Humanity 2.0: All in the Name of the Lord Jesus

Introduction

You know, there’s nothing quite like preaching your first sermon[1] right after the preaching of President Dr. Philip Ryken of the historic Tenth Presbyterian Church. But let’s plunge right in! I’m going to begin by reciting the text, obeying my text to let the word of Christ dwell in me richly. Please follow along in your Bibles, or you can just listen if you like. Now hear the voice of Heaven.

Colossians 3:12–17[2]

12 So, as the elect of God, holy and loved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and long-suffering,
13 bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a grievance against another; as the Lord forgave you, so you also must forgive.
14 And over all these put on love, which is the bond of perfection.
15 And let the peace of Christ hold sway in your hearts, to which indeed you were also called in one body. And be thankful.
16 Let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly: in all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with grace in your hearts.
17 And whatever you do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through him to God the Father.

Prayer

God our heavenly Father, as your elect people, holy and loved, in the name of the Lord Jesus we ask your help to preach this word of Christ, and we ask your help to hear and embrace it in the light of the Spirit. Thank you for this heavenly word for the new humanity. Clothe us with it, we pray, and help us to wear it, for we ask in Jesus’ name. Amen.

By What Authority?

We live in a culture (don’t we?) that both despises authority and also incessantly, inescapably appeals to authority. About this constant appeal to authority: We see it in the news. We read of it in papers and periodicals and books. Even popular books, even blogs, can’t escape this.

For example, you’ve heard this sort of thing: “Dr. Do-Good, he asserts that a certain food has been shown to cause cancer.” And so we respond, and behave differently.  Or, “Professor Brains-on-Feet, she makes ground-breaking claims based on her extensive research in human development. And so, if you don’t want your kids to turn out neurotic, you need to consider what she’s published.” And so we change our practice.  Or, “The leading authority on thus and such had this to say about X and Y.” We could go on. I could give specific examples, I’m being very general. You know what I’m talking about. Authority. And authority with bearing on our behavior.

Well, we too, we Christians, appeal to authority (now don’t we?), an authority that has bearing on our behavior. The basic Christian confession is, “Jesus is Lord.” Jesus is Lord of all.

All in the Name of Jesus

In verse 1 of Colossians 3, the clause, “where Christ is seated at the right hand of God,” alludes to Ps. 110:1. Psalm 110 speaks of the messianic reign of a Davidic king, fulfilled in the resurrection and exaltation of the Lord Jesus. So, he’s seated at the right hand of God, the place of rule, the place of authority. He’s king!

This rule of King Jesus looms large in Colossians. The theme verses—recall verses 6-7 of chapter 2—these verses begin by referring to the Colossians’ believing embrace of Jesus as Lord of all. Verse 6 says: “Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, so walk in him.” This verse, Colossians 2:6, functions as one bracket, and verse 17 of Colossians 3 as the other bracket of the whole section. Colossians 3:17 says: “Whatever you do . . . do all in the name of the Lord Jesus.” So Colossians 2:6-3:17, bracketing the section with Jesus’ royal majesty, teaches us about the Lord Jesus, in whom “all the fullness of deity dwells bodily” (2:9), and “who is the head over all rule and authority” (2:10), because “God raised him from the dead" (2:12). And Colossians 2:6-3:17 also teaches us about living under Jesus’ rule and authority, walking a heavenly walk in union with him, the body taking orders and cues from her head—“all in the name of the Lord Jesus.”

Now, in this text, Colossians 3:17, we need to ask ourselves: what does “name,” the “name” of the Lord Jesus, signify?

We just named our daughter: Ariana Dalissa, which means “holy delight.” We wanted her name to have significance. However, most names today don’t mean much. But a name in the ancient world meant a great deal. A “name” said something about the person. It had significance. The “name” of the Lord Jesus, then—here in Colossians 3:17—signifies his person, namely, his authority and his character. So, doing all that we do in the name of the Lord Jesus means doing all in line with his authority—he is Lord of all—and in line with his character—as we seek to follow his example and walk as he walked, and wear the graces he wore.

Now, just before our text for tonight, in Col. 3:9-11, we see that for those who have died and risen with Christ the “old man” in Adam has been put off, and the “new man” in Christ, the second Adam, has been put on. The language is similar to Romans 13:14. Paul says there: “Put on the Lord Jesus Christ.”And Galatians 3:27: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” Paul is talking about a new man, a new humanity, in The Man, the Second Adam, a new humanity where—verse 11—“Christ is all, and in all!” So we’re talking about a new way of being human in Christ.

The Christian’s Christian Clothing

Turn now your attention with me to verses 12-14: “The Christian’s Christian Clothing.” This passage, together with verses 15-16, is communal. It’s about the Christian community, the one body of Christ, the “new humanity.”

The “then,” or “therefore,” of verse 12 links our paragraph with the last one and shows that there are implications for what Paul has just said. Given the new humanity undercurrent in verses 9-11; and given also the injunction of verse 17 to “do all in the name of the Lord Jesus,” what are we to do? We’re told: We are to “put on,” we are to wear something, like fine clothing. In other words, we’re commanded to get dressed. That’s the controlling metaphor. But before we get dressed, let’s first consider who’s being addressed, who this new humanity is, who you are, who we are.

Verse 12 addresses you, addresses us, as “God’s chosen ones,” or it could be translated, as “the elect of God.” Now this description—oh don’t miss it!—this description is so precious. Israel of old was God’s elect. And as Israel of old was called sovereignly and freely, so also “you were called.” Verse 15: “you were called in one body.” You were summoned to be joined to Jesus, to belong to Jesus’ body. And, the “elect of God” are also described as “holy” and “loved.” You are “holy” and “loved.”

Now to understand the power and preciousness of these appellations (what Kent Hughes calls “opulent appellations”[3]), consider the love language of Deut. 7:6-8, where these three concepts of election, holiness, and being loved come together so beautifully. I’ll read it. Deut. 7:6-8:

6 For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.
7 It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples,
8 but it is because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

Chosen. Holy. Loved. And so with these descriptions—chosen, holy, and loved—it’s clear: the Church is being understood as the new Israel in the second Adam, as a new humanity in Jesus.

Well, then, what does this new humanity look like? Well let’s look at the attire of this new humanity. What are we to “put on”? The five “graces” or virtues in verse 12 that we are to put on are all graces that Jesus himself bore in the days of his flesh. And I’d love to take a text for each one of these graces to show how Jesus himself wore these. But since we don’t have time for that, I simply commend it for your own personal study. For now, I’ll only summarize. What we’re being commanded to wear here are the graces of Christ: “put on the Lord Jesus,” be “clothed with Christ.” “Put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and long-suffering.” “Put on the Lord Jesus.” “Do all in the name of the Lord Jesus.” That is, consistent with his character.

Well, moving on, since we see the “put on” imperative again in verse 14, we see the clothing metaphor continuing.  And that word, “above,” we should probably understand as “over,” like a coat, like an outer layer. So the layer of love is to be worn on the outside, as the supreme virtue. 

Now if you were to ask me, “What is love?” “How do I know what that article of clothing looks like to take it out of the Bible walk-in closet, and put it on?” I would not give you a philosophical definition. I would not give you a dictionary definition. I would not even direct you to the ten commandments. Here’s what I’d say, first. I’d first quote 1 Jn. 3:16: “We know love by this, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers.” So, do you wonder what love is? Look to the cross. Look to Christ crucified—the supreme demonstration of the love of God. And that’s the love we’re to wear toward one another.

But there’s more: love, you see at the end of verse 14, it “is the bond of perfection.” Now to unpack this clause, we need to step back a little, to see the trinitarian shape of the passage. When Paul refers to God in his letters, as he does in verses 12 and 16 and 17 here, he’s almost always referring to the Father. In verse 17 it’s explicit. And the Son of God is mentioned in verses 13 and 17, as “Lord”; and in verses 15 and 16 as “Christ.” This is the one in whom “all the fullness of deity dwells bodily.”

Okay, you say, I see the Father, and I see the Son. But where do you see the Spirit? Look at verse 16. See the word “spiritual”? This refers, not to the nonphysical, but to what is produced by or in accord with the Spirit, capital S Holy Spirit.

But I also want to argue that he’s present in the love of verse 14. The Spirit is the one who produces love in us as we look to Christ in faith. “The fruit of the Spirit is love.” And the Spirit, as some of the best Christian theologians have argued (convincingly to my mind) is the love between the Father and the Son flowing back and forth as they express infinite delight and satisfaction in each other, binding them together in an eternal fellowship of unbreakable joy and affection.

So what we have expressed here, then, in this “bond of perfection,” I think, is an exhortation to put on the love that partakes of that infinite love in the Spirit between the Father and the Son, a love that has bound them together in perfect harmony and unity from all eternity and will bind them to all eternity. It’s an unbreakable love, the love of the Three-in-One and One-in-Three—divine love. And that love will, when it’s complete, bind us all together in the perfect harmony and unity of the trinitarian love of the Trinity, the God who is three every bit as much as he is one.

So that’s where we’re going, “Humanity 2.0” now, and just around the bend “Humanity 3.0,” swallowed up in the bond of perfection, in intratrinatarian love. Unbreakable. Inseparable. Unity in diversity, and diversity in unity. So, brothers and sisters, let’s bring some of that heaven down now, O family of God, loved by the triune God.

But now, as we seek to dress this way, we’re told how we must put up with one another as we live in community when we don’t always have the right clothes on. Someone shows up, as it were, at the banquet or feast way underdressed. So verse 13 says: “bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, whoever has a grievance against anyone.”

Now I love Paul’s realism here. I mean, look, we’re saved, but we’re still sinners, right? This “bearing with” means we sometimes simply have to put up with one another. That’s alright. Hang in there, and persist in love. Put on love. Wear it, like a garment, when you gather together. 

And we’re also going to sin against one another. And as those who’ve been forgiven so much so freely, we’re called upon to forgive, aren’t we? The pattern again is Christ: “as the Lord forgave you, so you also must forgive.” How did he forgive you? Look to the cross. There, at the cross, you stand freely forgiven. So as the Lord forgave you, forgive your brother, forgive your sister. Take those petty grievances in hand, hurl them behind your back, cast them deep down into the heart of the sea, banish them as far as the east is from the west.

Alright, so that’s the “Christian Community’s Christian Clothing,” “all in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Now, in verses 15-16, we have “The Body’s Body Language.” “The Body’s Body Language.”

The Body’s Christian Body Language

Now why do I put it that way? Well, this passage is about the corporate body of Christ. Verse 15: “you were called in one body.” Moreover, though you can’t see it in the English, all the pronoun references are plural. So there’s no Lone Ranger Christianity. Christianity is a corporate faith. You cannot be a disciple of Christ unless you are united with his people in one body.

Verses 15-16, then, are about “body life.” They’re also about our “body language.” I say “body language” because this all works out in the corporate body in bodily ways, through hands and feet acting and through mouths speaking and singing. And I say “body language” because of the body language Paul uses. For example, verse 15: “Let the peace of Christ rule in you hearts.” And in verse 16 it’s mouths doing teaching and admonishing and singing.

So this text is about our “body language.” And there are three main commands given for our body life and body language. First, “Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts.” Second, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly.”And third, “Be thankful.”

The first command, “let the peace of Christ control your hearts," or "hold sway in your hearts.” This “peace of Christ” was bought by Jesus’ blood, Colossians 1:20. It is beautifully depicted in Ephesians chapter 2, where Christ himself is said to be “our peace”—the peace of the one new humanity made up of formerly  hostile human  factions. This is the peace that comes when sinners are reconciled to God through the cross of Christ, which peace then spreads into the relationships formed by that cross. To this peace “you were called in one body.” So let us, then, in the name of Jesus, pursue the peace he purchased. “Let the peace of Christ hold sway in your hearts.”

Now, second command, verse 16: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly.” “The word of Christ,”what is this word of Christ? Put simply, it’s “the word of truth, the gospel, the grace of God,” Colossians 1:5-6.

You’ll see in the ESV (and virtually all English translations) the phrase “with thankfulness” at the end of verse 16. It’s a different word than the word translated “thankful” in verse 15 and the word translated “thankfulness” in verse 17. The word in verse 16 translated “thankfulness” (in most versions) is the same word almost always translated grace in Paul’s letters. And that’s how the King James takes it. And I think contextually, the King James is right. Paul has just said, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly,” so he is speaking about “grace in your hearts,” not thankfulness, but grace, the word of grace dwelling in you richly. So it’s the message of God’s grace come in Christ crucified, buried, raised, and exalted as Lord and Redeemer of all. So let that word—in the name of Jesus!—let that word dwell in you richly.

Notice now that this word of grace dwelling richly in the body works out in a mutual counseling ministry (verse 16)—“teaching and admonishing one another with all wisdom”; and, it works out in a mutual music ministry—“singing to God psalms and hymns and songs from the Spirit.” The Gospel should saturate all our gatherings—large and small, formal and informal. We should speak the Gospel to one another, we should sing the Gospel to one another. Why? That we might all be “deeply transformed by the power of the Gospel.”[4] No word, no transformation. So, let the word of Christ dwell in you richly.

Third, and last, command, verse 15: “Be thankful.” Thankfulness is also urged in verse 17, and it’s a major pastoral concern in this letter. But just a brief word about this. Body life is messy. Isn’t it? It’s risky, it’s challenging at times. If you rub shoulders a lot with one another (and we should), then you’re likely to be rubbed the wrong way, right? And you’re likely to rub someone else the wrong way. So be thankful, and guard yourselves with gratitude. If you’re thankful, it’ll be hard to nurture bitterness, to envy, to covet, to slander. Thankfulness will put pettiness away. So be thankful, guard yourselves with gratitude, and our body’s body language will be full of life and love.

Christ Is All

So there you have it—“Humanity 2.0: All in the Name of the Lord Jesus.” Here are your Christian clothes, the clothes of Christ. Here is the body’s body language, the Word of grace and peace moving and directing our bodily life and worship. And here, in the new humanity, in the new way of being human—“Christ is all, and in all!” Here, “Christ is all, and in all!”

New Covenant Church, you are the elect of God; you are holy and loved. Since you have died and risen with Christ, and put off the “old man,” continue to put to death the deeds of that old man in Adam. And since you have put on the “new man,” the Lord Jesus, put on daily your Christian clothes, and wear them, letting Christ’s peace rule your hearts, and Christ’s Word dwell in you richly, guarding yourselves with gratitude, giving thanks to the Father through Christ. In a word, “Do all in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Divine authority, with bearing on our behavior.

---

[1] This sermon was first preached at an evening service at New Covenant Church in Naperville, IL. And it is the manuscript I took with me, without any editing done for the printed page here. 

[2] Translation mine.

[3] Kent Hughes, Colossians and Philemon (Wheaton: Crossway, 1989), 101.

[4] This is from a portion of the vision statement of New Covenant Church, where this sermon was preached.

Calvinism Is the Gospel

C. H. Spurgeon:

"I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and him crucified, unless we preach what is nowadays called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."

—Charles Spurgeon, Autobiography: The Early Years (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1962), 168.

Harris's Expanded Paraphrase of Colossians

In his quite good exegetical guide on the Greek text of Colossians, Murray J. Harris provides this stimulating expanded paraphrase of the text of Colossians.

HT: Andy Naselli

Antiphon (I)

Let all the world in ev'ry corner sing,
                                       My God and King.

         The heav'ns are not too high,
         His praise may thither fly:
         The earth is not too low,
         His praises there may grow.

Let all the world in ev'ry corner sing,
                                       My God and King.

         The church with psalms must shout,
         No door can keep them out:
         But above all, the heart
         Must bear the longest part.

Let all the world in ev'ry corner sing,
                                       My God and King.

—George Herbert, The Complete English Poems (New York: Penguin, 1991), 47.

Christmas Joy Rooted in Eternity, Manifested in Time

Coming the first day of a week in which we're focusing on joy, here's my second contribution (see the first here) to our church's first Advent reader:

Christmas did not begin 2000 years ago at the birth of Jesus. It is as ancient as the Ancient of Days. For the whole story of Christmas was worked out by the Father and the Son in the fellowship of the Spirit “before times eternal.”

Grace Given “Before Times Eternal”

“Before times eternal.” This awkward expression is a wooden rendering of a Greek phrase in 2 Tim. 1:9, rendered by the ESV as “before the ages began” (“before time began,” NET). It means that God’s “plan and grace” were not worked out after creation, but before. God did not wait till humanity fell into ruin and destruction before he began to plot redemption. The plan for the appearing of the grace of Christ in the flesh is as ancient as the Ancient of Days. And so the familiar hymn has it right. Joy: promised from creation!

joy has dawned upon the world

promised from creation

god’s salvation now unfurled

hope for every nation

not with fanfare from above

but a humble gift of love

jesus born of mary[1]

Grace Manifested in the Fullness of Time

The hymn points up that this “joy promised from creation” also “dawned upon the world” when “god’s salvation [was] unfurled.” And Paul tells us as much: God’s grace purposed from eternity “has now been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus” (1:10). The coming of the Son of God to take to himself a body—to appear in flesh!—reveals the plot of the heart of God planned all the way back in eternity, a plan of grace to save us and call us apart from our works (1:9). This plan and this grace breaking into our sad world in the person of Jesus has nothing whatever to do with how you’ve performed, or how you will perform. “Hope for every nation!” If that’s not “good news of great joy” (Lk. 2:10), there is none!

Grace Bringing to Light Eternal Life

Now consider and enjoy that this good news of the grace of Christ “abolishes death and brings life and immortality to light” (2 Tim. 1:10). Ask yourself: for those dwelling in the shadow of death, could there possibly be better news announced to us, a more joyful dawning of the light of day, for us sorry mortals, the dying dwelling among the dying? Death is literally man’s mortal enemy. All physicians know this: ultimately every one of them has a 100% mortality rate among their patients. And there’s nothing modern medicine can do to do away with the awful reality of death. So God be praised! And rejoice with great joy! For the Son of God, who has life-in-himself (Jn. 5:26), has come with, and has achieved through his dying and rising, the greatest of all Christmas gifts—eternal life.

Death is swallowed up in victory!

O death, where is your victory?

O death, where is your sting?

(1 Cor. 15:54–55)

---

[1] Stuart Townend & Keith Getty, Joy Has Dawned Across the World, Copyright © 2004 Thankyou Music.

Remembering the Gospel at Christmas

Our home church, New Covenant Church in Naperville, has been producing an Advent reader with contributions from a number of members of the church. Each day of Advent, one is sent out to the members. What follows is the first of my two contributions. It comes at the end of a week where we've been focusing on preparation.

A Strange and Surprising Reminder

What would you think of reminding an esteemed pastor to remember Jesus? Would you think this unnecessary, or perhaps a tad condescending? After all, he’s the guy given to the study of Scripture, right? Or how about reminding a brother or sister, long ago converted to Christianity, to remember Jesus? Isn’t this a bit odd?

I frankly find it surprising that Paul does precisely this very thing in 2 Tim. 2:8. He tells Timothy, now an experienced pastor, Paul’s protégé no less, gifted by the Spirit for gospel ministry, taught long ago as a young boy by his godly grandmother Lois and his godly mother Eunice—he tells him, pastor Timothy: “Remember Jesus Christ.” He needed to be reminded what ought to be unthinkable to forget. And so surely if Timothy needed to be reminded to remember Jesus, so do we. How prone we are to forget! And perhaps especially at Christmas, here in the modern twenty-first century West, here in the busy and bustling burbs of Chicago.

Remember the Whole Christ and Whole Gospel

As Paul reminds Timothy to remember Jesus Christ, he highlights two high points of the gospel, both pointing to other elements of the whole good news. He tells Timothy to remember Jesus Christ, first, “as risen form the dead”; and, second, “as the descendant of David” (2:8). These two facets of the gospel diamond shine light on all the other facets of the multifaceted single gospel, bringing to light (and to mind—remember!) all of them, summarizing the whole gospel to be remembered. “Risen from the dead” recalls especially that Christ was crucified for spiritual crooks and criminals, that King Jesus is alive and seated at God’s right hand as Lord of all, and that he is coming again in flaming fire with his mighty angels to judge the living and the dead. “Descendant of David” recalls the incarnation (Christmas proper!), recalls the life and miracles of Jesus, and recalls the fulfillment of Old Covenant promises. So remember, Timothy, and remember New Covenant Church, the whole gospel!

The Christian Duty of Remembering

Paul was not alone in urging remembering as an urgent Christian duty (see, for example, Deut. 8:18 and 2 Pet. 1:12; but there are literally dozens of texts). The call to recall is a major theme throughout Scripture. And so if we are to be well-prepared for Christmas, if we are to be ready for Jesus coming again in great glory to judge the living and the dead, we need to exercise our memories in the whole gospel—the first coming, the living, the dying, the rising, the ascending, the seating, and the coming again of the Lord of glory with great power. The incarnation of Christ is part of a theological whole, one brilliant facet of the multifaceted diamond of the whole good news.

So let us remember together this Christmas to remember Jesus Christ. Let us remind one another about Christmas as part of the whole gospel story. And through repeated remembering let us ready our burning, longing hearts for his glorious return! O come again Lord Jesus!

Character: An Intense Conscious Sense of Living Morally Before God

In his book Losing Our Virtue, in the course of discussing the disastrous move from virtues to values in the modern era, David Wells gives this definition of character: "the intensely conscious sense of living morally before God" (16).

And in this sense, all talk about "character counting" (and similar empty speak) devoid of reference to God stays in the merely horizontal plane and thus never ascends to talk of true character. Which calls to mind Jonathan Edwards' magnificent treatise on The Nature of True Virtue.

The National Crisis of Character and Evangelicalism's Ineptitude

Writing in 1998, David Wells speaks a word about evangelicalism's ineptitude that is still pertinent today:

The fact is that the enculturation of the evangelical world and its self-betrayal through its theologically emptied-out faith is the reason why the Church has no answer to the national crisis of character. It is also the reason why the postmodern world is not hearing, as it should, a Word from God. 

—David Wells, Losing Our Virtue: Why the Church Must Recover Its Moral Vision (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 1-2.

Man Hath a Free Will Alright: To Go To Hell

George Whitefield:

"I know Christ is all in all. Man is nothing: he hath a free will to go to hell, but none to go to heaven, till God worketh in him to will and to do his good pleasure."

—Arnold Dallimore, George Whitefield, Vol. 1 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1970), 406.

Never Awed by God's Greatness

John Piper:

Earnestness is not excessive in our day. It might have been once. And, yes, there are imbalances in certain people today who don't seem to be able to relax and talk about the weather. But it seems to me that the far greater sadness in our day is people who are simply unable to be reverent. They seem to have never been awed by the greatness of God. They only know one mode of relationship: casual.

—John Piper, Five Points: Towards a Deeper Experience of God's Grace (Christian Focus: Scotland, 2013), 78.

Trigger Alert: Hate Speech

Christianitity is indeed a religion of love. And without love, we are nothing (1 Cor. 13:2). If we do not love, we do not know God, for God is love (1 John 4:8). That's his nature. And so those born of God love even as he loves (1 John 4:7). 

But Christianity is also a religion that requires the follower of Christ to hate. That's right. Love hates. Love for God and love for people necessitate hating certain things. The Christian must hate—and, specifically, hate what God hates, and hate it as God hates it. For example, see Rom. 12:9; Heb. 1:9; Jude 23; Rev. 2:6; Ps. 97:10; Prov. 6:16-19. 

But be prepared if you hate what God hates and how God hates, and you express that hatred. Even many (and I mean many) professing Christians will label you as unkind, harsh, uncharitable. If you say you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, that's hate speech, man. And you'll hear it, yes, even from those within the visible church. It's your lot in postmodern America where a certain sort of tolerance reigns supreme. And this postmodern notion of tolerance has many (and again I mean many) professing Christian churches by the throat. 

So if you hate what God hates and how God hates, and you express that hatred, be prepared to have that expressed hatred labeled hate speech, harsh, unkind, unloving, critical, judgmental, uncharitable. 

However, if you are a Bible-believing and Bible-driven Christian, that is to say, if you follow Christ, there will be some things you simply find intolerable. And you'll rightly abhor those things. And though that ought to be praised as godliness, don't hold your breath for that praise. Instead, brace yourself in faith and love for all manner of accusations of unChristlikeness. (Precious few minding Jesus' holy hatred of what God hates.)

Christianity is a relgion of affirmations and denials. Always has been. If everything is affirmed, then the faith once for all delivered to the saints is effectively denied. Let me say it again. If we affirm everything, then we deny the faith. There must be some doctrines and practices that we deny, or we shall have nothing at all to affirm and confess.

So a concluding biblical exhortation and question. First, the exhortation: "Love without hypocrisy. Hate what is evil; hold fast to what is good" (Rom. 12:9). And, second, in addition to the good liturgical question—what do you believe?—it seems salutary and biblical also to ask: Christian, what do you hate?

Unbroken, Uninterrupted Thought: The Writer's Traffic and Trade

On the poet's utter need for solitude:

The poem, as it starts to form in the writer's mind, and on paper, can't abide interrruption. I don't mean that it won't but that it can't. . . . To interrupt the writer from the line of thought is to wake the dreamer from the dream. The dreamer cannot enter that dream, precisely as it was unfolding, ever again becaue the line of thought is more than that: it is a line of feeling as well. Until interruption occurs, this feeling is as real as the desk on which the poet is working. For the poem is not nailed together, or formed from one logical point to another, which might be retrievable—it is created, through work in which the interweavings of craft, thought, and feeling are intricate, mysterious, and altogether "mortal." Interrupt—and the whole structure can collapse. 

—Mary Oliver, A Poetry Handbook: A Prose Guide to Understanding and Writing Poetry (Harcourt: 1994), 117. 

A Thanksgiving Resolution

Resolved, To be grateful not only today when everyone and his long lost cousin expect it, but in all circumstances and at all times (Eph. 5:20; 1 Thess. 5:18). And, when I fall short of this resolution (as undoubtedly I will), to confess and repent of my high rebellion straightaway, looking to the blood and righteousness of Christ for pardon, and to the free grace of God in Christ for Spirit-produced renewal.

From Heaven He Came and Sought Her

Verse 1 of The Church's One Foundation  contains these glorious lines about the definite redemption of Christ:

   From heaven he came and sought her
   To be his holy bride;
   With his own blood he bought her,
   And for her life he died.

And from this verse comes the title of a new volume that will doubtless prove to be an invaluable resource on the doctrine of the atonement for many years to come. I suspect it will more than repay close study of and assiduous meditation upon its contents.

One Main Difference of These Two Covenants

John Owen on an important distinction between the old and new covenants:

This then is one main difference of these two covenants—that the Lord did in the old only require the condition; now, in the new, he will also effect it in all the federates, to whom this covenant is extended.

—John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, in the Works of John Owen, ed. W. H. Gould, 16 vols. (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1976), 10:237.

Ungratefulness

Lord, with what bounty and rare clemency
                   Hast thou redeemed us from the grave!
                           If thou hadst let us run,
                   Gladly had man adored the sun,
                           And thought his god most brave;
Where now we shall be better gods than he.

Thou has but two rare cabinets full of treasure,
                  The Trinity, and Incarnation:
                         Thou has unlocked them both,
                  And made them jewels to betroth
                          The work of thy creation
Unto thyself in everlasting pleasure.

The statelier cabinet is the Trinity,
                    Whose sparkling light access denies:
                           Therefore thou dost not show
                     This fully to us, till death blow
                           The dust into our eyes:
For by that powder thou wilt make us see.

But all thy sweets are packed up in the other;
                    Thy mercies thither flock and flow:
                            That as the first affrights,
                    This may allure us with delights;
                            Because this box we know;
For we have all of us just such another.

But man is close, reserved, and dark to thee:
                    When thou demandest but a heart,
                           He cavils instantly.
                     In his poor cabinet of bone
                             Sins have their box apart,
Defrauding thee, who gavest two for one.

—George Herbert, The Complete English Poems (New York: Penguin, 1991), 75-76.

Public Proclamation of the Word Is Not Sufficient

Manetsch on the significance of personal ministry among Calvin's "Company of Pastors":

Throughout this study it has been evident that Calvin and Geneva's Company of Pastors were committed to a model of pastoral work that involved intensive, personal interaction with Geneva's townspeople and country folk. The proclamation of God's Word in public assemblies was crucial, but not sufficient in itself. The ministers believed that they needed to know and show personal care for the men and women in their parishes, helping them apply the truths of God's Word to their particular life circumstance and challenges to promote personal godliness and spiritual reformation. "It is not enough that a pastor in the pulpit should teach all the people together," Calvin once noted, "if he does not add particular instruction as necessity requires or occasion offers."

—Scott M. Manetsch, Calvin's Company of Pastors: Pastoral Care and the Emerging Reformed Church, 1536-1609 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 280-281.

You Scratch My Back, I'll Scratch Yours

It looks like there was a handout of Gary Chapman's love languages goo at Wheaton College. (I got the e-mailing about it a little over a week ago.) Unfortunately, psychobabble goo goes over well at Wheaton.

Full disclosure. Wheaton College is my alma mater. She's family. That being the case, with real affection for Wheaton and her students, perhaps I'm allowed to say such things about some of my crazy, embarrassing family members. When Wheaton does this, she's like that crazy, oddball family member you love to pieces but whom you must nevertheless acknowledge says and does some downright embarrassing things.

I love the institution and love the student body, and pushing such rubbish makes me cringe. And all this is said, with all due respect, of course, to a venerable institution with many venerable faculty members, under whom I enjoyed the immense privilege of studying holy Scripture.

Em and I confess we've never quite gotten how people of the Book could go for that man-centered stuff. A modicum of biblical and theological literacy enables one to see it for what it is at a glance: man-centered psychobabble nonsense unworthy of the bride of Christ, and unworthy of Christian marriage, which is to reflect the gospel, not our culture's idols of the self.

As counselor Dr. David Powlison says, Chapman's teaching on love languages offers a glorified, sanitized form of "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours."

So I hope students of Wheaton and of the Word will find it repellent and noxious to their biblical and theological senses. The Word is sufficient for every marriage. We really don't need Chapman. And not only will we do fine without him, but we're likely to reflect the gospel in our marriages far more if we ignore him and heed the Book, and heed biblical preaching on Christian marriage.

If you want a good review of Chapman's teaching on love languages, see chapter 14 of Dr. Powlison's book Seeing with New Eyes, entitled "Love Speaks Many Languages Fluently." The whole book is excellent, but chapter 14 alone is worth the price of the book.

The Wrath of God as an Expression of the Love of God

So far from God's wrath being in opposition to God's love, the wrath of God is actually an expression of his love. Michael Reeves explains:

His love is not mild-mannered and limp; it is livid, potent and committed. And therein lies our hope: through his wrath the living God shows that he is truly loving, and through his wrath he will destroy all devilry that we might enjoy him in a purified world, the home of righteousness. 

 To illustrate, Reeves points us to the personal wrestlings of Croation theologian Miroslav Volf, who pens these powerful words:

I used to think that wrath was unworthy of God. Isn't God love? Shouldn't divine love be beyond wrath? God is love, and God loves every person and every creature. That's exactly why God is wrathful against some of them. My last resistance to the idea of God's wrath was a casualty of the war in the former Yugoslavia, the region from which I come. According to some estimates, 200,000 people were killed and over 3,000,000 were displaced. My villages and cities were destroyed, my people shelled day in and day out, some of them brutalized beyond imagination, and I could not imagine God not being angry. 

Or think of Rwanda in the last decade of the past century where 800,00 people were hacked to death in one hundred days! How did God react to the carnage? By doting on the perpetrators in a grandparently fashion? By refusing to condemn the bloodbath but instead affirming the perpetrators' basic goodness? Wasn't God fiercely angry with them? Though I used to complain about the indecency of the idea of God's wrath, I came to think that I would have to rebel against a God who wasn't wrathful at the sight of the world's evil. God isn't wrathful in spite of being loving. God is wrathful because God is love.

—Michael Reeves, Delighting in the Trinity: An Introduction to the Christian Faith (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 119-120.

My Uncommon Wife: Living a Beautiful Life

Yesterday I posted an update about Em's miscarriage. Finding some reprieve here the last day, and reflecting a little more on the Lord's work in our lives, I have a few more thoughts—this time about my uncommon wife.

The past month of living beside my wife as she went through this miscarriage has convinced me that she's the most godly woman I know. There may be women more godly than she, but I don't know them and haven't met them. 

In fact, I can't imagine a woman weathering such a storm with greater grace, with more patient endurance through protracted pain, with deeper hope in a sovereign God, with more firmness of faith, with a more God-centered outlook, and with a more Christ-exalting demeanor than my wife. 

This Emily of mine, hers is a beautiful life: and so I deeply admire my precious wife. And I'm learning to imitate her faith. In many important respects, she's the pillar of stability for our little family. 

I can't imagine life without her. I'm deeply grateful for God's healing hand upon her. And I praise him for fashioning a woman who reflects so much of the character and goodness and beauty of God to me. 

She's one of those holy women who hope in God above all else (1 Pet. 3:5; Ps. 62:5). She's one of those excellent saints of whom the world is not worthy (Heb. 11:38). 

Our Great Prayer-Hearing God Amid Pain and Loss

Perhaps you've noticed that my posts of late have been more personal than usual. That's true, I think. Normally I don't care to talk a lot about myself or personal matters. There are way more important things than me and my little life to set the mind on.

But the Lord has brought us through tough times, and this seems worth some reflection and some public acknowledgment of what he's done.

So a brief word and update about Em's miscarriage. It seems we're finally, truly turning a corner. After a horrible, difficult month (spare you the details), Emily ended up in the ED yesterday and ended up getting a surgical procedure that we were hoping to avoid but that was successful. So we're thankful for that, thankful for good medical care.

We're also thankful for people who prayed for us so diligently. More than all the practical help offered by family and friends (and we did need quite a bit of help), we truly appreciate the faithful praying of brothers and sisters in Christ.

Through tough times, we've come to learn that being prayed for faithfully means more than anything else. We are sensible of many answered prayers. We saw God provide, we felt his nearness, we were aware of his heavenly hand upon us—all because people simply prayed for us in Jesus' name. 

God is good. He's always good. He's the great prayer-hearing God! And we're swimming in an ocean of divine mercies. Praise the Lord!

Personal Righteousness Delivers from Death

I'm reading through Ezekiel nowadays for my soul's breakfast most mornings. And I came across Ezek. 14:12-14 today:

And the word of YHWH came to me: "Son of man, when a land sins against me by acting faithlessly, and I stretch out my hand against it and break its supply of bread and send famine upon it, and cut off from it man and beast, even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness, declares the sovereign YHWH."

Despite what the false prophets were spewing about "peace" (Ezek. 13:10; cf. Jer. 6:14), Ezekiel had a God-given message of impending divine judgment for Jerusalem. Divine judgment was inevitable. And not even Noah, Daniel, and Job could deliver Jerusalem by their righteousness.

But, and here's what I really want to point out, the righteousness of Noah, Daniel, and Job would avail to deliver their own lives (Ezek. 14:14).

Now, it appears to me that all too often today people speak as though Protestants have no room for personal righteousness as significant in the day of wrath (Prov. 11:4-6). I don't think that's the case, however, and certainly not for historic, classical Protestantism of the Puritan variety.

So I dipped into Matthew Henry's commentary on Ezekiel this morning to see how he interpreted the righteousness of Noah, Daniel, and Job in Ezek. 14:14. Would he simply say this is Christ's righteousness, period? Would he say this is merely hypothetical, or the like? Here's his commentary (italics original):

Though pious praying men may not prevail to deliver others, yet they shall deliver their own souls by their righteousness, so that, though they may suffer in the common calamity, yet to them the property of it is altered; it is not to them what it is to the wicked; it is unstrung, and does them no hurt; it is sanctified, and does them good. Sometimes their souls (their lives) are remarkably delivered, and given them for a prey; at least their souls (their spiritual interests) are secured. If their bodies be not delivered, yet their souls are. Riches indeed profit not in the day of wrath, but righteousness delivers from death, from so great a death, so many deaths as are here threatened. This should encourage us to keep our integrity in times of common apostasy, that, if we do so, we shall be hidden in the day of the Lord's anger (Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible, 4:651-652). 

So, here's a staunch confessional Protestant of the historic, classic variety expounding Ezek. 14:14 and saying our own personal righteousness and integrity matter in the day of judgment.

This is my heritage, whatever any might say of Protestantism. This is Protestantism, whatever may go by that name today.

Pursued by God's Goodness and Steadfast Love

I got a letter today from the associate dean of the Department of Biblical and Theological Studies at Wheaton College. It read, in part:

"I am happy to inform you that you have passed your Biblical Exegesis Master of Arts comprehensive examination taken on October 26, 2013."

May God be praised! I called on him in the day of trouble, and he delivered me. And so now it's time to glorify him (Ps. 50:15), apart from whom I can do nothing. I'm utterly dependent. And he's utterly reliable. Thanks be to God for his goodness toward me!

"Surely goodness and steadfast love will pursue me all the days of my life, and I shall dwell in the house of YHWH forever" (Ps. 23:6, translation mine). The LORD "holds my lot. The lines have fallen for me in pleasant places; indeed, I have a beautiful inheritance" (Ps. 16:5-6).

Many thanks also to my uncommon wife, whose steadfast help and support leave me in awe of her. I can honestly say that she never complained once, not even a word, throughout the whole degree. I married a remarkable woman.

I bless God for her. "She is far more precious than jewels. The heart of her husband trusts in her, and he will have no lack of gain. She does him good, and not harm, all the days of her life" (Prov. 31:10-12). May her children rise up and call her blessed (Prov. 31:28).

Like a Loaf of Bread without Any Flour in It

C. H. Spurgeon:

The motto of all true servants of God must be, "We preach Christ, and him crucified." A sermon without Christ in it is like a loaf of bread without any flour in it. No Christ in your sermon, sir? Then go home, and never preach again until you have something worth preaching.

—"Sermon 2899," in Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit: Sermons (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1904), 50:431, as cited in Michael Reeves, Delighting in the Trinity: An Introduction to the Christian Faith (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 84.

Halloween's Antecedents, Influences, and Modern Practice

A helpful (but longish) piece on Halloween's antecedents and influences over at The Calvinist International. The brief Christian response toward the end seems clear-headed and balanced.

You might also want to see President Al Mohler's piece on Halloween.

Have You Ever Noticed This Contrast?

Writing to his friend Owen Barfield, C. S. Lewis remarked:

Talking of beasts and birds, have you ever noticed this contrast: that when you read a scientific account of any animal's life you get an impression of laborious, incessant, almost rational economic activity . . . but when you study any animal you know—what at once strikes you is their cheerful fatuity, the pointlessness of nearly all they do. Say what you like, Barfield, the world is sillier and better fun than they make out.

—C. S. Lewis, Collected Letters: Books, Broadcasts, and War, 1931-1949, ed. Walter Hooper (New York: HarperCollins, 2004), 930, as cited in Michael Reeves, Delighting in the Trinity: An Introduction to the Christian Faith (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 57.

Anastasis

"The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD" (Job 1:21).

What we've suspected for some time now was confirmed yesterday: our little baby, our little Anastasis, isn't going to be born into this world.

We grieve the loss of new life, but not as those without hope (1 Thess. 4:13). Anastasis means "resurrection" in Greek. We've named our lost little one after our great Christian hope: our God raises the dead.

He lives blessedly forever. His Son possess life in himself (Jn. 5:26). So in him we hope; and his name we praise. Blessed be his name—he's Lord of the living and the dead! (Rom. 14:9).

God is good. Always. He's just, faithful, wise. Always. And we trust him. Fully. He's totally sovereign over all our losses and crosses. And in all things "we are more than conquerors through him who loved us" (Rom. 8:37).

"He who did not spare his own Son, but handed him over for us all—how will he not also with him freely give us all things?" (Rom. 8:32). "All things are ours" (1 Cor. 3:21). Even "life or death" (1 Cor. 3:22).

Pulling Back for a Blog Break

In the thick of a heavy season, I'm going to pull back from blogging for a while, probably at least until I finish up some graduate work this fall.

I may offer up a few more posts for the series I began (here, here, and here) on 1 Cor. 11:17-34 and didn't quite finish yet. But that depends on how heavy this heavy season turns out to be.

The Christian and Work

Here are some helpful resources on the Christian and work.

Luther's Esteem of 1 Peter

Martin Luther on 1 Peter:

"The one who understands this letter has without doubt enough so as not to need more . . . because the apostle did not forget anything in this letter that is necessary for a Christian to know."

—As cited in Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter (Minneapolis: 1 Peter, 1996), 64.

The Context of Kids Drinking in Corinth Considered

In my previous post on 1 Cor. 11:17-34, I said I’d be considering the context of this text next. Considering the context carefully appears to me to be important if we’re not to miss Paul’s purpose in penning this portion of his letter to Corinth. Understanding his purpose, we’re in a much better position to ask the right questions of the text and follow its flow of thought for a right application with respect to children at the family meal.

Discussion of the context will move from the wider to the nearer context, from the periphery to the center. So I’ll discuss first the larger context of the whole letter, its broad occasion. Second, I’ll then briefly canvass the situation that occasioned the broader section (7:1-14:40) in which 1 Cor. 11:17-34 comes. Third, I’ll briefly consider the narrower section that embraces the common concerns (11:2-14:40) in which the section on the Lord’s Supper finds its appropriate place. And last, we’ll think over what’s going on in the immediate context of the text that concerns us.

So, first, why did Paul write 1 Corinthians?[1] He wrote because the Corinthian church was divided and dirty. Paul had apparently been informed by way of an oral report of a number of problems in Corinth, not the least of which was disunity (1:11). The report communicated not only that the Corinthians misunderstood Paul’s first letter (5:1), but also that there was divisiveness, sexual sin, and social snobbery (1:10; 5:1; 11:18). Paul also received a letter from the Corinthians that communicated considerable confusion over marital matters, participation in pagan practices, order in corporate worship, and the bodily resurrection of believers (7:1; 8:1; 12:1; 15:12, 35).

So he wrote his letter to get this church, divided on account of the arrogance of its more influential members, to work together for the advance of the gospel. He wants them to drop their divisive one-upmanship, build up the faith of the weak, and witness effectively to unbelievers. He argues that much of their conduct was out of step with the gospel. At root of their disunity lay an arrogance (3:21; 4:6, 8, 18–19; 5:2, 6) totally incompatible with God’s free grace in Christ: wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption (1:30; 4:7). The arrogant divisiveness and selfish disregard of others going on generally in Corinth shows up in a particular way at the Lord’s Table.

Now, second, and more briefly, it seems salutary to take note that the text on the Lord’s Supper comes in a much broader section spanning from 7:1 to 15:58. This broader block of text deals mainly with the questions from the Corinthians (see, e.g., 7:1; 8:1; 12:1). Paul responds to the queries of the Corinthians one by one. As many commentators comment upon, 1 Cor. 11:17-34 may be the only passage in the broader block that does not address specific questions.[2] Paul appears to bring up the ethical chaos at the Lord’s Supper in response to oral reportage, supported by the “I hear” of 11:18. Which leads to the third, even narrower still, context in which 11:17-34 finds itself embedded: 11:2-14:40.

This third, narrower context—11:2-14:40—addresses the gathered assembly, or corporate worship, in Corinth. The section right before our text speaks to the head coverings question (11:2-16). Then chapters 12-14 concern the use and abuse of spiritual gifts. So 1 Cor. 11:17-34 comes in where it does because of its thematic links with the forgoing and succeeding sections. It deals with matters of unity and edification when the church gathers together as one body.

Now last, we ought to think about what the immediate context reveals about Paul’s concerns at the Lord’s Supper and the implications for the practice of the gathered people of God. This context brings still more clarity for how we ought to think about the participation of children in the family meal. And to this clarity I shall turn our attention in the next post. So more anon. 

But for now one might just ask this question: how would our questions about kids eating and drinking with the adults at the church's family meal find a place in the questions and concerns at Corinth? Would they?

---

[1] Much of what follows in this first "context" simply comes from Theilman’s introduction in the ESV Study Bible. Though the commentaries cover much of the same ground, and indeed more, Theilman states succinctly and nicely what was going on in Corinth and Paul’s chief concerns.

[2] See, for example, the commentaries of Fee, Thiselton, and Garland. 

Preaching that Doesn't Jeopardize the Gospel

D. A. Carson on preaching a crucified Christ:

And clearly [Paul] thinks the gospel is jeopardized by any kind of eloquence or rhetoric that does not reinforce the message of a crucified Messiah. Clever, witty, amusing, glittering discourse may be warmly applauded by the literati, but it does not easily square with the odium of the cross. Paul will have none of it.

He continues:

Neither would the early English Puritans. In an age when scholars often used the pulpit to display their great learning, the Puritans resolved to speak with simplicity and forcefulness calculated to do their hearers the most good.

Carson then provides a modern day illustration, and an important concluding question:

I understood this point most clearly, I think, when I heard of an Egyptian believer with extraordinary communication skills. Arabic is a language that operates on two levels. There is a sort of street Arabic—or, more precisely, there are several quite different street Arabics, depending on the region—and a "high" or "literary" Arabic. The latter may be found not only in good Arabic literature, but, in the hands of the skillful, it may be found in oral address. This particular Egyptian Christian was a journalist, widely read as much for the music of his prose as for the quality of his content. He felt called of God to Christian ministry, abandoned journalism, and soon built up a very large congregation. Many of those who attended his church did so simply because they greatly enjoyed listening to his orations. 

But this preacher was troubled. He discovered that many people were far more interested in his Arabic than his Savior. After much soul-searching, he switched to the more colloquial Arabic. His reasoning was quite simple: his purpose was to convey the message of the cross, and he had come to the conclusion that his rhetoric was getting in the way. That man, surely, understood Paul.  

What gets in our way?

—The Cross and Christian Ministry: An Exposition of Passages from 1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker:1993), 35-36.

Marvelous Preacher, or Marvelous Savior?

D. A. Carson on 1 Cor. 2:1-5:

These verses do not prohibit diligent preparation, passion, clear articulation, and persuasive presentation. Rather, they warn against any method that leads people to say, 'What a marvelous preacher!' rather than, 'What a marvelous Savior!'

—The Cross and Christian Ministry: An Exposition of Passages from 1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker:1993), 35. 

Cleaning Up the Horse Poop in Rome

"One wonders why, if Paul had been focally concerned about being a good steward of creation in his own time, he did not say a bit more about cleaning up the horse poop in Rome."

—D. A. Carson, "Kingdom, Ethics, and Individual Salvation," Themelios 38.2 (2013): 197-201.

"Kingdom" as a Mere Adjective?

"There is nothing in the NT quite like the current infatuation for expressions like 'kingdom ethics,' in which 'kingdom' is reduced to a mere adjective."

—D. A. Carson, "Kingdom, Ethics, and Individual Salvation," Themelios 38.2 (2013): 197-201.

Can Kids Drink Unworthily?

Now before getting into some of the details of the text (1 Cor. 11:17-34), I want to do two things. First, I want to make clearer the difficulty I’m raising in my first post in this series. Second, I want to consider the passage in the larger context and flow of the epistle.

So first, the difficulty. It's often asserted that this passage ought to keep kids who lack a certain level of cognitive development from coming to the table. Why? Well, because they cannot either “examine” themselves or “discern the body” (1 Cor. 11:28-29). 

How we determine that level of cognitive development is worth considering, but it’s not the point I wish to pursue now. What I want to pursue now is simply what is implied in saying that a lack of cognitive development excludes kids from coming to the family meal of the church. For if we want to say that children do not have the capacity to participate in the examining and discerning Paul calls for, then should we not also say that they probably lack the capacity to participate in the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner? And if they cannot participate unworthily, then why are we excluding them?

But, someone will say, “Ah, but we don’t have to decide whether or not they can participate unworthily.” Why not? We’ve decided we have to decide whether they are old enough to examine and to discern. So why wouldn’t we also want to ask if they can commit the sin that concerns Paul? Isn’t that why he wants the examining and discerning to be done? So isn’t the question about whether so-called cognitively underdeveloped children can participate in an unworthy manner or not more fundamental to the whole discussion for deciding whether to include or exclude covenant kids from the family meal?

So let’s consider what we might make of answering either “yes” or “no” to our question. Say someone says, “No, covenant kids cannot participate unworthily, for they lack the requisite mental development.” Well, then, why exclude them? Isn’t Paul’s concern to warn those who would participate unworthily? It’s not just to exclude those who lack a certain kind of development. No, that’s not at all the topic of his discussion. He wants to prevent guilt-generating participation in the family meal. He wants to prevent the Lord's judgment from falling on people who participate unworthily.

But say one answers, “Yes, covenant kids are mentally developed enough to participate unworthily.” Okay, so why then do we say they’re not mentally developed enough to examine or to discern? How have we decided this—and done so with such certainty?

Do you see the difficulty? I don’t see how people can get around it. Unless they just ignore it. Which ignoring seems to being going on quite a lot.

In the next post, I will consider the context of 1 Cor. 11:17-34. It seems to me that it’s essential for us to discern properly Paul’s purpose in writing the epistle and his purpose in the section in which our passage comes. The larger context of the whole epistle, with the circumstances and condition of the Corinthians that Paul’s addressing, and then also the flow of thought in the larger section in which our passage participates—these are crucial for asking the right questions of the passage. Who is Paul trying to exclude from the table anyway? Would our questions about children likely be in either Paul’s mind or the minds of the Corinthians?

Well, more to come just around the bend.

Kids Who Drink Unworthily

I'm going to begin a series of posts, probably fairly short, on a text that ought to be far more controversial than it tends to be in most Protestant churches, and especially in Reformed churches. I'm speaking of 1 Cor. 11:17-34, especially verses 27-29.

It's assumed and asserted (far too dogmatically, to my mind) that this text excludes children from coming to the Lord's table until they reach a certain stage of cognitive development that enables them to "examine themselves" and "discern the body" (1 Cor. 11:28-29). But I want to question this assumption. I realize that even the Christian tradition that I respect most—namely, the Reformed tradition—has by and large taken the dominant position today of excluding kids until they attain a certain stage of cognitive development.

In this first post, I simply want to raise a question to consider. If children need first to be able to "discern the body" (whatever that means, and more on that soon) and "examine" themselves as adults do, then by the same reasoning, should they not also be required to be in a position developmentally where they can also eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord "in an unworthy manner" (1 Cor. 11:27)?

In other words, what does it look like to eat and drink "in an unworthy manner" for the one we consider developmentally developed enough? Given that, it seems that we must then ask a couple of preliminary questions, and then some follow-up questions. First, can a child do this? And, second, what would that look like?

For if children cannot eat and drink unworthily, or are not likely to do so, then perhaps we shouldn't so easily exclude them. But, if children can eat and drink unworthily, then can we not discern who is and who isn't discerning the Lord's body among the children? Or can only the child do the examining? And if this is the case, that the child alone can do the examining (in order to be faithful to the text), then is this even possible for a child? And if not, why not? And if so, what might that "examining" look like?

The Biblical Doctrine of Judgment

Leon Morris:

The doctrine of final judgment . . . stresses man's accountability and the certainty that justice will finally triumph over all the wrongs which are part and parcel of life here and now. The former gives a dignity to the humblest action, the latter brings calmness and assurance to those in the thick of the battle. This doctrine gives meaning to life. . . . The Christian view of judgment means that history moves to a goal. . . . Judgment protects the idea of the triumph of God and of good. It is unthinkable that the present conflict between good and evil should last throughout eternity. Judgment means that evil will be disposed of authoritatively, decisively, finally. Judgment means that in the end God's will will be perfectly done.

—The Biblical Doctrine of Judgment, 72, as cited in J. I. Packer, Knowing God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1973), 144.

Heartbeats Cannot Be Hoarded

N. D. Wilson:

Death is now. The choice is here. 

Lay your life down. Your heartbeats cannot be hoarded. Your reservoir of breaths is draining away. You have hands, blister them while you can. You have bones, make them strain—they carry nothing in the grave. You have lungs, let them spill with laughter. With an average life expectancy of 78.2 years in the US (subtracting eight hours a day for sleep), I have around 250,000 conscious hours remaining to me in which I could be smiling or scowling, rejoicing in my life, in this race, in this story, or moaning and complaining about my troubles. I can be giving my fingers, my back, my mind, my words, my breaths, to my wife and my children and my neighbors, or I can grasp after the vapor and the vanity for myself, dragging my feet, afraid to die and therefore afraid to live. And, like Adam, I will still die in the end.   

Living is the same thing as dying. Living well is the same thing as dying for others.  

—Death by Living: Life Is Meant to Be Spent (Dallas: Thomas Nelson, 2013), 84.

What Do I Love When I Love My God?

Augustine:

But what do I love when I love my God? Not material beauty or beauty of a temporal order; not the brilliance of earthly light, so welcome to our eyes; not the sweet melody of harmony and song; not the fragrance of flowers, perfumes, and spices; not manna or honey; not limbs such as the body delights to embrace. It is not these that I love when I love my God. And yet, when I love him, it is true that I love a light of a certain kind, a voice, a perfume, a food, an embrace; but they are of the kind that I love in my inner self, when my soul is bathed in light that is not bound by space; when it listens to sound that never dies away; when it breathes fragrance that is not borne away on the wind; when it tastes food that is never consumed by the eating; when it clings to an embrace from which it is not severed by fulfillment of desire. This is what I love when I love my God.

—Saint Augustine, Confessions, trans. R. S. Pine-Coffin (New York: Penguin, 1961), 212.

The Angel of YHWH an OT Enigma

Commenting on the appearance of "the angel of YHWH" in Exodus 3, D. A. Carson asks and oberves:

We might well ask if, when the text before us records that "God said," it really means no more than that God spoke through this angelic messenger: after all, if the messenger speaks the words of God, then in a sense it is God himself who is speaking. But the biblical manifestations of "the angel of the LORD" do not easily fit into so neat and simplistic an explanation. It is almost as if the biblical writers want to stipulate that God himself appeared, while distancing this transcendent God from any mere appearance. The angel of the Lord remains an enigmatic figure who is identified with God, yet separable from him—an early announcement, as it were, of the eternal Word who became flesh, simultaneously God's own fellow and God's own self (John 1:1, 14).

 —For the Love of God, Vol. 1 (Wheaton: Crossway, 1998), February 20.

Oh How the Many Have Forgotten

Speaking about the virtual universal tendency to forget the lessons of history, D. A. Carson writes:

"How many Christians in the West have really absorbed the lessons of the evangelical awakening, let alone of the magisterial Reformation?" (For the Love of God, Vol. 1, February 18).

My question: how many Christians even know there was such a thing as an evangelical awakening, or a magisterial Reformation? And, how many Christians could tell you anything about these?

The Truest Devotion

"To desire my fellow creatures' good and to seek after it, to desire God's glory, and so to live as to promote it, is the truest of devotion."

—C. H. Spurgeon, "The Importunate Widow," in Miracles and Parables of Our Lord (vol. 3; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 435.

Joy Held in Common

"When large numbers of people share their joy in common the happiness of each is greater, because each adds fuel to the other's flame."

—Saint Augustine, Confessions, trans. R. S. Pine-Coffin (New York: Penguin, 1961), 163.

Let Us Love, Let Us Run

"Come, O Lord, and stir our hearts. Call us back to yourself. Kindle your fire in us and carry us away. Let us scent your fragrance and taste your sweetness. Let us love you and hasten to your side."

—Saint Augustine, Confessions, trans. R. S. Pine-Coffin (New York: Penguin, 1961), 163.

Spurgeon on Toning Down the Doctrines of Grace

"Oh to have done with all glory but glorying in the cross! . . . I am so sure about the whole matter, that if I were left alone in the world as the last believer in the doctrines of grace, I would not think of abandoning them, nor even toning them down to win a convert."

—C. H. Spurgeon, "The Search for Faith," in Miracles and Parables of Our Lord (vol. 3; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 453.

A Man Has Got to Know His Limitations

“He who would become really a man must abandon as early as possible the childish dream of reading everything. Except what is done for recreation — and excessive recreation is destruction — he must have a limited field of study, and must cultivate that field with the utmost possible thoroughness” (Broadus, Preparation and Delivery, p. 124).

HT: Doug Wilson

Not Safe at All, Either Way

“Exegesis and Systematic Theology properly go hand in hand. Neither is complete, neither is really safe, without the other” (Broadus, Preparation and Delivery, p. 123).

HT: Doug Wilson

How to Preach Like a Great Preacher

This series of posts is creative, interesting, and instructive.

Here's how to preach like D. A. Carson without sounding like him.

Here's how to preach like Tim Keller without sounding like him.

And, here's how to preach like John Piper without sounding like him either. 

Grace Is All Gift

Augustin on grace:

Saint Paul teaches that he who sees ought not to boast as though what he sees, and even the power by which he sees, had not come to him by gift [1 Cor. 4:7]. For, whatever powers he has, did they not come to him by gift? [Rom. 7:22]. By the gift of grace he is not only shown how to see you, who are always the same, but is also given the strength to hold you. By your grace, too, if he is far from you and cannot see you, he is enabled to walk upon the path that leads him closer to you, so that he may see you and hold you.

—Saint Augustine, Confessions, trans. R. S. Pine-Coffin (New York: Penguin, 1961), 155.

The Important Place of Story in the Life of a Child

Here's a good post with good quotes on the importance of story, and the right kind of story, in the life of a child.

One sentence from one of the quotes ought to be enough to send you to the link above for the full quotations:

"Deprive children of stories and you leave them unscripted, anxious stutterers in their actions as in their words."—Alasdair MacIntyre

Hearing the Voice with the Hearing of the Heart

"Far off, I heard your voice saying I am the God who IS. I heard your voice, as we hear voices that speak to our hearts, and at once I had no cause to doubt. I might more easily have doubted that I was alive than that Truth had being."

—Saint Augustine, Confessions, trans. R. S. Pine-Coffin (New York: Penguin, 1961), 147.

Render to God What Is God's

Render to Caesar what is his, but no more. A good reminder for this 4th of July, the year of our Lord 2013. We ought to love our country, but manifestly love God immeasurably more.

Cpl. Brandon D. "Bubba" Meyers, April 08, 1988–June 28, 2013

My Tribute at the Memorial Service of Cpl. Brandon D. Meyers  

Unfortunately, I didn’t know my cousin Brandon very well. For a variety of reasons, as adults, our paths almost never crossed. That’s regrettable. But I’m glad so many knew him and have shared their memories. It’s been really good to hear what so many knew of Brandon.

I do know this, however: He was a brave man, as my brother has pointed out in his tribute to his life. Brandon was brave. He served faithfully in our military. I admire that. I admire such service a great deal. I know that takes courage, a courage I long to imitate.  

Wars are ugly, and wars are messy. Almost invariably, probably, wars are a mix of fighting for good, and fighting for no good reason. But I know this: there are good things Brandon fought for, freedoms he helped to protect, national security he helped secure. And for his sacrifices, and so many like his, I’m grateful to God. I’m grateful.

I’m grateful for how the sacrifice of a military man, Brandon, points to my supreme hero. I’m a Christian, as many of you know. So Jesus is my supreme hero. I admire him like I admire no one else. He offered the supreme sacrifice in giving his life for the world, when he didn’t have to do it.

And as I’ve thought about Brandon’s life in recent days, I think about how it points—even amid terrible tragedy—to the One who sacrificed everything for the good and welfare and life of others.

I admire the bravery of Brandon. I’m thankful for his service to our country. I’m thankful for the sacrifice of his family in sending their son to fight our messy and painful wars. And I’m thankful that this life, ended way too soon, points to the supreme sacrifice that brings life to a dying world.

Jesus embodied a principle of supreme and sacrificial love, a principle he taught his followers. He said to those who would follow him in self-sacrifice: “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends” (Jn. 15:13). 

Children's Church?

Ian Murray has written a good article on Children and the Sermon.

Another good one from John and Noel Piper is called The Family: Together in God's Presence.

Sons of Abraham from All Eternity

It is well known and often pointed out that Luke 19:10 states the great theme (or at least one of the great themes) of Luke's account of the gospel of the kingdom. "The Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost." That's a dominant element, if not the dominant element, in Luke's message.

Just before this verse there is a peculiar and striking word from Jesus about Zacchaeus' salvation. Zacchaeus repents of his sin (Lk. 19:8) and manifests that repentance with "fruits in keeping with repentance" (Lk. 3:8). Then Jesus says, "Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham" (19:9).

Now take careful notice of the order. The dependent clause beginning with "since" gives the reason salvation comes to Zacchaeus' house. To say what it is not saying, in order to see what it is saying, Zacchaeus does not become a son of Abraham because salvation comes to his house. No. It's the other way around. Salvation comes to Zacchaeus' house because he is a son of Abraham. His being a son of Abraham is why Jesus came to seek and save him.

So it's clearer now why Jesus says in v. 5 that he "must stay at [Zacchaeus'] house today." He had to stay at his house because it was the next stop in seeking and saving the lost—the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

So we better take this to heart, and let it deeply move and affect us inwardly right the way to the bottom of our beings. Jesus seeks and saves, and salvation comes to us not because of anything we've done—but because we're chosen from all eternity as sons of Abraham.

Incidentally, note well the tension between 19:9 and 3:8, and engage in doing theology to figure out what this must imply. It seems it must mean one of two things. Either this man was a Jew, and so there is an "Israel within Israel" (cf. Rom. 9:6). Or, if Zacchaeus was a Gentile, then there are true Jews who are Jews, not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit, that is, who are circumcised in heart (Rom. 2:28-29; cf. 9:8; Phil. 3:3).

Loving People in God

St. Augustin's God-besotted God-centeredness in the Confessions is well known. Reading through the Confessions, I'm struck also by how God-centered is Augustin's thinking about love for people. The following quotations from book 4 will give you a good feel for this (italics mine).

In a section discussing friendship, Augustin confesses to God:

Blessed are those who love you, O God, and love their friends in you and their enemies for your sake. They alone will never lose those who are dear to them, for they love them in one who is never lost, in God, our God who made heaven and earth and fills them with his presence, because by filling them he made them (79–80).

Then in a portion discussing delighting in things of this world, Augustin addresses those who would delight, among other things, in souls:

If your delight is in souls, love them in God, because they too are frail and stand firm only when they cling to him. If they don't, they go their own way and are lost. Love them, then, in him and draw as many with you to him as you can. Tell them "He is the one we should love. He made the world and he stays close to it" (82).

Oh for more Augustinian God-besotted God-centered love for people!

—Saint Augustine, Confessions, trans. R. S. Pine-Coffin (New York: Penguin, 1961).

Leaders Lead Worldviewishly

Al Mohler's book The Conviction to Lead is outstanding. Chapter 5 is titled "Leaders Understand Worldviews: The Leader Shapes the Worldview of Followers." Here are a few choice quotations:

The recovery of a Christian mind and the development of a comprehensive Christian worldview will require the deepest theological reflection, the most consecrated application of scholarship, the most sensitive commitment to compassion, and the courage to face all questions (46).

Further on:

We have to be faithful in the discipleship of the mind before we can expect faithfulness and maturity in those we lead (47).

And more:

Far too often leaders aim at the surface level and stop there. Real leadership doesn't happen until worldviews are changed and realigned (47).

Undoubtedly Mohler puts his finger on an essential element of leadership. And though always true, perhaps the need is as great as ever in leadership. In the post-Christian western world, with the seismic shift in epistemology that's occurred in recent decades, training disciples to think Christianly in a comprehensive way is one of the greatest discipleship needs of the day.

And so we need worldviewish leaders, not mere expositors of the Bible, not managers of people, not professionals with technical proficiency in this or that discipline. We need generalist leaders who lead with a big vision that embraces the world. Anything less is too small and will end up in fragmented thinking and living among followers.

O Heavenly Father, I Know I Will Remain with You Forever

Luther:

O heavenly Father, God and Father of my Lord Jesus Christ and God of all comfort, I thank you for revealing to me your dear Son, Jesus Christ, whom I believe. Him I have known and preached. Him I have loved and praised. Him heretics and all godless people do blaspheme and persecute. I pray, Lord Jesus, let my soul please you. O heavenly Father, although I must be separated from this body, I know I will remain with you forever. No one can pluck me from you hands. Amen.

—Martin Luther, Luther's Prayers (ed. Herbert F. Brokering; Augsberg: Minneapolis, 1994), 103.

Don't Boast about Tomorrow, for Your Life Is a Mist

I'm not sure why I've never made the connection before, because it now seems rather obvious: Jas. 4:13-17 appears to be an unpacking of Prov. 27:1.

Dating the Gospels and Spiritual Warfare

Peter Leithart:

As with the synoptic problem as a whole, the issue of dating is ultimately a spiritual battle. Consider: If the gospels are written shortly after Jesus dies and rises again, by eyewitnesses, are you inclined to believe them? What if they are written fifty years after Jesus, by people who never knew Jesus Himself? Are you as likely to believe the gospels then? The further away the gospels are from the events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, the less reliable they seem.

—The Four: A Survey of the Gospels (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2010), 104.

The Synoptic Problem, Questioning Q, and Satan

Peter Leithart:

If the view of the church fathers explains the gospels, and does so fairly simply, why do scholars have to invent a complicated "synoptic problem" and resolve it with a mythical document called "Q"? 

There are many answers to that question, but at base the answer is that much of modern New Testament scholarship is a Satanic attack on the truth and reliability of the gospel of Jesus. . . . This is not to say that New Testament scholars themselves are demonic. They aren't. But New Testament scholarship is an arena of spiritual battle, where we fight not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers and rulers of wickedness. 

—The Four: A Survey of the Gospels (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2010), 101.

God's Handing Over

The OT equivalent of the NT "handing over" in Rom. 1:24, 26, 28 appears in texts such as Ps. 81:11-12: "But my people did not listen to my voice; Israel would not submit to me. So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts, to follow their own counsels."

God hands people over—even his own people!—"to their stubborn hearts, to follow their own counsels," when they refuse to listen to him, that is, when they choose to worship and serve "the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen" (Rom. 1:25).

Augustin's Conversion Critiqued and Defended

Some have offered critique of how stylized or superstitious or otherwise faulty is the "conversion" of Augustin (e.g., Adolf von Harnack) as he tells his conversion story in book VIII of his justly famous Confessions.

Dealing with this criticism, B. B. Warfield sympathetically considers what Augustin was doing in writing the Confessions:

The person we meet in [the Confessions] is a person, we perceive, who towers in greatness of mind and heart, in the loftiness of his thought and in his soaring aspirations, far above ordinary mortals: and yet he is felt to be compacted of the same clay from which we have ourselves been molded. . . . It is the very purpose of this book to give the impression that Augustine himself was a weak and erring sinner, and that all of good that came into his life was of God. 

It is especially important for us precisely at this point to recall our minds to the fact that to give such an impression is the supreme purpose of the Confessions. This whole account of his life-history which we have tried to follow up to its crisis in his conversion is written, let us remind ourselves, not that we may know Augustine, but that we may know God: and it shows us Augustine only that we may see God. The seeking and saving grace of God is the fundamental theme throughout. The events of Augustine's life are not, then, set forth in it simpliciter. 

Speaking then of the aim of Augustin in recounting the sins of his infancy and childhood, Warfield says:

In these traits of the narrative, however, Augustine is not passing judgment on himself alone, but in himself on humanity at large in its state of sin and misery. By an analysis of his own life-history he realizes for himself, and wishes to make us realize with him, what man is in his sinful development on the earth, that our eyes may be raised from man to see what God is in his loving dealing with the children of men. We err, if from the strong, dark lines in which he paints his picture we should infer that he would have us believe that in his infancy, youth, or manhood he was a sinner far beyond the sinfulness of other men. . . .

He knew his own sinfulness as he knew the sinfulness of no other man, and it was his one burning desire that he should in his recovery to God recognize and celebrate the ineffableness of the grace of God. The pure grace of God is thus his theme throughout, and nowhere is it more completely so than in this culminating scene of his conversion. 

—"Augustine and his 'Confessions,'" in The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield: Studies in Tertullian and Augustine (vol. 4; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 267–268.

Goods Well Spent

"O Lord, come to me and use my bread, silver, and gold. How very well they are spent if I spend them in your service. Amen."

—Martin Luther, Luther's Prayers (ed. Herbert F. Brokering; Augsberg: Minneapolis, 1994), 96.

N. T. Wright All for Dialogue: Until You Think He's Wrong

Criticizing N. T. Wright's public comments in this post (whether the critique is valid or not) was bound to get a reaction from those for whom one must never do such a thing. And we thought Wright himself was all for dialogue. No? Isn't he up for hearing from people all over the spectrum on all sorts of issues? No? Or is this only the case when someone is kissing the right part of his hind parts?

With all due respect to N. T. Wright (and I do respect him and read and learn from him often), if you wish to see him being a bit of a baby (and condescending) and pulling his oft-repeated "I-don't-recognize-myself" shenanigans, check out his comment in the comments section of this post by Pastor Wilson.

Wilson and Wright are both good men, faithful Christians, and their teachings are worth studying diligently. Wherever one falls on the theological, political, and cultural spectrum on the full range of issues, surely we can agree that these two men disagreeing isn't cause for grave concern. We ought to hang in there with them, that is, if Wright is even willing himself to do so. But it appears he's not willing to dialogue with people who disagree with him quite so sharply.

Update: Wilson's follow-up post responding to Wright's comment in the comments section.

The End for Which God Created the Local Church

With the passing of time and the experience of living longer in this world and in the anemic American evangelical church, and with another year passing of reading through holy writ, I'm convinced that the heartbeat of every church—palpable in doctrinal statements, vision statements, and all of church life—must be a passion and zeal for the glory of God. Anything else is too small, too man-centered, too sub-biblical.

The combination of a pervasive man-centeredness today and the pervasive presence of texts like the one I read this morning—

Help us, O God of our salvation,
for the glory of your name;
deliver us, and atone for our sins,
for your name's sake! (Ps. 79:9)—

conspire to make me more eager than ever for God's name to be hallowed in all things in the life of the Church, in the world, and in homes, neighborhoods, and workplaces. Texts like the one quoted are everywhere in Scripture. It is the major note struck in the Bible. It is the major note God is striking in the symphonic narrative of redemptive history that he has orchestrated. And yet (to my great dismay and grief), it is hardly even a minor note in many, many churches.

As Jonathan Edwards reminds the church so well, the display and approbation of the glory of God is the end for which God made the world. And if it is God's end or goal in creation—and it most certainly is!—it ought to be our end in everything we think, say, plot, and do in the local church. Such a heartbeat ought so to thump in a local church that it is felt immediately and pervasively by all who come in contact with her living and breathing ministries and members. That is, unless she is dead or dying. 

Specifically, the glory of God must be manifestly known and prized. We must manifest that we know something about it, and then we must show how we treasure it above all else. And this must be included in doctrinal and vision statements, but must go way beyond such statements. In other words, it needs to be institutionally up front and center, like the first thing you see when you go to a website; but it must not be a dead letter, either. The glory of God affirmed on paper only is only an indictment. 

Even more specifically, based on Eph. 1:6, the aspect of the glory of God that needs to be highlighted and emphasized and gloried and rejoiced in is the glory of God's free grace for sinners. God's redemption planned from eternity past aims at this: "the praise of the glory of his grace" (Eph. 1:6, translation mine). So we should openly and vocally exist for this ultimate reason. 

So many other things in vision statements are good and right in their own place. But inasmuch as they are penultimate (that is to say, not the display and enjoyment of the glory of God), then they ought to exist openly for the ultimate: the glory of God. Otherwise, they betray a profound betrayal of the Bible's dominant emphasis and the goal of the universe—that is, God's goal to glorify himself in all things. 

So my prayer for local churches today is for the name of God to be esteemed and hallowed and praised and gloried in and valued above all else—manifestly, palpably, pervasively. 

Conviction to Lead: The Leader and Time

I've been reading a very good book by Albert Mohler that has surpassed my expectations: Conviction to Lead. To be honest, I expected to find it helpful and instructive only here and there, but every chapter is chock-full of useful instruction. I would not be surprised if this book turns out to be Mohler's most significant and enduring.

Here's a sample from a chapter I just finished called "The Leader and Time":

I fear that many Christian leaders (including many pastors) have made themselves too unavailable. Leaders must protect time against constant interruption and distraction, but the people placed within their care and influence are not, in themselves, interruptions or distractions. No one said striking the right balance would be easy. The most effective leaders, however, learn to negotiate this balance by both insight and intuition (187).

From another section a little further on:

Long ago, I developed a habit of wearing a watch with an old-fashioned sweep second hand. I like to hear it tick, knowing that every tick marks the passing of time. I like noisy clocks in my study—clocks I can hear marking the time. I can feel the passing of time in my bones, and that knowledge makes me want to be a more faithful steward of time tomorrow than I was today. Time will tell (189). 

—Albert Mohler, The Conviction to Lead: Twenty-five Principles for Leadership that Matters (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2012). 

Affection Among Friends

Augustine on the charms of friendship:

We could talk and laugh together and exchange small acts of kindness. We could join in the pleasure that books can give. We could be grave or gay together. If we sometimes disagreed, it was without spite, as a man might differ with himself, and the rare occasions of dispute were the very spice to season our usual accord. Each of us had something to learn from the others and something to teach in return. If any were away, we missed them with regret and gladly welcomed them when they came home. Such things as these are heartfelt tokens of affection between friends. They are signs to be read on the face and in the eyes, spoken by the tongue and displayed in countless acts of kindness. They can kindle a blaze to melt our hearts and weld them into one.

—Saint Augustine, Confessions, trans. R. S. Pine-Coffin (New York: Penguin, 1961), 79.

True Friendship: A Holy Spirit Bought Bond

"For though they cling together, no friends are true friends unless you, my God, bind them fast to one another through that love which is sown in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, who is given to us."

—Saint Augustin, Confessions, trans. R. S. Pine-Coffin (New York: Penguin, 1961), 75.

Love (2)

Immortal Heat, O let thy greater flame
    Attract the lesser to it: let those fires,
    Which shall consume the world, first make it tame;
And kindle in our hearts such true desires,
As may consume our lusts, and make thee way.
    Then shall our hearts pant thee; then shall our brain
    All here invention on thine Altar lay,
And there in hymns send back thy fire again:
Our eyes shall see thee, which before saw dust;
    Dust blown by wit, till that they both were blind:
    Thou shalt recover all they goods in kind,
Who wert disseised by usurping lust:
    All knees shall bow to thee; all wits shall rise,
    And praise him who did make and mend our eyes.

—George Herbert, The Complete English Poems (New York: Penguin, 1991), 48.