Considering Resurrection and Redemption

I have an odd “relationship” with Richard Gaffin. While in seminary, he came to teach a one week course Studies in New Testament Eschatology. I sat in for a few, but missed at least half of them.

At some point I bought his book Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul’s Soteriology. Based on the ink used to underline in it, I have been reading it at 3 different points in my pastoral ministry. Often, I suspect, just prior to Resurrection Day. I would inevitably get bogged down or distracted by some other book I needed to read.

That being said, this is a difficult book to review now that I have finally finished it. I suspect that much of what was in that class is found in this book. For Gaffin, as it was for Vos, soteriology is eschatology!

In the forward, Sinclair Ferguson notes:

“In particular, Resurrection and Redemption raises important critical questions for the traditional formulations of the ordo salutis in Reformed theology. … One of our more serious malfunctions in some contemporary evangelical teaching has been the tendency to offer the benefits of the gospel virtually separated from Jesus Christ as the Benefactor. Consequently salvation is severed from the lordship of Christ.”

This points to a few of the important threads of this book. First, taking a redemptive-historical approach Gaffin does indeed challenge the traditional views of the ordo salutis since it neglects our union with Christ in which we receive all the benefits of salvation. The absence of this union with Christ is what lies behind many of the then contemporary issues regarding the lordship of Christ.

Read Full Post »

Considering the Reason for Redemption

In the second chapter of his new book, The Hole in Our Holiness, Kevin DeYoung addresses the reason(s) for our redemption. He does not think there is only one biblical answer. He mentions God’s love and God’s glory. I would say that with respect to God himself, the reason is His love. He redeemed us because He loved us. With respect to creation (including humanity) He redeemed us for His glory, to receive glory for His grace. Both of these are prominent in Ephesians 1. There is something else that is significant in Ephesians 1, as DeYoung notes: holiness. With respect to us, God redeemed us to make us holy.

³ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, ⁴ even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love ⁵ he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, ⁶ to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

I am not sure why so many think holiness is optional. Wanting to be a Christian with wanting to be holy is like wanting a hamburger without wanting the hamburger patty. Biblically it just does not make any sense. In Ephesians, it sets up the call to sanctification that flows out of justification. Sometimes in response to a works-centered religion, people can so press justification by faith alone, that they forget or ignore that such a faith is never alone. Sometimes in our pushback against the legalists in various holiness movements we forget that obedience is not the problem. As Paul stresses in Titus 2, grace teaches us to obey God. It is not an excuse to disobey God, or be careless about how we live.

God is passionately committed to your holiness, even if you don’t seem to be so at the moment. The Scriptures tell us this. Christ died with this goal in mind. DeYoung notes this as an emphasis in both covenants: Exodus 19:4-6; 1 Peter 2:9;  Eph. 2:8-10; 5:25-27; 2 Tim. 1:8-9; 1 Thess. 4:7.

Read Full Post »

Considering The Avengers

I don’t actually go to the movies very often. Way too expensive to happen as often as when I was younger. So, I wait for the movies that beg for the big screen: action. The Avengers is one of those movies whose siren call I could not resist. And I was not disappointed.

I really wasn’t into comic books as a kid. Some of my friends were. The medium was just lost on me. Seemed too much like the children’s books. I don’t know. But I’ve always enjoyed the movies starting with the Superman series when I was a teenager. Okay, just the first two. Did they make any others?

This year will be comic book hero heaven as they wrap up the Batman series, re-boot the Spider-Man series with a darker take (why did they do this again?) and introduce The Avengers series. They have been building toward this with the 2 Iron Man movies and then both Thor and Captain America last year. Those two movies introduce some key elements to the plot of The Avengers. I only saw Captain America, but I was fully able to follow along with what was happening in The Avengers. Some of the other characters appeared in some of the Iron Man movies.

Mark Ruffalo is in there, somewhere

So, you walk into the movie having back stories on some of the Avengers. This is the third movie for Hulk, and the third actor playing him. The second was essentially a reboot of the first (and much better). Edward Norton did a great job as Hulk, but apparently fans just miss Bill and Lou because Hulk, despite his incredible strength and jumping ability can’t get off the ground as a series of movies. Enter Mark Ruffalo with his take on Hulk (this is turning into the first Batman movie series: both Kilmer and Keaton were very good, and Clooney utterly horrendous). It is almost like the other two movies didn’t exist. Mark is sort of the hippie Hulk. The laid-back genius who is supposedly angry all the time. He was better than Eric Bana, but … Apparently I am in the minority because Ruffalo has been signed to additional movies. Sadly, Edward Norton has gone the way of Val Kilmer: a great actor with a bad reputation for working well with others (rumor has it, that in Val’s case the directors probably should have listened to him more often but you know how that goes).

Hawkeye and Black Widow share a moment

Read Full Post »

Considering 3 Books on Providence

"no one gets a smooth ride" The Choir

There are lots of books that deal with the providence of God. Some are good, and some are not so good. Some are just plain horrendous!

I’m beginning to preach on the life of Joseph in the latter sections of Genesis. You cannot avoid the reality of God’s sovereignty in this section of Genesis. As I prepare the sermons, there are three books I’ve pulled off my shelves (and the church library) to help me along the way, particularly as I ponder application of the doctrine. They hit different aspects, complementing them.

First, I’m going old school with Thomas Boston’s The Crook in the Lot: The Sovereignty and Wisdom of God Displayed in the Afflictions of Men. Some of the things that Boston stresses include humbling ourselves as our afflictions reveal the sin in our hearts. This is one of the things I want to address as we move along.

“But as the fire under the pot makes the scum to rise up, appear atop, and run over, so the crook in the lot rises up from the bottom and brings out such corruptions as otherwise one could hardly imagine to be within.” Thomas Boston

Second, I’m using Trusting God by Jerry Bridges. The title conveys the main point of the book, helping people to trust God in the midst of afflictions of all kinds by knowing that He is ultimately in control and His purposes for His people are good.

“It is difficult for us to appreciate the reality of God sovereignly doing as He pleases in our lives, because we do not see God doing anything.” Jerry Bridges

Third is R.C. Sproul’s Invisible Hand: Do All Things Really Work for Good?. I never bought it because I read it while I worked for Ligonier. We could use the resources, and this explains why I’m missing his books from the mid-late 90′s. This is more of a redemptive-historical approach. The seemingly disconnected events are actually the working out of the plan of salvation for God’s people. Our confidence is that God, who accomplished our salvation in Christ, will continue to accomplish His plan for us through the events of our lives and history at large.

“Because the word providence is rooted in the Latin term for seeing or vision, we may be tempted to restrict its theological application to God’s mere observance of human activity. It is not merely that God looks at human affairs. The point is that He looks after human affairs. He not only watches us, He watches over us.” R.C. Sproul

Read Full Post »

Considering Disciple

Uneven.

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.”

Read Full Post »

Considering Marriage Relationships

Every so often I follow a link, read a blog or an excerpt of a book (or a whole one) which argues against the complementarian view of Scripture and therefore marriage. What I so often find are straw man arguments. They either don’t understand or don’t want to understand the view. They present distortions of the view as the view. That would be like saying Benny Hinn is a mainstream charismatic. He’s not, and to present him as such is unfair. As one writer noted recently on his blog (Kevin DeYoung, I think) you must present your opponent’s view as one they would recognize. Egalitarians, in my experience, have not done this.

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.

Read Full Post »

Considering The Last Man Standing

While I was a temporary bachelor, I spent an evening watching The Last Man Standing. I had only seen parts of the movie in the past, so I decided to watch the whole thing. It is an updated version of A Fistful of Dollars, which was the basic story line of Kurosawa’s Yojimbo that takes place during prohibition on a Texas border town. The basic story is that of the unknown drifter who enters the town in the midst of a struggle for power between 2 gangs (of different ethnic groups in the Leone and Hill versions). What the drifter notices is the beautiful woman who “belongs” to one of the gang leaders.

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.

Read Full Post »

Considering Redemption

Addiction is a horrible master.  It doesn’t matter what your particular addiction- food, sex, alcohol, shopping etc. There are nearly as many “methods” for freeing someone from addiction as there are addictions.  As Christians, we recognize that addiction is a form of idolatry. We are not just seeking freedom from a behavior, but freedom from a false god. Most of the methods for freedom just don’t work. Often they just transfer your devotion from one false god to another. Many AA meetings are filled with chain smokers, and all of them are filled with bad tasting coffee to satisfy a caffeine addiction.

This is a really cool cover

Christians have often adapted other treatment plans and sprinkled in some Bible verses.  On the other hand, some have looked to Exodus for a pattern.  Gerald May, in Addiction and Grace, adds the wilderness motiff to psychotherapy. An old friend of mine should have his book, The New Exodus, published soon.

A few years ago, Mars Hill Church in Seattle noticed they had a buffet of small group options for addictions.  They decided to use one curriculum to address all the various addictions people struggled with.  Mike Wilkerson put one together that walks people through Exodus.  The result is Redemption: Freed by Jesus from the Idols we Worship and the Wounds we Carry.  Not only is Mike trying to apply biblical counseling, he’s using some exegetical, narrative theology.

This is one of the strengths of the book.  He is utilizing the pattern of redemption found in Exodus (which is used elsewhere in Scripture like Ezekiel and Revelation, and Jesus refers to the “new Exodus”).  He is applying it to both our idols and our wounds.  This is significant.  The Israelites not only worshiped false gods, but they were the victims of unspeakable evil.  God does not see us a merely victims or merely victimizers.  He knows the degree to which we are both wicked and wounded.  Because of our sinfulness, our woundedness results in one form of wickedness or another.  Bad counseling focuses on only one.  Good, biblical, counseling focuses on both.

Read Full Post »

Considering Exodus and 1 John

I’m working through Exodus in my personal reading.  This morning I was working my way through Exodus 19 & 20.  I did poke back to Exodus 15 to look at one of the texts Tim Keller talked about in an excellent sermon at the Gospel Coalition yesterday.  You have to see Exodus 20 in context.  First came redemption, or rescue, and then the Law.  Redemption was never earned via obedience.  The Law was given to God’s people for life in His presence, not to earn His acceptance.

In 19 and 20 you see quite the special effects displays.  God descended to the mountain in the cloud, and they heard His voice speaking.  They were filled with terror.  Moses didn’t just tell them these things, they were witnesses themselves.

As I got near the end of Exodus 20 I read this:

²² Then the LORD said to Moses, “Tell the Israelites this: ‘You have seen for yourselves that I have spoken to you from heaven: ²³ Do not make any gods to be alongside me; do not make for yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold. (NIV, 1984)

Read Full Post »

Considering Crazy Love

Whenever you read an insanely popular book, there are some traps and snares along the way.  The first of which is the insane popularity of the book.  That can create enormous expectations of the book.  As a result, your expectations are unrealistic.  The other side of that coin is really annoying those who love the book.  It could be as simple as not buying into the hype, or as serious as recognizing huge theological problems (like in Velvet Elvis or The Shack).  Either way, those who have been (rightly or wrongly) impacted by the book will be mad at you.

Crazy Love: Overwhelmed by a Relentless God is one of those insanely popular books.  Francis Chan became a well-known pastor as a result of this book.  As a result, I had very high expectations for this book.  It didn’t meet those expectations (that does not mean it is a bad book).  On the positive side, it was not dripping with heresy like either Velvet Elvis or The Shack.

Books of this sort are to be both practical and theological.  John Frame rightly, I think, notes that you haven’t really understood a doctrine until you apply it (or at least begin to).  Each book has its own blend of them.  Some are heavy on the practical, and some are heavy on the theological.  Sadly, some are so far skewed as to be no good to the soul.

Chan’s book, which I suspect is adapted from a sermon series, is skewed toward the practical.  There is theology in the book, but it leans toward the practical.  This is part of its appeal to many.  But I prefer to have my heart warmed and stirred by theological truth so I am pursuing a sound lifestyle (see 1 Timothy 1).  I felt more manipulated than instructed.  I don’t mean it to sound that terrible, really.  Francis is very passionate about his topic, and says many things we American Christians need to hear.  My issue was more with the presentation, if that makes sense.

Read Full Post »

Considering the Motive for Justice

In the 5th chapter of his book Generous Justice, Keller takes up the topic of motivations for justice.  As those who seek to encourage others to act justly, we have to recognize that some attempts to motivate others just don’t work (I know that sounds pragmatic, but it is not the intention).  They are not satisfying and truly motivating.

Ignorance regarding our responsibility to pursue justice can happen (though I would argue that like the knowledge of God we tend to suppress it in our unrighteousness).  But people need more than information.  Motivation, like for the actor, is all-important.  He notes that appeals to reason, love and mercy just don’t provide the necessary motivation to change behavior.  Keller draws on the work of people like Authur Leff.  Sad, sentimental stories don’t really change anything.  They don’t move people to act beyond perhaps an impulsive decision to call in a donation.  It didn’t break the back of any injustice.

The Bible gives believers two basic motivations- joyful awe before the goodness of God’s creation, and the experience of God’s grace in redemption.

Some might say, “Wait a minute!  John talked about love as the motivation in his first letter.”  Yeah, but as you examine the context you also see that it is connected to God’s redemptive love for us which provided propitiation for our sins.  But back to Keller’s argument.

Apart from a belief in creation, there really is no good reason to treat anyone or anything as having dignity or purpose.  This is one of the problems of atheism and agnosticism.  They act like they have logical beliefs, but confess a world that is purely accidental and without purpose.  All meaning is therefore created meaning- created by us and therefore relativized.

Read Full Post »

Considering Complementarianism & the Gospel

I’m currently working my way through Genesis 2 for Sunday.  In his Epistles, Paul bases male headship in marriage & the church (aka complementarianism) in creation.  But there is more going on than that.

For those who aren’t familiar with the term, complementarianism teaches that men and women are equal in dignity but different in role or function in the home and the church.  This, sadly, is a relatively unpopular position.  But this shouldn’t surprise us since much of what the Bible teaches us offends the flesh.

Genesis 1 is the starting point with regard to our equal dignity.  “God created man (humanity) in his image; male and female he created them.”  Men and women are both made in God’s image, sharing in dignity.  Most people can accept the equal part (aside from those rejecting the notion we are made in God’s image).  The equality is not an issue.  This fundamental equality is also in view in Galatians with regard to salvation- “in Christ there is neither male nor female.”  He lists some other statuses that separate people.  The idea is that neither is more worthy of salvation than the other.  Neither has an advantage when it comes to Christ.  It does not mean that all distinctions disappear such that they cease to be men and women.

In Genesis 2-3 we see the following things which point us toward there being a complementary difference between men and women which includes male headship.

	Adam	Eve	NT Parallel Text(s)
Created first	X		1 Corinthians 11:8; 1 Timothy 2:13
Given the initial command	X
Created for the other		X	1 Corinthians 11:9
Sinned first		X	1 Timothy 2:14
Whose sin condemned humanity?	X		Romans 5:12ff
Addressed 1st by God after sinning	X
Cursed for “obeying/listening to” the other	X

We see that though they are equal, God held Adam accountable for obeying Eve.  He addressed Adam first because Adam was humanity’s representative.  Paul uses this to explain how all of humanity fell into sin, and how people are saved through the 2nd Adam, Jesus.

We see that Adam needed help to fulfill the Creation Mandate (Gen. 1).  He gave Adam a wife instead of a pet.  He gave Adam an equal to complement him, to do the things he could not do alone.  While both men and women share the Creation Mandate (to fill, subdue and rule the earth) they emphasize different roles.

Both are needed to fill, but women (generally speaking) are more nurturing.  Moms stay home far more often than men because they are physically and emotional better suited for it.  Yes, they subdue and rule at home and outside the home.  Men are better suited physically and emotionally for subduing and ruling than filling.  Yes, men have parental responsibilities too.  But staying at home with children would drive me crazy far quicker than it does CavWife.  Struggling at work takes are greater toll on a man than struggling at relationships.  The opposite is true for women.  This is part of how we balance each other out.

One key passage is from Ephesians 5.  There we find that marriage is a picture of the relationship between Christ and the Church.  Marriage mirrors the gospel.  Husbands reflect Christ and wives reflect the Church.  Husbands lead- sacrificially!  Wives submit to their own husbands (not men in general) as the Church submits to Christ.  There is no role reversal.

This is a mystery, Paul says.  That means it is only something that we know because it has been revealed to us.  Marriage, including covenant headship, is was originally designed to be a picture of the gospel.  It was not societal construct for Paul, and certainly not oppressive.  It was a picture of the liberating, restorative gospel.

Covenant headship is not some out-moded way of thinking.  It is a biblical way of thinking, and a gospel-centered way of thinking.  Christian feminism and egalitarianism undermine the gospel by taking away God-given boundaries and roles.  In 1 Timothy 1:8-11 reveals the relationship between sound doctrine and sound living.  Sound (healthy) doctrine conforms to the gospel and produces healthy living.  Unsound doctrine departs from or distorts the gospel and leads to unsound living (sin).  When our marriages and churches no longer portray part of the gospel through male headship, the gospel is distorted and unsound living is the inevitable result.

As a result, complementarianism is not a non-essential doctrine.  It is a gospel-doctrine.  It should be believed and defended as rooted in creation and redemption that we might better understand the relationship between Christ and the Church which the gospel creates.

Read Full Post »

Considering Books on Adoption

This week’s text in Galatians focuses on adoption, God’s adoption of sinners as His sons as a result of Jesus’ work of redemption for us.  J.I. Packer comments that you can’t really understand Christianity unless you understand adoption.  John Calvin says you aren’t really a Christian unless, by the work of the Spirit, you call God your Father.

There are not many books on this topic.  It is a much neglected topic- but there are a few great books just the same.

Great Books I’ve Read:

Children of the Living God: Delighting in the Father’s Love by Sinclair Ferguson.  It is not a big book, but it is a great book.  Ferguson does what Ferguson does best, put the cookies on the shelf so lesser beings can enjoy them.  I can’t recommend this book enough.

Adopted by God: From Wayward Sinners to Cherished Children by Robert Peterson.  It comes recommended by Packer, Ferguson, and Steve Brown among others.  It is a very good book.

Knowing God by J.I. Packer.  Though not on the topic of adoption, there is a great chapter on the topic.  This is one of the great books which influenced me as a young Christian.  That chapter is just one of the reasons.

Redemption Accomplished and Applied by John Murray.  He includes a chapter on adoption as one aspect of the application of our redemption.

Books I’d Like to Read:

Adopted into God’s Family: Exploring a Pauline Metaphor by Trevor Burke.  Part of the New Studies in Biblical Theology Series, this is a more academic look at this topic (which exceeds use by Paul).

Heirs with Christ: Puritans on Adoption by Joel Beeke.  That should be an interesting read.

John Calvin and the Good News of Adoption by Timothy Trumper.  It is 2 CDs with lectures by Trumper.  Interesting…

Read Full Post »

Considering Job’s Mysterious Friend & Suffering

The cycle of speeches between Job and his 3 friends has finished with Job’s final speech.  Their rather limited theological views couldn’t answer Job’s questions.  They ended up condemning Job.

There is one telling statement about Job in 32:1- “because he was righteous in his own eyes.”

Job shared their faulty theology.  Since he was certain he had not sinned, he thought he was suffering unjustly.  This book exists, in part, to let us know people suffer for a number of reasons, all under the soveriegnty of God.  It rebukes our presumption- but I get ahead of myself.

Elihu appears out of nowhere.  There is no prior indication that he was there.  And he isn’t mentioned at the end of the book either.  This has led some to speculate that Elihu is a later addition.  But the whole book is mysterious- suffering often doesn’t make sense.  So why should we expect the book to tie up all the loose ends.

Elihu’s contribution seems to be that suffering is a warning from God.  Job is being warned that he is in danger of departing from God.  He spends lots of time saying not much of anything.

Before we get to God’s response and the conclusion, I thought I should summarize the various reasons people suffer.  Some of those are found in this book, and some of them aren’t.  These are helpful to keep in mind when we suffer, and when people we counsel (formally or informally) are suffering.

1. Our suffering is under the sovereignty of God.  This is the one consistent message of the book, and it is true.  Satan must seek God’s permission, and God held the Chaldeans and Sabeans at bay.
2. Sometimes we suffer to test us.  This is why God permitted Job to suffer.  He knew Job would pass the test (as a result of sustaining grace), though Job didn’t always suffer well.

Read Full Post »

Considering Hope

“Keep hope alive.”  Martin Luther King, Jr. knew that hope was a fragile thing.  And there is nothing Evil wants to do as much as kill hope that we might be overcome with despair.

Hope is one of those words that is easily misunderstood.  Often we think of it as a wish.  I hope the Red Sox win tonight.  But for the Christian, hope is far more profound that that.  As one whose hope is under siege, I needed to read The Dream of Hope in The Healing Path by Dan Allender.

“Hope is the quiet, sometimes incessant call to dream for the future.  The present moment is not enough to satisfy our souls completely; no matter how good or bad, the now leaves us hungering for more.  … Biblical hope is substantial faith regarding the future.”

Hope is not vague, but substantial.  It has weight to it, specifics.  And this is why hope can be so maddening.  It seems so far off at times, as if those desires are impossible to fulfill.

“Only the lenses of faith can put suffering into perspective.  When faith enables us to remember how God has redeemed portions of our past, our anticipation of when and how he will redeem us in the future increases.  … Gabriel Marcel defined hope as “a memory of the future.”

Hope looks past present suffering, aided by past deliverance.  Hope is sure God will come through, at some point, and deliver because he has a track record of delivering his people.  He has a track record of delivering me, so as I suffer I look ahead to when he eventually will reach down and lift me up.

We keep hope alive, in part, by reciting how God has delivered his people and us over time.  We remember, dragging those memories from the forgotten parts of our minds.  We rehearse God’s past faithfulness so we will lean on his future faithfulness rather than despair and give up.

“Hope focuses not on our circumstances, but on Christ’s coming and the redemption of our character.  .. My heart will never become any bigger than that in which or in whom I hope.  … Hope is a muscle that must be nourished and exercised daily to grow throug the normal nutrients of knowing and doing God’s will.  I wish hope progressed naturally and easily just as our body develops from infancy to adulthood.  Instead, hope grows through encounters that require us to risk, struggle, surrender and wait.”

Read Full Post »

Considering Faith and Doubt

The struggle between faith and doubt takes place in every Christian’s heart.  Our circumstances can foster doubts.  These doubts will either drive the roots of faith deeper, or expose that our faith is misplaced such we “lose our faith.”

Dan Allender addresses this in The Wager of Faith, part of The Healing Path.  Here are some things I need to remember, and perhaps you need to remember as faith and doubt do war in your soul.

“Faith involves placing our well-being into the hands of others who we hope are committed to do us good.”

God is committed to my well-being.  Ruthlessly committed to my well-being.  This does not mean that my circumstances will be good, but that God is conforming me to the likeness of Christ (Romans 8:28-9).  Not everyone is so committed to my well-being, and sometimes we are betrayed.

“Our past may blind us or distort what we consider good or bad, but our conscience continues to warn, chide, and rejoice in truthful loving. … Faith is trust in the goodness of God.”

Our own sinfulness, our particular sins and how we’ve been sinned against color our perspective.  This creates some of the doubt we experience.  We struggle to believe that God is good when life is particularly difficult.  I know I do. 

Read Full Post »

Considering Iron Man

I was not a big comic book fan.  But I usually enjoy movies based on comic books.  I suppose too much is lost emotionally with drawings rather in motion pictures.  I’m thinking more of the shifting emotions.  Or I am a snob.

I’m not a big Iron Man fan, nor was I anticipating the movie.  Robert Downy Jr.?  Not even remotely a draw for me.  But Jon Faverau (Mikey from Swingers, director of Elf) is the director (as well as pulling a cameo as Tony Stark’s driver) and the trailers made it look interesting.  The initial reviews have been pretty good.  So I plunked down my $6.50 and enjoyed a matinee.

I’m glad I did.  As the first in what the producers hope is a series, this movie introduced the character and set the stage for all that is to come.  Robert Downy Jr. was a good casting move for this movie.  You buy into him as Tony Stark- a womanizing, smart-mouthed man prone to the excesses that his incredible wealth affords him.  His family has been in the defense industry since World War II.  He is an engineering genius.  His parents died while he was a teen.  His father’s friend Obediah ran the business until Tony joined him when he turned 21.

You really don’t like Tony.  He’s arrogant and a user of people.  But all of that changes when he is captured by terrorists in Afghanistan.  The religious aspects are complete ignored.  What the movie focuses on is that they are using weapons manufactured by his company!  Despite patriotic intentions, his weapons systems are being used by aggressors not just for defense.  Stuck in the cave for 3 months he has an epiphany.

But he’s trapped in a cave.  He is recovering from heart surgery after shrapenal from one of his weapons injures him in the attack.  The also-imprisoned doctor uses a magnet to keep the remaining shrapenal from going into his heart.  There he must build his latest weapons system for the warlord.  Instead, Tony makes a technological discovery and also creates a metal suit with weapons to make his way to freedom.

He succeeds in escaping and decides to develop his original design.  Back home people don’t understand the change in mindset that has overtaken him.  It is a picture of repentance (without the religious component).  His whole reason for living, and how he lives, changes.  He is, essentially, a new man.  He tries to right the wrongs of his past.  Unfortunately for him, there is a betrayer who tries to destoy him.

There aren’t as many battle scenes as I’d like, but they fit the story line.  The focus is on character development.  Tony comes face-to-face with his personal emptiness, confessing to his personal assistant (played well by Gwyneth Paltrow): “You are all I have.”  Due to her attentiveness to his compulsive nature, he is all she has too.  A very different looking Jeff Bridges plays Obediah.  He looks like he’s put on some muscle (thicker, but not fat), grew a goatee and shaved his head.

The ending was not as good as the rest of the movie.  It was a letdown in some ways.  But this was a good summer blockbuster.  But it is not mindless.  It has themes of repentance, redemption, betrayal, sacrifice etc.  He can only survive because of a power outside of himself.  Not quite a new heart, but pretty intriguing.  The ‘new’ Tony Stark uses his wealth and genius to help the poor and oppressed, not for his own excess.  These are things that a Christian can affirm, and should be doing.  But the ‘old’ Tony will pose some uncomfortable moments for parents (no nudity, but some implied sexual immorality).  In the context you see that his sin does not satisfy. 

Overall, Jon Faverau did a good job with the pacing of the movie.  There was enough humor to keep it from being too serious.  Much of this takes place while he builds the high tech suit at his home workshop.  The soundtrack also had lots of hard rock, but Black Sabbath’s Iron Man doesn’t show up until the credits.  The soundtrack fit the movie, and that’s what you are looking for in a soundtrack.

This is the first good movie of the summer blockbuster season.

Read Full Post »

God is the Gospel: The Glory of Christ, the Image of God

Chapter 4 of Piper’s book God is the Gospel focuses on 2 Corinthians 4-6, part of a great passage that weaves themes from creation (Genesis 1) and redemption (the Exodus) to help us understand how it is we have come to behold the glory of God in the face of Jesus.

“In the dark and troubled heart of unbelief, God does what he did in the dark and unformed creation at the beginning of our world.”

Re-creation begins!  Eyes blinded by the Evil One now see because God has shined light into their hearts.  Finally we see glory, rather than all the substitutes the world, flesh and devil have to offer us.

“The supreme value of the glory of Christ revealed in the gospel is what makes Satan so furious with the gospel. … He is mainly interested in making Christ look bad.  He hates Christ.  And he hates the glory of Christ.”

“The kind of seeing that Satan cancels (vs. 4) and God creates (vs. 6) is more like spiritual tasting than rational testing.”

Too often we can be like Paul’s Corinthian opponents- relying on reason & logic rather than revelation (oops, the classical vs. presuppositional apologetics debate).  Our faith is not illogical or irrational.  But fallen sinners are- at least when it comes to Jesus.  So our appeals to reason and logic are essentially useless (see 1 Cor. 2:1-5).  This humbles us (at least it does me), making conversion the result of the Spirit’s work, not my profound rhetoric.

Read Full Post »