

My latest gripe is about the seemingly overnight disappearance of the comma in a direct address. I've been noticing this everywhere recently. A direct address is when you are speaking to a person by name. The standard procedure has long been to set off his name on all sides with a comma.

"Hi, Olivia!"

"Happy Mother's Day, Susan!"

"My, Olivia, you sure look attractive in summery dresses!"

"Go to work, Aaron."

"Lord, have mercy upon us."

If you do not use commas, problems like this can result:

"My Olivia you sure look attractive in summery dresses!" -- Was the use of "my" meant as an interjection expressing my delight, or did I mean to say that Olivia belongs to me?

"Happy Mother's Day Susan!" -- What am I actually wishing? Is the holiday called "Mother's Day Susan"? (Think: Merry Christmas!)

"Go to work Aaron." -- I'm trying to command Aaron to go to his job; I am not trying to tell someone else "to work [use or exercise] Aaron." Removing the comma changes "work" from being a noun to a transitive verb.

Okay, I'm being a mite whiny, and this content doesn't really fit the rest of my blog. But speaking about God involves speaking and communicating clearly (Col. 4:4). Language matters: the Lord has given us language so that we can know him, communicate him to one another, and speak about him. So for the sake of God's glory, please take the time to use real words, add commas where they belong, and stop diluting our language.

Next up: properly using commas in series and the fallacy of "gender-neutral" language. Just kidding!

One in Flesh and Spirit

In the previous post I attempted to show that a biblical view of the human being is wholeness or unity of body and spirit (or soul). (If you haven’t read it already, this post will make little sense without first reading the prior one.) Little did I know, though, that this would influence things like developing a crush on someone.

A few years ago I began to like a girl for who she was in Christ: I loved the way she prayed and how tender and caring she was. At the same time, I began to find myself physically attracted to her as well. As I got to see the inner beauty of “a gentle and quiet spirit” (1 Pet. 3:4), her outer beauty also grew. That’s odd, I thought to myself, how come I didn’t find her all that physically attractive before? The only explanation I have is the unity of her “inner” and “outer” selves; her personality could not be divorced from her body; she was (is) a whole person. She didn’t change; I was just getting to see more of who she was. In fact, I came to believe that even though she didn’t have a “perfect” body, I wouldn’t have wanted her any other way. God made all of her (Ps. 139), and that includes who she is bodily. If somehow her body changed, she would have changed too; it just wouldn’t be her. (We intuitively know this, because we live our lives and develop our personalities in our bodies. Getting a cleft palette fixed can drastically improve a child’s self-image and confidence; in the same way, getting cut from the basketball team because of height can deeply sadden a child. Not being on the team in turn affects his social network, and his personality is shaped in a different direction than it otherwise might have been if he were taller.)

* * *

This has profound implications for marriage, where a man and a woman become “one flesh” before the Lord (Gen. 2:24). God calls us to embrace every aspect of the other as his unique, specially crafted gift of love to us—and, one day, to me. To grow tired of your spouse when she gains weight or grows old or has had a mastectomy, or when she falters in her faith or when her personality changes is what Malachi calls “dealing treacherously” or “breaking faith” (Mal. 2:13-16).

The LORD is acting as witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant. Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. (2:14-15 NIV)

If the NRSV’s rendering of verse 15 is preferrable, this shows even more fully that when we bind ourselves to a wife (or husband) in marriage, we receive all of her. “Did not one God make her [your wife]? Both flesh and spirit [that is, ‘her’] are his.” The “partner . . . of your marriage covenant” is “both flesh and spirit.” I cannot love and serve my wife “personally” without loving her “bodily,” and I cannot love her bodily without loving her personally. Anything else is the infidelity God hates (2:16). (Of course, such “love” rules out emotions that rise and fall based on our whims.)

This also means receiving all of her as a blessing from God. It is God who joins together a husband and wife (Matt. 19:4-6; cf. Gen. 2:24, where the passive voice implies God as actor). Whatever “imperfections” I see in my wife’s body—as if any of our bodies are still unspoiled by the Fall—I must realize are those belonging to the one person whom God has personally formed and graciously given to me in his love as my one life partner. If I find her lacking, it’s not she who is at fault, but rather my sin-skewed perception and desires.

Third, this intra- and interpersonal oneness of body and spirit demands giving all of myself to my wife. I cannot retain any part of myself as autonomous, independent from her. Speaking in the context of marital sex, Scripture says that “the wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife” (1 Cor. 7:4). I also like Eugene Petersons’ vivid paraphrase of 7:3-4: “The marriage bed must be a place of mutuality—the husband seeking to satisfy his wife, the wife seeking to satisfy her husband. Marriage is not a place to ‘stand up for your rights.’ Marriage is a decision to serve the other, whether in bed or out” (The Message). (I love how God commands married couples to have sex—often!—as our marital duty.)

* * *

Of course, I’m still single. But this biblical anthropology orders more than just married life; it speaks tomes to single sexuality as well. Isn’t the temptation of pornography to participate in bodily sex without the sacrificial commitment to a complete, actual person? Women become bodies to use, breasts and butts and legs as sources of uncommitted pleasure. It’s easy to lust after a woman’s body and neglect her face, because by neglecting that, we neglect who she is, her person. We cut out the relationship. Pornography also deceives us into thinking that bodies will always stay young and flawless; that we’re to be disappointed with a woman if her breasts don’t fill at least size-C bra cups; that our manhood depends on how muscular and well-endowed we are. Just as he first did in Eden, Satan will always tempt us to doubt the goodness of God’s design and to find satisfaction elsewhere. We need to always be on our guard and rejoice in the blessings our Creator and Ruler promises to those who fear and love him (Psalms 16, 37, 28).

Where Soul Meets Body [1]

In his first letter to the fledgling church at Thessalonica, the apostle Paul blesses them with this prayer: “May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. The one who calls you is faithful and he will do it” (1 Thess. 5:23-24). This made me think: What does it mean to be purified and set apart for God’s pleasure in “spirit, soul, and body”? Are these three separate entities? No! Paul prays, “May God himself . . . sanctify you . . . . [that is,] your whole spirit, soul and body.” (The fancy word is a hendiadys; one word or phrase interprets and explains the other.) The whole “you,” set apart and kept for Christ (Jude 1), is nothing less than a unity of body and soul/spirit. (It’s questionable whether “soul” and “spirit” are different entities in Scripture.) Now put that thought on hold.

Pick up biblical anthropology and the hope of the gospel: God has hand-crafted every detail of our beings, that is, our physical bodies (Ps. 139:13-16). His breath (or spirit; Heb. ruach) animates and invigorates our bodies, and we have each been made with unique bodies to house and employ our spirits (Gen. 2:7; Job 27:3; 32:8; 33:4). This has great importance for the gospel of our resurrection. We erroneously think that when we die and enjoy a greater fullness of the Lord’s presence, we have already experienced our resurrection. This is not true! The scriptural testimony is that only when our bodies are raised to newness of life will we become complete again. As believers in Christ are right now, our bodies are dead in sin, yet our spirits are alive. But our hope for which the whole universe longs is “the redemption of our bodies.” It is only when the Spirit of Christ gives glorifying life to our mortal bodies and reunites us with our reborn spirits that we will see the fullness of our hope (Rom. 8:9-11, 18-25; cf. Pss. 16:10; 49:12-15; 1 Cor. 6:12-20; 15:35-57; 2 Cor. 5:1-10; Phil. 3:20-21). We won’t be fully ourselves again until we’re glorified, Christlike spirits living in glorified, Christlike bodies—bodies that bear recognizable marks of our earthly selves. (Cf. John 20:20, 24-28, where the disciples recognize Jesus because of the scars he yet bears. Jesus’ glorified body is distinctly his body.)

Putting these two together means that you and I never exist merely “spiritually;” we are who we are also by virtue of our bodies and our circumstances in the world. There is always a body-spirit interplay at work. Physical, bodily happenings in our daily lives (success or failure in completing a task, loss of a loved one, a kiss, a caress, personal sickness, hunger) influence our emotions, wills, desires, and fears, i.e., our “spirits.” It’s a well-documented psychological phenomenon that one’s attitude affects his health and also that his health affects his attitude. What happens to our “outer selves” affects our “inner selves.” This is why fasting from food and kneeling in prayer can affect our disposition before the Lord. It also explains how faith is produced through the Word and sacraments: we hear God’s word with our ears, see it with our eyes in the water, bread, and wine, and taste it with our mouths—and we therefore believe it as the Holy Spirit fills our hearts with his joy and peace.

In like fashion, we don’t just worship God in spirit, with heavenly affections. Good as those may be, we are urged to “offer our bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual worship” (Rom. 12:1). [2] Though we have God-loving minds and hearts, yet our bodies aren’t yet renewed in the same way; thus we can speak of our “body of death” rebelling against what we know and love (Rom. 7:21-25). But we hope for the “reconciliation of all things,” when our whole being will again see, taste, feel, love, and cherish the Triune God in all his beauty and perfections—forevermore!

__________

1. “Soul Meets Body” is the title of a song by one of my favorite bands, Death Cab for Cutie. (It’s on their 2005 Barsuk release Plans.)
2. “Spiritual” is here the Greek logikos, which may also mean “rational” or “sensible” (see NIV footnote). But the point stands: we worship God by employing our bodily members in his service.

Malatya update

Thanks to Beth for posting this update on last year's killings in Malatya, Turkey.

In memoriam: 4/18/07

One year ago today my brothers in the faith Necati Aydın, Uğur Yüksel, and Tilmann Geske were bound to chairs and had their throats slit in Malatya, Turkey, by a band of young men (teenagers, really) who saw them as threats to the stability of the Turkish national identity.

Good soldiers of Jesus Christ, you have kept the faith, run the race with endurance, and fought the good fight. You did not love your lives so as to shrink from death. For that our
Shepherd has given you rest, and our King holds out for your heads a crown of love, honor, and exaltation. May we love our Master and others as you did.

Good Lord, keep the testimony of these men's lives burning brightly in Turkey. May their memory and the outcome of their lives spur others there on to cling to you and share their faith openly as you lead others to see the light of the stark reality of your resurrection and kingdom. And may their loved ones find healing in you as their forgiveness of the murderers bears witness to your mercy found only at the Cross. Amen.

Here is my post from this date last year.

No time for reading . . . and less for blogging!

To my handful of "avid" readers: I'm busy. Don't expect much productivity for a few weeks yet. In the remaining six hours a week when I'm not teaching, tutoring, planning to teach, grading, fretting about teaching, or going crazy about my students, I get to do three things, (1) talk with my lovely girlfriend over the phone, (2) search for a pastor for Franklin Street Community, or (3) read, read, read for Intro to Pastoral and Theological Studies.

What am I reading? I'm sure Ted cares, if few others. But here's what now occupies my time instead of blogging or journaling or photography or drawing or other pursuits of mine:

Peter Lillback, ed., The Practical Calvinist -- This collection of essays is a helpful and diverse introduction to various issues in the Reformed and Presbyterian heritage. I actually found this book, as a whole, to be really informative and enjoyable to read.

Dennis Johnson, Him We Proclaim -- Johnson issues a call to re-adopt the apostles' own interpretation and application of the Old Testament in preaching to congregations with both believers and nonbelievers. Johnson emphasizes a typological, but sensible, interpretation of the OT that should serve to call all people to faith, to retrain minds, and to edify believers in lives of holiness. I'm learning a lot of new things while being confirmed in what I've already been coming to see in Scripture over the past few years.

John Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God -- In this book Dr. Frame addresses the question of how we know truth about God and our relationship to him. It is basically a book about epistemology (the study of truth and knowing), with a nod toward presuppositional apologetics (i.e., Scripture's validity and authority above all other ways of knowing).

John Calvin, Commentary on the Psalms -- Bible + Holy Spirit (+ Calvin) = Christ-centered, covenantal exposition of the Psalms.

In addition to having written a ten-page reflection on The Practical Calvinist, I'll also be composing a ten-page sermon or exposition of a psalm based on Johnson, Calvin, and Frame. (Any suggestions for a psalm?) So, consider the blogosphere down one blogger for the next six weeks.

__________________
P.S. You need good, energizing music. Mute Math makes good, energizing music. Problem solved. Now if only I had an iPod . . . C'mon economic stimulus check!

Is marriage a commandment?

During our discussion of the Reformed worldview in class on Saturday, Dr. Griffith taught about affirming the goodness of creation, nature, and bodily life; and the preservation and importance of the “creation ordinances”: work, Sabbath, marriage, procreation, and possibly the state. These roles and commands given to man were not only meant to bless him and order his life before the Fall as ways for him to reflect the image and work of God himself. These structures and ordinances continue even now, for two reasons. They are reinstituted in Genesis 9 after the Flood and re-creation (though sin’s curse now corrupts everything); and both Jesus and Paul base their ethical appeals in the pre-Fall creation order itself (e.g., Matt. 19:4-6; 1 Cor. 6:16; 11:8-12, 14; Eph. 5:31). Dr. Griffith’s point was to teach about how God, in his “common grace,” upholds and preserves this order even after the Fall, allowing mankind to participate in his life and still fulfill his original role, though now imperfectly.

A wise Campus Crusade staff member named Roger Hershey once said something that has guided many of my decisions: “Instead of asking what God’s will is for your life, ask instead how your life can fit into God’s will.” In other words, base your choices around the purposes of God’s heart do everything to his glory. “Walk as children of light . . . and try to find out what is pleasing to the Lord” (Eph. 5:8, 10). As long as I’m committed to doing God-honoring things that he takes pleasure in, I’m living in God’s will for my life. So this makes me wonder: Is marriage more than just a good idea, even a commandment?

Marriage and Completing Creation

God decreed that “it is not good for man to be alone” (Gen. 2:18). This was the first time anything in creation was not “good” or “very good.” His work was yet unfinished and incomplete, so he decreed that a partner be made and given to Adam for him to rejoice in and to “know” (vv. 18-25; 4:1). In other words, God decreed that man should marry. Verse 18 makes this explicit, but it’s implied elsewhere. Verse 24 says that “a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” The emphasis on shall render an implicit command; God’s statutes are always “you shall” or “you shall not.” (The NIV’s use of “will” is weak. This isn’t just a statement about what will occur in the future.) Therefore marriage is not only “good,” but it completes God’s work of creation itself.

Marriage and the Image of the Triune God

Jesus’ use of Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 in Matthew 19:4-6 reveals something most striking about marriage. He says that a man shall be joined to his wife and become one flesh—a joining done by God himself—because from the beginning God created them “male and female.” This is a reference to Genesis 1:26-27.

And God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. . . .”
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

Here we see one God with one image who speaks of himself in the plural: “Let us,” “our image.” God makes man (singular) in his own image (singular), yet man is created male and female (plural, separate persons). The two together bear the (one) image of God. This is probably why Jesus is so adamant about preserving the marital union: it most fully reflects the image of God himself, the whole purpose for which mankind was created in the first place. Man married is more fully human and more glorifying to God.

How, exactly, does this male-female marital communion reflect God’s image? These two distinct and different persons, one original and one derived yet equal, united by a bond of mutual love and delight reflect the Trinity itself. “Let us make man in our image.” Adopting a somewhat Augustinian view, Jonathan Edwards argues that God’s Spirit is the very love of God itself. Within the Godhead, “the Son is the Deity generated by God’s [self-]understanding, or having an idea of himself; the Holy Ghost is the divine essence flowing out, or breathed forth, in infinite love and delight." [1] Upon exhaustive exposition of biblical texts, Edwards says elsewhere of the Holy Spirit that he is “the deity subsisting in act, or the divine essence flowing out and breathed forth in God’s infinite love to and delight in Himself [as he knows himself in the eternally generated Son, who is the ‘Divine idea,’ God’s own consciousness of himself]." [2]

This spiritual union of mutually expressed love, joy, and affection may be alluded to in Malachi 2:15, where the prophet rails against divorce. It’s a notoriously difficult passage to translate, but the gist is similar in most versions.

Did he not make them [husband and wife] one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? (ESV; “in their union” is implied)

But did He not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? (NKJV)

Didn’t God make you one body and spirit with her? (GNT)

If this is so, marriage mirrors the Trinity, and only within marriage does “our image” show in man.

Furthermore, it’s interesting to note the relationship of verse 24 to the preceding verses in Genesis 2. The Lord takes a rib from Man and fashions Woman from it. Notice that the woman is not created ex nihilo, “from nothing.” She is formed from the man’s own body. Therefore Adam is able to joyfully exclaim,

“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.”

Notice how this parallels the relationship of the Father to his eternally begotten Son. The Son was not created; instead, all things were created through him (Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2). He was begotten, that is, he is eternally generated from the Father and shares the very same being or essence as him (homo ousios). The woman was formed from the man’s essence and substance, his flesh, equal in essence and glory yet a distinct person with a different role. This Trinitarian perspective on the male-female relationship further enhances the view that marriage reflects the image of God more perfectly and, amazingly, brings us into the life of the Triune God himself.

Marriage and Procreation

Another command—actually, a blessing—God gives to mankind is to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (Gen. 1:28). This command is repeated to Noah’s family after the flood (Gen. 9:1, 7). The rest of Genesis tells the sad story of man’s determined efforts not to fill the earth (the tower at Babel, Gen. 11:1-9) and not to bear offspring (Onan and Tamar, 38:8-10). And the whole framework of the Genesis “accounts” is built not around main characters, but their children (e.g., the “account of Terah” is actually about Abraham; the “account of Jacob” is about Joseph.) And God’s covenant with Abraham is to be fulfilled through his seed, a promise to give him land and a multitude of offspring. God clearly cares about building and sustaining families.

Such fecundity, however, can only be accomplished within marriage. Sure, children can be born illegitimately, but God wants “godly offspring” conceived within marriage. “Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring” (Mal. 2:15). Children born in accordance with God’s character have to come from God-imaging marriage.

One can argue that God’s procreation mandate finds its true fulfillment the Great Commission, where Spirit-born children spring up throughout the earth (Matt. 28:19; Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8). But even though the kingdom had come in Jesus Christ, he doesn’t dissolve marriage nor neglect children. Rather, he affirms and upholds them. (See Matthew 19:13-15. Immediately after rebuking the Pharisees for their selfish dissolution of the family, Jesus invites and blesses little children.)

Marriage and Knowing God

God’s great desire revealed throughout his Word, even “eternal life,” is that we would intimately know him within a self-binding, self-giving covenantal relationship. He pledges his steadfast love (chesed) and says, “You shall be my people, and I shall be your God.” One person belongs to the other. Is this not a perfect definition of marriage? When we enter wedlock, we can more fully understand the way God relates to his people (Isa. 54:4-10; 62:4-5; Hos. 1 – 3) and how Christ the Bridegroom cherishes his Bride, the church, who is one body with him (Eph. 5:22-33). In fact, the same word used in the Old Testament for “knowing” God is used of the sexual intimacy between a husband and his wife (Gen. 4:1; Hos. 2:20; cf. Matt. 1:25). Conversely, the Bible also speaks often of sin and transgression as “adultery” against God. The gravity of infidelity takes on a lot more weight to those who are married.

Marriage and Wisdom

Wisdom (a possible allusion to the second Person of the Godhead) declares in Proverbs that "whoever finds me finds life and obtains favor from the LORD" (8:35). That sounds like everything else in Proverbs. But read carefully Proverbs 18:22: "He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the LORD." Seeking and obtaining a wife is paralleled with seeking and obtaining wisdom, the path to life in the fear of the Lord, and both please God so as to obtain his favor.

Psalm 128 says almost the same thing, albeit in different words. Sandwiched between the promise of blessing to those who fear the Lord are the creation ordinances of productive work, a fruitful wife, and a bounty of children. [3] Sin's curses are repealed, and God showers his favor. So, does walking in wisdom demand marriage? Probably not. But they are certainly not divorced from one another, either. Marriage pleases God and is even a wonderful gift from him.

Conclusion

Taking all of these together, I think a case can be made that, extenuating circumstances notwithstanding (such as certain ministerial commitments; 1 Cor. 7:32-35), God desires that his people should not stay single, but should marry. I have not taken time here to evaluate Paul’s arguments for celibacy and singleness in the ever-perplexing 1 Corinthians 7. Nor have I dealt with Jesus’ declaration in Matthew 19:12 that some people “have renounced marriage [literally ‘have made themselves eunuchs’] because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it” (NIV). Within the kingdom of God, and because of the problems of sinful abuse of marriage, some people are called to remain single. But I think that God certainly esteems marriage above singleness. It is, as Paul says, “what is pleasing to the Lord” (Eph. 5:10). This doesn’t mean that now is necessarily the best time for someone to marry, and being single today isn’t a sin. And marriage can also be entered into for purely selfish reasons, such as choosing a husband because he’s rich and you’re lazy, or choosing a wife because all you want to do is have sex. But lived in a way that considers and honors God’s revealed will, marriage is certainly a wonderful blessing from him. It pleases him, makes us more fully human in his image, and brings us into a deeper participation in and understanding of God and the created order. If you’re able to marry, walk in God’s will—get serious about marriage!
____________________

[1] Jonathan Edwards, The “Miscellanies,” a-500, 468 [405]. Quoted in John Hannah, “Love as the Foundation of Theology: The Practical Implications of Jonathan Edwards’ Doctrine of the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit.” The Practical Calvinist, ed. Peter A. Lillback (Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus, 2002), 269.

[2] Jonathan Edwards, “An Essay on the Trinity,” Treatise on Grace and Other Posthumously Published Writings, ed. Paul Helm (Cambridge: James Clarke and Co. Ltd., 1971), 118. Quoted in John Piper, The Pleasures of God (Sisters, Oreg.: Multnomah, 2000), 45.

[3] The keen eye will notice that many psalms have a chiastic structure with thematic “bookends” and a key verse or idea in the center. Here the blessing of a wife “like a fruitful vine within your house” is in the center of vv. 1-6, sandwiched between “Blessed is the man who fears the LORD.” Her fruitfulness implies an abundance of sexual intimacy in the marriage (cf. SS 7:6-12). Staying within the home is contrasted with the adulterous woman whose “water” is scattered abroad in the streets (Prov. 5:15-16) and the mistress whose "feet do not stay at home" (7:6-12).

When I became a man, I gave up childish ways

Every day I receive a new e-mail from Christianity Today magazine. Today was an article titled, "Wanted: Young Men in the Church." Its thesis is that the church is sorely lacking in young, single men because this demographic wants to, in large measure, live self-centered and irresponsible lives--that is, until the reality-checks of marriage and children sinks in.

I found this article somewhat surprising, honestly. My friend Craig and I were talking just today about how, even as young as we are (26 and 24, respectively), we want to tackle life's demands in responsible, mature wisdom, not in blissful ignorance. We were talking about how we once thought that our parents and all adults seemed to know what they were doing, had their acts together, had life figured out. I realize now that that's not true at all. Most of the time I feel clueless and overwhelmed. I wish I could drive home and have my parents take care of everything. But they can't. And I really wouldn't want that, anyway. Counsel from them is good, but I've never been one to take handouts; there's little dignity in that.

Responsibility and leadership are tough. Being a man of integrity and character is even tougher. But I don't want to be some drifter through life, never having a clue what I want to do and letting the latest whim decide my choices. If that were so, my name would be Joey, Ross, or Chandler; but as it is, it's Andrew: literally, "masculine" or "courageous, strong". At the end of a lengthy letter urging the worldly Corinthian neophyte Christians toward a life of obedient discipleship, St. Paul sums it up with this final exhortation:

Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. (16:13)

"Act like men." "Be Andrew," it might say. The fact is, the church needs men as leaders, and not just married men. Read through 1 Corinthians, and you'll find men at the root of most of the problems and disorder and sinfulness. A leading church-planting pastor in the Seattle area, Mark Driscoll, made a video in which he urged pastors: "Win the men, win the church." He too laments how young men are more concerned with playing X-Box and "banging their girlfriends" (Driscoll is known for being bluntly graphic) than with a life of missional, self-denying, cross-carrying discipleship.

But I wonder: What is causing this? Is it John Eldredge and salvation as a "sacred romance"? (Which is ironic, considering he wrote Wild at Heart not only to show that he knows more about books and movies than about the Bible, but also to urge men to be more manly.) That may be. But I think the fact comes back to the sin in our hearts. It takes sacrifice and a lot of prayer to be a discerning, bold male. We want to be lazy, so why bother? And there's no difference between men and women, right? So who does that make me? And if Mom and Dad are willing to take me under their wing, then why bother being responsible?

Of course I am over-simplifying these things--an act I myself despise. There is one place to start: with myself. Who wants to be immature and irresponsible? I, for one, do not. "When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways" (1 Cor. 13:11).

The Canons of Dort and the Perseverance of the Saints

So it is not by their own merits or strength but by God’s undeserved mercy that they [those who are beloved before time; Romans 8:28-30] neither forfeit faith and grace totally nor remain in their downfalls to the end and are lost. With respect to themselves this not only could easily happen, but also undoubtedly would happen; but with respect to God it cannot possibly happen, since his plan cannot be changed, his promise cannot fail, the calling according to his purpose cannot be revoked, the merit of Christ as well as his interceding and preserving cannot be nullified, and the sealing of the Holy Spirit can neither be invalidated nor wiped out.

-- The Canons of Dort, point 5, article 8

Preserved for God's pleasure

If you read my previous post, you might mistakenly come to think that God cherishes and preserves us because of something inherently worthwhile within us. Perhaps you might think, “God longs for me so much; he needs me to be happy and whole.” There is a degree of truth to that. But the Bible will not allow us to think that salvation has to do with God’s delight in man. Rather, all of redemption happens because of God’s delight in himself. All of history unfolds from God and for God. His people were created, are being redeemed, and will be glorified for the sake of his own delight—just as others will be passed over and left in just judgment and perdition for the same reasons (though we cannot probe too deeply into such mysteries or wag a finger at God in blame).

The first description of mankind, indeed, the goal and purpose for his being, is to be the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27). The human race was created for the purpose of reflecting God back to himself, like a mirror. The image is not God himself; but in the image God sees himself. [1] Sadly, that image was marred and corrupted by Adam’s willing fall into sin.

We later learn of the true Man, the perfectly obedient human who shines with beauty everywhere that fallen Adam is dull: Jesus the Son. He is spoken of as the consummate image of God in all his glory.

The God of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (2 Cor. 4:4)

He is the image of the invisible God. (Col. 1:15)

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature. (Heb. 1:3)

How is it that Jesus bears his Father’s own image? It is because in Jesus, as the image (Greek eikon), God himself dwells and is manifested. “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him [Christ]” (Col. 1:19 NIV). God sees his own reflection and nature stamped on his Son and rejoices—for there is no one more glorious or beautiful or admirable than God himself. Therefore, God cannot fail to take great pleasure in his beloved, image-bearing Son.

But the good news is that this image doesn’t dwell in some esoteric, disembodied, Gnostic Christ; it dwells in the Word made flesh. “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Col. 2:9). And in our union with Christ, we as humans are also definitively found in this bodily Eikon. “In him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him” (vv. 9-10). [2]

The great news of our sanctification and recreation is that in Christ, we come to see and know God truly. Thus we are transformed into his image from one degree of glory to another. “You . . . have put on the new self [literally “new man,” that is, Jesus], which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator” (Col. 3:10; cf. Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18; Eph. 4:24). God has reclaimed us for himself so that we will reflect his glory back to him (Rom. 8:29). And that we shall do (1 John 3:2)!

Because we’re saved to bear God’s image, our progress in holiness in time, as well as our final sinless glorification in eternity, are absolutely assured. As God’s delight is, above all things, in himself, he cannot but find the consummate of all joys in his own image and nature. The letter to the Ephesians tells that we are blessed in Christ “according to the good pleasure of his [God’s] will” (1:5, 9) and that all might result in “the praise of his glory.” The chief aim in all God’s saving works is his own pleasure and joy—and there can be none greater than pleasure in himself. Because our glorification involves our complete re-imaging of God, it is as certain as God’s gladness in his own image. We have a sure hope! “Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which as a great reward” (Heb. 10:35).

____________________

[1] For a concise but helpful explanation of this, check out chapter 7 of John Frame’s introduction to systematic theology, Salvation Belongs to the Lord (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2006).

[2] In case you needed another reason to defend the true deity and true humanity of Jesus, here surely is one.

You have need of perseverance

“You have need of perseverance,” the author of the letter to the Hebrews urges his audience (10:36). But why?

This past weekend during the first week of class, we were talking about the truth that God saves sinners. (This teaching is put forth in what has somewhat unfortunately become called the Five Points of Calvinism.) When we were talking about the doctrine of the Preservation of the Elect (a.k.a. Perseverance of the Saints), Dr. Griffith asked us, “Why is perseverance in faith necessary? Why can’t we just be justified at some point upon making a ‘decision for Christ’ and then live as we please?”

The question stumped me somewhat. But then I realized this: The very nature of faith and salvation demands it. How so? Because God’s saving work—not only in what happens to us, but also the prize we receive—is fellowship (union; Greek koinonia) with Christ. “God . . . has called you into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor. 1:9). Salvation is, by its very nature, a relationship. And we exercise this relationship by a life of obedient faith in the Messiah’s sufficiency as Savior and Mediator and his supremacy as Lord and King. “Believers are called into the fellowship of Christ and fellowship means communion," explains John Murray. "The life of faith is one of living union and communion with the exalted and ever-present Redeemer” [1]. As long as we have salvation, we must have a humble, repentant faith; the presence of God’s gracious in-Christ redemption can never be divorced from trust in him. So if we are to inherit eternal life, we must have an eternal faith.

But this is glorious news, comforting news, filling me with a “joy unspeakable and full of glory." Left on our own, the demand for persevering faith would be but “dismay and Christless dread” [2]. But we forget: it is the Triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—with whom we have fellowship; it is to a Person we are united. Salvation does not exist as an abstraction or a philosophical construct; it is not a lofty idea or an mechanical process. It is a gracious covenantal bond between a Shepherd and the flock under his care, a Bridegroom and his bride, a Father and his son, a Lord and his servant. The word used throughout the Scriptures for this is chesed, a word so full of meaning that English translations fail to pin it down. Try as they might—“unfailing love” (NIV), “steadfast love” (ESV), “lovingkindness” (NASB), “loyal love” or “merciful love” (The Message)—they can but dance around it. Perhaps only the tongues of angels are fit for its expression.

So we’re not stuck to persevere on our own. We have the full backing and upholding and undying, self-binding love of the very heart of God himself. I cannot stress enough that salvation belongs a Person. His name is Everlasting Father, whose desires and commitments are never fickle and never revoked. His name is Almighty God and King of Kings, wielding omnipotent power and authority to crush all enemies and secure the future of his loved ones. His name is Compassionate Priest, who sympathizes with us, deals tenderly with us in our weaknesses, and who ever lives to make intercession for us (Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:25). His name is Advocate, Counselor, and Pledge, an indwelling guarantee who keeps us secure and breathes into our hearts his very own life and glory.

"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God, who has called you into fellowship with his Son Christ Jesus our Lord, is faithful." (1 Cor. 1:8-9)

____________________

[1] John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1955) 169. Murray continues beautifully: “The life of faith is the life of love, and the life of love is the life of fellowship, or mystic communion with him who ever lives to make intercession for his people and who can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities. It is a fellowship with him who has an inexhaustible reservoir of sympathy with his people’s temptations, afflictions, and infirmities because he was tempted in all points like as they were, yet without sin. The life of faith cannot be that of cold metallic assent. It must have the passion and warmth of love and communion because communion with God is the crown and apex of true religion. ‘Truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ’ (1 John 1:3)” (Ibid., 169-70). So much for calling Calvinists cold, dour, mechanical folk!

[2] Ibid., 165.

Tom Carson: an ordinary pastor

How fitting--on the heels of my last post comes D. A. Carson's latest book, Memoirs of An Ordinary Pastor. It's a biography of his own dad's faithfulness in shepherding a small flock in once-predominantly Roman Catholic Quebec. Carson's closing words are about the life of his father Tom, but I am sure they ring true of many other men (and even some women) who trust more in the Holy Spirit to build and strengthen the church than in their own programs and appeal.

Tom Carson never rose very far in denominational structures, but hundreds of people … testify how much he loved them. He never wrote a book, but he loved the Book. He was never wealthy or powerful, but he kept growing as a Christian: yesterday’s grace was never enough. He was not a far-sighted visionary, but he looked forward to eternity. He was not a gifted administrator, but there is no text that says “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you are good administrators.” His journals have many, many entries bathed in tears of contrition, but his children and grandchildren remember his laughter. Only rarely did he break through his pattern of reserve and speak deeply and intimately with his children, but he modeled Christian virtues to them. He much preferred to avoid controversy than to stir things up, but his own commitments to historic confessionalism were unyielding, and in ethics he was a man of principle. His own ecclesiastical circles were rather small and narrow, but his reading was correspondingly large and expansive. He was not very good at putting people down, except on his prayer lists.

When he died, there were no crowds outside the hospital, no editorial comments in the papers, no announcements on the television, no mention in Parliament, no attention paid by the nation. In his hospital room there was no one by his bedside. There was only the quiet hiss of oxygen, vainly venting because he had stopped breathing and would never need it again.

But on the other side, all the trumpets sounded. Dad won entrance to the only throne-room that matters, not because he was a good man or a great man—he was, after all, a most ordinary pastor—but because he was a forgiven man. And he heard the voice of him whom he longed to hear saying, “Well done, good and faithful servant; enter into the joy of your Lord.”

If there was ever a life well lived, it sounds to me like Tom Carson was the one who lived it. It almost brought me to tears to read this about him, because it is just like the picture of the life I long to live, in all its humble beauty.