February 12, 2011: His Sister's Keeper: George MacDonald And The Honorable Treatment Of Women
The good men in George MacDonald's novels always treat women with dignity. MacDonald taught that no good man ever violates a woman's honor, or even attempts to compromise it. If a woman of his acquaintance is weak, the man of moral conscience - far from exploiting her vulnerability - will protect her and help her to do right. He will even shield her from the darkest features of his own corruption, his own temptations to seize her as prey.
In The Highlander's Last Song, a worldly businessman, at dinner with other men, maintains, "it is necessary for developing manhood that young men should drink a little and gamble a little and sow a few wild oats...A fellow that will neither look at a woman nor drink his glass is not cut out for a man's work in the world!"
A Christian at the table responds,
"Pray, Mr. Palmer, let us understand each other: do you believe God made woman to be the slave of man? Can you believe he ever made a woman that she might be dishonored - that a man might caress and despise her?"
Palmer replies,
"I know nothing about God's intention; all I say is we must obey the laws of our nature."
The Christian answers,
"Is conscience, then, not a law of our nature? Is it not even on the level of our instincts? Must not the lower laws be subject to the higher? It is a law - forever broken, yet eternal - that a man is his brother's keeper: still more must he be his sister's keeper."
His sister's keeper - the phrase comes up more than once in MacDonald's writings. We see it again in The Lady's Confession, where a doctor confesses to a minister that, as a young medical student, he seduced a woman and fathered a child with her out of wedlock. He did not know what became of the woman or their offspring (he could barely remember if it was a boy or girl!). Concerning that old "romantic fling," MacDonald writes,
"He did her no end of kindness - taught her much, gave her good advice, still gave her books, went to chapel sometimes with her on a Sunday evening, took her to concerts and the theater, and would have protected her from every enemy, real and imaginary. But all the while he was slowly depriving her of the last line of her self-defense against an enemy neither he nor she could see. For how is an ignorant man to protect even a woman he loves from the hidden god of his idolatry - his own grand, contemptible self?...With all his tender feelings and generous love of humanity, [he] had not yet learned the simple lesson of humanity - that a man who would be his brother's keeper, or his sister's, must protect every woman first of all from himself."
Neglecting to protect a vulnerable young lady from himself, the narcissist physician condemned the poor woman to a miserable life of single motherhood while he quietly moved on to success and relative ease. He felt a bit guilty, but soothed his conscience by blaming her for most of it.
Some years ago when I was a pastor a woman with a heavy heart came to speak to me. Naive and bewildered, she had fallen hard for a powerful older man who had seemed to be a model of mature Christian virtue. Cherishing hopes that he would some day be hers, she ventured intimacy with him. But he used her a few times and then dumped her. Despite his actions, she continued to wrestle with a longing for him, and wondered whether somehow she might still have a future with him.
Gently as I could I told her what MacDonald said about how a good man protects rather than seduces a woman - protects her even from himself! And any man who could not do that was not worth having. I also thought it best to tell her (though I'm sure it was painful) what my intuition affirmed to be true: that what this man had done to her he had almost certainly done to other women as well. That is because a man either treats women with respect or he does not. Seduction is an art practiced by repeat offenders, not by chronically innocent men of honor.
So far I have counted no less than three occasions in MacDonald's books where a woman confesses her love to a good man and all but proposes to him. (It makes me wonder if such a thing happened to MacDonald himself!) In each case the good man, who knows he cannot marry the woman, treats her with the kindest of grace and charity and good will. But he carefully refrains from embracing her, or taking her hand, or doing anything at all to encourage an attachment to him that he cannot honorably fulfill.
In other words, he obeys the commandment of Matthew 5:28 according to its true meaning. More on that next week, Lord willing.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Sunday, February 6, 2011
February 6, 2011: George MacDonald
Please read George MacDonald's novels.
MacDonald (1824-1905; contemporary of Twain and Dickens) was a Scottish preacher, poet, novelist, fantasy writer. I became aware of him through the writings of C. S. Lewis, who called MacDonald "my master," published an anthology of MacDonald quotations, and affirmed that he himself never wrote a book without quoting MacDonald. Lewis selected MacDonald as his tour guide through heaven in my favorite Lewis book, The Great Divorce.
Now that I have read five MacDonald novels, and plan to read them all, I understand why Lewis, of whom I am in awe, was so in awe of him. Never, ever, have I read a more compelling moral voice or more thrilling expositor of goodness. MacDonald's characters make a person ache for holiness. Lewis experienced that ache when reading MacDonald as a young man - though, as an atheist from the ages of 16-30, he refused for many years to admit it to himself.
You can order MacDonald novels through Amazon. His used paperbacks are very cheap, sometimes just 1 cent, with the 4 dollar shipping fee. Get the ones edited by Michael Phillips. I'm afraid - unless you're Scottish! - you won't be able to read MacDonald in the original. He wrote in Scottish brogue. If you can make sense of the following
It'll be upo' them to haud them doon, an' the haill hoose agin' the watter...I'm thinkin' we'll lowse them a'else; for the byre wa's 'till gang afore the hoose
then feel free to read MacDonald in the original. I can't. For my part, I thank God for scholar and translator Michael Phillips, who has rendered the great teacher intelligible.
Over the next few weeks, Lord willing, I would like to outline and comment upon some themes that come up regularly in Macdonald's works.
I would be delighted beyond measure if anyone reports back to me that he or she has read a MacDonald novel and stirred to rejoice over the holiness in it.
Please read George MacDonald's novels.
MacDonald (1824-1905; contemporary of Twain and Dickens) was a Scottish preacher, poet, novelist, fantasy writer. I became aware of him through the writings of C. S. Lewis, who called MacDonald "my master," published an anthology of MacDonald quotations, and affirmed that he himself never wrote a book without quoting MacDonald. Lewis selected MacDonald as his tour guide through heaven in my favorite Lewis book, The Great Divorce.
Now that I have read five MacDonald novels, and plan to read them all, I understand why Lewis, of whom I am in awe, was so in awe of him. Never, ever, have I read a more compelling moral voice or more thrilling expositor of goodness. MacDonald's characters make a person ache for holiness. Lewis experienced that ache when reading MacDonald as a young man - though, as an atheist from the ages of 16-30, he refused for many years to admit it to himself.
You can order MacDonald novels through Amazon. His used paperbacks are very cheap, sometimes just 1 cent, with the 4 dollar shipping fee. Get the ones edited by Michael Phillips. I'm afraid - unless you're Scottish! - you won't be able to read MacDonald in the original. He wrote in Scottish brogue. If you can make sense of the following
It'll be upo' them to haud them doon, an' the haill hoose agin' the watter...I'm thinkin' we'll lowse them a'else; for the byre wa's 'till gang afore the hoose
then feel free to read MacDonald in the original. I can't. For my part, I thank God for scholar and translator Michael Phillips, who has rendered the great teacher intelligible.
Over the next few weeks, Lord willing, I would like to outline and comment upon some themes that come up regularly in Macdonald's works.
I would be delighted beyond measure if anyone reports back to me that he or she has read a MacDonald novel and stirred to rejoice over the holiness in it.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
January 29, 2011: Make God Happy
In recent days I have had the joy of sharing in a small group and in a nursing home chapel service my favorite Bible verse. It's John 3:30: He must become greater; I must become less. I selected it as my life verse when I was in college more than 25 years ago. John the Baptist said it when asked (you have to read between the lines) if he was jealous of Jesus. Friends had come to him and said, "Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan - the one you testified about - well, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him." (John 3:26)
John was used to commanding the attention of thousands, but now his crowds (his crowds?) were all following Jesus. Did that bother him? Did he feel a bit pushed to the side, under-appreciated, out of the loop? His quiet answer reveals a heart of perfect humility:
A man can receive only what is given him from heaven. You yourselves can testify that I said, 'I am not the Christ but am sent ahead of him.' The bride belongs to the groom. The friend who attends the groom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the groom's voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete. He must become greater; I must become less.
John's selflessness compels my admiration. He lived and worked only for the sake of Jesus Christ. The glory and honor and delight that Jesus experienced mattered more to John than anything, and he found his joy in the exaltation of his Lord. John considered himself a mere best man at a wedding between Jesus and all who would yield to him. Any attention John drew to himself would necessarily be siphoned off from Christ - abominable thought! Let all glory and honor be Christ's. Let him become greater and greater, and I less and less.
The other day my heart sank as I heard a preacher explain from the pulpit, "I don't read my Bible every day because it makes God happy." God's happiness was an irrelevance to him. He explained how he engaged in spiritual discipline for his own sake, for his own spiritual development and need: "I read my Bible every day because I need more of Jesus."
I certainly recommend acknowledging a need for Jesus, and I agree that one of the best ways to draw near to the Incarnate Word is through the Written Word. But to value one's own enrichment - even spiritual enrichment - over the pleasure of God is to invert the biblical order of priorities that must motivate our goodness! As Calvin wrote, "zeal [for God's glory] ought to exceed all thought and care for our own good and advantage."
After dismissing God's happiness as a motive for Bible reading, the preacher then went on to dismiss God's wrath as a motive for prayer. "I don't pray every day because I'm afraid of God," he said. What motivated his prayer (rather than a fear of the Lord) was the benefit he received personally: prayer helped him to be a better husband and a more godly leader.
We stand on dangerous ground when the prospect of God's pleasure does not inspire us and the prospect of his wrath does not frighten us. We tread the road toward corruption when we stop asking, "How will this action affect God?" and ask only, "How will this affect me?"
I confess to a growing hunger for preaching that places God rather than ourselves at the center of every thought and act and word and motive. Goodness must be practiced because it pleases God, because it makes God happy, because it delights the heart of God, because it brings greater honor and glory and pleasure to God. And sin must be shunned because God hates it, because God judges it, because God is provoked to wrath and displeasure because of it. Value his pleasure and fear his wrath! When you eliminate from your consideration the pleasures and displeasures of God ("I don't do this in order to make God happy"; "I don't shun this because I'm afraid of God") you risk making your faith a self-centered monstrosity where God's honor is an afterthought.
In the humility of John the Baptist I find blessed refuge from the self-centered inward gaze to which I myself am relentlessly tempted. Let Christ become greater. So what if I become less? Let the motivation for my actions and thoughts be the happiness, pleasure, honor and glory of Christ. And let the prospect of angering or displeasing him - diminishing his glory, staining his honor - cause me to tremble with shame, and fill me with righteous fear.
In recent days I have had the joy of sharing in a small group and in a nursing home chapel service my favorite Bible verse. It's John 3:30: He must become greater; I must become less. I selected it as my life verse when I was in college more than 25 years ago. John the Baptist said it when asked (you have to read between the lines) if he was jealous of Jesus. Friends had come to him and said, "Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan - the one you testified about - well, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him." (John 3:26)
John was used to commanding the attention of thousands, but now his crowds (his crowds?) were all following Jesus. Did that bother him? Did he feel a bit pushed to the side, under-appreciated, out of the loop? His quiet answer reveals a heart of perfect humility:
A man can receive only what is given him from heaven. You yourselves can testify that I said, 'I am not the Christ but am sent ahead of him.' The bride belongs to the groom. The friend who attends the groom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the groom's voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete. He must become greater; I must become less.
John's selflessness compels my admiration. He lived and worked only for the sake of Jesus Christ. The glory and honor and delight that Jesus experienced mattered more to John than anything, and he found his joy in the exaltation of his Lord. John considered himself a mere best man at a wedding between Jesus and all who would yield to him. Any attention John drew to himself would necessarily be siphoned off from Christ - abominable thought! Let all glory and honor be Christ's. Let him become greater and greater, and I less and less.
The other day my heart sank as I heard a preacher explain from the pulpit, "I don't read my Bible every day because it makes God happy." God's happiness was an irrelevance to him. He explained how he engaged in spiritual discipline for his own sake, for his own spiritual development and need: "I read my Bible every day because I need more of Jesus."
I certainly recommend acknowledging a need for Jesus, and I agree that one of the best ways to draw near to the Incarnate Word is through the Written Word. But to value one's own enrichment - even spiritual enrichment - over the pleasure of God is to invert the biblical order of priorities that must motivate our goodness! As Calvin wrote, "zeal [for God's glory] ought to exceed all thought and care for our own good and advantage."
After dismissing God's happiness as a motive for Bible reading, the preacher then went on to dismiss God's wrath as a motive for prayer. "I don't pray every day because I'm afraid of God," he said. What motivated his prayer (rather than a fear of the Lord) was the benefit he received personally: prayer helped him to be a better husband and a more godly leader.
We stand on dangerous ground when the prospect of God's pleasure does not inspire us and the prospect of his wrath does not frighten us. We tread the road toward corruption when we stop asking, "How will this action affect God?" and ask only, "How will this affect me?"
I confess to a growing hunger for preaching that places God rather than ourselves at the center of every thought and act and word and motive. Goodness must be practiced because it pleases God, because it makes God happy, because it delights the heart of God, because it brings greater honor and glory and pleasure to God. And sin must be shunned because God hates it, because God judges it, because God is provoked to wrath and displeasure because of it. Value his pleasure and fear his wrath! When you eliminate from your consideration the pleasures and displeasures of God ("I don't do this in order to make God happy"; "I don't shun this because I'm afraid of God") you risk making your faith a self-centered monstrosity where God's honor is an afterthought.
In the humility of John the Baptist I find blessed refuge from the self-centered inward gaze to which I myself am relentlessly tempted. Let Christ become greater. So what if I become less? Let the motivation for my actions and thoughts be the happiness, pleasure, honor and glory of Christ. And let the prospect of angering or displeasing him - diminishing his glory, staining his honor - cause me to tremble with shame, and fill me with righteous fear.
Friday, December 31, 2010
December 31, 2010: Retroactive Fornication
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure.
Hebrews 13:4
I don't know a single person who isn't a devout Christian who takes premarital chastity seriously. Not even one. Out of all the wedding ceremonies I have conducted, only one was for a couple that wasn't already living together. Only professing Christians seem to understand that sex is for married people. But even among Christians, I have heard expressed a thought on this matter that, in my mind, is fraught with danger. It goes like this:
"When you get down to it, legal marriage is just a piece of paper. My fiance and I are Christians, and we are fully committed to each other for life. So why not have sex now? We're not committing adultery, we're not sleeping around with other people. Since marriage begins (in the eyes of the Lord) with sexual intercourse, we can't be said to be having pre-marital sex at all. In God's reality, we're married already! There's nothing pre- about it. We just haven't announced it or had the ceremony or 'made it official' in the eyes of the world."
Some of you might be very surprised to know that, in principle, I agree that the marriage ceremony in our culture technically involves just a piece of paper with legal implications. And I also agree that that paper, signed on a certain date and accompanied by ceremony and celebration, is not really what constitutes marriage before God. Marriage involves the union of two people. Different cultures mark that union differently, and things like ceremonies and vows and rings and certificates are man-made additions to the universal reality. Isaac just "took Rebekah to his mother's tent" (Genesis 24:66), and wa-la, buddabing-buddaboom, they were married.
So what's wrong with "taking Rebekah to your mother's tent" tonight, and then having the official ceremony, say, five months from now?
Here's the problem. Such couples are not taking into account the dangers of second thoughts and sudden death.
Despite statements to the effect that "We're as good as married already," the fact is that, for some people, the psychological reality of marital commitment does not settle in until the actual wedding day when rings are exchanged. Till that day, some feel they still have the option of calling it off (whether or not they have informed their partners of this conviction.)
True stories of second thoughts and broken relationships (various sources):
Allen is a gullible soul with an admittedly spotty marital record. He is a Christian now and trying to do the right thing. He confessed to a minister that after he "got involved with" Barbara - the last woman he was engaged to - she sat him down one evening some weeks before their scheduled wedding and said, "I'm not so sure that getting married is a good idea." Oops.
Catherine is a pastor's daughter. She met Donald in college, and they got engaged at a time when both were devoted to Christian service. At first they decided to wait till marriage, but then decided that engagement was really pretty much the same thing. She got pregnant five months before they were to wed. When she approached Donald about moving up their wedding date to accommodate the pregnancy, he said, "I'm having second thoughts about getting married at all."
Ellen's bond with Christian worker Franklin seemed almost mystical, and definitely Holy-Spirit led. She even had a vision that confirmed to her that she and Franklin would be together. So why wait till the marriage was official? They didn't wait - and then, to Ellen's shock and bewilderment, Franklin simply walked away.
But "second thoughts" - or one or both partner's inconstancy - is not the only problem. When I referred earlier to the possibility of sudden death, I meant that literally. One of the reasons I give to engaged Christian couples for refraining from sex has to do with the possibility - however remote and tragic - that one of them could die before the wedding. It happens. I personally know two people whose fiances died suddenly and unexpectedly. And I read about one woman, Greta, who told her pastor,
"Hank and I were so much in love...As we counted down the days to the wedding, we began to feel married...That's why when we slept together that night it didn't feel wrong. A few days later Hank was killed in a car accident. He never knew that I was pregnant, and my child will never know his daddy. Please share my story with other students. I hope it will spare them the pain and shame I live with."
If the fiance with whom you are sleeping dies before you wed, you won't be able to say to your future spouse, "I'm a virgin. I saved my virginity for you, for our wedding night."
When Lisa and I got engaged last year, I explained to her the ground rules from the beginning. "We can't have sex till we're married," I said. Please understand - I'm no prude, and my desires are every bit as intense as any other red-blooded male. And I regard Christian extremists who won't kiss until their wedding day as, well, extremists. But I know what the rules are, and I know why they're there. Among the reasons to refrain from premarital sex is what I call "retroactive fornication". It seemed fine when you did it ("We're going to get married anyway!") - until, out of the blue, your partner changed his or her mind, or died. That's when it occurs to you that, somehow (how did this happen?), you got turned into a fornicator after the fact.
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure.
Hebrews 13:4
I don't know a single person who isn't a devout Christian who takes premarital chastity seriously. Not even one. Out of all the wedding ceremonies I have conducted, only one was for a couple that wasn't already living together. Only professing Christians seem to understand that sex is for married people. But even among Christians, I have heard expressed a thought on this matter that, in my mind, is fraught with danger. It goes like this:
"When you get down to it, legal marriage is just a piece of paper. My fiance and I are Christians, and we are fully committed to each other for life. So why not have sex now? We're not committing adultery, we're not sleeping around with other people. Since marriage begins (in the eyes of the Lord) with sexual intercourse, we can't be said to be having pre-marital sex at all. In God's reality, we're married already! There's nothing pre- about it. We just haven't announced it or had the ceremony or 'made it official' in the eyes of the world."
Some of you might be very surprised to know that, in principle, I agree that the marriage ceremony in our culture technically involves just a piece of paper with legal implications. And I also agree that that paper, signed on a certain date and accompanied by ceremony and celebration, is not really what constitutes marriage before God. Marriage involves the union of two people. Different cultures mark that union differently, and things like ceremonies and vows and rings and certificates are man-made additions to the universal reality. Isaac just "took Rebekah to his mother's tent" (Genesis 24:66), and wa-la, buddabing-buddaboom, they were married.
So what's wrong with "taking Rebekah to your mother's tent" tonight, and then having the official ceremony, say, five months from now?
Here's the problem. Such couples are not taking into account the dangers of second thoughts and sudden death.
Despite statements to the effect that "We're as good as married already," the fact is that, for some people, the psychological reality of marital commitment does not settle in until the actual wedding day when rings are exchanged. Till that day, some feel they still have the option of calling it off (whether or not they have informed their partners of this conviction.)
True stories of second thoughts and broken relationships (various sources):
Allen is a gullible soul with an admittedly spotty marital record. He is a Christian now and trying to do the right thing. He confessed to a minister that after he "got involved with" Barbara - the last woman he was engaged to - she sat him down one evening some weeks before their scheduled wedding and said, "I'm not so sure that getting married is a good idea." Oops.
Catherine is a pastor's daughter. She met Donald in college, and they got engaged at a time when both were devoted to Christian service. At first they decided to wait till marriage, but then decided that engagement was really pretty much the same thing. She got pregnant five months before they were to wed. When she approached Donald about moving up their wedding date to accommodate the pregnancy, he said, "I'm having second thoughts about getting married at all."
Ellen's bond with Christian worker Franklin seemed almost mystical, and definitely Holy-Spirit led. She even had a vision that confirmed to her that she and Franklin would be together. So why wait till the marriage was official? They didn't wait - and then, to Ellen's shock and bewilderment, Franklin simply walked away.
But "second thoughts" - or one or both partner's inconstancy - is not the only problem. When I referred earlier to the possibility of sudden death, I meant that literally. One of the reasons I give to engaged Christian couples for refraining from sex has to do with the possibility - however remote and tragic - that one of them could die before the wedding. It happens. I personally know two people whose fiances died suddenly and unexpectedly. And I read about one woman, Greta, who told her pastor,
"Hank and I were so much in love...As we counted down the days to the wedding, we began to feel married...That's why when we slept together that night it didn't feel wrong. A few days later Hank was killed in a car accident. He never knew that I was pregnant, and my child will never know his daddy. Please share my story with other students. I hope it will spare them the pain and shame I live with."
If the fiance with whom you are sleeping dies before you wed, you won't be able to say to your future spouse, "I'm a virgin. I saved my virginity for you, for our wedding night."
When Lisa and I got engaged last year, I explained to her the ground rules from the beginning. "We can't have sex till we're married," I said. Please understand - I'm no prude, and my desires are every bit as intense as any other red-blooded male. And I regard Christian extremists who won't kiss until their wedding day as, well, extremists. But I know what the rules are, and I know why they're there. Among the reasons to refrain from premarital sex is what I call "retroactive fornication". It seemed fine when you did it ("We're going to get married anyway!") - until, out of the blue, your partner changed his or her mind, or died. That's when it occurs to you that, somehow (how did this happen?), you got turned into a fornicator after the fact.
December 31, 2010: Friendship With God
Some may have wondered why I objected so strongly last week to the song
I am a friend of God!
I am a friend of God!
I am a friend of God!
He's my friend!
So I would like to explain.
I know of three cases in the Bible that speak of friendship with the Almighty. They concern Moses, Abraham, and the disciples of Jesus Christ.
1) Moses
Exodus 33:11 says, "The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend." This passage distinguishes Moses from other prophets. In Numbers 12:6-8, when Moses' siblings criticize his choice of a wife, the Lord says to them, “When there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, reveal myself to him in visions, I speak to him in dreams. But this is not true of my servant Moses; he is faithful in all my house. With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?”
So Moses was on spectacularly friendly terms with Jehovah. But of course, as the texts make clear, he was an exception.
2) Abraham
In 2 Chronicles 20:7 the chronicler asks, "Our God, did you not drive out the inhabitants of this land before your people Israel and give it forever to the descendants of Abraham your friend?" This is the verse that James alludes to when he writes, "And the scripture was fulfilled that says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,' and he was called God's friend." (James 2:23)
Old Testament and New Testament alike confirm that Abraham was a friend of God.
3) The Disciples of Christ
Jesus says to his disciples in John 15:14-15, "You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you."
Jesus graciously called his disciples friends.
Please notice (it's the vital point!) that in none of these cases does a man call himself a friend of God. God is the one who makes that designation - whether directly or through inspiring the chronicler or apostle.
If Jesus calls you his friend, that's fine. But should you call yourself his friend? Absolutely not. He has commanded you to do otherwise. In Luke 17:10 he said to his disciples, "So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, ‘We are unworthy slaves; we have only done our duty.'" How interesting! When we do everything commanded of us, Jesus calls us "friends" (John 15:15) but insists that we call ourselves "unworthy servants" (Luke 17:10).
Of course, for many of us, this point is moot because we haven't been obedient to his commands in the first place. But let me assume (generous assumption) that you indeed have been as obedient to the Lord as Abraham, Moses and the disciples of Christ. Let me recommend to you a role model regarding self-designation: the Apostle Paul. Paul, the greatest missionary the world has ever known and author of half the books of the New Testament, never dared call himself a "friend of Christ." The term he preferred was the one Jesus commanded: doulos, slave:
Romans 1:1: Paul, a slave of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, and set apart for the gospel of God,
Galatians 1:10b: If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a slave of Christ.
Titus 1:1: Paul, a slave of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ for the faith of God's elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness
Paul's did not use that term "slave" for himself alone - he applied it to others too:
Colossians 4:12: Epaphras, who is one of you and a slave of Christ Jesus, sends greetings
2 Timothy 2:24: And the Lord's slave must not quarrel: instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.
The song "I am a friend of God!" makes the ghastly mistake of assuming that something that may be true about us is seemly and appropriate when said by us. But this is manifestly false. We might say, "John Doe is a worthy recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor," but if Mr. Doe himself says, "I am a worthy recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor" we'd recoil in disgust. My brothers and I will all tell you, "Lowell Lundquist was the finest man we ever knew." But the thought of my father himself affirming "I am the finest man I know" is an imagination so perverse and alien that I can barely type the words.
No one understands this better than my lovely wife, whose praises I sing with constant joy but who cannot manage to say one kind word about herself. In her bones she knows the truth of Proverbs 27:2: "Let someone else praise you, and not your own mouth; an outsider, and not your own lips."
So please don't say "I am a friend of God" until you can honestly put yourself in the company of Abraham, Moses, and the disciples of Jesus Christ. Don't say it until you have fulfilled the condition that Jesus placed upon such friendship in John 15:14: obedience to his commands.
And don't say it even then.
Some may have wondered why I objected so strongly last week to the song
I am a friend of God!
I am a friend of God!
I am a friend of God!
He's my friend!
So I would like to explain.
I know of three cases in the Bible that speak of friendship with the Almighty. They concern Moses, Abraham, and the disciples of Jesus Christ.
1) Moses
Exodus 33:11 says, "The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend." This passage distinguishes Moses from other prophets. In Numbers 12:6-8, when Moses' siblings criticize his choice of a wife, the Lord says to them, “When there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, reveal myself to him in visions, I speak to him in dreams. But this is not true of my servant Moses; he is faithful in all my house. With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?”
So Moses was on spectacularly friendly terms with Jehovah. But of course, as the texts make clear, he was an exception.
2) Abraham
In 2 Chronicles 20:7 the chronicler asks, "Our God, did you not drive out the inhabitants of this land before your people Israel and give it forever to the descendants of Abraham your friend?" This is the verse that James alludes to when he writes, "And the scripture was fulfilled that says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,' and he was called God's friend." (James 2:23)
Old Testament and New Testament alike confirm that Abraham was a friend of God.
3) The Disciples of Christ
Jesus says to his disciples in John 15:14-15, "You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you."
Jesus graciously called his disciples friends.
Please notice (it's the vital point!) that in none of these cases does a man call himself a friend of God. God is the one who makes that designation - whether directly or through inspiring the chronicler or apostle.
If Jesus calls you his friend, that's fine. But should you call yourself his friend? Absolutely not. He has commanded you to do otherwise. In Luke 17:10 he said to his disciples, "So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, ‘We are unworthy slaves; we have only done our duty.'" How interesting! When we do everything commanded of us, Jesus calls us "friends" (John 15:15) but insists that we call ourselves "unworthy servants" (Luke 17:10).
Of course, for many of us, this point is moot because we haven't been obedient to his commands in the first place. But let me assume (generous assumption) that you indeed have been as obedient to the Lord as Abraham, Moses and the disciples of Christ. Let me recommend to you a role model regarding self-designation: the Apostle Paul. Paul, the greatest missionary the world has ever known and author of half the books of the New Testament, never dared call himself a "friend of Christ." The term he preferred was the one Jesus commanded: doulos, slave:
Romans 1:1: Paul, a slave of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, and set apart for the gospel of God,
Galatians 1:10b: If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a slave of Christ.
Titus 1:1: Paul, a slave of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ for the faith of God's elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness
Paul's did not use that term "slave" for himself alone - he applied it to others too:
Colossians 4:12: Epaphras, who is one of you and a slave of Christ Jesus, sends greetings
2 Timothy 2:24: And the Lord's slave must not quarrel: instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.
The song "I am a friend of God!" makes the ghastly mistake of assuming that something that may be true about us is seemly and appropriate when said by us. But this is manifestly false. We might say, "John Doe is a worthy recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor," but if Mr. Doe himself says, "I am a worthy recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor" we'd recoil in disgust. My brothers and I will all tell you, "Lowell Lundquist was the finest man we ever knew." But the thought of my father himself affirming "I am the finest man I know" is an imagination so perverse and alien that I can barely type the words.
No one understands this better than my lovely wife, whose praises I sing with constant joy but who cannot manage to say one kind word about herself. In her bones she knows the truth of Proverbs 27:2: "Let someone else praise you, and not your own mouth; an outsider, and not your own lips."
So please don't say "I am a friend of God" until you can honestly put yourself in the company of Abraham, Moses, and the disciples of Jesus Christ. Don't say it until you have fulfilled the condition that Jesus placed upon such friendship in John 15:14: obedience to his commands.
And don't say it even then.
December 27, 2010: Plain Speech On The Destiny Of Sinners
What do you think of the following quote from John Calvin?
When men have repented, and thus give evidence that they are reconciled to God, they are no longer the same persons that they formerly were. But let all fornicators, or unclean or covetous persons, so long as they continue such, be assured that they have no friendship with God, and are deprived of all hope of salvation.
Too strong?
In a church I have attended, we sing a chorus that goes
I am a friend of God!
I am a friend of God!
I am a friend of God!
He's my friend!
We repeat these phrases ad nauseum - literally, to the vomiting - to the point where I wonder if many who came to church longing for reverent and thoughtful worship now just want to go home. But I will leave aside the matter of lyrics that indulge our passion for "vain repetition" (Matthew 6:7). I will also leave aside the question of whether, since God calls some people his friends (Exodus 33:11, John 15:15, James 2:23), it is therefore right for us to call ourselves his friends. (The answer is a resounding "NO!" - but again, I will leave that discussion for another day.)
The question I am interested in now is whether Calvin was right that fornicators, coveters and immoral people "have no friendship with God" and "are deprived of all hope of salvation." (Please note Calvin's qualifier, so long as they continue such.)
What do you think? And what do you think would happen if Calvin preached that message at your church this Sunday? What if he told the greedy people in your church, and the people who sleep with their boyfriends and girlfriends, that they lied when they sang, "I am a friend of God"? What if he told them that they were not saved, that they were on their way to hell, that for them (as long as they continued in their sin) there was "only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God" (Hebrews 10:27)? Would Reverend Calvin be invited back to your church next Sunday?
And not just Calvin. Read Jonathan Edwards' Treatise On The Religious Affections, Dietrich Bonehoeffer's Cost Of Discipleship, or any half dozen of Charles Spurgeon's sermons, and ask yourself how many modern pulpits are there out of which such men would not be chased. Spurgeon - to cite one example - flatly denied that liars are saved. "If God has not made you honest," he preached, "he has not saved your soul." It is inconceivable that such a statement would go unchallenged in just about any large church today. The elders would want to meet with Spurgeon afterward. They would protest that he had denied the gospel of grace, and that he didn't understand that God saves us "just the way we are" (even if we remain liars), and that there is nothing we have to do (like tell the truth) to be in good standing with God. "All the other religions of the world are spelled 'D-O,' Charles!" (Of course, Spurgeon, whose blood ran bibline, would respond to such misguided rhetoric by quoting Revelation 21:8.)
Ever since I left the pulpit in August of 2009 and have of necessity been doing a lot more listening than preaching and teaching, I have experienced a growing sense of spiritual vertigo. (My lovely, longsuffering wife has borne the brunt of this turmoil in countless discussions - she's the only poor creature I have to preach to!) My disquiet has to do with the fact that so many concepts that I assumed were second nature to Bible-believing Christians (damnation of the wicked, transformational grace, perseverance of the saints) are in fact controversial, and have met with stubborn, almost angry opposition. That is one reason why I post the Calvin quote above and ask if you agree with it. Do you think Calvin is obviously correct? Controversial? At odds with what you tend to hear on Sunday mornings? Or is he just utterly wrong, judgmental and grace-defying?
Before you say you disagree with Calvin, please be advised that he was commenting rather straightforwardly on Ephesians 5:5: "For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person — such a person is an idolater — has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." I myself cannot see how, biblically, Calvin's comment can be assailed on any point whatsoever.
I'll go further. If we agree with Ephesians 5:5 and Calvin's pedestrian interpretation of it, are we willing to say it? Will we dare preach it from our pulpits? Will we ever dare apply it to some individual who persists in unrepentant sin? Or do we prefer to leave it unsaid, cover its light with a bushel basket lest the searing heat offend and alienate?
When commenting on the related rhetorical question in 1 Corinthians 6:9: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?" Calvin wrote,
The wicked, then, do inherit the kingdom of God, but it is only in the event of their having been first converted to the Lord in true repentance, and having in this way ceased to be wicked. For although conversion is not the ground of pardon, yet we know that none are reconciled to God but those who repent. The [question mark]...is emphatic, for it intimates that he states nothing but what they themselves know, and is matter of common remark among all pious persons.
In St Paul's day, and in Calvin's, it was indeed a "matter of common remark among all pious persons" that the wicked do not inherit the kingdom of God. Is it still so in ours?
What do you think of the following quote from John Calvin?
When men have repented, and thus give evidence that they are reconciled to God, they are no longer the same persons that they formerly were. But let all fornicators, or unclean or covetous persons, so long as they continue such, be assured that they have no friendship with God, and are deprived of all hope of salvation.
Too strong?
In a church I have attended, we sing a chorus that goes
I am a friend of God!
I am a friend of God!
I am a friend of God!
He's my friend!
We repeat these phrases ad nauseum - literally, to the vomiting - to the point where I wonder if many who came to church longing for reverent and thoughtful worship now just want to go home. But I will leave aside the matter of lyrics that indulge our passion for "vain repetition" (Matthew 6:7). I will also leave aside the question of whether, since God calls some people his friends (Exodus 33:11, John 15:15, James 2:23), it is therefore right for us to call ourselves his friends. (The answer is a resounding "NO!" - but again, I will leave that discussion for another day.)
The question I am interested in now is whether Calvin was right that fornicators, coveters and immoral people "have no friendship with God" and "are deprived of all hope of salvation." (Please note Calvin's qualifier, so long as they continue such.)
What do you think? And what do you think would happen if Calvin preached that message at your church this Sunday? What if he told the greedy people in your church, and the people who sleep with their boyfriends and girlfriends, that they lied when they sang, "I am a friend of God"? What if he told them that they were not saved, that they were on their way to hell, that for them (as long as they continued in their sin) there was "only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God" (Hebrews 10:27)? Would Reverend Calvin be invited back to your church next Sunday?
And not just Calvin. Read Jonathan Edwards' Treatise On The Religious Affections, Dietrich Bonehoeffer's Cost Of Discipleship, or any half dozen of Charles Spurgeon's sermons, and ask yourself how many modern pulpits are there out of which such men would not be chased. Spurgeon - to cite one example - flatly denied that liars are saved. "If God has not made you honest," he preached, "he has not saved your soul." It is inconceivable that such a statement would go unchallenged in just about any large church today. The elders would want to meet with Spurgeon afterward. They would protest that he had denied the gospel of grace, and that he didn't understand that God saves us "just the way we are" (even if we remain liars), and that there is nothing we have to do (like tell the truth) to be in good standing with God. "All the other religions of the world are spelled 'D-O,' Charles!" (Of course, Spurgeon, whose blood ran bibline, would respond to such misguided rhetoric by quoting Revelation 21:8.)
Ever since I left the pulpit in August of 2009 and have of necessity been doing a lot more listening than preaching and teaching, I have experienced a growing sense of spiritual vertigo. (My lovely, longsuffering wife has borne the brunt of this turmoil in countless discussions - she's the only poor creature I have to preach to!) My disquiet has to do with the fact that so many concepts that I assumed were second nature to Bible-believing Christians (damnation of the wicked, transformational grace, perseverance of the saints) are in fact controversial, and have met with stubborn, almost angry opposition. That is one reason why I post the Calvin quote above and ask if you agree with it. Do you think Calvin is obviously correct? Controversial? At odds with what you tend to hear on Sunday mornings? Or is he just utterly wrong, judgmental and grace-defying?
Before you say you disagree with Calvin, please be advised that he was commenting rather straightforwardly on Ephesians 5:5: "For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person — such a person is an idolater — has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." I myself cannot see how, biblically, Calvin's comment can be assailed on any point whatsoever.
I'll go further. If we agree with Ephesians 5:5 and Calvin's pedestrian interpretation of it, are we willing to say it? Will we dare preach it from our pulpits? Will we ever dare apply it to some individual who persists in unrepentant sin? Or do we prefer to leave it unsaid, cover its light with a bushel basket lest the searing heat offend and alienate?
When commenting on the related rhetorical question in 1 Corinthians 6:9: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?" Calvin wrote,
The wicked, then, do inherit the kingdom of God, but it is only in the event of their having been first converted to the Lord in true repentance, and having in this way ceased to be wicked. For although conversion is not the ground of pardon, yet we know that none are reconciled to God but those who repent. The [question mark]...is emphatic, for it intimates that he states nothing but what they themselves know, and is matter of common remark among all pious persons.
In St Paul's day, and in Calvin's, it was indeed a "matter of common remark among all pious persons" that the wicked do not inherit the kingdom of God. Is it still so in ours?
Sunday, December 19, 2010
December 21, 2010: What It Means To Abide In Christ
In her great novel about missionary disillusionment, No Graven Image, Elizabeth Elliot tells about an American pastor, Reverend Perkins, who gave a series of messages at a missionary conference. Elliot writes,
[Mr. Perkins] told one or two humorous stories and proceeded to speak about bearing fruit for Christ, using the fifteenth chapter of John as his text. "The secret, beloved," said Mr. Perkins, "is to abide. Abide in the Vine. Christ is the Vine. Just abide. Now isn't that simple? You and I get so busy running here and there, doing things for Christ, trying to serve the Lord, when all He tells us to do is abide." He explained in careful detail how the branches abide in the vine, and left me wondering, as I had wondered all my life, what Jesus had meant by the word abide. The secret that Mr. Perkins had set out to divulge was still a secret to me.
Thank you, dear sister Elizabeth!
I too have heard over the years unintelligible, vaguely mystical interpretations of the phrase "abide in Christ." Just the other day I heard a shining example of it. A preacher on Christian radio talked about a man who was in debt and worried about finances. As the man fretted over the pile of bills on his desk, he suddenly decided that he was going to "turn it over to God" (whatever that means) and not let the money problems bother him any more. "That, my friends," said the preacher, "is abiding in Christ."
No it isn't.
Abiding in Christ is not a matter of adopting a "no worries" attitude toward your finances - or toward your family, work, or mission in life. Calmness in the face of trouble may reflect - at best - strong faith and a determination to obey Jesus' command not to "worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear" (Luke 6:22). Or it may reveal - at worst - a contemptibly lazy dismissal of duties and responsibilities of the sort condemned in 2 Thessalonians 3:10: "If a man will not work, neither let him eat." But either way, "letting go and letting God" has nothing to do with the commandment of Jesus, "Abide in me" (John 15:4).
The Greek word for "abide" means remain, stay, continue, persevere. Perhaps it is best understood by referring to its opposites: depart from, abandon, go away, desert.
Simply put, "abiding in Christ" means remaining true to him. It means not committing apostasy, not renouncing or rejecting him. It is a mistake to scold harried missionaries and financially troubled fathers for failing to "abide in Christ" during those times when they are busy or burdened. They're still abiding. Judas was the only disciple who did not abide in Christ. He deserted and betrayed Christ. The rest abode. When Jesus gave them the option to depart, or to cease their abiding ("Will you also go away?" John 6:67) - they turned it down, and Peter spoke for all when he said, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God." (John 6:68-69).
Preachers like the fictional Reverend Perkins (or the real one I heard on the radio the other day) fail to see that just two verses after Jesus commands his disciples to abide, he warns them, "If you do not abide in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned" (John 15:6).
In Jesus' preaching, getting burned by fire is a picture of going to hell, as in the six examples below.
Matthew 13:40-41: "As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Luke 16:24: "So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’"
Matthew 5:22: "But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell."
Matthew 7:19: "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire."
Matthew 18:8-9: "If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire."
Matthew 25:41: "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.'"
To summarize:
"Abiding in Christ" is not a mystical antidote for the busy activity of serving the Lord, nor is it an attitude of deliberate indifference to the pressure of unpaid bills. It is a simple description of faithfulness to Jesus. If you abide in him - that is, if you remain true to him, you will bear the fruit of righteousness. If you do not abide in him - that is, if you choose to commit apostasy by rejecting him, you will go to hell.
In her great novel about missionary disillusionment, No Graven Image, Elizabeth Elliot tells about an American pastor, Reverend Perkins, who gave a series of messages at a missionary conference. Elliot writes,
[Mr. Perkins] told one or two humorous stories and proceeded to speak about bearing fruit for Christ, using the fifteenth chapter of John as his text. "The secret, beloved," said Mr. Perkins, "is to abide. Abide in the Vine. Christ is the Vine. Just abide. Now isn't that simple? You and I get so busy running here and there, doing things for Christ, trying to serve the Lord, when all He tells us to do is abide." He explained in careful detail how the branches abide in the vine, and left me wondering, as I had wondered all my life, what Jesus had meant by the word abide. The secret that Mr. Perkins had set out to divulge was still a secret to me.
Thank you, dear sister Elizabeth!
I too have heard over the years unintelligible, vaguely mystical interpretations of the phrase "abide in Christ." Just the other day I heard a shining example of it. A preacher on Christian radio talked about a man who was in debt and worried about finances. As the man fretted over the pile of bills on his desk, he suddenly decided that he was going to "turn it over to God" (whatever that means) and not let the money problems bother him any more. "That, my friends," said the preacher, "is abiding in Christ."
No it isn't.
Abiding in Christ is not a matter of adopting a "no worries" attitude toward your finances - or toward your family, work, or mission in life. Calmness in the face of trouble may reflect - at best - strong faith and a determination to obey Jesus' command not to "worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear" (Luke 6:22). Or it may reveal - at worst - a contemptibly lazy dismissal of duties and responsibilities of the sort condemned in 2 Thessalonians 3:10: "If a man will not work, neither let him eat." But either way, "letting go and letting God" has nothing to do with the commandment of Jesus, "Abide in me" (John 15:4).
The Greek word for "abide" means remain, stay, continue, persevere. Perhaps it is best understood by referring to its opposites: depart from, abandon, go away, desert.
Simply put, "abiding in Christ" means remaining true to him. It means not committing apostasy, not renouncing or rejecting him. It is a mistake to scold harried missionaries and financially troubled fathers for failing to "abide in Christ" during those times when they are busy or burdened. They're still abiding. Judas was the only disciple who did not abide in Christ. He deserted and betrayed Christ. The rest abode. When Jesus gave them the option to depart, or to cease their abiding ("Will you also go away?" John 6:67) - they turned it down, and Peter spoke for all when he said, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God." (John 6:68-69).
Preachers like the fictional Reverend Perkins (or the real one I heard on the radio the other day) fail to see that just two verses after Jesus commands his disciples to abide, he warns them, "If you do not abide in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned" (John 15:6).
In Jesus' preaching, getting burned by fire is a picture of going to hell, as in the six examples below.
Matthew 13:40-41: "As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Luke 16:24: "So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’"
Matthew 5:22: "But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell."
Matthew 7:19: "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire."
Matthew 18:8-9: "If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire."
Matthew 25:41: "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.'"
To summarize:
"Abiding in Christ" is not a mystical antidote for the busy activity of serving the Lord, nor is it an attitude of deliberate indifference to the pressure of unpaid bills. It is a simple description of faithfulness to Jesus. If you abide in him - that is, if you remain true to him, you will bear the fruit of righteousness. If you do not abide in him - that is, if you choose to commit apostasy by rejecting him, you will go to hell.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)