This is a pretty good movie. The subject matter is pretty serious, but they have enough comic relief to not overwhelm you. When the movie gets the most serious, the comic relief is nowhere to be found so you aren’t too distracted. At times it moves a little slow. But what do you want for the first time out?

The movie begins something like Sweet Home Alabama, 2 childhood friends running toward the water hand in hand. The boy and girl are close friends. It fast forwards to their college years. Someone has come between them creating a discomfort. This is her big night as the lead actress in a play. After she collapses we learn that life has not been easy for her. She’s had a number of physical ailments, and some emotional ones too.

Hannah discovers that she was adopted. Her world is rocked. And it continues to get rocked as she willfully sets off to discover her birth mother. The love story is secondary to her trying to come to grips with all she never knew. But she is not the only one- others have to come to grips with what they knew but never shared. She discovers she is the survivor of an abortion attempt (that’s the last reveal of importance). So the movie deals with very sensitive subject matter. It does so sensitively, and without some of the pollyanna everything turns out perfectly problem that plagues so many Christian movies. But she is struggling with anger at nearly everyone. She and other characters have been stuck because of the secret. It is time to move on.

³² Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you. Ephesians 4

The movie avoids a judgmental perspective. Instead it speaks most clearly of forgiveness. One of the pivotal scenes takes place in a cathedral in a discussion with a priest. This is odd because Hannah is Baptist (though you see little of the public aspects of faith in the characters). I wondered why she didn’t seek out her pastor. But perhaps that just seemed too preachy when they wrote it (the last thing it needed was one of those church service sermons that you often find). It remains accessible to non-religious people because it is not overtly religious. Oh, the gospel is there (or enough of it) to make the point.

This movie should connect with adoptive parents, adopted kids, women who’ve had abortions and others. It opens the door to some important matters. But not in a heavy-handed way.

As adoptive parents, we really don’t have to worry about our kids not realizing they are adopted. Our son is Asian and the kids we are in the process of adopting are African. They know we are not their birth parents. But like Hannah, they will probably struggle with rejection. We have already had conversations with our son to help him understand how he ended up half a world away.

God’s providence is intriguing. The other day CavGirl mentioned to me that she was sad I didn’t have a sister. I shared with her that my mother had miscarried a little girl. But if she had been born, I most likely would not have been born since I was conceived a few months after the miscarriage. There are all sorts of issues similar to those touched on in this movie. The tone is gracious, not condemning in recognizing that we all err. The movie seeks not to condemn but to offer forgiveness.

If you decide to go on March 23rd, bring tissues.

But I may need to employ the new math if I want to keep a trinity of marriage books. You know, the kind where Winston had to say, believably, that 2+2=5 or have a rat chew off his nose (this trick was used in The Salton Sea except it wasn’t a rat, and it wasn’t his nose).

Or I can shift from a “trinity” to a pantheon of marriage books. That is because I am reading Tim and Kathy Keller’s new book, The Meaning of Marriage: Facing the Complexities of Commitment with the Wisdom of God.  I’m only one and half chapters into it, but what I’ve read thus far is so good that my “trinity” is obliterated.

As usual, Tim starts with talking about the audience of the book and why looking at Scripture is good and necessary (God instituted and still regulates marriage). Single people can and should read (good) marriage books. You want realistic expectations and to prepare yourself to be the type of person you need to be in marriage.

I married in my mid-30′s. I look back on the dating relationships I had earlier and I’m glad I didn’t marry them. I was a mess. And I was not alone, most of us have a distorted view of marriage based on experiences. I needed the nearly decade long break from dating that God put me thru so I could mature as a person. So I could catch up with my theology, so to speak.

“At times, your marriage seems to be an unsolvable puzzle, a maze in which you feel lost.”

Tim’s popular article You Never Marry the Right Person is taken from the first chapter of the book on the Secret of Marriage. Compatibility is an interesting thing. CavGirl recently said that CavWife and I are perfect for each other because we both love butter. Yes, the wisdom of a 7 year-old. While no one is “perfect” for you some are better for you than others. I think that my wife was a good choice, better than some other choices with respect to who we each are: good and bad.

Keller begins by showing the benefits of marriage which runs counter to all the popular myths about marriage. Marriage is HARD, but it is good for people (if they submit to the realities of marriage). But many of these myths are founded upon a relatively new set of presuppositions about marriage. They change how people view marriage. Now it is seen as confining: emotionally, sexually (only one sexual partner???), financially and more.

In the biblical worldview, which shaped much of Western civilization (and other civilizations) for centuries (but that influence is now waning) we find meaning thru self-denial, not self-actualization. The duties of marriage were seen as a good thing for the cultivation of virtue. It harnessed good qualities, limited bad qualities and taught people what love really is. Now, marriage is viewed as the place to find emotional and sexual fulfillment. It became another means of self-actualization. And if it wasn’t fulfilling or actualizing you should find a better partner (because obviously you aren’t the problem).

Part of this, as Keller notes, is the influence of the Enlightenment. Marriage became private (don’t regulate what happens in my bedroom!) rather than public. But marriage is necessarily public. It is lived in front of others except for those portions that need to be private, particularly the marriage bed. But particular men and women are declared to be spouses. They wear rings. They take vows. They are accountable. That’s good!

As a culture, for instance, we have moved from sexual restraint as the measure of a man to sexual prowess being the measure. Now ‘manly’ men are supposed to be bedding every woman they can (and women are supposed to be acting like men). So what we look for in a partner is warped by this strange view of compatibility: they have to be hot, and smart, and handy etc. Character is diminished in all this.

“A marriage based not on self-denial but on self-fulfillment will require a low- or no-maintenance partner who meets your needs while making almost no claims on you.”

All of these factors that drive the new freedom in marriage are exactly what make people miserable in marriage. The frustrations meant to sanctify you now diminish your fulfillment so you bail. You discover that married life isn’t like a porno movie with meaningful conversation added. You don’t stay hot, or lukewarm, and you can both be really irritable sometimes.

Both people enter marriage as incredibly flawed. They are affected by Adam’s sin, their own sin and how others sinned against them. We can cover some of that up, but living in the state of marital mostly bliss will reveal them- fast!

The secret of marriage is that your spouse is not your savior. And can’t be. They can’t save you because they can’t even save themselves from their own dysfunction and sin. Both spouses need help from outside the marriage. The secret of marriage is that there is Savior who brings sinners into union with himself (of which marriage is a reflection). He who lived, died and rose again outside of us to save us is willing to dwell inside of us to change us.

“This is the secret- that the gospel of Jesus and marriage explain one another.”

That is where Paul goes in Ephesians 5, and that is where Keller is going with this book. Jesus’ union with the Church is the pattern for a husband and wife. Just as Jesus saves us from our tendency toward sinful self-destruction, marriage is used to reveal, restrain and repent of those sinful tendencies. Jesus rebuilds us from the inside out and ground up. Marriage is one of the means he uses to do that. To the degree that we don’t get that, and don’t rely on Christ, our marriage will not be satisfying, stable and secure.

As Steve Brown says, “you think about that.”

The book is not long (under 200 pages), but it does cover quite a bit of territory. The chapters include ones on sin, agendas, worship, obstacles, mercy, time and money and more. They cover that ground, as usual, with lots of Scripture and many examples compiled from years of experience in ministry as well as their personal lives. Thankfully, it does have a Scripture Index (one of my pet peeves is to not have one).

The first chapter talks about their relationship with one another. There have been times when they haven’t got along well. They have struggled through many of these things.  So, they speak from personal experience, not as merely teaching theory.

They begin with the reasons why to invest in relationships. The most important, in my opinion, is that since we are made in God’s image we are made to be in relationship. God Himself has eternally existed in relationship with Himself. The Trinity is a community of love. He made us to bring us into that loving community. But since we rejected the spring of living water, we make our relationships into broken cisterns from which we expect to receive life. Sin, including idolatry, have messed things up.

I was talking with CavDaughter about this today. She just turned 7 and her world is expanding. She wants to play with the other kids in the neighborhood. That is good. But sometimes she turns that into an idol (I need to play with them). She unwittingly gives them great power to harm her. I speak from experience. I’m prone to do that very thing. My investment in the relationship can quickly become far greater than theirs. There is an imbalance in relationships. It is easy to blame the other person and ignore our idolatry. This book helps us to develop biblical perspectives and expectations of relationships. They remind us that God is the only properly functioning community. The rest of us struggle with our relationships, experiencing varying degrees of dysfunction.

It is easy to say sin is the problem. It is! One way it shows up is agendas. We all enter each relationship with an agenda. That agenda is usually for our own benefit, our fun, our self-actualization. God’s agenda is to use our relationships, and our struggles in them, as the means to transform us. They are where we experience grace in the midst of our struggles (Hebrews 4). One agenda is to receive our identity for the other person instead of Christ. We look to others for affirmation, approval, direction etc. In other words, life! When we live out of our identity in Christ we focus on what we have been given in Christ and therefore what we are able to give to others. We can become givers instead of takers.

“We want mercy for ourselves because we want our lives to be comfortable, and we want justice for the other guy because we want our lives to be comfortable.”

The chapter on Mercy particularly hit home to me. I read it at a time when a relationship was particularly distressed. I was very angry. I’d been lied to in terms of commission and omission. As one who received mercy, I am to show mercy. This involves seeking reconciliation and bearing with them. Ministry is inconvenient, as I’ve often told others. It is costly, and that cost (as they note) often exceeds our expectations. The bill for mercy is often surprising. Sort of like when you buy tires. There are always extra charges that inflate the bill to far beyond what you expected.

They also explore the topics of money, time and provision. Generosity should mark our relationships. That generosity includes both our time and money. We are to persist in doing good to others. We are only able to do this because God’s provision to us. He doesn’t just provide us with resources, but ultimately with himself. We are able to grow and change in our relationships because God is in relationship with us.

This is a hopeful and honest book that is full of biblical wisdom. I’d expect no less from them. But Lane and Tripp have delivered again.

The first (very short) chapter is called A Monk’s Tale which focuses on Luther and the first of his 95 Theses which triggered the Reformation. The church was in dire shape as Rome relied on indulgences for the latest building project. It was not hard for the average person in the pew to be confused about the gospel. It was obscured by the use of indulgences and the sacramental theology of the church. That theology taught penance as an act to provide satisfaction for our sins. This was different from repentance. Luther recaptured the notion that Jesus was calling us to a lifetime of repentance.

Ferguson then has a chapter explaining Biblical Repentance. Some of the phrases the Old Testament uses are “circumcision of the heart” and “breaking up fallow ground”.  The most commonly used Hebrew word simply means “return” and conveys the idea of turning around and returning to the Lord. When we sin, we stray from His side to pursue our own pleasure. Repentance is the return to God. We turn, not primarily due to fear of consequences, but due to the promise of grace offered to us in the gospel. We do recognize that sin is a violation of the covenant and places us under God’s just condemnation as non-Christians and His just discipline as Christians.

The first of the New Testament words also emphasizes the idea of turning around or turning back. The second word is about regret. The third word has the idea of a change of mind, and a resulting change of lifestyle. We repent, Ferguson notes, focused on a Person, not merely a promise. That promise has been fulfilled by the Person.

“Faith alone is the instrument by which Christ is received and rested on as Savior. Justification is by faith, not by repentance. But faith (and therefore justification) cannot exist where there is no repentance. Repentance is as necessary to salvation by faith as the ankle is to walking.”

Here Ferguson relies on Herman Bavinck, though he often relies on Calvin, in discussing the elements of repentance. Those elements include a new attitude toward sin, self, and God. Ferguson briefly communicates the biblical understanding of justification.

Ferguson then gives us a biblical Case Study by the name of David. He works his way (briefly) through Psalm 51. He works through the various words used for sin to give us a better understanding of a biblical view of sin- self-assertiveness, twistedness, failure, and evil. He then moves, via the Psalm, to the effects of sin- guilt, defilement, folly and self-deceit, and the danger of condemnation. He closes the chapter with the plea for mercy.

(True repentance) “arises in the context of our union with Jesus Christ, and since its goal is our restoration into the image of Christ, it involves the ongoing practical outworking of our union with Christ in his death and resurrection- what Calvin calls mortification and vivification.”

The longest chapter is called A Medieval Threat. In some ways the chapter seems out of place. In some ways it seems out of character for Ferguson. He sees evangelicalism returning to some of the same errors that crippled the church prior to the Reformation. For instance, the altar call is the evangelical equivalent of penance, televangelists are like small screen Tetzels, the reduced emphasis on the Word for pageantry and experience. It is rare for Ferguson to write like this, which is what makes its presence so much more important. He sees some serious problems, and we would be wise to listen.

The booklet ends with two (very) short chapters, The Way Back and What Shall We Do?. Both focus on the need for the church to repent, particularly the leadership of the church. So we see that Ferguson does not want us to merely think about repentance in the abstract. He wants us to think about our own need to repent if we have slid back into medieval patterns. This is a short booklet worth reading.

In the book, they noted that some people received early copies of the manuscript to elicit feedback. They were thankful for that, and included some people who would “push back”. In other words, they didn’t send it to people who would love all over it. This book is a contribution to a larger discussion on the topic of the mission of the church. So they read a number of books on the subject, drew upon their own experiences as pastors and studied the Scriptures (not necessarily in that order). They tried to do their homework. But no book is met with unanimous affirmation.

Ed Stetzer’s review, in particular, has received a great deal of attention. He affirms them in many ways, but also criticizes their views for being too narrow. As I read his review, I get the impression he wasn’t really listening.

“The mission of the church always must include making disciples, but the life of disciples will always produce work unique to its time and place, relating to the various needs and corruptions in the world around us. And such work is not only the fruit of discipleship, but is also, through modeling, part of the process of making disciples.” Ed Stetzer

I didn’t get the impression they would disagree with what he said. But he misses the point. That is the life of disciples, which they distinguish from the mission of the church. As disciples, we act justly and defend the rights of others. But he’s saying this to criticize their view of the mission of the church. The book is about what the Church is to invest it’s limited resources doing. And that, in their view, is to make disciples. Those disciples will do many things that they institutional church does not, and should not do. Let’s put it this way: John Newton was right to encourage Wilberforce to remain in politics and work for the abolition of slavery. And John Newton, who aided that cause with his personal testimony and records, was right not to establish a program of the church designed to work for the abolition of slavery. At least this is how I understand both the Scriptural testimony and the Westminster Confession of the topic of Civil Magistrate.

“Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.” WCF, XXXI, iv

Some of his criticism toward them veers from the theological to the personal- that they essentially have no right to write such a book and  make the mistake of disagreeing with particular influential people including Christopher Wright (whose book I want to read, but have yet to overcome the stumbling block regarding the price). In this regard, I think he goes a bit far. But since I haven’t read Wright, I can’t tell if they misinterpret him.

“… this does not mean we are against cultural engagement. Our point is simply that we must understand these endeavors in the right theological categories and embrace them without sacrificing more explicit priorities.”

In my tribe, the PCA, this book finds itself in the midst of the Two Kingdom controversy. Though in the ARP, my former denomination, Daniel Wells draws the Christ and Culture debate into the picture as a way of understanding the disagreement. His premise is that the struggle between the transformationalist model and the 2 kingdom model espoused by people like Michael Horton is at work. Stetzer alludes to this in his review with his comments about Luther (forgetting that Luther developed Augustine’s views).

I’m not sure. I really like Keller’s Generous Justice. Perhaps I read that, or this book, wrongly since I didn’t notice such stark differences. I read Keller as dealing more with how disciples live than what the institutional church should be doing. And I’ve been no fan of the books on the issue put out by the Westminster West crowd.  Maybe I’m just one mixed up Cavman. But let’s address the book in question.

“If you are looking for a picture of the early church giving itself to creation care, plans for societal renewal, and strategies to serve the community in Jesus’ name, you won’t find them in Acts.”

They start the book in a good place- showing the confusion over the term mission (and therefore missional). Seemingly everyone is talking about mission but uses the term differently. They note, from Stott, that mission isn’t all the church does but all the church is sent to do. To make their case they spend some time building a biblical theology of mission. They attempt to show how some texts have been co-opted to say something they don’t say. I thought they handled the texts well, and kept them in context. The work of cosmic renewal is one that Christ does, not one we are called to do. We are commanded to bear witness to Christ’s work calling people to faith and repentance.

This doesn’t mean their work is perfect. For instance, when discussing the Exodus as a type for salvation they say it does not focus at all (emphasis theirs) political and economic aspects. I would point them to the Revelation which clearly uses the Exodus as a model and brings in the political and economic aspects via the Beast and the Whore.

They then spend time defining the gospel. They differentiate between the personal and cosmic aspects of the gospel. Christ restores sinners, and he will renew creation. We should tell people about both aspects of this great salvation. We err if we neglect either, but we err more if we neglect the personal at the expense of the cosmic (or better a fundamentalist than a liberal).

“The mission of the church is to go into the world and make disciples by declaring the gospel of Jesus Christ in the power of the Spirit and gathering these disciples into churches, that they might worship the Lord and obey his commands now and in eternity to the glory of God the Father.”

I found the chapters on Social Justice and Shalom helpful. Many toss these terms around, but don’t necessarily use them biblically. As disciples of Christ, we are to act justly. This much is unavoidable. Many err in applying individual responsibilities to the church. This happens with the personal ethic of the Sermon on the Mount quite often. The authors also spend time putting the Day of Jubilee into a proper perspective lest this be wrongly be used in the cause of “social justice” (it is not far fetched considering some of the ‘demands’ of the Occupy Wall Street Movement). They affirm the message of the prophets that religious observance is not all God wants from us. Without consistently acting justly, our profession of faith is a sham.

I thought of Keller’s analysis of conservatives and liberals regarding justice. The former focus on individuals and the latter on society (DeYoung and Gilbert talk about constrained and unconstrained views of social justice). DeYoung and Gilbert are probably political conservatives. Biblically they focus on individual justice- am I oppressing others? This does not rule out the involvement of Christians in trying to end injustice toward others (see Wilberforce above). Christians can and should give their resources to such things. The Church has a prophetic ministry as well, calling people to repentance (humbly as the WCF notes). But the church is not a PAC for either the left or the right (or the middle). A church may have programs that deal with such issues (DeYoung’s church does), but the main focus is the main thing- the gospel.

Their section on Jeremiah 29 could have used more work. It just didn’t seem clear enough to me. It needed to be fleshed out.

Another weakness I noted was that the cultural mandate was not connected to the image of God. I think they made some astute observations in recognizing shifts resulting from sin in the creation mandate (Noah wasn’t told to subdue and rule creation, but was told to be fruitful and multiply). However, Christ is restoring that image of God in us. Does that mean we are to pursue the creation mandate as redeemed people, or will we have to be glorified before we are able to pursue it? I think much of it awaits the latter. The Great Commission is what occupies the New Testament. They have this right, in my opinion.

They try to maintain the balance we all seem to lose. For instance, we are responsible for our actions as disciples of Jesus. We should take care of the creation, but recognize that only Christ can renew it. We act as responsible stewards, but recognize that people are more important than creation. Creation is the stage upon which we live. We alone bear God’s image in creation. It is here for us, we can enjoy it and use its resources. Additionally, we should be generous but recognize we can’t solve the problem of poverty (it’s causes are numerous and complex). In other words, we are not the saviors of the world- Jesus is.

Overall I found it to be a helpful book as I thought things through. In their chapter in Good Works, they spend time explaining the distinction between the church and individual Christians in terms of responsibility. This really should have been at the beginning. And more fully developed.

While it reflects a 2 kingdom model, I found it more helpful and positive than the books I’ve read from the Westminster West crowd. I’ve found their formulations frustrating. And even more limiting. This book keeps the focus on our witness to the gospel and the making of disciples. But it spends more time addressing how a Christian is to live in this world, not just the church.

If I were given one word to describe Disciple: Getting Your Identity From Jesus by Bill Clem, that is the word I would use. It is published as part of the RE:Lit line and has a forward by Mark Driscoll. It comes with blubs by people like Paul Tripp. In other words, it intrigued me.

Bill is trying to create a paradigm shift in how we think about discipleship. Someone in the church I pastor has been asking me questions about discipleship recently. My answers were in many ways close to what Bill is shooting for. But this runs against the grain of a church shaped by life in America which is filled with standardized tests and a concept of time consumed by efficiency. Programs aren’t discipleship. They can be a means of discipleship, but aren’t necessarily discipleship. Communicating theological knowledge and understanding isn’t either (though people need to grow in their biblical and theological knowledge to grow as disciples).

Bill Clem’s premise is that disciples primarily image God to the watching world (and unseen world). We were created in God’s image. As image bearers, Adam and Eve were to reflect God’s glory, and represent Him to the rest of creation. In their sin, the image was marred.  In redemption, Christ’s work in us (sanctification) is to restore that image in us. We reveal God’s character and represent Him more clearly over time. This premise is a giant step in the right direction. It is a necessary corrective to our thinking about discipleship.

Back to my one word assessment of the book. There are some very good chapters in this book. They are filled with red ink from my pen. And there are some chapters that have little additional ink, or the red ink is expressing my confusion. There were times when I was really tracking with Bill Clem, and there were times when I was under-whelmed or just plain frustrated.

“To disciple people is not to make them like everybody else; it is to shape them into the image of Jesus.”

The book begins with 2 chapters of biblical theology to establish his main premise. Then he fleshes out that premise when he talks about Image (and identity), Worship, Community and Mission. Each of these chapters has a subsequent chapter on distortions regarding that focus. This is a helpful way to think things through. At times these chapters can seem overly abstract. The book can seem overly abstract. He ends the book with chapters on plan and multiplication which are a bit more practical.

The best chapters, in my opinion, were the ones dealing with Image/Identity and Community. Our sense of identity is essential to what we image. We distort that image with self-generated identities (addict, vocation, failure…) or identities forced upon us by others (victim, loser …). As a Christian we need to remember that Christ gives us a new identity. We are called to live out that new identity. But we are inconstant, our sense of identity will shift or fade. We need to be in Scripture regularly to keep our true identity in mind (see my posts on The Salton Sea and Identity and Accountability).

He builds a case for community shaped by truth, prayer, confession and repentance, belonging and witness. He notes some important distortions like therapeutic community (our identity is wrapped up in what is wrong with us), network and program. One of the things I noted in the section on truth was that Jesus invites us into the story. Discipleship (actually Christianity) is not merely affirming the story but entering it. We become characters in God’s story instead of continuing to write own stories. We participate in redemption, having been redeemed by Jesus and telling others of the redemption found in Jesus.

The chapters I struggled with the most were the ones on worship and mission. Some of that struggle, I think, were a lack of clarity on his part. At times I wondered if what he was saying was meant to apply to corporate or personal worship, or both. I had a high degree of cognitive dissonance at times.

The same was true for mission. Perhaps that is because I’m trying to sort out my own view of mission. But some of what he called mission I see as sanctification. The meaning of mission was so broad that the adage “when everything is mission, nothing is mission” seemed to apply. As I think through mission (again), I am more persuaded that our mission is narrow (the Great Commission). There are other things that we must do to fulfill that mission, but those things themselves are not the mission.  This chapter seemed to suffer from fuzzy thinking, though I suppose it could be my own fuzzy thinking or that I’m reading a book on mission simultaneously which takes a different, more concise view of mission.

This is a book I’d recommend. There are important and helpful things here. But the book is not helpful in all things. Glean what you can, get the big picture and think things through more clearly. I suspect your understanding and practice of discipleship will change, for the better.

While re-reading Desiring God, I was struck by how well Piper presented the standard complementarian position (though I have a few quibbles). Piper sets this within the context of Christian Hedonism. What does marriage look like with people are pursuing their delight in Christ instead of pursuing their own agenda of manufactured, demanding, substandard delights.

It may be helpful to consider dancing for a moment. A traditional dance, with a partner, is coordinated. One person leads, and the other follows. Joy is found in this as they work together for mutual joy. Much of today’s dancing is uncoordinated. You don’t even need a partner. It is chaotic and pleases only the dancer. Unless there is some bump and grind, but one the dance floor that is a vulgar mess, not a picture of marital bliss.

“… husbands should devote the same energy and time and creativity in  making their wives happy that they devote naturally to making themselves happy.”

Part of this can be summed up as finding your delight in the joy of your spouse instead of at the expense of your spouse. You delight in giving them joy (long-term, God-oriented joy).  But Piper then delves deeper into Ephesians 5, the crux of the issue.

¹⁷ Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. ¹⁸ And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, ¹⁹ addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, ²⁰ giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, ²¹submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. ²² Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. ²³ For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. ²⁴ Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.  ²⁵ Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, ²⁶ that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, ²⁷ so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

Let’s start by remembering that Paul is taking about the Spirit-filled life. The ESV, unlike the NIV, reflects Paul’s grammar in showing submission as part of the Spirit-filled life. Gospel-driven submission is not produced by the flesh, but by the influence of the Spirit. This “one another” is taken by some to argue for “mutual submission”. I think it is better to view what follows as 3 particular relationships in which people are to submit to others: wives to husbands, children to parents, and slaves to masters (applied today as employees to employers). There is a relationship of legitimate authority that Paul recognizes in each of these. If we are to argue for mutual submission in marriage, then we should argue for mutual submission in the parent-child and work relationships. This runs completely contrary to the marriage relationship that Paul brings into focus to illustrate: Christ and the church.

Paul’s argument, as Piper notes, is that husbands take their cues from Christ and wives take them from the church. Note, this passage does not argue for the submission of women to men. My wife is not to submit to men, generally speaking. She is to submit to her husband, the church elders exercising their legitimate authority legitimately, and any male employers or government officials (as well as female employers and government officials).

Much needless ink has been used debating the meaning of ‘head’ in this context. Egalitarians argue for ‘source’. The same word is used in Ephesians 1, of Christ, and it points to His supremacy, not that He is the source of all things for the church. He rules over everything for the good of the church. The idea is that the head controls the whole body. All voluntary and involuntary functions are governed by the brain- the head. We see this in wrestling, if you control the head you control the whole body.

Piper unpacks this some more using the illustration of the body that Paul brings up. Piper points to the eyes (and we should include ears) as providing guidance for the body. The body is nourished through the mouth which is in the head. The brain uses the rest of the body to provide numerous functions to protect the rest of the body. As the head of his wife, Piper argues, the husband should guide, provide and protect his wife and family.  Sarah Sumner’s book, claiming to interact with Piper and Grudem, acts like this section of Piper’s book doesn’t exist instead of refuting it. The exegesis seems reasonable and fitting the context and grammar of the passage. Paul explicitly points to the husband’s need to spiritually (and emotionally) nourish his wife.

Let’s keep in mind that Paul is talking about a healthy, gospel-oriented marital relationship. This is the standard, the goal. The husband’s leadership is one that seeks the best interest of his wife. He uses all of his resources, including wisdom and feedback from his wife to guide, provide and protect her.

I recently read a discussion as to how this might play out in the particular issue of breast-feeding in public. No husband should force his wife to breast-feed their child publicly (or at all). The husband does not “mutually submit” to her, but lives with her in an understanding way: understanding her! He keeps her weaknesses and preferences in mind so he isn’t lording it over her. She’s his wife, not his property. CavWife and I disagreed on an epidural when CavGirl was born. I thought she should try to give birth without (I was probably being cheap). But I listened to the preferences of CavWife and made a decision based on her best interest (pain reduction), not mine (saving $).

Piper clearly says that only submission to Christ is absolute. No husband (parent, employer, head of state etc) can command someone under their authority to sin as a legitimate exercise of their authority.  We only submit to those authorities out of reverence for Christ. When they oppose Him we must obey Him instead, being willing to endure earthly consequences.

While the husband takes his cues from Christ and sacrificially loves his spouse as Christ does the church, the wife is to submit to her husband as the church is supposed to submit to Christ. The church recognizes that Christ is the head of the church at least theoretically if not also practically. Yes, the church sometimes goes off and does her own thing, but Jesus goes after her to restore her. The husband is not infallible. He too will sin in the exercise of his authority. Grace is necessary, and sufficient, for both spouses.

“The Fall twisted man’s loving headship into hostile domination in some men and lazy indifference in others. The Fall twisted women’s intelligent, willing submission into manipulative obsequiousness in some women and brazen insubordination in others. The redemption we anticipate at the coming of Christ is not the dismantling of the created order of loving headship and willing submission, but a recovery of it.”

Submission does not mean a stifling of gifts, but a putting them under the direction and authority of the husband. There are things a wife will do better than her husband. Piper uses the illustration of family devotions. The husband leads by gathering the family. But if his wife is a better reader, she may read Scriptures for the family (or lead the singing or…). To go back to the big metaphor Paul uses, the head doesn’t do everything. The body moves to achieve the purposes of the head for the good of the body. The wife uses her gifts.

Biblical headship, complementarianism, is not what I see it portrayed as by some authors and teachers. It does not mean the husband is always right. It does not mean the wife is a simpleton or is stifled. It is a recognition that in a dance, only one partner leads. Or that only one person can drive the car. It recognizes that God placed this responsibility upon the husband to reflect the relationship of Christ with His bride, the Church.

Does it hold up? Classic books stand the test of time. There are books that are very popular when they are released, but 10 or 20 years later people won’t point to them as significant long term. This is a book people still talk about. This book is chock-full of good theology. Piper not only defends his assertions regarding Christian Hedonism, but he lays out lots of good theology. In other words, his theological distinctive (you can actually see similar teaching in Calvin, Burroughs, Owen and other Reformed pastors, not just Edwards) does not exist in a vacuum.  Piper has to work through the sovereignty of God, the character of God and the nature of salvation. I think I used more ink in my new copy than in my old one.

People often misunderstand his position based on the name. But the point is that a Christian Hedonist seeks their pleasure in God, one of the many things were are commanded to do in Scripture. Piper shows how Scripture not only teaches but feeds Christian Hedonism. He unpacks the doctrine to see how it plays out in marriage, money, missions and more. One subject that is missing would be work (perhaps in the 30th anniversary edition). This is a very practical theology book, but one that is rooted in theology.

The message is rooted in the Gospel. It does not neglect the hard things in life, suffering and sacrifice. Piper’s rationale for self-denial in a consumer culture is rooted in the gospel in a way I don’t see Platt or Chan’s. 25 years from now I suspect people will still be talking about this book and not really talking about those books.

Why should I bother with the new edition? There is far more to it than just the chapter on suffering. The chapter on suffering is quite important however. It is a welcome addition to the book, and helps strengthen his case.

The main Bible translation is now the ESV instead of the NIV. This reflects the shift that has taken place in the most likely audience for this book. This is a helpful shift moving forward since the NIV (1984) is fading into obscurity. Fewer people will be familiar with it. But they don’t always follow through. They will quote a large section of a passage from the ESV, but as Piper works through it the words will be different. He’s quoting the NIV (or perhaps his own unnoted translation). The editor did not always make the necessary changes.

The end notes are now footnotes. I prefer footnotes. I don’t like flipping back and forth. My end notes were filled with ink as I learned a great deal from them. I discovered new books to read and Piper often worked through lesser points in his arguments in the end notes. The end notes, for me, were an important part of this book (and all this books). There are updated notes as well, often showing where an idea of his was more fully developed in another book. I just wish the print wasn’t so small. I needed to break out the reading glasses for them.

They also included a study guide to help you think through the material. Each lesson ends with praying through a Psalm. The guide is helpful for groups or individuals to internalize the message of the book.

Overall, they made this classic book better. I hope it helps shape the thinking of a new generation of young Christians just like it shaped me. Actually, I hope it shapes lots of generations of young Christians.

[I received a copy of this book from the publisher for the purposes of review.]

"Look in the mirror and tell me what you see."

One of the central questions of the film is “who am I?”. It is a movie wrestling with the question of identity. The movie begins with Val’s character(s) lying gut shot on the floor of a burning apartment playing the trumpet. “Am I an avenging angel, or a rat who got what he deserved?” The movie tells the story of how he ended up there so you can decide.

After the murder of his wife, Tom Van Allen assumes a new identity in order to discover the identity of her murders. His plan, initially, is to take revenge. To do so, he becomes a police informant, and an addict. Every so often he goes to a locked trunk in his room. Inside is his true identity: papers, pictures, clothes, hat and trumpet. He puts them on, and plays. He’s trying to keep who he is in mind. He’s losing his grip on his identity. He’s losing… himself. In the midst of the lies he tells others, he’s beginning to believe those same lies. The lines between Tom and Danny are beginning to blur. He’s not sure if he’s still Tom or if he’s become Danny. But while Tom seeks revenge, someone else is seeking revenge against Danny the Rat.

Early on the narrator tells us “nothing is as it seems”.  Almost everyone is pretending to be someone else. There are any number of assumed identities. And some of them are losing themselves in the roles they play (just like some actors).

"Am I Danny the Tweaker Rat?"

Identity is an important thing. It dictates what we do. Think about when someone acts “out of character”. They are acting out of step with our understanding of who they are, their perceived identity. But here is the rub, act out of character long enough and you become that person. Your identity changes. Who you are blurs, transitions. This can be for the better, or the worse.

When a person converts and becomes a believer in and follower of Jesus they experience a change of identity. It is not an identity they earn or deserve. It is a gift of grace. The old man has passed away, and we have put on a new man in Christ. We are now sons of God. A whole new identity.

Problem is we still tend to live, more or less, like the old man. Justification and adoption result in a new identity. Sanctification is becoming who that new identity is. Like Danny going into the trunk to remember he’s really Tom, we need to go to the Scriptures to remember that we are no longer sinner but are now saint, we are no longer slave but now son. There we see who this person is, remember who we were created and redeemed to be. The goal is that we become that person. But sometimes we forget who we are, and live like who we were: old fears, old sins, old addictions. Who we were becomes re-entrenched. Our assurance of salvation diminishes because their is an incongruity between our faith and our actions. We are at a crossroads: which identity will win?

"Or am I Tom, avenging angel, widower and trumpet player?"

I’m not talking about God’s decrees, but our existential experience. Christianity is an experiential religion: it affects who you are. You have to live it out. If you don’t, long enough, it reveals you were never really part of it. You were playing a game. You are the rat pretending to be the angel. If you repent, and return it reveals you were the angel slumming as a rat (to use the character’s terminology). Not everyone is as they appear. Some professing Christians aren’t really Christians. You rely on them at your own peril. Some sinning Christians are really Christians, and need to be restored gently. They need to be reminded just who they really are.

Confused yet? You will act in accordance with who you think you are. In a lecture on our Union with Christ by Sinclair Ferguson, he noted (quoting John Stott) that the true progress in experiential Christianity takes place in the mind. You become who you think you are. Think you’re an addict and you’ll act like an addict. Think you are a son, a saint and a Christian and you’ll increasingly act like one. You will live out your identity.

So, who are you?

It has been some time since I’ve seen A Fistful of Dollars, so perhaps The Last Man Standing starts off differently. Or I didn’t have the eyes to notice how important the beginning was. LMS begins with the thus far unknown woman in the deserted chapel. She is praying. We learn later, of course, that she is essentially a hostage. The leader of the Irish gang won her in a poker game. She longs to be reunited with her husband and child (here a little girl). In AFD, we actually see the grieving husband and their grieving son. Here they have vanished in the depths of Mexico. We are led to believe that she is praying for her freedom.

The town, we find, is full of gang members who have run off just about every decent human being. This is a town that deserves judgment.

From her prayer in the chapel the story moves to the man with no name. He ends up getting stuck in the town (Jericho) and puts his skills to use. He hires himself out as a gunman, playing both sides against each other. He plunders them even as he kills them. But he uses the money to help the women who have been exploited by the various gangs. Eventually, the wall of the town will fall down and nearly everyone will be dead.

The name with the made up name, John Smith, is the answer to the young mother’s prayers. He is God’s instrument of her redemption (at great personal cost) and their judgment. Lest we think this can’t be because he’s wicked himself, I am reminded of Nebuchadnezzer, who though wicked, was God’s instrument of judgment on Israel (Jeremiah 21, 22, 25).  He topples the proud, and lifts up the humble and oppressed.

I wasn’t looking for a gospel story, just an action movie. But there was a gospel story. Not many were redeemed, and most of the people were brought to destruction, but we still see God answering the prayer of this oppressed and exploited woman. Echos of the gospel show up in the unlikeliest of places.