Fighting in Good Conscience: Reflections on ‘War and Christian Ethics,’ edited by Arthur F. Holmes

Posted on June 29, 2009 by Derek

War and Christian EthicsI have a deep and abiding respect for the men in our military. My admiration grew after I read Lone Survivor, the true account of a failed Navy Seal mission in Afghanistan, written by the only surviving soldier of team Redwing, Marcus Lattrell. In his moving and detailed account, Latrell describes the rigors of Navy Seal training, the brutality of actual battle, the bittersweet glories of post-combat recognition by his Commander and Chief, and the heart-wrenching responsibilities of a “lone survivor” to personally contact the families of each of his fallen brothers. Stories like these should provoke us to serious reflection on the subject of battle and military engagement. War is not a video game.

In this regard I think it is important for Christians to be able to effectively counsel men in what Martin Luther calls, “The Soldier and His Conscience.”  Within the Church, we, as pastors and laypeople, will potentially have instances where a soldier will ask us what we believe to be God’s will when it comes to his involvement in war. Luther’s treatment of this issue, I believe, is excellent and very helpful, and should serve as a guide as we seek to counsel men as they prepare for service in the military or actual battle.

When a man has a moment of reluctance and questioning as he considers whether or not it is right to kill in battle, or be a part of a military that, by its very nature, plans to kill in battle, he should be encouraged that his soul is rightly affected by the thought of war. A man once told me that if a hunter has no feeling of sadness when he kills an animal—even out of necessity—he should stop hunting, because he is tending too much toward brutality. I think he is right, and I think this principle applies to military service. War is not the way things are supposed to be: pain, bloodshed, death, and the necessity to protect oneself from other humans by the use of force are all results of the fall. Therefore, when a man who is otherwise courageous and bold in Christ, begins to question the morality of killing in battle, he should be encouraged for his sensitive spirit, not chided for cowardice. On the other hand, when one looks forward to war for the purpose of shedding another’s blood, this is a profound indication that something is spiritually awry.

Luther’s balance concerning the soldier’s attitude toward war is helpful at this point. Luther repeats the phrase, “The Lord scatters those who delight in war” (Psalm 68:30) several times, using this verse as the textual foundation for his warnings to men to not be overly zealous to enter battle. On the contrary, young men should learn from the seasoned soldiers who “are not quick to draw their sword” and who “are not contentious.” Only “fools…are the first to fight in their thoughts and even make a good start by devouring the world with words and are the fist to flash their blades, [but they] are also the first to run away and sheath their swords” (150).  In order to keep a good conscience before the Lord, a soldier must enter the fray of battle, not delighting in the destruction it will inevitably inflict, but in the fulfilling of his duty to his commander. In his heart he should be able to say, “Well, for my part, I would like to stay home, but because my lord calls me and needs me, I come in God’s name and know that I am serving God by doing so…” (158-159).

This man must also be shown, from Scripture, that neither the Old or New Testaments forbid the use of military force, or of belonging to the military. Many of the most formidable military leaders of the Old Testament were considered “great” in the eyes of God (see Hebrews 11), while both John the Baptist and Christ himself, when speaking to soldiers, never took that occasion to discourage their service in the military, but implicitly encouraged it (see Luke 3:14 and Matthew 8:5-13). One can conclude that the Scripture, while maintaining that war, bloodshed and death are unfortunate results of sin, also recognizes serving in the military is a legitimate profession, and that war itself is sometimes an act of mercy. Luther writes, “…if the sword were not on guard to preserve peace, everything in the world would be ruined because of lack of peace. Therefore, such a war is only a brief lack of peace that prevents an everlasting and immeasurable lack of peace, a small misfortune that prevents a great misfortune” (143). To do justice and love mercy (Micah 6:8) sometimes means that you pick up your rifle and fight the enemies of justice and mercy.

Finally, we must show this man that it is pleasing in the eyes of God for one to properly obey the human authority placed over him; in this case, the government (Romans 13:1-4; I Peter 2:13-15). The government was established by God to punish wrongdoing.  Therefore, a soldier can have the confidence that he is doing the Lord’s will by being the instrument to carry out this kind of justice.  Luther notes God’s establishment of government and His call for our obedience to the government is actually an act of mercy. As Luther rightly insightfully observes, “Almighty God shows us a great grace when he appoints rulers for us as an outward sign of his will, so that we are sure we are pleasing his divine will and are doing right, whenever we do the will and pleasure of the ruler” (163).

In certain cases, however, when one is convinced that his commander is acting unjustly, the soldier would be right to “obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29), and refrain from battle. Even if the soldier risks losing pay, military honor, and being called a coward as a result of his refraining from battle, Luther tells us “You must take that risk and, with God’s help, let whatever happens, happen” (159). But, as Luther advises, “…if you do not know, or cannot find out, whether or lord is wrong, you ought not to weaken certain obedience for the sake of an uncertain justice; rather you should think the best of your lord, as is the way of love, for ‘love believes all things’ and ‘does not think evil,’ I Corinthians 13 [:4-7]” (159-160).

Obedience to God and love for others must be the motivation behind one’s service in the military. A soldier must not be primarily driven by a desire for honor or riches. Concerning the desire for fame and recognition, Luther warns, “Seeking one’s honor is one of the greatest sins. It is nothing less than…robbery of the divine majesty. Let others, therefore, boast and seek honor; you be obedience and quiet, and your honor will find you” (161-162). A man who thinks only of aquiring wealth through his service in the military “is not happy when there is peace and not war. Such a man strays from the path and belongs to the devil, even though he fights out of obedience to his lord and his call. He takes a work that is good in itself and makes it bad for himself by not being very concerned about serving out obedience and duty, but only about seeking his own profit.” If only commanders roused their troops, not by promises of glory and wealth, but by the reminders of God and duty. Instead of saying, “Dear comrades, dear soldiers, be brave and confident; God willing, we shall this day win honor and become rich,” commanders should exhort thus, “Dear comrades, we are gather here to seve, obey and do our duty to our prince, for according to God’s will and ordinance, we are bound to support our prince with our body and our possessions, even though in God’[s sight we are as poor sinners as our enemies are” (161).

A Christian man contemplating military service, or a soldier considering his role in battle, should be encouraged to pursue military service and obey the call to battle with a heart of humility, obeying the governing authorities out of obedience to God, and shunning motivations for glory and wealth. If he does so, he will enter battle with a good conscience and will be able to serve well, as Luther observes, “For whoever fights with a good and well-instructed conscience can also fight well. This is especially true since a good conscience fills a man’s heart with courage and boldness” (141).

However, although Luther’s treatment of this subject is well-reasoned and biblically balanced, I do have a few questions for further research and reflection in this area of study, primarily regarding the soldier’s conscience concerning the justice of a particular war to which he has been called. How deep should a soldier go into understanding the just nature of a particular war? What if a specific war fulfills many but not all of the criteria for a just war? What if the war is just, but the particular battle to which the soldier is called is not just because it involves killing of innocents, or torture, or other such things? Must a soldier weigh the justice of every single action of a particular battle in order to determine whether or not he will continue to fight? These are a few of the questions that still remain as I contemplate the soldier’s conscience. I trust that as I study, think, and counsel, the Lord will shed the light of His truth on such issues for his glory and the good of his people.

Filed under: Ethical Issues, War | 1 Comment »

Reflections on ‘Teaching to Observe’ by Jay E. Adams

Posted on June 18, 2009 by Derek

Teaching to ObserveIn Teaching to Observe, Jay Adams helps counselors to see teaching as an essential and indispensable aspect of counseling. The counselor is not a professional “listener,” who merely draws out solutions to the counselee’s problem from the counselee himself. Rather, the counselor is one who seeks to impart genuine spiritual knowledge to the counselee with the aim to enabling the counselee to believe and obey the knowledge he has received.

This teaching, however, must be Biblical. This means the counselor must use the Bible according to its intended purpose, taking each passage in its context, explaining it thoroughly, and applying it to the counselee’s situation appropriately. This will also mean the counselor must seek to become equipped to teach the whole Bible, not just selected portions with which he is familiar. Although this kind of teaching will grow in fullness and depth, Biblical teaching in counseling will be clear, direct, and to the point. Finally, and most importantly, Biblical teaching in counseling will always have, as its primary and pervasive aim, the glory of God. Adams succinct and helpful definition of Christian teaching is, “the vital communication of God’s truth, in God’s way, for God’s purposes” (68).

Despite its confusing title (the phrase, “Teaching to Observe” is taken from Christ’s ‘Great Commission’ in Matthew 28:20: “Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you…” It is not a guide to instructing others how to improve their observation skills!), this book was both clear and helpful. I was challenged in three specific ways.

One, to seek to be a well-equipped teacher in counseling other believers. I was challenged to be diligent in constantly studying the Scriptures so that I might be able to more effectively apply the Scriptures in counseling situations that arise. I do not want to ever be satisfied with my knowledge, but always longing to grow in my knowledge and grasp of the Bible so that I might use it well in my life and in the lives of others.

Secondly, I was greatly helped by Adam’s clarifying definition of Christian teaching and his discussion of what makes teaching distinctively Biblical. These principles will keep me on task and focused in my labor as a counselor. It is amazing how short, clear definitions like these can clarify one’s responsibilities as a counselor. I was especially helped by the “God-centeredness” of Adam’s definition: all counseling is done for the glory of God and according to God’s Word.

Finally, I was greatly challenged by Adams discussion on fruitful listening. The only way to grow in grace and knowledge in my own soul is to “take care how I listen,” and rid my heart and life of those hindrances that keep me from truly learning: sin, worldly pleasures and worries, fear and the like. Not only must I be aware of what makes for true learning in the lives of my counselees, I must, first and foremost, make sure that I am listening well to Christ’s commands and instructions. Otherwise, my counseling will be hypocrisy, and will, sooner or later, be revealed as such.

On the whole, Adams “Teaching to Observe” is clear, easy to read, and at only 131 pages, serves as an accessible introduction to the goals and methods of Biblical counseling. I highly recommend it!

Filed under: Book Reviews, Counseling | Leave a Comment »

Man’s Universal Desire For Regeneration: Reflections on ‘Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age’ by Bill McKibben

Posted on June 15, 2009 by Derek

EnoughOn the last two pages of the first volume of Jonathan Edwards’ collected works resides a small yet significant piece of writing.  It is entitled, “Theological Questions,” and contains ninety inquiries into many topics apparently posed by Edwards himself and collected into a document.  Questions include queries from, “How do you prove that the Scriptures are a revelation from God?” to “What is true benevolence to men?”  One question in particular has, since my initial discovery of this page, prompted thought and provoked many questions in my own mind: it is number sixty-eight and reads, “Do not the unregenerate desire to be regenerated” (690-691).

It was not until I reached the latter portion of Bill McKibben’s Enough that I saw more clearly than I ever had prior the truth that Edwards implied in his question regarding the universal desire of all men for regeneration.  In the first pages of chapter five (“Enough”), McKibben tells of Max More, a keynote speaker at the fourth national convention of the Extropian movement in 1999, who spoke of his goal to “always improve, never be static” (201).  More also asserted that amendments needed to be made to the human constitution.  These amendments included trading in death for eternal life, increasing perception through improved senses, enhancing memory, intelligence and “emotional responses,” all through the use of complex biotechnology.  These enhancements would thus move us from “a human to an ultrahuman condition” (201).

More’s vision for man sounds similar to the effects of the new birth.  His passion to “always improve [and] never be static” sounds like talk from a Christian, who, impelled by the Holy Spirit, refuses to give into laziness and who pursues sanctification with unrelenting vigor.  More is searching for eternal life through biotechnology, yet eternal life attends the regeneration of a Christian and the latter is the present taste of the former.  A born-again believer receives “improved emotional responses,” namely new affections of love for God, for holiness, and for mankind.  Someday that Christian will set aside the human condition to take on a new “ultrahuman” condition at the resurrection.  Granted, More’s ideas of eternal life, improved emotional faculties, and the ultrahuman condition are vastly different than the Christian notion of these realities, but the fact that they are present and resemble regeneration in profound ways is enough to demonstrate that men were made for Jesus Christ.  We see here the truth that Augustine articulated and acutely felt, “Thou hast formed us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in Thee.”

McKibben even uses the word “restless” in describing the vision of Nick Bostrum, a Swedish philosopher who also took the podium the same convention.  Bostrom spoke of “aesthetic-contemplative pleasures whose blissfulness vastly exceeds what any human has yet experienced,” and “love that is stronger, purer, and more secure than any human has yet harbored,” and “values that will strike us as begin of a far higher order than those we can realize as unenhanced biological humans” (202).  This man, like his colleague, is looking for regeneration.

In fact, it seems that the entire pursuit of the technological advancements that McKibben outlines in his book reveals that man is looking for that which can only be found in Christ.  Man’s desire for rest and leisure, McKibben predicts, might create a scenario where, through robotic industry, “production and output could greatly increase…so we could all have a better quality of life without having to do work.”  In such a situation, “the primary job of humanity in [this] century will be protecting its retirement benefits by ensuring continued cooperation from the robot industries” (93).  Yes, rest is good and necessary and efficiency can be a blessing, but not at the point where it eradicates work altogether.  Contrary to the dreams of young entrepreneurs who plan to retire at age thirty-five, a life with nothing to do is no life at all.  McKibben recognizes that “Having nothing to do is one kind of hell,” and, quoting Erazim Kohak, admits, “To have without doing corrodes the soul” (94).  Only in Christ can one find that perfect balance of work and rest; even our enjoyment of rest in the kingdom of Christ will not be divorced from fruitful labor (see Revelation 22:3).

It is important for us as Christians to understand technology in light of regeneration and eternal life as we discuss and come to conclusions about our development and use of it.  Some technology is good: it reflects a proper exercising of dominion over the created order, it provides relief from pain and sickness, and it makes us more efficient in certain areas so we can concentrate on others.  On the other hand, however, some technology can be deadly to the human race and to the richness of life because those who develop it do not realize that some improvements and the desires for those improvements can only be satisfied in Jesus Christ and in His gift of regeneration.  Thus, men like More and Bostrum seek these enhancements apart from God and apart from revealed truth, subsequently pursuing and incorporating enhancements that are contrary to the natural order.

Nevertheless, despite continued exponential growth of technology that results in further enhancements to our human constitution and that contributes to the ease of life, man, though able to catalog great achievement and “progress,” will still be lamenting along with Bono saying, “I still haven’t found what I’m looking for.”  The heart will ache until it is satisfied by God through Jesus Christ; all the technological advancement in the universe will never satisfy a guilty conscience.

So technology, it would appear, is tool for evangelism—not in the way that it is conventionally used as a tool: websites, podcasts, blogs, and other such means—but as a window into the soul of man.  I do not think that our primary mission will be to tell men and women inundated with technology to shut of their iPods and take a walk in the woods, although this is beneficial and necessary.  It is not our calling, chiefly, to tell others to quit seeking ways to selfishly improve themselves through biotechnology and germline manipulation, or to knock off trying to live forever through Cryogenics, or to stop seeking perpetual leisure.  Rather, as evangelists, we must use man’s very inclination toward progress, toward eternal life, and toward leisure to demonstrate to them that they were made for Someone else.

Your drive toward progress?  You possess that penchant for improvement because you were created in the image of God to work and to grow, but you have fallen, and now you need Christ to reconcile you to your Creator who will give you the correct motivation for work and self-improvement.  Your passion for eternal life?  That’s there because God put eternity in our hearts and because those of us who have not been forgiven of our sins fear the judgment that comes at death—but Christ tasted death and judgment in our place.  Your insatiable desire for leisure and peace is the result of a guilty conscience that you are attempting to appease through external peace and because your heart was designed to long for an eternal rest that can only be satisfied in God’s kingdom.  Will you not turn from your futile pursuits and trust in the One for Whom you were made?

Although McKibben’s effort is noble—his call for humans to say that we have advanced far enough in regards to technology—I do not think that his call will be heeded.  Why?  Because McKibben himself understands, “Enough is not a possibility for our species” (203).  Yes, Christians can and must exercise the self-control and the wisdom to set aside certain technologies and to speak clearly against others, but we must also realize that man will continue to pursue self-improvement and eternal life—although sinfully because he is fallen—since he has been made in the image of God.

My questions at this point concern the methods by which we can begin, as a Church, to speak evangelistically to a technologically dependent society.  I have posed some suggestions above, but I know there is more to it.  In what other ways does man’s infatuation with technology reveal the longings of his soul?  How do these truths relate to the people in our Church?  How does technology negatively affect the regenerate?  Does it?  Can it?  It what ways?  These are important questions as well as I think about how to shepherd God’s people in an age that cannot say “Enough.”

Filed under: Anthropology, Ethical Issues, Technology, Theology | Leave a Comment »

A Christian Response to Abortion: Reflections on ‘Evangelical Ethics’ by John Jefferson Davis

Posted on June 12, 2009 by Derek

Evangelical EthicsIt has been easy for me to slip into the mentality that engagement in ethical issues is not necessarily the priority of the Christian individually or the Church as a whole.  To be honest, as I consider the past eight years of my Christian life, I can say that most of the time that I have spent in seriously pondering the truth of Christianity and its application, I have narrowed in primarily on issues that relate directly to me.  To my shame, I admit that I have engaged in little, if any, significant ethical reflection in regards to how I am called, as a Christian, to think and interact Biblically on moral issues in society.  It is only recently that I have found a growing conviction concerning the wickedness of abortion arising in my soul and the subsequent compulsion to engage this issue more purposefully.

Evangelical Ethics, by John Jefferson Davis, is a much-needed corrective in my own life and, I would trust, for Christ’s Church as well.  In just my first reading (I intend to read it again, or, at least, index it for later reference), I have been deeply encouraged to not only thoroughly engage the significant ethical issues facing the Church, but to not rest content until I understand those issues in light of Scripture.  This is not easy work, but it is an utterly essential work.  Jesus calls us to be salt and light.

Davis’ Ethics was beneficial to me specifically in forming an understanding of an evangelical response to abortion.  Davis’ well-researched and solidly reasoned treatment of this issue was helpful not only in further strengthening my convictions against the evils of abortion, but also in aiding me to think clearly about the issue.  The issue of abortion carries with it massive emotional freight, and it is easy for me to bypass solid argument and evidence in favor of emotionally charged rhetoric.  Davis enabled me to see both the explicit Biblical teaching concerning abortion and the vindication of God’s wisdom in the evidence surrounding the horror of the actual procedure and the medical and emotional aftermath following the procedure.

One of the most significant questions in the abortion debate is the question of personhood: when is the child considered a person, and what inherent rights to life does that child, as a person, have, apart from the will of the mother, father, or doctors?  Biblical teaching on the issue of personhood indicates that conception is the point at which personhood commences.  The reality that God relates to the conceived embryo in a personal manner necessitates that we think of the embryo as a person (see Psalm 51:5).  God’s relation to that person continues throughout the gestation process (Psalm 139:15-16; Jeremiah 1:5) and on throughout their earthly and eternal life.  The Scriptures, Davis writes, “assume a fundamental continuity between prenatal and postnatal human life” (156).  In support to this statement Davis demonstrates that the word for “child” in both the Old and New Testaments, is used for unborn children as well as children who have already been born.

Unfortunately, objections are made against the assertion that personhood begins at conception.  Davis writes, “Proponents of the abortion-on-demand and abortion-on-indications positions generally take the fetus to be less than a full ‘person’ or ‘human being’ because of the lack of fully developed consciousness” (161).  However, Davis warns us that we are in a precarious position if we “equate the fact of personhood with certain psychological states” (161).  In other words, personhood does not depend on the presence or absence of certain traits or abilities, like, in the case of a new embryo, a fully functioning brain, sense capabilities, formed appendages, and other characteristics.  Rather, personhood is a “metaphysical reality out of which arise, during the normal course of human development, the psychological manifestations of person” (161).  These manifestations of personhood are inherent in the nature of the embryo.  Davis continues, “A newborn baby does not possess the adult’s power of speech or thought, but in due course the baby will develop these powers, because they are inherent in the child’s nature” (161).

Furthermore, the “metaphysical reality” of personhood also draws into question the common objection of “viability.”  Some proponents of abortion will point to the fact of an embryos or fetus’ inability to survive on its own outside the womb, and thus, along with the premise of Roe v. Wade, affirm the constitutionality of the “right of a woman to choose to have an abortion before viability…” (142).  The word “viability” ties in with the phrase, “potential life.”  Until a fetus is viable (i.e. able to live on its own outside the womb), it does not possess “potential life,” and can therefore be terminated without moral opposition.  Justice Sandra O’Connor saw the problem with this kind of thinking when she voiced the foundational flaws in the legal reasoning of the Roe v. Wade case.  O’Conner noted,

In Roe, the Court held that although the State had an important and legitimate interest in protecting potential human life…that interest could not become compelling until the point at which the fetus was viable.  The difficulty with this analysis is clear: potential life is no less potential in the first weeks of pregnancy than it is at viability or afterward (141)

The question, therefore, is not one of “viability,” but one of personhood.  Christians must hold to the Biblical teaching that personhood begins at conception and thus requires protection as human life from that point on.  Davis says it well when he writes, “Rather than saying that the unborn represent ‘potential human life,’ it is more accurate to say that the unborn represent actual human life with great potential” (161).

We must also recognize the profound spiritual, emotional, and physical affects that abortion has upon the mothers who endure the abortion, the fathers who consent to (or demand) the abortion, and the physicians who administer the abortion.  It is not uncommon for women who have had abortions to later experience complications with later pregnancies such as miscarriage, cervical incompetence, prematurity, and tubal pregnancies.  Studies also show that women who have had abortions experience bleeding during the first three months of subsequent pregnancies while demonstrating significant increases in the incidence of low birth weights and birth defects.  Davis also discusses evidence of guilt, depression and other forms of psychological conflict that “plague many who women who have had abortions.”

The husbands and boyfriends are not exempt from the burden of emotional pain.  Davis quotes Dr. Arthur Shostak, professor of sociology at Drexel University, who has interviewed hundreds of men who have been involved in the abortion procedure.  Shostak says that the men “…don’t think of if just as an operation that their wives or girlfriends are having…They think of it—even if they don’t always describe it this way—as a loss of fatherhood” (151).

Abortion also “takes its psychological toll on doctors and nurses,” because, “The killing of human life in abortions produces tremendous tension with the medical profession’s stated ideals of healing and preserving life.”  Davis speaks of Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who once was the director of an abortion clinic in New York City, but who changed his pro-abortion position after he was convinced by medical evidence of the “humanity of the unborn” (152).  Nathanson tells of abortion doctors who began “ ‘losing their nerve in the operating room…” (152).  Nathanson remembers one doctor, “sweating profusely, shaking badly, nipping drinks between procedures” (152), while also learning of another abortion doctor who was continually beleaguered by dreams of blood.  Nathanson admits, “I was seeing personality structures dissolve in front of me on a scale that I had never seen before in a medical situation” (152).

Our love for the unborn and for those mothers, fathers and doctors who are blindly walking down a path of emotional, physical and spiritual ruin should compel us to rigorous thought and unrelenting action against the evils of abortion.  Yet I wonder how many of us in the Church truly realize how truly terrible abortion is, or how many of us are able to explain why we believe it is so terrible.

Thus the questions remain.  How can we wake up the Church to the horrors of abortion?  Why does the Church on the whole appear to neglect this vital issue?  What reasons do pastors have for why they do not engage this issue with more vigor?  Are these reasons legitimate?  And how should we approach this issue?  How far do we as the Church take it?  Can we become too wrapped up in the issue of abortion, to the detriment of the gospel?  I pray that the Lord will have mercy on us by forgiving our disregard of this vital issue and by empowering us to think clearly and act courageously in this area.

Filed under: Abortion, Ethical Issues | 1 Comment »

Marriage, Birth-Control and the Myth of Over-Population: Reflections on ‘The Natural Family’ Allen C. Carson and Paul T. Mero

Posted on June 10, 2009 by Derek

The Natural FamilyOn the sixth day of creation, God created man.  Genesis chapter two gives us a detailed account of that creation.  Out of the ground God created the male and named him Adam.  After he was created, this man exercised dominion over the created order by naming the animals over which he had been set in charge.  Soon, however, Adam came to realize that none of these animals would be an apt companion for him; so out of Adam God created a woman, Eve.  Together, these two would form a family, where, according to their natures, the man and woman would fulfill their respective roles: the husband would be the leader, protector and provider of his family while the woman would be a helper to her husband and would be the one to bring forth and nurture new life.

This blessed and ideal state would not last, however: disobedience against God would rob man of his moral innocence, corrupt his nature, and bring about judicial guilt.  God, as a result of this disobedience, would pronounce a curse on His creation.  No longer would man live in total harmony with other humans, or with the rest of creation; rather, sharp dissonance would pervade all of life: relationships would be fractured, men and women would attempt to abdicate or reverse their God-given roles, and the ground would no longer easily yield its fruit.  A curse indeed.

The fallout of the curse is easily seen today in the disregard for and perversion of the “natural family” by laymen, law-makers, political and religious leaders, and social activists.  On the other hand, Allan C. Carlson and Paul T. Mero understand that nature itself bears witness to the fact that the Creator has designed the family to only consist of the marriage between a man and a woman, and that this relationship is meant to be fruitful in the bringing forth and nurturing of new life.

Perversion of this natural order is seen especially in the world-wide problem of infertility and depopulation.  As Carlson and Mero write, “An increasing number of countries are experiencing below replacement birth rates due to misguided population-control programs that promote contraception, abortion, delayed marriages, and the abandonment of the institution of marriage” (222).  All over the globe, fertility rates are declining sharply.  Although the overall the world’s population continues to rise as a result of better diets and longer life spans, fertility rates continue to decline.  Some countries, like China, could be losing 20-30 percent of its population per generation by 2050.  In America, marital fertility has fallen by 35 percent since 1960 (66).

Carlson and Mero posit six factors that lead to this development: 1) Some wealthy and influential Americans (such as Gamble, Pillsbury, Moore and Rockefeller) believed war and poverty were the result of overpopulation and thus twisted the understanding of large families from “blessings” to “burdens;” 2) the commercial introduction of the birth control pill; 3) an ongoing retreat from marriage; 4) anti-natalist economic incentives; 5) a retreat from religious faith; 6) mass state education.  It is these six areas where I believe Christians must focus their attention for the good of their neighbor.

The first factor outlined by Carlson and Mero highlights a fundamental mistrust in the command for humans to “be fruitful and multiply.”  To hear influential Americans assert that we are in danger of overpopulation and thus conclude that children are “burdens” rather than “blessings” should prick a Christian’s conscience.  To recoil from the bearing and raising of children out of fear of over population reveals that those who maintain such a position consider God’s Word untrustworthy.  “Although He commanded us to “be fruitful and multiply,” he certainly could not have meant after the world population reached six billion—there’s simply not enough resources.”  Such a disregard for God’s truth should promote thoughtful action on the part of Christians.

But the fear of over population is ill-founded on empirical evidence as well.  Carlson and Mero report that economist Julian Simon “marshals evidence that increasing human demand for food leads to technological innovation and therefore to increased agricultural production and prosperity in the broader economy.” In other words, the greater the population, the greater the demand for food and other necessities, which leads to a development of technologies that meet those needs.  It appears that God has designed the created order to respond appropriately to his command to “be fruitful and multiply.”  As such, Christians must respond to such allegations in order to combat the false notion that overpopulation is truly a concern.

Christians also need to strongly consider the use and proliferation of the birth control pill for two major reasons.  First of all, many birth control pills are abortive.  Although it seems obvious that Christians should avoid contraceptives such as the “morning after pill” whose primary function is to not allow a fertilized egg to become implanted in the uterus, Christians, in general, seem to be inconsistent in following this principle all the way through to other forms of birth control.  Some of the more popular oral contraceptives, although their primary function is to keep the egg from being fertilized, are actually “tri-phasic,” meaning that they have three phases of “defense” against a pregnancy: 1) hindering ovulation;  2) blocking sperm; 3) and causing the uterine wall to thin and thus be unable to hold a fertilized egg.  Although the likelihood of an egg becoming fertilized is very low, doctors are unable to say, with absolute certainty, that fertilization will never occur.  Thus, the third phase of the contraceptive—an abortive action—may be utilized.

Christians should also think about oral-contraceptives more rigorously for another reason.  We need to ask ourselves why we are using contraceptives.  Is it to avoid the responsibility of a pregnancy?  Is it because we do not want our lives to be “burdened?”  We must not treat the reproductive process with such flippancy, thinking that it is something that we can merely turn on or off.  It is God who opens and closes the womb, and we need to be careful how we are attempting to “be like God” in this regard.  Oral contraceptives, unlike other forms of birth-control, affect the woman’s reproductive process by hindering ovulation and thinning the uterus; I wonder how we are able to continually subject our wives to this process and fool ourselves into thinking that it will not negatively affect their future ability to conceive.

Carlson and Mero also submit that a general retreat from marriage as a cause of a drop in fertility.  Christians can have a massive impact here as we promote the goodness and protect the covenant seriousness of marriage.  Within the church, pastors must teach and disciple his flock in such a way that marriage is held in high regard, and so that those marriages within the church might become an example to those outside the church.  We should also be about the business of opposing same-sex marriage protection laws and no-fault divorce policies, as well as any tax-law that penalizes marriage rather than rewarding it.

The bearing and raising of children within wedlock should also be encouraged by pro-natilist economic policies that reward the married parents tax benefits for each child, so that financial burdens will be eased.  Christian lawmakers and laymen establish and support laws that promote the having of many children, not discourage it by allowing policies to be developed that penalize marital fertility.

Fifthly, Christians should see the general retreat from religious faith as an opportunity to preach the gospel and positively present the Christian faith.  It is in the darkness that the light appears the brightest.  Thus, the Church should take such opportunities to demonstrate the glory and beauty of fruitful and well-ordered families, and labor to show unbelievers why marriage exists and why God desires that we be fruitful and multiply.  People are bereft of such an understanding of marriage and family, and in the place of a vacuum, many and varied opinions are vying for acceptance.  Here we can demonstrate that only a Christian understanding of marriage and family truly satisfies the soul.

Finally, Christians must be leery of any mass state education that attempts to “subvert parental rights and authority” and endeavors to “substitute[e] a state morality,” where children “learn that their futures lie with the modern State rather than the pre-modern family” (71). Christian parents need to be aware of the overt and subtle ways in which children are taught in the local public schools, and exercise their right to pull their students from certain classes and speak directly to issues of curriculum and the content of the school and classroom.  Specifically, this means staying aware of any kind of teaching that attempts to undermine the goodness of the family and the moral imperative to “be fruitful and multiply.”

Encouraging fruitful marriages is also evangelistic.  God desires many worshippers around His throne; as Christians, we should desire the same.  To refuse to populate the world is to militate directly against Christ’s kingdom, for it lessens the number of potential members of that kingdom.  Thus, our responsibility to promote fruitful marriages becomes even more critical.  May we take up the task with wisdom, courage and joy.

Filed under: Ethical Issues, Family | Leave a Comment »

Reflections on ‘Seeing with New Eyes’ by David Powlison

Posted on April 1, 2009 by Derek

seeing-with-new-eyesAlthough the chapters in the book were written as separate articles, the unifying theme of Scripture’s sufficiency for counseling was clear and unmistakable.  Whether it was a chapter which unearthed the truths of Scripture by thoughtful exposition and application of particular passages, or a chapter with a series of heart-searching, sin-exposing questions, Powlison creatively and persuasively demonstrates how Scripture truly is sufficient for counseling others.

Powlison’s interaction with psychological, physiological and biological theories of motivation, behavior, counseling and treatment was also very helpful and fair.  Although the size and scope of this book required Powlison to often generalize and summarize people, theories and movements, one does not get the impression he is deceitfully stacking the evidence in his favor or guilty of misrepresentation; rather, in laying Biblical truth alongside of popular psychological theory, Powlison demonstrates how any human effort to determine the ultimate cause and solution for people’s problems will always, in the final analysis, be insufficient.

Finally, in the last chapter, Powlison encourages us toward simplicity.  Although people’s problems are often complex, the goal of (Christlikeness) and our means of counseling (the truth of Scripture) remain simple.  As Powlison points out, Jesus spoke “exceedingly simple words” (253).  This does not mean, however, that we are to use the truth of Scripture simplistically.  As we have already noted, people’s problems are complex-the varieties of problems are as many as there are people in the world, and applying the truth of God’s Word to specific people and situations is hard work.  We need to be careful we do not turn “heart-searching and life-altering truth into a cookie cutter, pat answer formula and quick fix” (254).  But the clear, simple truth of Scripture gives us words that “call to every person in every time and place,” and a “simplicity [that] understands and redeems real complexities; [and] does not erase them, ignore them, or homogenize them” (254).  Real Biblical counseling compassionately, thoughtfully and honestly brings the light of Scripture to bear on our sin and our problems, while weeping with those who weep and rejoicing with those who rejoice.

As I read this book, I was convicted by my tendency to ignore and erase the complexities and pains of life while counseling myself and others.  Powlison navigates between the rocky shoals of thoughtless, compassionless, simplistic Bible thumping, and the sands of man-centered, man-designed psychoanalysis to arrive at a biblical position: a theology of counseling that unflinchingly brings the truth of Christ to bear on issues of sin, relational problems and pain with genuine love, compassion, and discernment.

I was also convicted by Powlison’s use of Scripture.  I desire to become much, much better in my handling of Scripture and I want to see with greater clarity how Scripture applies to life and answers all the essential questions.  Powlison’s digging through Ephesians and the Psalms rebukes me for my superficial handling of divine truth.  I pray this book will be an impetus for repentance in my life—that I might begin to grow in my ability to counsel myself and others from the whole counsel of God’s Word.

Powlison also encourages me to apply mental rigor with these issues, and to not become lazy and complacent in my thinking.  Submitting one’s mind to and relying upon Scripture does not mean we thus slide into intellectual passivity as life becomes effortless.  Relying on Scripture means thinking hard about the Scripture and demosntrating, with clarity and conviction, how God’s Word is sufficient for things pertaining to “life and godliness” (II Peter 1:3).

Filed under: Book Reviews, Counseling | Leave a Comment »

Forgive Us, O God – A Poem of Confession

Posted on February 22, 2009 by Derek

The following poem is a poem of confession.  I have written it following the pattern of Ezra and Daniel, who, when confessing their nation’s sin to God, did not accuse the nation of sin by using the detached and potentially self-righteous third person plural (”they,” “them”), but instead, by using the first person plural (”we”), grouped themselves together with the nation and confessed the sins of the nation as though they were their own as well (see Ezra 9:5-15; Daniel 9:4-19).  This poem is meant to promote genuine confession and repentance among professing believers as we are all confronted by our sin and hypocrisy.

The first two-thirds of the poem exposes, by way of confession, sins that can tend to plague us American Christians who have had our spirituality nurtured in a culture cheap grace, materialism, self-centeredness and the relentless pursuit of self-preservation and reputation.  In writing this poem, I sought to unearth those sins that I find ever encroach on my soul, and those that tend to characterize American Christianity as a whole.

But the poem does not only deal with our sin; it also exults in the provision that God has supplied in His Son and in His Spirit.  Only the power of the gospel and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit can transform us and uproot the stubborn and elusive pride and hypocrisy that resides in our hearts.  “Where sin abounded, grace abounded all the more” (Romans 6:20, NASB), is the truth upon which this poem is built.  Our sin is pervasive, deadly, deceitful, and lodged deep in our souls; it is only by God’s grace that we can be freed from power and transformed into the image of Jesus Christ.  I pray that He might use this poem to be a means of grace to that end.

But why a poem?  A poem, I think, is especially fitting for eliciting confession and repentance.  It is easy for us to unwittingly build up defenses against didactic exhortations and imperatives—but our hearts are easily caught off guard by changes in genre.  We find this expressed concretely in the incident between King David and the prophet Nathan.  Despite his effort and apparent success in keeping his sins of adultery and murder concealed, David’s heart was laid bare by Nathan’s simple story of a man with a young ewe lamb (II Samuel 12:1-13).  Nathan did not come to David with some lofty, abstract principle that explained how he had sinned against God and neighbor; rather, he lulled David’s heart into the open with a story.  At the right moment, Nathan released the arrow: “You are the man” (v.7)!  David could hide his sin no longer—he had been smitten by the Spirit of God by way of a simple parable.

Poetry, I believe, can have this same effect.  The rhythm, meter, rhyme scheme, and  vividness of illustration that characterizes poetry can expose and disarm the heart in such a way that a person does not realize what is happening until it is too late.  We can no longer hide from conviction—the truth has dressed itself in different garb and so is able to tease sin out of its burrow, defenseless and unaware of any intruder.

Forgive Us, O God

Forgive Us, O God
For we have not treasured You
We have sought lesser pleasures
And they have clouded our view

Despite Your great mercies
And Your tender patience with us
We turn to other gods
In Your Word, we refuse to trust

We look with disdain
On the sins of other men
We thank You, God
That we are not like them

For they commit adultery
Curse, bribe and steal
But we go to church
And even pray at every meal

We are busy serving
While we disrespect our wives
We are very religious
But please do not inspect our lives

For if someone is in need
We say we cannot lend
We talk about God’s glory
But we love the praise of men

We take our sin lightly
And shrug off all our guilt
We boast in ourselves
And in what our hands have built

We sing loudly on Sunday
And impress with religious speech
We brag about our service
And hope someone will see

Meanwhile bitterness reigns
And we disdain the success of others
We are disgusted by another man’s sin
But ours we just keep covered

Because we must always look good
And we cannot risk a breech
In this façade that we’ve created
And our hearts must stay out of reach

But wait just a moment
Will You not consider this
We have done much good
It’s all here in a list

We put a check in the basket
About every third week
We would have given more
But we needed cable T.V.

We keep our cars clean
And our grass neatly trimmed
Because we know what Jesus said
“Let your light shine before men.”

We leave tracts with our bill
When we go out to eat
But we only tip a dollar (if at all)
We don’t want the waiters to fall into greed

And we are very humble
Probably more humble than most
We have pity on those who are full of pride
And we are careful not to boast

We are also very wise
We know when we are being scammed
We never give away our money
To any homeless woman or man

And we are really nice neighbors
But just too nice to say
That we know of One
Who is the Truth, the Life and the Way

And we love our safety
And our comfort and our ease
Thank you for your goodness!
This Christian life is a breeze

For it is painless to be a Christian
We just read our Bibles and pray
We know you didn’t really mean it when you said
“Take up your cross, everyday”

We bow down to our cars
To our clothes and to our homes
Please take these not away
Because we love what we own

But how long, O Lord
With our sin will you abide?
For we display our wisdom
But Your precious gospel we hide

We cannot stand the thought
That we may be the object of scorn
So we dilute our convictions
And just go along with the norm

We don’t want to make waves
Or cause others to be mad
If we can just be kind to others
Then they won’t think us that bad

We want to find points of agreement
With unredeemed beliefs
That way we can look cool
In our churches and in the academy

But hear, Great God
Our confession of self-righteous sin
Send down your Spirit
And let the supplication begin

Break our hearts and our wills
And make us cry out
Clear away the idols
Resolve all our doubts

Make us into the men and women
You desire us to be
Purify our hearts and lives
Cleanse away all vile hypocrisy

Fill us with great passion
For our crucified and risen King
Make our hearts sincere
That we would believe what we sing

Help us see the glory of Christ
May He be all that we desire
Help us treasure Him above all
That we might gladly go into the fire

That we might lay down our lives
For the good of every man
And delight to bring the gospel
To every tribe, tongue and land

Make us obedient to Your word
Longing to do all that You say
May we never forget our place
Under the potter, as the clay

Help us see the cross
And the beauty of free grace
Of imputed righteousness
Of all sins forgotten and erased

That we might be ready to expose
Every sin and transgression
And bear our hearts before your throne
In prayers of real confession

That we might be changed
In deep and lasting ways
And our lives be filled with repentance
For the rest of our earthly days

For inexpressible joy is found
After we have been broken over our sin
And our faith is lifted higher
When borne on the wings of humiliation

For you delight in truth
In the inmost parts
And you despise external religion
If it does not flow from our hearts

Above all, Lord God
Make us like Your Son
Hear our pleas for mercy
Finish this work you have begun

For we are desperate for your grace
For your Spirit and your power
And we need thee everyday
Every moment of every hour

So forgive us, O God
Turn your face and hear
The sound of all our groanings
Take account of all our tears

For you are good and kind
And ready to forgive
We depend upon your mercy
Without which we could not live

You are gracious and compassionate
Slow to anger and to wrath
You heal the broken-hearted
And you make the mourners to laugh

So condescend to us
For we are frail and we are weak
Make your face and your glory
All that we would seek

That we would be ready to give all away
For the sake of Jesus Christ
That we would love him more
Than family, friends, health and life

Filed under: Poetry | Leave a Comment »

The Awesome Three-In-One: How the Doctrine of the Trinity Affects our Worship

Posted on February 8, 2009 by Derek

The doctrine of the Trinity, expressed seminally in Church creeds and continually defended in each generation’s own theological context, is a precious and glorious doctrine.  Yet, it is not enough for the doctrine of the Trinity to remain merely in the realm of creedal affirmations and theological nuance-no doctrine in the Bible was ever meant to be detached from the life and health of God’s people.  As Noel Due rightly observes,

[D]ebates about the person of Christ and the nature of the Trinity should not lull us into thinking that the transformation which Jesus came to bring was simply the liturgy and wording of public assemblies.  The New Testament expressions of Trinitarian framework are more organic than systematic.  They relate to the life of the people of God in their experience of community, more than to their life as an expression of the academy.[1]

In the following paragraphs, therefore, we will examine how we are to delight in the Trinity through our praise and prayer, and how we are called to display the glory of the Trinity in our relationships and in our churches.

Who is the Trinity?
Delighting in the Glory of God

In Our Praise
Who is the object of our praise and delight?  This is an important question, since the Old Testament is replete with affirmations of God’s “oneness” and warnings against those who might be tempted to worship another god.[2] When we come to the New Testament, however, we are confronted with a Christ who is responsible for creation (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:15-18; Hebrews 1:1-4), who is equal to the Father (John 1:1; 5:23), and who is spoken of in terms reserved exclusively for deity (John 1:1; 8:58; I Corinthians 8:6; Philippians 2:9-11).  Even the Holy Spirit, who, in the Old Testament, appears to be an extension of God’s power[3], is presented in the New Testament as an individual Person who is referred to as God and who possesses the authority and prerogative of God.[4]

Yet, even while we are given a fuller depiction of God’s Triune nature in the New Testament, the roles of each member of the Trinity as to how each is to receive worship is also made clearer.  First, the unanimous testimony of the New Testament is that God the Father is the primary object of worship.  Philippians 2:9-11 seems to make this point most explicitly.  Here, Christ’s exaltation and worship as Lord of the universe is for the ultimate purpose of bringing glory to God the Father (2:11).  This appears to be the pattern throughout the New Testament. [5]

Yet, as soon as we affirm this truth, we must just as quickly affirm that it is both right and good to worship the Lord Jesus Christ.  In fact, to deny Jesus his due worship and to treat him with less honor than the Father, is to actually dishonor the Father (John 5:22-23).  Many New Testament texts establish that Christ is rightly the object of our worship and adoration (Luke 24:52; John 20:28, II Corinthians 3:18, Colossians 1:15, Hebrews 1:6, Revelation 5:12-13).  We should never feel as though we are stealing glory from God the Father by whole-heartedly singing to Jesus and praising him for all he is and all he has done.

But what about the Holy Spirit?  Is he to be our object of worship?  Certainly, by the nature of his deity, he is worthy of worship and praise and thanksgiving.  But it is important to understand that even though we affirm and rejoice in the reality that the Holy Spirit is equal in essence and glory with the Father and the Son, it would be to dishonor to the Spirit if we gave him primacy over the Father or the Son in our worship.  The Spirit’s desire and role is to empower God’s people to worship and glorify the Father and Son (John 4:24; 16:14; I Corinthians 12:3; Philippians 3:3).  Nowhere in the New Testament is the Holy Spirit said to be the direct object of praise and worship.  Instead, he is said to be the one through whom praise is given to the Father and the Son.

That is not to say, however, that it is wrong to praise and thank the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit is responsible for our salvation (Titus 3:5), sanctification (Galatians 5:22-24), spiritual empowerment and spiritual instruction (I Corinthians 2:10-16).  To not praise and thank him for his work in our life does not seem fitting for the beneficiaries of such grace.  On the other hand, it is just as important to allow the New Testament’s silence on the issue of our direct worship and praise of the Holy Spirit guide us in understanding his role as the One who empowers worship more than One who receives worship.

In Our Prayers
Our corporate prayer should also reflect the Triune nature of our God.  But how, specifically, is this manifested?  Again, similar to the question of worship, the New Testament seems to present God the Father as the primary object of our prayers (Romans 11:36; I Corinthians 15:12; II Corinthians 8:16; Colossians 3:17; Ephesians 1:3; Philippians 1:3).  Prayers of thanksgiving (Colossians 3:17; I Thessalonians 1:2), anxiety (I Peter 5:7), and spiritual enlightenment (Ephesians 3:14), are directed to God the Father.

Often, these prayers are given to God through Jesus Christ (Romans 1:8; 7:25; II Corinthians 1:5; Colossians 3:17).  But what does it mean to pray through Christ?  As we examine the use of the word, dia (”through,” in the genitive) in its relation to Christ throughout the New Testament, we find that it is often used to speak of Christ’s work on our behalf and the benefits we obtain from his death and resurrection (Romans 5:1-2; 5:9; 5:10, 11; 5:17, 21; Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 7:25).  This indicates that our prayers to God the Father can only be accepted if we have received the benefits of Christ’s work.  To pray through Jesus Christ to God is to approach God in a genuine relationship with Jesus Christ.  This is the only way we can draw near to God (Hebrews 7:25).[6] Again, however, this does not mean that we cannot or should not pray to Jesus Christ.  He is a living Savior with whom we can have intimate fellowship.  But the general practice of the New Testament and the model for our churches is private and corporate prayer to God the Father through Jesus Christ the Son.

The New Testament also speaks of the Holy Spirit having an active role in our praying.  First, we are told to pray “in the Spirit” (Ephesians 6:18; Jude 1:20).  But what does this mean?  Galatians 3:1-3 tells us that we receive the Holy Spirit by faith-by believing the promises of the gospel.  We also learn from the New Testament that the Holy Spirit’s desire and role is to glorify God and Christ according to the will of God.  The implications for our corporate prayers should be obvious: as a church, when we gather together to pray, we must pray in faith, trusting the promises of the gospel, and make requests that are primarily aimed at bringing glory to God; this is what it means to pray, “In the Spirit.”  Yet, we are also reminded that the Holy Spirit intercedes for us when we do not know how we should pray (Romans 8:26-27).  So even when we find ourselves weak in faith and even having difficulty with God-centered prayer, the Holy Spirit intercedes on our behalf so we might be brought back on course; this is a mighty encouragement of which our people must be constantly reminded.  It is very easy to begin to think that our praying is the ultimate reason why things do or do not happen.  The truth, however, is that we often do not even know how to pray and yet God’s will continues to be accomplished in the world.  This is both humbling and hope-giving.

Secondly, the Scripture indicates that we can enjoy fellowship with the Holy Spirit (II Corinthians 13:14).  This fellowship is the Holy Spirit’s teaching, comforting, enlightening, and sanctifying ministry in our lives.  But how should we instruct our people in seeking this fellowship?  Christ tells us the Father is willing to give His Holy Spirit to those who ask for Him (Luke 11:13).  Thus, though it is not wrong to ask the Holy Spirit himself to dwell near to us, the Biblical pattern presents the Father sending the Spirit (see also John 14:16-17).  Therefore, we should ask God the Father to grant us the fellowship of the Holy Spirit.                     

How Do We Reflect the Trinity?
Displaying the Glory of God

By the Exaltation, Preservation and Practice of Functional Subordinate Relationships
Within the structure of the Trinity there has been a hierarchical order from all eternity.  This is clear from texts that refer to the relationship between the Father and the Son prior to and after the incarnation.[7] The Son, though equal in glory and divine essence, has always been in submission to the Father.  The Spirit, likewise, has always been in submission to the Father and the Son (Luke 3:16; John 14:15; 16:12-15).  Thus, the design of the man and woman and their subsequent roles of headship and submission were neither arbitrary nor given as a result of the fall; they were the natural product of a God who has eternally existed in hierarchical relationship.[8] The same can be said for all other relationships as well: parent to child, pastor to people, king to subject, employer to employee, and so on.

Thus, we begin to understand why the refusal to fulfill God-given roles and to submit to the appropriate authorities in one’s life is such a serious offense[9]: it disregards the very nature of God Himself and mocks the design he has established.[10] So if our worship is to be truly Trinitarian, it must reflect, by and through our relationships, the loving and wise leadership of God the Father and the joyful submission of the Son and the Spirit.  Pastors who rule the Church in a hard and dictatorial manner, Christian employees who privately and publicly disrespect their employers, husbands who demean their wives, wives who chafe under the leadership of their husbands, and parents who do not exercise their God-given authority in the rearing of their children are not truly Trinitarian, no matter how many books they have read or how loudly they sing, Holy, Holy, Holy, on Sunday mornings.  In order for our worship to honor the Triune God of the universe, our relationships must first be in order, or else our singing may only be a sham.

By Cultivating “Others-Centeredness” In our Relationships
Also within this hierarchical structure of the Trinity we find a breathtaking “others-centeredness,” that rarely finds analogy in the world today.  Often, where relationships of authority and submission exist, abuse of power, disrespect, selfishness and self-interest are characteristics most common among either respective party.  Yet Scripture gives us a picture of a God in whom each member seeks the glory of the other.  The Father, who designed and initiated the creation and salvation of man (Ephesians 1:3-14), did so for the glory of His Son (John 9:54; Philippians 2:9-11).  Yet the Son poured himself out in perfect, unflinching, joyful obedience for the glory of the Father (John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38; Philippians 2:8).  The Spirit is never found in the New Testament exalting himself; his aim is to always exalt the Father and the Son (John 4:24; 16:14; I Corinthians 12:3; Philippians 3:3).  What beauty!  In a God who is matchless in glory, majesty, grandeur, power and worth, we find genuine humility and love among each member of the Trinity.

As we begin to comprehend this wonderful aspect of the Trinity, we can start to see the grounds for many of the New Testament commands.  We are commanded to reflect the nature of God in seeking the interests of others rather than our own interests (Philippians 2:4); we are told to seek to honor others rather than ourselves (Romans 12:10); we are instructed to genuinely rejoice in the success of others (Romans 12:15); our lives should be set on doing what is best for our neighbors (Romans 15:2).  When we claim the name of Christ and live selfishly and self-centeredly, we are, by our actions, speaking a lie about who God is.  A church that is truly Trinitarian is a church where people not only worship the Triune God in song, but who also display the character of God in loving, joyful, sacrificial service to others.  It is a church where, like the Father, leaders exercise their authority for the good and glory of others.  It is a church where, like the Son, men and women sacrificially lay down their lives for the benefit of their brothers and sisters.  It is a church where, like the Holy Spirit, people choose to work quietly, unnoticed, and secretly for the glory and success of others; who shy away from any kind of recognition, and who are wholly satisfied to see others exalted and acknowledged.

By Celebrating and Encouraging Unity and Diversity in Our Churches[11]
Within the Trinity, there is the glorious and perfect blend of unity and diversity: God is united in his essence and glory, yet he is diverse in his personhood: the Father is the Father and not the Son or the Holy Spirit; the Son is the Son and not the Father nor the Spirit, and the Spirit is the Spirit and neither the Father nor the Son.  Thus, the Trinity beautifully displays, “a unity that is not redundancy, and a diversity that is not discord.”[12] Though they are one, they are each different; and though they are different, they each exist in perfect harmony with the others.

As we begin to comprehend this aspect of our Triune God, we are enabled to see how our churches should reflect such unity and diversity, and how texts like I Corinthians 12:4-31 fit into the entire scheme of Biblical revelation regarding the Trinity.  In I Corinthians 12:4-31, we find Paul using the human body as an illustration to explain to a church rife with competition and envy, why differences in spiritual gifting exist in a place where there is supposed to be unity.  The body is one entity, but it is has many members; each member is important, and cannot be disregarded based on its function within the body.  Without an eye or an arm or a liver or a lung, the body is disfigured and impoverished.

Although the analogy of the human body breaks down when we attempt to relate it directly to the Trinity (”the nose” is not fully “the body” as the Son is fully God), the principle behind the analogy corresponds perfectly when we apply it to the diversity of men and women within the Church: within one universal Church, consisting of men and women of equal human essence, there are host of different members equipped with a multitude of various spiritual gifts.  All this glorious variety is unified under God Himself, who is to be the Church’s object of worship (I Corinthians 10:31).

But the celebration of unity and diversity extends beyond spiritual gifts to include all characteristics that make us distinct from each other.  We find hints of this throughout the entire New Testament: Christ is the redeemer of people from every tribe, tongue and nation (Revelation 5:9-10); the rich and poor are to be allowed into the Church without partiality (I Timothy 6:17-19; James 2:1-7); the young and old are equal recipients of salvation (Mark 10:13-16; I John 2:12-14); men and women are both Abraham’s offspring (Galatians 3:29); and slaves and masters are both accepted into the fold (Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:22).  Thus, our churches, as much as it is possible, should strive for and rejoice in diversity within their congregations, while bringing this diversity under the banner of a solitary vision: to worship God the Father, through the Son , by the power of His Spirit.

Conclusion
As precious and essential are the scholarly and creedal stones which provide the solid bedrock of our faith, they were never meant to become an end in and of themselves-as if one would be satisfied with only a foundation with no house built upon it.  No, the doctrine of the Trinity was revealed to us so that we might be profoundly and practically changed by it, especially in our praise, our prayers, and in our relationships within the Church.  May God be honored as we delight in and display his Triune glory.

[1] Noel Due, Created For Worship: From Genesis to Revelation to You, (Ross-Shire: Christian Focus Publications, 2005), 150.  Sergius Bulgakov in The Orthodox Church, quoted in Robert Letham’s The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology and Worship, (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2004), page 407, gives a similar reminder, buttressing his comments from the study of church history: “The dogma of the Holy Trinity is not only a doctrinal form, but a living Christian experience which is constantly developing; it is a fact of the Christian life…There is no truly Christian life, apart from the knowledge of the Trinity; this is abundantly witness in Christian literature.”

[2] Exodus 20:3; II Kings 17:35; Jeremiah 25:6; 35:15; Isaiah 44:6; 44:9-11, 24; 45:22.

[3] T.S. Caulley, The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 568.

[4] See Mark 1:12; Luke 4:1; Acts 11:12; 13:4; 15:28; 16:6; 20:23; 20:28; 21:11; 28:25.

[5] See also Romans 11:36, 16:27; I Corinthians 15:12; II Corinthians 8:16; Ephesians 3:21; Philippians 4:20; I Peter 1:3, Jude 24, etc.  These are just a few of the many texts that mention God the Father as the object of praise and thanksgiving.

[6] This also relates to praying in Jesus’ name (John 14:13, 14, 16:23-26).  If we come to God in our name-that is, in ourselves-we deserve only condemnation.  But if we come to God in Jesus’ name, we are thereby qualified to receive help and blessing from the Father since we are united with His perfect Son.

[7] Prior to the incarnation: Psalm 2:7; Proverbs 30:4; John 3:17, 18, Romans 8:3, 29 32; Galatians 4:4; Ephesians 1:3-4; I John 4:4, 9, 10, 14.  After the incarnation:  Matthew 11:27, 17:25, 28:19;John 5:19; 6:38; Romans 1:9, 5:10, I Corinthians 15:28 Philippians 2:8; Hebrews 1:5.

[8] Interestingly, it appears to me that those who deny that the Son has been eternally subordinate to the Father do not have grounds by which to explain the existence of father and son relationships here on earth.  Where did such an idea come from?  I would say that this “invention” came from a God who has always existed in Father-Son relationship and has given this gift to mankind to enjoy.  For a thorough defense of the eternal roles of the Father, Son and Spirit, see Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 250-252 and John Frame, The Doctrine of God, (New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 2002), 719-722.

[9] See Exodus 21:17; Leviticus 20:9; Romans 13:1-7; I Peter 2:13-17; Hebrews 13:17.

[10] Ray Ortland Jr., in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, ed. by John Piper and Wayne Grudem, (Wheaton: Crossway, 2006), 102, reminds us that we must not take offence at our subordinate roles: “The ranking within the Godhead is part of the sublime beauty and logic of true deity.  And if our Creator exists in this manner, should we be surprised and offended if His creaturely analog on earth exists in paradoxical form?”

[11] C.S. Lewis, in his book, The Problem of Pain, (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1996), page 155, reminds us of how much less glory God would receive and how impoverished the church would be if we were all the same: “If all experienced God in the same way and returned to him an identical worship, the song of the Church triumphant would have not symphony, it would be like an orchestra in which all the instruments played the same note.  Aristotle has told us that a city is a unity of unlikes, and St. Paul that a body is a unity of different members.”

[12] Bruce Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance, (Wheaton: Crossway, 2005), 135.

Filed under: Church, Theology, Worship | 2 Comments »

Thoughts on the Kingdom of God and Missions

Posted on January 16, 2009 by Derek

God’s people are citizens of a Kingdom in which God is their King.  It has always been this way.  Although the Genesis account does not contain much explicit language of Kingdom—words like king, subject, rule, reign—the foundational idea is evident, and even appears in the command of God to his new creatures to “fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and the and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Genesis 1:28, emphasis mine).  This is why theologians have often referred to Adam and Eve as God’s co-regents—his image bearers who, along with him, were intended to rule this newly created earth.

Even after the fall, God sought to establish his rule on earth through the nation Israel.  When the time came, God sent His Son, the promised King (Psalm 2:6-8; Daniel 7:14) into the world.  Yet, before God’s King could inherit his throne, he had to abolish the rule of Satan at the cross, as God’s King died, paying the penalty that God’s image bearers and intended rulers deserved, and by rising again, destroying the dominion of sin and death.  Now, through the provision of Christ’s death on the cross and resurrection, men and woman are being “delivered from the domain of darkness and transferred…to the kingdom of [God's] beloved Son” (Colossians 1:13).

Missions, therefore, is, at its heart, a calling to rebels who have turned from gladly submitting to the true King of the universe, to come be forgiven and be brought into God’s eternal Kingdom.  Missions, then, is nothing less than warfare.  Christians, who were previously in revolt against the true King, are now in rebellion against the “god of this age,” and are seeking to free the remaining slaves from Satan’s domain, so that they might become the rulers they were intended to be (Matthew 19:28; I Corinthians 6:2; Revelation 20:4).

As ambassadors of the current and coming King, we will not only seek to free men and women from eternal bondage to sin and death, and bring them into an everlasting kingdom, we will naturally be drawn to free men and women from the oppression of harsh earthly dictatorships or tyrannical leaders, because we have come to taste what a kingdom is truly supposed to be like.  We will not find any necessary conflict between making disciples and doing good to others since we will be reflecting a kingdom of love and joy (Revelation 22:3).  Yet we work, “…not in the hope that what [we] build will eternity, but as a precursor to what eternity will bring after the old has passed away and the new has come.”[1]

Despite the contemporary neglect of the kingdom of God and its relationship to missions, the reality of the kingdom should be at the center of our disciple-making and evangelistic ministry.  The message of the kingdom saturated Christ’s teaching: it was found in his parables (Matthew 13:11ff), in his interactions with the crowds (Matthew 19:12), in his evangelistic endeavors (Matthew 3:2; John 3:3) and his responses to the ruling authorities (John 18:36).  It should therefore be a centerpiece in our interactions with the unbelieving world.  The call to salvation is nothing less than a call to escape from the kingdom of darkness and declare allegiance to the one true King and his kingdom.

Christ also taught us that the coming kingdom should be the heartbeat of our prayers (Matthew 6:10).  Although we can say that the kingdom is, in a sense, already here (Luke 17:21), we also pray and long for God’s perfect rule to come to full consummation as he banishes all his enemies forever and establishes his kingdom in all its fullness.  As we pray and hope, we seek to gather as many subjects of Christ’s kingdom as we can, knowing the joy of allegiance and the coming doom of those who refuse to have their citizenship eternally reassigned.

[1] A. Scott Moreau, Gary R. Corwin, Gary B. McGee, Introducing World Missions: A Biblical, Historical and Practical Survey, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 85.

Filed under: Kingdom, Missions | Leave a Comment »

Book Review – Preach and Heal by Charles Fielding

Posted on January 15, 2009 by Derek

cs-preachmThere is much in Fielding’s work, Preach and Heal: A Biblical Model for Missions, to commend it as a helpful resource for missionary work.  Fielding’s observations on the differing opinions between the “Preachers,” and the “Healers,” was clever, insightful, and at times stinging.  Yet this sting grew into conviction and then hearty agreement as Fielding brought the two together in the Person of Christ, demonstrating that like Jesus, and in obedience to Jesus, we are called to both preach and heal.  The desire to care for souls and care for bodies should be the natural outflow from a heart that knows the love of Christ.  There is no contradiction between preaching and healing-they are complimentary aspects of one ministry of Christ-like love to others.

There are also several other principles in Fielding’s work that transcend cultural differences and make this book valuable to the world-wide Church in any situation.  Drawing from Paul’s missionary pattern, Fielding shows us the three priorities of a missionary: he must 1) enter the community; 2) make disciples and 3) empower the church.  As Fielding points out, Paul’s goal was not to remain in any area for an extended amount of time, but rather to create authentic disciples and establish a church that would inevitably reproduce itself in subsequent missionary work.  Thus, we should seek to make this our goal: we must use our resources to enter the community, create authentic disciples, and return periodically or provide resources to encourage and strengthen the recently planted church.  We should, as Fielding suggests, seek to spark a church planting movement across great swaths of a particular geographical area.

However, having said that, I think we must be careful that we do not push Paul’s missionary example to the point where we are discouraging the establishment of permanent pastors in these new churches.  Although Paul did not set up permanent pastoral residence in any church, he did establish leaders-leaders who would remain at that particular church and entrust what they have learned to faithful men “who will be able to teach others also” (II Timothy 2:2).  I think Fielding is right to encourage missionaries to promote large-scale church planting endeavors, but this cannot be done at the expense of the long-term health of these newly planted churches.

Fielding’s strategies for “Entering the community,” were helpful, especially as they related to caring for the needy and the sick.  Entering communities by offering competent and loving health care, disaster relief, and other kinds of “healing” ministries tangibly demonstrates the love of Christ, which in turn provides a context for the gospel.  I also think there is great wisdom in using the model Jesus established in Luke 10:5-7 with the “Person of Peace.”  This person, though not a believer, can help a missionary team enter a community, gain the respect of that community’s leaders, and provide valuable information about cultural norms and taboos.  And this “Person of Peace,” is not someone who is useful only to those seeking to enter an unreached community in foreign lands; they can be found in the ghettos of New York and the gang-infested streets of Los Angeles where hostile sub-cultures exist with their own social customs and their own opposition to the gospel.  Though initially skeptical about the idea (thinking it only applied to Jesus’ disciples at that time), I am now beginning to see that it is essential to establish relationships with such people as we pursue our missionary task.

American churches will also benefit from Fielding’s strategy of using “healing” ministries to enter these local sub-cultures and communities.  Demonstrating the love of Christ by providing hospice care for the dying, medical care for underprivileged families, tutoring for struggling, inner-city students, even drug rehabilitation, would open doors for the gospel as the people in those communities personally observe the genuine concern these disciples of Christ have for their well-being.

Fielding’s counsel on professional integrity is also a very important principle that all missionaries alike would do well to heed.  Fielding’s stories of missionaries who lost the respect of the local community because they did not diligently attend to their profession are tragic.  If we tell the citizens and leaders of a community that we are there to do business or medical work or disaster relief, we best make sure that we are doing those things with great attentiveness and competence, or we will actually hurt the gospel while thinking we are advancing it.

However, although there are many positive aspects to Fielding’s book, I did find a few problems throughout.  One dilemma I find in promoting the use of this book (model) universally is its reliance on Western medical advances and wealth.  Churches in third-world countries do not have the resources or the knowledge to provide the kind of “healing” ministries that churches in the West are able to provide.  Although churches in poorer countries are able to embrace Fielding’s use of the apostle Paul’s church-planting strategy, I wonder how much of the latter half of Preach and Heal would be relevant to these churches, especially the sections on specific community development, medical care, and disaster relief strategies.  It seems like the latter sections of the book are written primarily to Christians in countries in which the Church has major financial, educational, and medical resources available.

Secondly, although I appreciated Fielding’s overall presentation of the gospel in Appendix E, if I were the editor, I would have encouraged Fielding to use greater precision when discussing the deity of Christ: referring to Christ as “The Spirit of God in a man’s body” (239), is a confusing way to refer to Christ’s eternal deity and the joining of his two natures.  Since we will often be dealing with false religion in our missionary endeavors, precision in theological language is essential.  Overall, however, I was challenged and helped by Fielding’s work, and I appreciated his two-fold, complementary approach to missions.

Filed under: Book Reviews, Missions | Leave a Comment »

Next Page »