Monthly Archives: June 2012

1 way the 10 commandments are Gospel

People know that the Gospel promises forgiveness for sins. They know that sins are violations of God’s will. So they naturally look for ways to describe God’s will that was violated and distinguish it from God’s will that people find forgiveness for these violations through Jesus and what he did.

One such attempt is popularly known as “law and gospel.”

However, while this rough distinction works in limited contexts (sort of like Jesus saying the mustard seed is the smallest seed), it falls apart if one treats that shorthand as if it were a precise or scientific description.

For example, the Ten Commandments are often treated as “law” and thus contrasted with “Gospel.” But consider the Fifth command:

“Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God commanded you, that your days may be long, and that it may go well with you in the land that the LORD your God is giving you” (Deuteronomy 5:16; ESV).

So children are supposed to honor their parents. And when they fall short of this command, their only comfort is that Jesus has provided them forgiveness.

But where are children supposed to learn about Jesus and this forgiveness?

It is not hard to find the answer. Parents are supposed to teach their children the Gospel.

“Now this is the commandment—the statutes and the rules—that the LORD your God commanded me to teach you, that you may do them in the land to which you are going over, to possess it, that you may fear the LORD your God, you and your son and your son’s son, by keeping all his statutes and his commandments, which I command you, all the days of your life, and that your days may be long. Hear therefore, O Israel, and be careful to do them, that it may go well with you, and that you may multiply greatly, as the LORD, the God of your fathers, has promised you, in a land flowing with milk and honey.

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates (Deuteronomy 6:1-9; ESV).

Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4; ESV).

So when fathers bring up their children “in the discipline and instruction of the Lord,” the Fifth Commandment tells children to learn the Gospel from their parents and believe it!

My son, do not forget my teaching,
but let your heart keep my commandments,
for length of days and years of life
and peace they will add to you.
Let not steadfast love and faithfulness forsake you;
bind them around your neck;
write them on the tablet of your heart.
So you will find favor and good success
in the sight of God and man.
Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
and do not lean on your own understanding.
In all your ways acknowledge him,
and he will make straight your paths (Proverbs 3:1-6; ESV).

So, just like the First Commandment, the Fifth Commandment actually mandates faith in Jesus Christ and reliance on the grace of God in Him.

 

7 things wrong with trying to fix education to restore the American Dream

Listening to NPR on the way to work a few days ago, I heard yet another flawed story on education. A young guy made it out of the South Bronx and is now working on a higher level education degree in Ivy League Successville. But the fact that he is so rare might be evidence of a widespread problem rather than proof that “the American Dream” is alive.

What to say?

1. “The American Dream is a sales slogan designed to make people think that going into debt is ethical and responsible behavior. It is the mother of all entitlement mentalities.

2. Why do I never find people wringing their hands over all the young people stuck in small town America, who never go anywhere beyond cashiering at a nearby highway convenience store? Why do only people in N.Y., L.A., or Chicago get the attention?

3. What would happen if everyone did “get an education”? Suddenly an education would be worth a lot less and all the talking heads would start claiming that everyone needs a doctorate. Journalists and pundits would wring their hands over all the young kids from South Bronx who never get more than a Master’s Degree.

4. Education has been one way that some people have risen above mediocrity. By definition, not everyone can rise above mediocrity. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be mediocre. Education is not a path for everyone because it can’t be one.

5. What everyone can do, is strive to do their best. The standard of living can go up. Tomorrow’s mediocre can be better than yesterday’s. But there is no reason to believe that getting everyone “an education” will bring about this result.

6. It is a damaging delusion to believe that education is always or even mostly accomplished in an institutional setting. What gets touted as an “education” is really simply a certificate. And the value of the certificate is mostly due to the fact that, until they wake up, people treat it like a license.

7. The effort devoted to promoting education could be better spent encouraging people to do their best and better themselves, without worrying about whether this is or is not done in an academic setting.

The Gospel of Growing Up

I wrote once that the basic message of the Bible is “Boy meets Girl.” But, for that to work, the virgin must mature into the bride and the boy must become a man.

That doesn’t seem to be happening in Christian churches in North America and, I believe, therefore in many many churches where children have used the Bible to replicate more perpetual children.

The 1940s also saw the birth of the “teenager.” Unlike the more diverse youth of previous eras, teenagers all went to high school and participated in a national youth culture increasingly dominated by the same music, movies, products, and cultural beliefs. Although it may seem that the teenagers of the 21st century bear little resemblance to those of the 1950s, crucial similarities remain in the structure of adolescent life and its relationship to the church. And one of the most important traits is the aversion to growing up.

via When Are We Going to Grow Up? The Juvenilization of American Christianity | Christianity Today.

Please read the article and consider the implications. Only a little googling will show there are plenty of secular unbelievers who are aghast at the rampant immaturity that has become the norm for people of all ages, especially men.

But the Bible directly addresses this issue. In fact, I suspect one of the reasons so many Christians find so much of the Bible to be mysterious or boring is because they don’t expect it to be concerned about maturation in history. And since the Bible is almost entirely about maturation in history, the result is the quest for a few texts that can be extracted in order to make the kind of sense that we expect to find in a Holy Book.

But it is all over the Bible, starting in Genesis. As I wrote in Desirable to make one wise:

The first time wisdom is mentioned in the Bible, it is used to describe what tempted Eve about the tree–that it was desirable to make her wise.

This seems to be the equivalent of gaining the knowledge of good and evil, having one’s eyes opened… and being like God.

At the end of Genesis 3 God seems to agree with these equivalences:

Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil…”

Adam and Eve are naked in the beginning of Genesis. Genesis ends with a man who, after repeatedly losing his robe of authority through injustice, gains authority over the whole world… precisely because he is wise.

This proposal pleased Pharaoh and all his servants. And Pharaoh said to his servants, “Can we find a man like this, in whom is the Spirit of God?” Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Since God has shown you all this, there is none so discerning and wise as you are. You shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command. Only as regards the throne will I be greater than you.” And Pharaoh said to Joseph, “See, I have set you over all the land of Egypt.” Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his hand and put it on Joseph’s hand, and clothed him in garments of fine linen and put a gold chain about his neck.

So one sign of immaturity is an impatience for the fruits of maturity, without going through actual maturation. Growing up takes time. Joseph was patient for it.

The other sign of immaturity is more direct: an aversion to the prospect of growing up.

And this is tied into the Gospel itself. For the work of Christ was to bring about (to quote from Arthur C. Clarke’s sci-fi attempt to promote a fake Eschatology) childhood’s end.

Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God (Galatians 3:23-4:7 ESV).

One might get confused by the promise of adoption — “sons” versus the concept of childhood. Here Paul equates becoming a son with inheriting the authority and rights of an adult heir. One is a son when one takes over the estate.

So, having passed to the “adult” stage in history through the release provided by Jesus, now each believer and the church corporately is to appropriate this gift by personally growing up. Thus, from Ephesians 4:

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love (Ephesians 4:11-16 ESV).

Look at that description of children: tossed any which way by the waves and winds of human cleverness…. And think of advertising. Think of the news. Think of the current presidential race.

Divorce and the “OT” versus the “New”

Divorce Decree

Supposedly, God only temporarily tolerated divorce, but then ended that tolerance after Jesus came. I do believe that it is possible for norms to change as humanity matures in Christ, but I don’t think the typical (i.e. John Murray’s) argument holds up.  The argument derives from Deuteronomy 24.1-4:

When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife, and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the LORD. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance.

The argument is that this law does not grant a right to divorce, but puts controls on a pre-existing practice. “When a man does x he is limited in what he can do next” is not the same as saying “A man may do x.”

OK, the grammar makes such an interpretation possible, but I still think the position is lacking.

First of all, lots of things were already followed and yet are still part of God’s law and included in the Mosaic legislation. The Sabbath was observed, circumcision was practiced, and some form of the Law of the Levirate was acknowledged as binding. We ought to consider that divorce was practiced in that same tradition.

Secondly, Deuteronomy 22.19 and 22.29 specify circumstances where a man can lose his right to divorce a wife. So if God had to tolerate divorce because the Israelites wouldn’t give it up, then how was he able to control them enough to prohibit divorce in some cases?

Third, we know the Law is a transcript of God’s character. The theory is that the actuall permission to divorce was not part of that Law. But how then does God himself follow this law?

Thus says the Lord:
“Where is your mother’s certificate of divorce,
with which I sent her away?
Or which of my creditors is it
to whom I have sold you?
Behold, for your iniquities you were sold,
and for your transgressions your mother was sent away (Isaiah 50.1).

If a man divorces his wife
and she goes from him
and becomes another man’s wife,
will he return to her?
Would not that land be greatly polluted?
You have played the whore with many lovers;
and would you return to me?
declares the Lord (Jeremiah 3.1).

So, how can something God actually does, and in so doing, appeals to the very law in question, not be a true part of the Law? This is no mere concession. And further, Isaiah and Jeremiah show that the sort of thing that is in view in the Law is actual adultery. Jesus was not adding anything to the Law or inventing anything new when he stated the “except for immorality” qualification (Matthew 19.9).

So what about the statement in Matthew 19.8?

He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.”

“Hardness of heart” began when Adam and Eve sinned. “Hardness of heart” is involved in all marital infidelity. Before they sinned, there was no provision for divorce because no one was going to be unfaithful.

Finally, one of the planks in the argument for the “concessive” view is that, normally, an unfaithful spouse was always executed. Thus, the divorce provisions have to be for some lesser reason. I won’t take up space here arguing the point, but I don’t think that is true. The death penalty was an option, but not mandatory for such cases. An injured spouse could extend mercy to the guilty but end the marriage.

Finally, I’ve been using quotation marks for “OT” and “NT,” because neither one exists.

God inducts us into his army in baptism

THE OBLIGATION OF BAPTISM.

Moreover, God also separates us from all strange religions and peoples by the symbol of baptism, and consecrates us to himself as his property. We, therefore, confess our faith when we are baptized, and obligate ourselves to God for obedience, mortification of the flesh, and newness of life. Hence, we are enlisted in the holy military service of Christ that all our life long we should fight against the world, Satan, and our own flesh. Moreover, we are baptized into one body of the Church, that with all members of the Church we might beautifully concur in the one religion and in mutual services.

via THE SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION.

What happens to your money whey you put it into the offering plate?

One possible answer: nothing; God already owns all things so that putting money in the plate is only an acknowledgement of God’s ownership, not in any way a transfer of ownership.

Another possible answer; a voluntary gift to God of things that he had no claim upon before they were given. This answer would mean that God had no property except what is voluntarily given to him in the offering.

But what about the tithe? When someone preaches, “the tithe belongs to God” are they saying that there is no need to “do anything” because God already owns your tithe?

No.

We all know that he is actually saying that Christians are obligated to give the tithe to God.

If we want to get analytical, we can talk about what is God’s “by right” and God’s “by possession.” God has a right to the tithe because he has claimed it as such. And when we put it in the offering plate, or right the check to the Church and drop it in the mail, we are transferring what is our by possession but God’s by right so that it becomes God’s by possession.

An aside: I’ve preached at a few burial services and used Abraham’s burial of Sarah as a text. I’m convinced that something similar is going on in a Christian burial service. We have (or we should have) always trusted God to take care of our loved ones. But at death, in burial, we officially and definitively entrust our loved ones to God. Yes we trusted God before, but that trust was in how he would use us, in many cases, and our own anxieties and agonies, to help care for them. In burial we confess we are done with all that. They are place directly in God’s hands. They are now his not ours any longer.

So with the tithe, we know it and all the other ninety percent of what we have belongs to God. But we also know he makes a special claim on the tithe and, when we give the tithe, a real transfer takes place.

I’ve noticed some people, in the name of the Protestant heritage, try to get around the language of the Westminster Confession and claim that it isn’t really saying that baptism admits the person baptized into the visible Church.  I find this claim highly implausible by itself. But if we take the background of the Second Helvetic Confession, it becomes even more so.

Notice that the Confession plainly focuses on the actual water ritual. It is “by the symbol” that we are consecrated to God as his property, enlisted in his military service, and baptized into one body, the Church.

And, as with the offering in the plate, this doesn’t mean that God had no claim on us before baptized (as covenant children in the womb of believers as yet unbaptized). Likewise, while the offering is objective, if someone throws a fake dollar bill in the offering plate, God does not own it in the same sense he takes ownership of the legitimate tithes and offerings, even though (or rather, because) the action is objectively meaningful and effective.

Luther’s rejection of the obligation to travel back in time to track sins

As for the article of Hus that “it is not necessary for salvation to believe the Roman Church superior to all others” I do not care whether this comes from Wyclif or from Hus. I know that innumerable Greeks have been saved though they never heard this article. It is not in the power of the Roman pontiff or of the Inquisition to construct new articles of faith. No believing Christian can be coerced beyond holy writ.

via From Luther to Leithart » Mark Horne.

Thus Luther rejected Eck’s proposition and thus he defended the Gospel. Believers are right with God because they are believer regardless of what they believe about the Pope even if it were true. Luther had a jus humanum view of the papacy (as did many other medieval Christians; the idea that everyone accepted the supremacy of the Pope in the way modern Catholics demand it is an example of the victors–over a sect–writing the history). So he himself, at the time he argued with Eck, actually accepted the office of the Papacy. He still didn’t think it could be necessary for salvation.

But he also never bothered to address the question as to who was at fault in “The Great Schism.” Since he was a Western Christian, Luther probably took it for granted that the Eastern Christians should have stayed in union with Rome. But whether or not that is the case, in his response to Eck, he doesn’t think it was worth mentioning. It doesn’t matter. Believers are justified. Period. Full stop. They have zero obligation to engage in a historical study to make sure there is no “sin of schism” in their ecclesiastical “lineage.”

And likewise today, whether or not the Ecclesiastical splits of the Protestant Reformation were justified is a logically unrelated question to whether or not Protestant Churches are real churches or whether Protestant Christians are real Christians.

Protestants who pretend that all stands are falls on whether or not the Ecclesiastical divisions were justified are sliding away from the doctrine of justification by faith and sliding into a doctrine of ecclesiastical successionism.