Considering Bavinck on the Christian Life, Part 2

Some of my uncles growing up were in construction. Most of my brothers-in-law are in construction. So as I think about the 2nd part of Bavinck on the Christian Life, I think about a construction metaphor. If the first part was the foundation, the second would be the framing.

There were only two chapters in the second part. Recall that the foundations were creation in God’s image, the Law and union with Christ. The two chapters in this section are Imitating Christ and Worldview.

Bavinck understood the Christian life as one of imitating Christ. We need to see this in terms of God restoring His image in us, in accordance with the Law, through our union with Christ. I say this because may have seen the Christian life as imitating Christ, but meant something different.

Recall as well that this is intended to be an ordinary life, not viewed as radical. We partake of earthly goods, but they are not ultimate goods. We enjoy them as part of God’s good gifts, but they are temporal and temporary. As the song goes, hold on loosely.

Bavinck looked at the historical patterns of this theme. Bolt summarizes this for us. Bavinck identified dangers and wrong turns.

The early Church was a persecuted Church. This is because they claimed to be the only true religion, and Christ claimed their ultimate allegiance. Rome did not like that. With martyrdom a real possibility, it unfortunately became “regarded as a matter of glory and fame” (pp. 106). It became pathological, similar to what we see with radical Islam today.

Monastic separation created a divide between clergy and laity. Professional Christians tend to breed “incompetence and an unspiritual life-style.” He noted the rise of the Waldensians, and others, who simplified doctrine and emphasized holiness. Soon you also saw the rise of the “mendicant armies” who exalted poverty above all other virtues. Medieval mysticism came to see Jesus as model, not Mediator and Redeemer.

Any view of imitating Christ that neglects Him as Redeemer is sub-biblical and rejected by Bavinck. This brings us back to union with Christ as the primary element of imitation. He believed we were not to simply look and act like Jesus, but to be transformed inside.

Bolt then brings us to the Sermon on the Mount. Bavinck’s views shifted, with his latter view more nuanced. World War I lay between point A and B. It helped him see some problems with his understanding, and deepened his understanding. Bavinck understood it in its original context as to His disciples who would face persecution. We cannot simply woodenly apply it to our circumstances. The Sermon was about obeying the law of God in your circumstances. Our circumstances may be different, and therefore our obedience may look differently. They lacked power in culture, and were to let their light shine. “If the early church had tried to transform its world through cultural engagement, it “would have quickly drowned in the world’s maelstrom.” (pp. 115)” As Christianity loses power in the West, we need to recognize how we imitate Jesus will change. We will become more like the early church. We can’t focus on cultural engagement, but “simply” preach the Good News.

Bolt summarizes all this with “our following Jesus in lawful obedience is grounded and shaped by our union with the whole Christ. (pp. 117)” Therefore we focus on our obligations, not our rights. This is hard for sinful, self-absorbed people.

The chapter on worldview is more theoretical. Bolt covers specific aspects of the worldview in which we fulfill our vocations and imitate Christ in part 3 of the book. The concept of a Christian worldview appears to be first articulated by Kuyper in his Lectures on Calvinism at Princeton. Bavinck would also talk and write much about this topic. While the particulars were nearly identical, their methodology was different, as was their application. This lead to some conflict between the two men in later years. Kuyper was the more “dogmatic” of the two, and comes across as an autocratic leader. Bolt traces this history, and I won’t repeat it.

But one key area went back to regeneration. Kuyper viewed, at the risk of reductionism, regeneration creating two kinds of people with two kinds of science. Bavinck was more open to receiving the science done by unregenerate Christians. As image bearers, they could see something of the truth too. Kuyper was engaged in cultural conflict, Bavinck was more open to learning from non-Christians.

For Bavinck, a worldview broke down into thinking, being and doing. The relationship between these is important. For Bavinck,, being is first. As we become self-aware we think and do. Bolt notes that “worldview follows faith and union with Christ; it does not create faith and is no substitute for it. (pp. 125)” Worldviews are how we navigate our way through the world, other humans and God.

For the Christian, our worldview is about God revealing Himself to us, as well as revealing truth about ourselves and the world. God is faithful and good, revealing these things truthfully and reliably. While he acknowledges the distortions caused by sin, he doesn’t focus on them like Kuyper and Van Til.

“The essence of the Christian religion consists in the reality that the creation of the Father, ruined by sin, is restored in the death of the Son of God, and re-created by the grace of the Holy Spirit into a kingdom of God.”

These frames, built on the foundation, will direct our understanding of the Christian life. We’ll get to that next time.

Read Full Post »

Considering Bavinck on the Christian Life, Part 1

I’ve only read one book by Herman Bavinck. That book was The Doctrine of God, and I read it thanks to Doug Kelly while in seminary. I enjoyed the book and found it helpful, but until recently not much was available in English. I’ve got a copy of a biography on him, but I haven’t read it yet.

His influence, despite this handicap, is evidenced as I read the first few chapters of Bavinck on the Christian Life by John Bolt. I have been greatly influenced by people who have been greatly influenced by Bavinck. I saw much of my personal theology on display in those chapters, much of which is reflected in my approach to marriage in my forth-coming book.

For those who aren’t familiar with Bavinck, he was a Dutch theologian alive in the 19th and 20th centuries. He was a bit younger than his contemporary, the more well known Abraham Kuyper. The book begins with a brief biographical sketch.

Bolt begins the meat of the book with Foundations for Christian Living. The three chapters there cover Bavinck’s theological process so to speak. The first is about creation, Created in God’s Image. We can’t understand the Christian life if we don’t understand ourselves as created in God’s image. Redemption makes us whole humans, not into something altogether different. Bavinck takes a “trinitarian” approach to what it means to be in God’s image: creation, sin & redemption, and eschatology. Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 figure prominently in Bavinck’s thought: Adam as a type of Christ. They are the two covenant heads that govern humanity. As a result, Bavinck affirmed the “covenant of works” as vital to Christian theology. He saw this as “a divinely imposed relationship between God and humanity, a relationship under sanctions: obedience leads to blessing; disobedience results in death. (pp. 43)” And so “we are Christian in order to become truly human, not the other way around. (pp. 43)”

“This theological insight implies that in a Reformed understanding of Christian discipleship the creational, natural vocation of human beings is basic and primary.”

This this point, Bolt provides a critique of the more “radical” approaches to discipleship from Bavinck’s prospective. If he were alive today, Bolt (rightly I think) imagines Bavinck having something to say to people like Claiborne and Platt. He would affirm Christian discipleship in the ordinary callings. Some today sharply criticize the ordinary (creational!) and produce unnecessary and unproductive guilt. There is no hierarchy of callings so that one is better than another. As Paul notes in 1 Corinthians 7, serve God where you are whether rich or poor, slave or free, male or female. Your vocation- butcher, baker, candlestick maker or household engineer- is the context of your discipleship. It is not to be seen as a hindrance to it. The creation mandate is not opposed to the great commission (see pg. 44-45 in particular).

Bolt then brings us into common grace. He notes that the term is often misunderstood, and should not be used to excuse worldliness in Christians. It “is the confession that God continues to providentally watch over creation and fallen humanity and that this care is not restricted but extends beyond the elect. (pp. 48)” Bavinck, like Calvin, distinguishes between a grace common to all humanity, and special or saving grace. Common grace provides the stage for saving grace. His continuing to uphold the creation despite our sin & rebellion is gracious.

Bolt then moves to The Law and the Duty of Christian Obedience. The law is understood within the context of covenant. Our discipleship, occurring within the context of creation also occurs within the context of the law which guides us in a life which pleases God. Bavinck follows the Reformed confessions and catechisms in this expression of grateful obedience.

Bolt spends more time discussing the covenant of works (pp. 56-63) particularly since some prominent Reformed theologians are critical of the doctrine. He notes some of those criticisms, but brings us back to Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 again. We see that their roles as covenant heads are revealed matters. For Bavinck, religion is a revealed matter. Apart from revelation we don’t have true religion. Bolt notes the temptations of moralism and legalism. The law is intended to be kept within the context of covenant. The Ten Commandments are given in the context of redemption. They are to obey because they have been redeemed, not to gain salvation. The enjoyment of that salvation, and remaining in the land, hinged upon obedience (and repentance when they disobeyed) while looking forward to the greater Redeemer who would obey perfectly for us, and work in us by the Spirit to grow in obedience and restore the image of God. For Bavinck “covenant is the essence of true religion. (pp. 60)” It is intended to guide our discipleship as the words of a father are to guide the life of a son. We are to submit to the “living covenantal God with whom we are in fellowship. (pp. 61-2)” Our submission is not simply a matter of His Lordship, but also our love in response to His love toward us.

This means that God does not coerce us, but counsels us thru “admonition, warning, invitation, petition. (pp. 63)” This also takes place in the context of community. Not simply alone, or as a couple, but the whole of humanity (or the new man in Christ) is the fully developed image of God (see pp. 65). We also find that the reality of progressive revelation implies the reality of progressive understanding.

One of the interesting applications that Bolt makes is politics. As imitators of God, “we are always to conduct ourselves in way that enhance our neighbor’s liberty and responsibility (pp. 67)”

“And it suggests that Christians evaluate public social policy in terms of the same principles. It also implies, finally, that when it comes to matters of social policy and political actions, Christians have an obligation to respect each other’s freedom on matters that either are adiaphora (things indifferent) or require application of agreed upon moral principle. The example of poverty and poverty relief come to mind. The Bible is quite clear about the responsibility of God’s children to help those who are poor and needy. Whether or not this commitment to the poor demands support for higher taxes or greater government welfare is quite another matter. It is a mistake for Christians to treat their policy preferences as self-evident applications of biblical principle. Christians need to respect the liberty of those who take their Christian responsibilities in directions that are different from their own.”

Bolt then quotes an interesting section from the 1891 Christian Social Congress on general principles. “Therefore, it is entirely in keeping with Holy Scripture to: … oppose the accumulation of capital and landed property. (pp.68)” Not exactly where I would go with applying Scripture, but in Israel there were limits to wealth accumulation.

Bolt then moves to the third foundation: Union with Christ. This is the longest and most complex chapter, as Bolt confesses. But our redemption is “in Christ” and this concept must be understood. It plays, obviously, a big role in Bavinck’s understanding of Christianity.

Here Bolt talks about Bavinck’s dualities, not the same a dualism. He doesn’t operate with a dialectic: thesis, antithesis and synthesis. But two realities, held in a kind of tension: “earthly calling and eternal destiny; general revelation and particular revelation; common grace and saving grace. (pp. 69)” They are not to be set against one another: we experience both. We are pulled by competing, legitimate longings. These tensions don’t disappear, and we shouldn’t try to eliminate them. But … often we do.

Bavinck’s understanding of union is more than redemptive. Christ is the mediator of creation, a common theme in Bavinck. He “bridges the ontological distance between humanity and God.” We not only have the moral obstacle of sin to deal with, but the metaphysical obstacle to fellowship or communion with God. In light of this he speaks of accommodation like Calvin does. All revelation is tied to the work of Christ, whether pre or post-incarnate.

“He has brought creation, redemption, and eschatology all into the doctrine of Christ without in any way blurring the distinction between nature and grace or sacrificing the gracious character and preeminence of Christ as our Redeemer.”

Bolt then discusses the two dangers of discussing union. The elevation of humanity to divinity or bringing God down to us and losing all sense of transcendence. Bavinck warned about shifting back and forth between deism and pantheism. The former is helpful as we think about moralistic, therapeutic deism. The other is helpful as we think about theosis, and avoid the dangers of divinization and neo-Platonism. (pp. 78-80).

Bolt, in light of all this, discusses what the Chalcedonian formula did and did not do. It marked out boundaries for our contemplation of the hypostatic union. It didn’t really define it. He brings this into the disagreement between the Reformers and Roman Church on justification. Rome emphasizes union through sacraments. The Reformers emphasized a covenantal union.

Bolt then gets into Dutch Reformed church history with Arminius and the two seceding groups connected with Kuyper and Bavinck that eventually united. Some in Kuyper’s group held to presumptive regeneration. Bavinck argued that ordinarily the Spirit used appointed means for regeneration, though the Spirit can regenerate someone directly. We should recognize that as extra-ordinary, not ordinary. Therefore, the presumption regeneration regarding our children, as immediate and extra-ordinary, should not be affirmed.

In terms of our union itself, Bavinck joined together “the covenantal, legal and forensic dimensions of justification with the believer’s mystical union in Christ” (pp. 91). Bavinck also takes us to the “covenant of redemption” between the Trinity. Our union with Christ is built on the work of all three members: the Father electing, the Son providing redemption, and the Spirit applying it in union with Christ. Our union is not something considered apart from Christ’s objective work of redemption. The latter is the basis of the former. We receive the benefits of redemption in our union, particularly justification and sanctification. With regard to the latter, Bavinck notes it is both the passive gift of God, and our active responsibility. While not mentioned, this is helpful to keep in mind in the recent sanctification debates within the Reformed community.

Bolt did a great job laying the theological foundation by which we must understand Bavinck’s view of the Christian life. Without grasping creation, law and union with Christ, there is really no proper understanding of the Christian life.

Read Full Post »

Considering Esther (and Ruth)

It has been quite some time since I’ve done this. That is part of being a pastor.

I used to periodically read a commentary along with my devotional reading of the Scriptures. As a pastor I am always reading a number of commentaries for sermons and other lessons.

With Christmas coming up, I decided to “drag out” my reading of Esther to two weeks. Since I had Iain Duguid’s I went “hmmmm”. I had read the Ruth portion of this expository commentary when preparing for my Sunday School series on Ruth earlier this year. It was quite good.

So I decided to finish the book as I read Esther.

As an “expository commentary” it is based on Duguid’s sermons. I am not sure how much they add to it, like some bands’ idea of a “live” album laden with over-dubs. I suspect there are not many of those here since his is an OT professor, and church planter (at the time he was at Westminster California before heading to Grove City and now Westminster Philadelphia).

There are good examples of Christ-centered (or redemptive historical) sermons that explain the original meaning in a meaningful and informative way. He does provide some very helpful background- historical, linguistic and biblical. It does not seem artificial though.

His illustrations are varied, but helpful. Some reflect personal experiences, some popular culture. This is not an academic book, but one intended to drive the truth into the heart and not just the head.

The strength is the gospel connections, which is even more difficult for a book that doesn’t mention God’s name. There is a reason for that. The not mentioning His name, I mean. I have a theory that possibly complements Duguid’s.

If a commentary makes me, as a pastor, want to teach or preach a book of the Bible it is successful. I’ve been thinking about my preaching schedule. I want to preach this text and think this book has given me the desire and capability to handle the text well. I will have to be careful I don’t “steal” too much.

Read Full Post »

Considering Not Alone

This month Not Alone: A Literary & Spiritual Companion for Those Confronted with Infertility & Miscarriage was published. It was edited by Jessica Snell. I am one of the contributors to this volume. Hopefully the volume will be helpful for those who are struggling with either problem.

Read Full Post »

Considering Meetings that Work

Session meetings are not often the highlight of a week. I enjoy being with the men, and I enjoy talking about church life and how we can be more faithful. The problem is that our meetings end late and some of us have a hard time the next day at work. I need time to decompress from a meeting, and even if they are held in my home, I don’t go to bed right away.

We have two options: have more but shorter meetings, or have more efficient meetings.

These are men who are already too busy so the first option really doesn’t seem to be an option. A few books were recommended to me. One of them was Meetings that Work by Alexander Strauch. One reason I bought it was that it was specifically about elders’ meetings. I had already read Strauch’s book Biblical Eldership. The third reason was it wasn’t very long. It was accessible for very busy men (I bought one for each elder too).

Our issues are not about character (though he mentions that), which seemed to be the thrust of some of the other recommendations. We have good men, who want to do a good job who just need help doing it quicker.

One thing is evident to me as I read this book: his gifting is kingly. He is all about efficiency, order etc. My gifting is prophetic and priestly, so I could use a bit more organization. But it didn’t make for an enjoyable read. It was informative. It was helpful. I’m not sure how to make this subject interesting. I, however, did not need interesting.

Another thing that became clear to me was how thankful I should be that I am in a confessional church. He often talks about discussing doctrinal issues. In over 15 years in ministry, I have not given very much time to doctrinal discussions in meetings. I am a doctrinally oriented person and read lots of theology. But the Westminster Confession of Faith means that we don’t have to spend time hammering out very many doctrinal issues.

Some of the issues require some wisdom and balance. In my first pastorate, EVERY conversation seemed to prompt an historical dissertation that bogged us down. A church’s history does matter. It does need to be discussed, but it cannot dominate the conversation or bog it down. I took his comments to almost exclude them. A wise moderator will begin to develop a sense of when it is helpful and when it isn’t.

There were, however, a number of very helpful ideas to help make meetings happen more efficiently. This brief book accomplished its purpose. This week we will discuss some of the ideas that we want to implement. Strauch’s book is well worth the investment of your time.

Read Full Post »

Considering What We Believe

In 1973 R.C. Sproul’s first book, The Symbol, was published. It was an appropriate title, but not one that grabs attention. This book is now in its 4th edition, and has its 4th title. In 1982 it was released as Basic Training. And in 1998 it was released as Renewing Your Mind. It has been recently updated and released as What We Believe. This is probably the best title this volume has had because it goes straight to the point. The book is about the Apostles’ Creed and therefore basic theology for Christians.

While I have not read previous editions, which is surprising to me actually, this is not the same book. It is updated and interacts with some newer challenges and has contemporary illustrations. This book is very much what you expect from R.C. Sproul. He presents theology and philosophy (his undergraduate degree is in philosophy) in an understandable and interesting way. His purpose is revealed at the end of the first chapter:

“The following chapters offer a contemporary explanation of its teaching- not to give a historical exposition of each point, but to apply its basic tenets to contemporary faith-issues.”

This means it is not an exhaustive book. It does not get into all the historical controversies that it addresses. This is an introductory book. This is not Herman Witsius’ 2 volume work (my copy seems to be missing) or even Michael Horton’s book We Believe. It isn’t like Rooted by Cannata and Reitano with its missional focus either. This really is basic training. While I would be interested in many of the historical controversies the Creed addresses, not everyone is.

In basic training, a drill sergeant will deconstruct you before building you into a soldier. This book, in some ways, seeks to deconstruct elements of a non-Christian world view to build up a Christian one.

He begins with the words “I believe” to talk about what faith is. He talks about content, assent and faith. Faith is rational, not a leap into the existential dark. Saving faith looks to and delights in Christ. Faith is not superstition either, this is seen most clearly in suffering. Faith complicates life because it brings an ethical system with it. True faith will produce a changed life; an increasingly holy life.

“To say that faith is reasonable is not to confuse faith with rationalism. Rationalism emphasizes the mind’s ability to understand all reality without help.”

This is why R.C. says “Faith involves confessing more than professing; in the final analysis, it is a platform of commitment to the will of God.” The content of our biblical faith should fill our minds and find a happy home in our hearts so we become more like Jesus.

Faith is not faith in faith, but in God. Here Sproul stresses the need for content. He notes a rally by Louis Farrakhan where he was surrounded and applauded by a number of “Christian” pastors. The god Farrakhan believes in is incredibly different from the one “we” do. There is also existentialism’s impact on Christian theology that drove it to liberalism and the Jesus Seminar nonsense that robbed theology of its content.

From there he moves into how we can speak of God, and can’t. He discusses the hidden God who is also the God revealed. In the midst of this he brings out Moby Dick, one of his favorite novels and the subject of his dissertation.

“Our talk of him is legitimate because he has entered into the arena of human activity. We confess not only that there is a God, but that God can be known and that our knowledge of him can be meaningfully communicated.”

One of the challenges that comes up is creation. While he isn’t pushing a 6 24-hour day creation, he focuses on our dignity as a result of creation. The other option is chaos, the loss of dignity and of values. God is both above creation (transcendent) and actively involved in creation (immanent) thus ruling out panentheism and deism respectively.

He then moves into Jesus as the conclusive revelation of God. He briefly interacts with the contemporary attempts to remove Jesus from history or separate a historical Jesus from the church’s theology of Jesus. He focuses on many of the names of Christ to reveal who He is.

His chapter on the virgin birth addresses the challenges presented by the attack on miracles. He also defends the historic Christian view from the common rabbinic (and liberal) view that “alma” in Isaiah doesn’t necessitate a virgin birth. The New Testament, however, clearly does teach that Mary was. “alma” doesn’t exclude virginity, and Matthew’s account clarifies it.

One of the weak links in the book is the chapter on eschatology. He sticks closely to the Creed, but doesn’t really address any of the evangelical views that in competition with one another. Perhaps this reflects his earlier lack of commitment to a millennial position. There are a few other places where I wish he would offer greater clarity.

This is really a book for those who are new to their faith, or the Apostles’ Creed. While not necessarily simplistic, Sproul is introducing concepts to people. More advanced readers will not be challenged enough. But it is one to keep on hand to help those younger in the faith.

[I received a complimentary copy of the book for the purposes of review.)

Read Full Post »

Considering Dombrowski’s Deals

He’s a wheeler-dealer man.

After two last place finished, John Henry realized that his philosophy may be slightly problematic. But you don’t want to just spend money for the sake of spending it (see Big Panda and Hanley Ramirez). You want a guy who has a proven track record of delivering. All season long, not just in the World Series (Panda).

Dombrowski is looking to be a shrewd dude. He saw that trading for an ace would be a costly proposition. He stated he would most likely get one in free agency, and he pulled off what I thought couldn’t be done: David Price. While Price hasn’t dominated the post-season like he has the regular season he has pitched some good games and been done in by bad luck. He is what Clay Buchholz is not: durable and consistent. He’s also an alpha dog who leads by example, and words.

The presence of the opt out clause after year 3 is actually a selling point for me. As is keeping the 12th draft pick (and our best prospects). We might not get stuck with a phantom of David Price in years 6 & 7. Then again … who knows.

But this we do know: for the foreseeable future the Red Sox have their ace and their closer. And that is pretty stinking important. In 2016 they will still have Big Papi to prove power, and a lefty bat in a righty dominant line up.

It isn’t about winning the offseason, but the real season. This helps them greatly, but as we saw in 2011, guarantees NOTHING.

Having 6 major league starters, they needed to trade one (or more). Speculation was rampant. Without the pressure of being the ace, Porcello made the proper adjustments and finished very strong. The same thing with Joe Kelly. I’d hate to trade them and see them flourish elsewhere.

Today the odd man out was Wade Miley, the Garden Gnome. I call him that because of a give-away they had while he was a member of the D’Backs. He is an innings eater whose ERA has been climbing every year (to be fair, last year was his first in the AL). He is durable but he is a 4 or 5.

They shipped him and a relief pitcher, who in his brief stint in the big last year had an ERA over 6, to the Mariners for 2 pitchers. The first, Roenis Elis, is a righty (Miley is a lefty) who can fill that important role of long relief and spot starter. Those are valuable guys. Especially if Buchholz, or I should say when, gets hurt. Or if one of the other guys struggles. Most likely the first guy out of AAA in case of a DL stint will be Henry Owens or Brian Johnson.

The other pitcher, Carson Smith, helps shore up the bullpen as another guy who strikes people out. Maybe, just maybe, Dombrowski has figured out how to build a bullpen (or had help in Wren and Hazen). He’s also under Red Sox control until 2020, the anti-Chapman.

The line up is nearly set, barring a trade (rumors have the Indians considering the Panda). Brock Holt is your uber-utility infielder and Chris Young as the 4th outfielder who can hit the lefties that JBJ may still struggle against.

Read Full Post »

Considering Love Divine and Unfailing

I have really appreciated The Gospel According to the Old Testament series. Since I’m preparing to teach on Hosea, it was time to read the volume on Hosea: Love Divine and Unfailing by Michael Barrett.

Based on the previous volumes I had high expectations. Perhaps too high. Perhaps unfairly. But this volume didn’t meet my expectations.

This is a good an helpful book. It was expecting, or hoping for, a great book.

Why I was disappointed may be explained by his comments in the conclusion:

If you picked up this book expecting an expositional commentary, you have been disappointed. … My concern was to put in focus the big picture that will ultimately help us understand the details and grasp the significance of Hosea’s message.

I was hoping for a volume that tracked with the flow of Hosea, particularly since I’m teaching it in that way. I did not expect a commentary since this is not a commentary series. But I wanted it to work through the book. Barrett handled it from a more thematic approach. He said many helpful things, but it was not as “user friendly” for the teacher.

In the first part he focuses on “just the facts” of Hosea. This begins with Hosea as a Messianic Man. Hosea is a shortened form of Joshua (or vice versa) and means “salvation.” Joshua is the Hebrew name translated into Greek as Jesus. Hosea was anointed as a prophet which is a “messianic occupation.” Barrett spends some time explaining the role of the prophet in the life of Israel. He also puts him in his time and place: the northern kingdom during the reign of Jeroboam II.

The second chapter expands on the historical context of Hosea. It was a time of declining power and prosperity. Assyria was gaining strength and was a looming threat that is addressed in the book.

In the third chapter, His Creed, the focus is on Deuteronomy’s influence on what we read. The prophets viewed their circumstances through the covenant and declared the appropriate blessings and curses according to the covenant. Hosea makes no sense if you aren’t familiar with Deuteronomy. Barrett spends some time explaining how the Mosaic covenant points to, anticipates and explains the ministry of Christ.

The second part of the book focuses on his life, particularly his marriage. His marriage to a wayward wife named Gomer was a living sermon intended to reflect God’s marriage to Israel. It is viewed as an analogy. There are points of correspondence, but not complete identity. Barrett points in particular to the exclusivity of relationship. This means that apostasy, or syncretism, is like adultery: Gomer’s adultery in particular.

Christianity parallels the ANE process of marriage. The Father gave a people to the Son to be His Bride. The Son has paid the bride price with His blood. The Spirit establishes the covenant union between the Son and the Church (invisible).

Then Barrett goes into Hosea’s marriage. Hosea was not the only prophets who undertook prophetic or symbolic actions. Some of them were strange, like Isaiah walking around naked and barefoot (Is. 20) to symbolize the coming exile. You have Ezekiel laying on his side all day, cooking over dung, to symbolize the siege upon Jerusalem. In this case Hosea’s whole life became symbolic or prophetic. His marriage and kids pointed Israel (and Judah) to deeper realities.

Sin and rebellion will be met with covenant curses. The northern kingdom had strayed, stepped out on their covenant lord, with other gods and nations. The consequences were coming. But God’s purpose was not to ultimate destroy His people but to bring them back. The third section, The Sermon, lays this all out.

Too often people think of the Mosaic Covenant as grace-less. They are wrong and Barrett explores that gracious element for us. He helps us to understand the role of law in the covenant, not for gaining life but how God’s redeemed people are to live to bring Him glory. He then moves into the (re)new(ed) covenant and some of the ways it is “new and improved” rather than completely new. He also brings in the horrible price to be paid for their rebellion. But rebellion, and misery, is not the final word.

Therefore, as disgusting as Gomer may appear, every Christian must admit the Gomer that is his or her own heart.

Barrett ends with the way home. He talks about the gospel more exhaustively in this chapter. He speaks of repentance. Hosea’s message was not given to take away all their hope but to call Ephraim back from the abyss.

Barrett consistently points out the gospel connections and message to be found in Hosea. There are some exegetical questions that are not discussed sufficiently, particularly the use of “Adam” (8:1). He does have a helpful appendix discussing Matthew’s use of “out of Egypt I called my son”.

While not a book that met my admittedly high expectations, it was a good and helpful book to read as I prepare to teach Hosea. If you are planning on preaching through it, or teaching on it, I would recommend reading this book.

Read Full Post »

Considering a Dishwasher

I can’t remember when we got our first dishwasher growing up. But I remember it was one of those portable ones so we didn’t have to remodel the kitchen. Those were fun. You rolled them over to the sink after dinner and connected it to the faucet to run it. Meanwhile there was the bulky dishwasher blocking well traveled portions of the kitchen.

For many years I didn’t think much about dishwashers. I lived in apartments or rented rooms in houses and a dishwasher was not my concern. How I wish we had one in the brownstone I lived in my final two years of college. My roommates were all engineers and often spent time in the library studying. Even then I hated studying in a library (when you have ADD, leave out the H please, they are not fun places to be. Besides, homework was so much more interesting watching the Celtics play in the height of the Bird years). So I would be home first and would inevitably be met with a sink full of dishes that needed to be cleaned before I could cook my dinner.

Both of my homes had “builders’ specials” when I bought them. I can’t remember the brand in FL, but CavWife and I nicknamed it “The Monsoon” because it was so loud we would have to pause the movie or recorded show at key points in the cycle. We nearly replaced it a number of times but kept thinking, “we might move soon.” We didn’t want to waste our money, and that doesn’t seem to be an “upgrade.” Have you ever checked how loud the dishwasher is when buying a house?

The GE we own now is much quieter even though it is a “builder special”. About 5 and 1/2 years old, it stopped drying the dishes sometime in the last year. You just lose track of these things. I could replace the heated dry elements, but I’m not that handy and could easily see myself with an aching back, hardened heart and cussin’ a blue streak like the father in A Christmas Story. Just not good with kids around.

CavWife has never been pleased with how it cleaned. Despite the fact we have soft water, there were stains in it too. There were some random comments about buying a new one, but nothing serious.

That all changed on Friday.

One of the jokes in our marriage is that I don’t put anything away, and she doesn’t close any doors. I’m seemingly always closing a door- closet doors, cabinet doors etc. She has gotten much better over the years. I’m not so sure I have.

I don’t remember her keeping the dishwasher door open in FL, but at some point it started happening. At some point I started getting annoyed. I recently started trying to keep the door closed. I particularly did this when her parents were visiting recently since I don’t want her mom to fall and break her hip. My comments and actions didn’t produce any change on her part. Perhaps I should have prayed. And fasted. Perhaps this problem only comes out by prayer and fasting.

Friday. I was preparing our lunch and moved to put something in the trash which was behind me to my right, right where the dishwasher is. Forgetting it was open (AGAIN), I snagged my ankle on it while backing up and lost my balance. Apparently I need one of these back up cameras on my posterior.

Falling I reached out to steady myself. Too far from the counter I could only grab the upper rack which buckled under my weight (too much Halloween candy?).

Trying to regain my footing I stepped down. On the open door. It was not meant to support a 190-200 pound man. I proceeded to land on the floor without my head slamming into the oven door. My lower back and butt absorbed most of the blow. My aging, bad lower back and hips. Stunned, I muttered the word Ralphie said that got his mouth washed with soap. Thankfully 3 of the 4 kids were upstairs resting, and the oldest may not have heard me.

I appear to have survived without any damage to my body aside from stiffness and soreness. I am wondering if she’s trying to kill me though.

The damage to the rack was not permanent. But the hinge is another story. The door now hyper-extends when open. It still works, but we aren’t sure how long it will.

Since it was Black Friday …. I decided to look for a special deals. I’ve never really thought about this though. All I know is that I want a quiet one.  A very quiet one.

There were a number of sales. We started to look at reviews. We decided we should look at the worst reviews. Some had a number of mechanical complaints. But there was also a strange trend: dishes don’t dry. Really, one star because the dishes aren’t dry as a bone. What is with people?

What we have discovered is that the “energy star” requirements have had two negative unintended consequences. First, since they use less water they don’t get the dishes as clean as before (another common complaint). This also results in longer cycle times. Second, they use lower wattage heating elements for the heat dry. The Energy Star standards are behind many of the non-mechanical complaints people have.

By Saturday night we hadn’t made an incredible amount of progress in narrowing down the field.

Two things happened on Sunday. First, one of our members told me her refrigerator died on Thanksgiving day. She went to a local store the next day and had her new one an hour after she bought it. That wasn’t as important as the fact they were having an anniversary sale. I’d been on their web site but they didn’t have any prices so I blew them off.

Second, another member’s son was in the ER so I went to pay a visit after worship. I had to drive right past that appliance store. So after my visit, I popped in for a quick check on prices. The salesmen showed me 3 he recommended based on my highest priority. A GE that had very few service calls. A Maytag that was the lowest priced of the three. And a Kitchen Aid that came with the house he bought. I got prices and went home to debrief with CavWife.

Before I could leave the parking lot she texted me. Thanks to Find a Friend she knew where I was and decided I should pick up a Papa Murphy’s pizza for dinner. But her spying ways are another story.

Being an investigator’s daughter, she was on the case with the info. Soon she decided we should go back on Monday. In the meantime, I’m thinking about the new tires we need to buy. I wondered if we should wait to buy a new dishwasher until it did “give up the ghost” and started to leak. But this is a good time to buy due to the sales.

So there we are at the appliance store with 3 of the kids. 3 kids 9 and under. I instructed them on proper behavior before entering. “Look with your eyes, not your fingers.” “I need to think and make decisions, so don’t run around making lots of noise.” That kind of stuff. Why do I waste my time?

The salesman remembered my name and we looked at the three machines and quickly eliminated the Maytag. She seemed to prefer the Kitchen Aid. But there was another one next to it for about $20 more. I wondered, what is the difference? The salesman assured me it wasn’t the larger name plate on the front.

The difference was a third rack for knives, BBQ tools and other such things. It was removable for extra height when needed on the the second rack. Hmmm. I liked this feature. This may change things.

It was my decision, she said. I preferred the new one, but didn’t want to demand it. I didn’t want to pay the extra money, but …. (she’s now laughing at me). And it rates at 46 or 47 dba! Just a bit more (considerably more) than I wanted to spend. Merry Christmas to us! Happy Anniversary to us! (Happy Birthday to us?)

We survived the great dishwasher purchase of 2015. We are no longer dishwasher virgins. I hope to never buy one again.

We may move instead.

Read Full Post »