Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘humility’


The next topic in Adam McHugh’s book, Introverts in the Church, is leadership. This was a painful one for him, I imagine, since he so often questioned his call as a result of his introversion and comparing himself to others. Lest some misunderstand, I’ll say this out front, he is saying that there are characteristics for good leadership that may be found in greater measure among introverts. He’s not saying leaders should be introverts.

I’m being self-conscious here for some have seen me as singing the praises of the introvert at the expense of the extrovert. That is not the point of McHugh’s book, not my blog posts. My point has been to better understand how introversion may affect church life. This includes how people tend to view introverts, the wounds some carry as a result, and how introverts participate in church life. I think churches have personalities, often rooted in the original formation of the church (DNA) as well as experience (nurture). Churches that are comprised of many introverts tend to be … introverted. How those churches view ministry will be different. Not better. Not worse. Different.

He begins with a story of one morning in the office. He and the Sr. Pastor came in at the same time. The Sr. Pastor was greeting all the staff, making talk small and large. He was quietly getting his horrible tasting coffee and slipping into his office where his copy of Calvin’s Institutes awaited him. Couldn’t get any more stereotypical than this, but it happens. As the pastor of a smaller church, the office is where I go to work. Were I the pastor of a larger church, I’d spend more time talking with staff as I made my way deeper into the bowls of my building to get to my office.

He then moves into a study, cited by Olsen Laney, which was repeated three times. All three times, both extroverts and introverts preferred extroverts as both their own ideal self and their ideal leader. Apparently, rather than being arrogant, introverts have serious self-esteem issues. They wish they were more extroverted (just as their extroverted friends long them to be).

At this point I wondered about our “shadow”, which is a part of Jung’s psychology but not often mentioned in discussion of personality type. This shouldn’t be taking as a sinful “shadow”, hiding in the darkness to deceive. But it is the “face” or personae we put on to function in the world for short periods of time. At least that is how I’m using it. I sometimes feel that way; that I have to be my opposite to fulfill some functions. That’s not wrong. It’s putting on your big boy pants and doing your job. It’s moving out of your comfort zone (the very thing some seem to think this series advocates against).

One of the wounds he points out is the general perception that introverts aren’t leaders and leaders aren’t introverts. For instance, he points to Richard Daft who cited numerous studies to arrive at his “Big Five personality dimensions”, one of which is …. extroversion. This can be seen as charisma, gregariousness, driven (better than dominance which he used) and “superstardom” or the person who seemingly excels at all they put their hand to.

Sadly, this has sifted down into the church. He notes the J. Oswald Sanders’ classic book Spiritual Leadership paints Paul as quite the extrovert because he had significant relationships with so many people. It shows up in expectations of congregations regarding pastors. You pretty much have to be awesome at everything (this is actually what team ministry is about whether the staff or the Session). There is little awareness that “we aren’t strong here, so we need a guy who is strong here, but we’ve got these things handled pretty well ourselves and he doesn’t need to be as strong.” This list would kill any mere mortal, and their marriages!

“Further, this model of leadership only validates the common, unbiblical expectation that pastors play the role of benefactor while everyone else in the congregation is beneficiary.”

I’ve known some great leaders who started great movements (no, I’m not dropping names). Some had great personal charisma. You wanted to be with them. Others, no so much. Or maybe they just didn’t like me or notice me. Yeah, I often wonder if people actually like me or just put up with me.

What happens when an organization, or church, depends on the personality of its central leader? Take away the leader and it falls apart. It may not cease to exist, but it shrinks and doesn’t know what to do because they’ve always just done what the “big guy” said. The church never learned to think biblically and implement biblical principles in leading. They either find another “big guy” or end up in ruins.

In Good to Great, Jim Collins explains that while charismatic leaders attract people, they tend to be “less effective at drawing people to the mission and values of the organization itself.” They are committed to the “man” not the mission. Paul’s friends were committed to the mission, not the man. They weren’t “Paul is so awesome”, but they were working with Paul to fulfill Jesus’ mission. That mission was clear. Great leaders aren’t about the short-term but the long-term.

Collins, in a book that is on my shelf but hasn’t been read yet, pushes back against the common understanding of leadership. His “Level 5” leaders are not charismatic but have “compelling modesty, are self-effacing and understated.” They are “more plow horse than show horse.” They also set up others for success.

There are people who are good at getting the job, and those who are good at doing the job. Sometimes they are one in the same. But I’ve seen too many people get hired who are ultimately lousy at doing the job, and people who are really good at the job struggle to get hired because they aren’t good at selling themselves (which is the opposite of Christian character, by the way). Humility, self-sacrifice and a commitment to something besides personal glory don’t show up well on a resume or that initial interview.

Collins isn’t alone. Drucker also notes that character matters more than charisma. Charisma creates an initial, unearned success that can make leaders inflexible and arrogant. They have figured it out, they think.

“Character in a leader is the quality that has the ability not only to draw others but also to maintain their loyalty. Character is more than personal integrity and ethical decision-making, though it certainly includes those elements. The central component of character is authenticity.”

McHugh mentions that leaders in the Scriptures were noted for character. Not perfection (they had plenty of imperfections). But they were “admirable and consistent”. This is true whether introverts or extroverts.

“True leadership is not cultivated in the limelight; it’s won in the trenches. Character is something that is built. Thus, the mark of godly leadership is not a magnetic personality; it is discipline, because discipline develops character.”

Back to business. I struggle with all the references to books on business, but I see this as revealing the glaring lack of work done in this within the church. So he draws on Peter Senge and The Fifth Discipline, which discusses the learning organization. It is one that includes “processes of reflection and evaluation into their organizational systems”. They don’t just do what they’ve always done but evaluate it. This means, McHugh notes, that people who listen and think before acting can be quite effective leaders. Introverts often have these qualities.

There is the blessing and the curse. I can tend to over-analyze. I can waste time going over conversations, meetings and decisions. I can’t just turn it off when I want to. The reason I was blogging this before 7 am is that I woke up early thinking about a few things. But decisions our Session makes are not impulsive and we are (I hope) implementing more reflection and evaluation in our processes.

Back to the Bible. He rightly notes that office is not something that is earned but rather a gift from God. The God who calls is also the God who equips. God does not call people based on personality type. He actually delights in reversing expectations. He chose Jacob, not firstborn Esau which was customary. He chose a disgraced former member of Pharaoh’s family to lead Israel out of bondage to Egypt. He chose the “runt” of the litter to displace big, handsome Saul as a king after His own heart. He put Jesus in the home of a humble carpenter in the backwoods of Galilee instead of a prominent family of Jerusalem.

So, some of the leaders God chooses and uses are introverts.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »


Let’s go back to creation to understand women as God designed them.

Genesis 1:26-27

ESV NASB NIV
26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

 

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

 

 

We notice a few things cosmetically. The NIV adds “wild animals”. Not pertinent to our point. Both the ESV and NIV have vs. 26 as prose and vs. 27 as poetry (due to the parallelism within the verse). The NASB has it all as prose.

 

One issue involving Genesis 1 is how much of it is poetry. Parallelism can be used to structure larger passages without it being poetry. I think this is what happens in much of Genesis 1. We see the repetition of phrases for regularity. But in verse 27 we seem to see poetry as the same idea is turned over and repeated for emphasis in creative ways.

 

Image (6754/1923a) image, images, likeness (resemblance) TWOT: basically refers to a representation, a likeness. In addition to referring to humanity, it refers to an idol. Selem in particular refers to the image as representation of deity.

Likeness (1823/437a) likeness, similitude, in the likeness of

TWOT: This is the only place these two words are in parallel. Here are the 4 main interpretations:

  1. Roman Catholic (and some Eastern Orthodox) theology pointed to image as our “structural likeness to God” which survives the fall. Likeness refers to Adam’s moral image which is destroyed in the fall (and renewed by grace).
  2. Image is the more important word but likeness is added lest we think man is a precise copy. It is less specific and more abstract.
  3. There is no distinction.
  4. Likeness amplifies and specifies the meaning of image. We are not simply representative but representational, the visible representative of the invisible God.

What the image of God is has been controversial and confusing: relational (God is love, and we see both man & woman), dominion (immediate context), intellectual/rational, spiritual nature, external representation/representative, dominion (the NIV clarifies with a logical connector). Meredith Kline sees it as prophet, priest and king in Images of the Spirit.

That we are in the image of God means that we can communicate with God. We maintain the Creator-creature distinction. But God created us with the capacity for advanced communication (language).

OPC Report

The Genesis account ascribes to woman an exalted standing. It spends most of its time on complementarity instead of the topic at hand. We’ll return to this topic later.

Pratt, Designed for Dignity

“They were finite, physical representations of their Creator. As astounding as this description may be, we must not miss how it discloses our humility. We are images of God, but that’s all we are- images.” (pp. 4) IOW, we aren’t gods.

This is, in part, a polemic, against the nations who believe that their leaders were gods. But everyone else was clearly not. There was no equality.

“We are images, but we are images of God. God did not make Adam and Eve to resemble rocks, trees, or animals. Nothing so common was in his design for us. Instead, God carefully shaped the first man and woman so that they were in his likeness. He determined to make us creatures of incomparable dignity.” (pp. 8-9)

 

Kidner, Genesis (TOTC)

“The words image and likeness reinforce one another: there is no ‘and’ between the phrases, and Scripture does not use them as technically distinct expressions, as some theologians have done, whereby the ‘image’ is man’s indelible constitution as a rational and morally responsible being, and the ‘likeness’ is that spiritual accord with the will of God which was lost at the Fall. … As long as we are human we are, by definition, in the image of God. … Manward, it requires us to take all human beings infinitely seriously. And our Lord implies, further, that God’s stamp on us constitutes a declaration of ownership.” (pp. 50-51)

For instance, homeless people (or any category of person people diminish) have more dignity and value than expensive show animals! They are still made in the image of God and the animals are not.

 

Calvin, Commentary Upon the Book of Genesis

“As for myself, before I define the image of God, I would deny that it differs from his likeness. For when Moses afterwards repeats the same thing, he passes over the likeness, and contents himself with mentioning the image.” (pp. 93-94)

 

Ross, Creation and Blessing

“After bringing order and fullness to the creation, God created human life to enjoy and rule the now habitable world. … God continually makes boundaries and sets limits for the self-perpetuating creation, boundaries that the law will employ in teaching the principles of holiness and cleanness. … The text shows that human life was set apart in relation to God by the divine plan (“let us make man”), by the divine pattern (“as our image”), and by the divine purpose (“let him have dominion”). … It does not signify a physical representation of corporeality, for God is a spirit. The term must therefore figuratively describe human life as a reflection of God’s spiritual nature; that is, human life has the communicated attributes that came with the inbreathing. Consequently, humans have spiritual life, ethical and moral sensitivities, conscience, and the capacity to represent God. The significance of the word “image” should be connected to the divine purpose for human life. Von Rad has made the analogy that, just as kings set up statues of themselves throughout the border of their land to show their sovereign domain, so God established his representatives on earth.” (pp. 112-113)

 

Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary

“First, the term image refers to a statue in the round, suggestion that a human being is a psychosomatic unity. Second, an image functions to express, not to depict; thus humanity is a faithful and adequate representation, though not a facsimile. It is often said that the Bible represents God anthropomorphically. More accurately, a human being is theomorphic, made like God so that God can communicate himself to people. … Third, an image possesses the life of the one represented. Fourth, an image represents the presence of the one represented. Fifth, inseparable from the notion of serving as a representative, the image functions as ruler in the place of the deity.” (pp. 65-66)

 

“In ancient Near Eastern texts only the king is in the image of God. But in the Hebrew perspective this is democratized to all humanity.” (pp. 66)

 

“The important addition of “likeness” underscores that humanity is only a facsimile of God and hence distinct from him.” (pp. 66)

 

Waltke repeats the ideas that we are like God to represent God, and to communicate with Him.

 

Leopold, Exposition of Genesis

“This feature in man’s being is a second mode of setting forth prominently the singular dignity of man: Man is not only made after the deliberate plan and purpose of God but is also very definitely patterned after Him.” (Vol. 1, pp. 88)

“So we shall have to regard the second phrase, “according to our likeness,” as merely supplementary to or explanatory of the first.” (Vol. 1, pp. 89)

He notes the repetition (3x) of create to get the point across. Man (male and female) was CREATED. Humanity is not an accident.

 

Morris, The Genesis Record

“He was not speaking to the angels, because man was not going to be made in the likeness of angels but in the likeness of God.” (pp. 72)

“And yet man was to be more than simply a very complex and highly organized animal. There was to be something in man which was not only quantitative greater, but qualitatively distinctive, something not possessed in any degree by the animals.” (pp. 73)

 

IOW: man is not simply another animal as secular humanism insists.

 

Summary:

It is easy to get lost in the potential meanings of “image of God”. This is important, but not necessarily to our current study. We will not that as made in the image we are rational, relational, spiritual, moral and volitional beings intended to reproduce, subdue and rule the rest of creation as a result of His command.

What we must affirm is that both men and women have been created in the image of God. They have an equality before God in creation. While they may have different roles in the church and home, they are equal. There is no essential hierarchy as in patriarchy. There is a complementary relationship between the sexes.

While Augustine seems to argue that Adam only needed help in procreation, we should recognize he needed help in all aspects of the vocation given to him. Women can work alongside men to subdue and rule, to till the garden. For instance, in an early date with my now-wife, we worked in my flower beds so I could see how we worked together. Women are not limited to having & raising children, but are valuable in fulfilling all aspects of the creation mandate. Therefore we should expect women to have a variety of gifts from God for the fulfillment of His calling to humanity.

Read Full Post »


If our wills are in bondage to our desires, which are corrupt, if there any hope for us?

This is the question we resume with from Calvin’s Institutes, the Essentials Edition. There is no hope in ourselves. Our hope has to be with God. The remedy is grace.

“Thus the Lord begins his work in us, inspiring in our hearts a love, desire and eagerness for what is good and righteous- or, more properly, inclining, training and directing our hearts to righteousness; he completes his work by giving us strength to persevere.”

This is not the same as a general removal of our depravity that leaves us in a state of neutrality that we find in some forms of Arminianism. This is the fulfillment of the promise of the new covenant (Ez. 36:26-27). This must precede faith, or we wouldn’t believe. The “human will must be wholly remade and renewed.” He aligns himself with Augustine that ‘grace precedes every good work.’ Grace is not a response to our will, but our will works in response to grace.

Calvin shifts back to Scripture, noting Jer. 32:39-40; Ez. 11:19; 1 Kings 8:58. These all address the stubbornness of our hearts, and the grace that overcomes that stubbornness. In other words, this is no ‘philosophical’ matter but one of life & death; salvation. This is not an Old Testament idea, but we see Paul also teaching this. We see this in Phil. 2:13 and 1 Cor. 12:6; 15:10. Jesus affirms this in passages like John 6:45.

“We must indeed teach that God’s kindness is open to all, without exception, who seek it. But because no one begins to seek it until he is inspired from heaven, nothing here should be allowed to diminish God’s grace in any way.”

He goes back to Augustine. “In yet another place he states that grace does not destroy the will, but changes it from bad to good, and that once it has been made good it receives help. By this he means only that God does not push man by outward force, unfeeling, as if he were a stone, but that he is impelled in such a way that he willingly obeys.” And again, “the human will does not obtain grace through its own freedom, but that it obtains freedom through God’s grace.”

Calvin shifts to the problem of continuing sin in the believer. Calvin, following Paul (Peter, John, James …), notes that our deliverance “is never so complete that no part of us remains under sin’s yoke”. Regeneration does not end conflict in our hearts, but initiates it (Rom. 7 & Gal. 5). There is a new principle moving us toward love and righteousness, and a retention of the natural inclination toward apathy and unrighteousness.

“This produces a conflict which sorely tries the believer throughout his life, because he is raised high by the Spirit but brought low by the flesh. In the Spirit he yearns fervently for immorality; in the flesh he turns aside into the path of death. In the Spirit he purposes to live uprightly; in the flesh he is goaded to do evil. In the Spirit he is led to God; in the flesh he is beaten back. In the Spirit he despises the world; in the flesh he longs for worldly pleasures.”

Our heart and will become a battle ground. The regenerate person mourns their sin, which pains him or her. They affirm and delight in God’s law as we see in Psalm 119.

Even in his day, there were people claiming a form of Christian perfectionism. Some of the Anabaptists advocated this position. They think that regeneration is complete, and we have no more fleshly appetites.

He returns to the idea of man as sinner in bondage to Satan. He mentions Augustine’s analogy (also utilized by Luther in Bondage of the Will)of the will as a horse subject to the rider’s control. Calvin finds it sufficient in the  absence of a better analogy. “What is meant is that the will, being deceived by the devil’s tricks, must of necessity submit to his good pleasure, although it does so without compulsion.”

He then discusses the doctrine of concurrence with reference to the story of Job. In concurrence, more than one person wills the same action but for different reasons or goals. God, Satan and the Chaldeans all willed the theft of Job’s herds, but for very different reasons. We see this as well in the story of Joseph. God’s intention was very different from his brothers’ even though both willed Joseph’s servitude in Egypt.

“Accordingly, it is not improper to attribute the same deed to God, the devil and man. But the disparity in both intention and means ensures that God’s righteousness always appears blameless, while the wickedness of the devil and of man is revealed in all its shame.”

The bottom line for Calvin is fidelity to Scripture, for the Scriptures reveal the sovereignty of God over events big and small. He brings up a number of passages to illustrate his point. Satan, much like Assyria and Babylon in the prophets, is His agent to unwittingly accomplish His purpose. They serve His righteous purposes, even as they pursue their unrighteous purposes. Calvin notes God’s sovereignty over the “mundane acts of life.” He held to a meticulous providence, as God brings about “whatever he knows is needful, but also to bend men’s wills toward that same end.”

Calvin then addresses a series of common objections. First, necessary sin is no longer sin. While they “necessarily” have to do it, since God ordained it, it is still voluntarily chosen by them. He does not force them to sin, but they want to commit that particular sin at that particular time. Second, reward and punishment no longer apply. God is so kind that he rewards the graces which he bestows on people. The voluntary nature of sin makes punishment just. Third, good and bad are no longer distinguishable. If this were so, it would be so for God who does good “by necessity” or in keeping with his immutable nature. Fourth, exhortation and reproof become superfluous. They are, rather, the means God uses to help shape our choices. He not only ordains what will happen, but how and why.

“God is active in us in two way: within, by his Spirit, and without, by his word. With his Spirit enlightening the mind and training the heart to love righteousness and innocence, he makes man a new creature by regeneration. Through his word he moves and encourages man to desire and to look for this renewal.”

Calvin then notes a variety of Scriptural evidences including, the law and its commands, the command to repent, God’s promises & reproofs, his punishments and more. In many ways Calvin rightfully goes back to Philippians 2:13- For God works in us to will and work according to His righteous purpose. We are to believe that we are dependent upon God, but also that being gracious and powerful he consistently works in us to accomplish his purposes, which are good. This is an important doctrine which humbles us, and grants us confidence.

Read Full Post »


In Calvin’s Institutes, the Essentials Edition, we’ve seen how the knowledge of God gives us a truer knowledge of ourselves. While made in His image, we have fallen into sin and unrighteousness. Instead of glorifying Him, we seek to glorify ourselves (make a name for ourselves) which typically means taking advantage of others and bringing shame to ourselves.

Knowledge of ourselves should humble us. We are not what we were intended to be, but a rather tawdry sham instead. We over-estimate our abilities and good deeds, while we minimize our faults, weakness and wrong-doing.

“However, the person who carefully measures himself by God’s standard finds nothing to give him inner confidence, and the more closely he studies himself, the more dejected he becomes until, bereft of hope, he has nothing to help him lead a well-ordered life.”

We have fallen so far from our created glory as the imago dei. The great endowments of Adam and Eve testified to the “Creator’s extraordinary generosity.” They had done nothing to receive these great gifts from His hand. Their disobedience stripped them of much this glory. “The heavenly image he bore was therefore erased; being estranged from God by sin he was likewise deprived of his share in the blessings which can only be had in him.”

This brings us to total, or radical, depravity. From the womb we are prone to sin. We are not born innocent and then personally fall when we sin for the first time. Calvin argues against Pelagianism briefly. We are not “basically good” and only in need of a good example but better ourselves. Calvin affirms original sin, “a hereditary corruption and perversion of our nature which in the first place renders us guilty of God’s wrath, and in the second produces in us those works which Scripture calls ‘works of the flesh’.”

I wish Calvin added “covenantal” to the hereditary. Adam was not just our father, but our covenant head. In this sense, we are also held accountable for his disobedience.

From here, Calvin moves into his discussion of the freedom of the will. Definitions matter greatly in this discussion, and often they are not laid out appropriately. Calvin notes two dangers: indifference and excessive boldness. When we stress our depravity, people can lapse into indifference or fatalism. They see themselves as unrecoverable, even by the God of grace. When we stress the imago dei, people can have a view of themselves that is unreasonably high, a sense of entitlement.

“To avoid both of these pitfalls, we will follow a middle course. Man must learn that there is no good in him, and that misery and want are all around him. But he must also understand how he may aim at the goodness he lacks and at the freedom which is denied him.”

He then moves to some philosophic theories of the mind and will. “The role of the will is to choose and follow whatever our mind judges to be good, and conversely to reject and shun what it reproves.” So, the will works with the mind, not independently of the mind. “All we need to know, without entangling ourselves in superfluous issues, is that the mind is like the helmsman and captain of the soul, and that the will depends on its good pleasure…”

In fallen man, the mind is not fully functioning and flooded with divine light. Romans 1 shows us that the mind is darkened and futile because it has exchanged the truth for the lie. It is no longer able to distinguish between good and evil, the very thing Eve wanted when she disobeyed.

Calvin notes that the Church Fathers are uncertain guides in this matter. He saw them as capitulating to philosophy on this matter at times. Chrysostom, for instance, notes,”The wicked man can become good, if he chooses, and the good man may change into a wicked one.” Calvin sums up, “We see from these statement that the Fathers credited man with greater power than was proper…”

He interacts with the 3 A’s: Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas. He finds Aquinas’ definition sound: “Free will is an elective power which, intermediate intellect and will, inclines, however more toward will.” So, how free is the will?

Calvin wants to generally avoid the term “free will”. The Schoolmen note that “man cannot be said to have free will because he is free to choose both good and evil, but because he does what he does voluntarily and not out of compulsion.” He argues that this term has been wrenched from this definition as a “justification for self-pride.” In other words, people use it not for the voluntariness of our our decisions, but to freely choose between good and evil.

Augustine is presented as a trustworthy guide. He affirmed the enslavement of the will. It is grace, and grace alone, that frees it from bondage to our appetites. Augustine moves us toward humility by seeing our natural powers as “impaired, demolished, scattered, destroyed.”

“For the human mind, because of its ignorance, cannot follow a sure path in its search for truth, but blunders into various errors. Just as a blind man stumbles about in the darkness until he quite loses his way; so the mind, pursuing the truth, shows how ill-suited and ill-equipped it is to seek and find it…”

Calvin then differentiates between stuff of earth and stuff of heaven. The bondage of the will, the depravity of the mind does not mean we are stupid intellectually, but stupid morally. We are able to structure societies reasonably well (though the current state of American politics may indicate otherwise), and most citizens are reasonably law-abiding. People are able to master mechanical and liberal arts. We do have a capacity for rational perception. This would be an example of common grace. God gives us the ability to improve our earthly state. This is undeserved, and therefore gracious.

Calvin notes that these natural endowments are gifts of the Spirit, “who distributes them as he pleases, for the common good of humankind.” Our corrupt minds are not as corrupt as they possibly could be. Although the Spirit only dwells in Christians, He is infinite and “does not fail to fill, move and quicken by the power of that same Spirit all creatures, according to the nature with which he endowed each of them at creation.”

Heavenly things (knowing God, his will and living accordingly) are a different story. We are spiritually blind apart from grace. Part of people’s blindness is their inability or unwillingness to accept this. People fall for all kinds of superstitions and foolishness (including deviations from Christianity). This blindness is taught in Jeremiah 24, John, Ephesians, 1 Cor. 2 and Colossians as well as Romans 1.

Calvin affirms the reality of natural law, arguing that its purpose is to make us without excuse. He points us to Romans 2 for this purpose. He defines natural law as: “an operation of conscience by which it is able to tell good from bad, with sufficient clarity that man cannot plead ignorance as an excuse, being rebuked by his own testimony.” For instance, as a teenager I had the capacity to recognize certain things as wrong. But I did them anyway.

Our moral reasoning and judgments are often (always?) clouded by our self-interest and passions/desires. We can talk ourselves into almost anything. We fail to grasp how evil our appetites often are.

After about 30 pages (and there are 40 more) he gets to Paul, who is obviously more authoritative than the schoolmen. It is also very different. We see the inner conflict of Christians in Romans 7 and Galatians 5. We have the Spirit by regeneration, how much worse the condition of those outside of Christ. Believers do strive after good, but don’t do it as often as desired due to this inner struggle. It is the Spirit that leads us toward righteousness. Apart from the Spirit, apart from Christ, people do not seek good (Rom. 3). They do not experience such inner conflict (though there is often the outer conflict of consequences- fear of man).

“Now we are all sinners by nature, so it follows that we are under sin’s yoke. Furthermore, if everyone is held fast by slavery to sin, the will, which is the chief agency of sin, must be tightly restrained and shackled by sin’s bonds.”

As we see in Romans 8, the unregenerate mind is hostile to God and His law. This indicates the bondage of the will to sin. It is in bondage to its inclinations. What people want to do is wrong, but that is what they do.

Thankfully, God, in His grace, limits our capacity for evil. He restrains our sin. While our corruption is changed, and ultimately cured, in the elect, it is merely curbed in the non-elect and non-converted. People are not as bad as they could be. But people sin because they want to, not because God makes them sin. They live within the bondage to sin, so there is an element of necessity. But it is also a joyful necessity. The sinner has not been “stripped of his will but of the soundness of will.” Calvin also brings us back to the character of God, to understand freedom and necessity.

“So if nothing stops God’s will from being free when he does good, even though he does good of necessity, and if the devil always sins voluntarily, even though evil is all he can do, who will argue that man does not sin voluntarily simply because he is subject to the necessity of sinning?”

Here is how Calvin sums it up: “This, then, is the distinction we must observe: man, corrupted by his fall, sins willingly, not despite himself or by compulsion. He sins, I say again, through inclination and not because he is forcibly constrained; he sins because he is prompted by his own appetites, not by external force.”

I’ll resume Calvin’s discussion of this matter in the near future.

Read Full Post »


Do you struggle with preoccupation with yourself? Do you find yourself caring too much about what others think about you? or what you think about you?

Perhaps this is the booklet for you. Tim Keller’s The Freedom of Self-Forgetfulness is adapted from a sermon of his on 1 Corinthians 3. As a result, this is a relatively short treatment of a particular question. As such it can’t say everything there is to say about the subjects with which it deals. Someone I know raised some questions about this booklet, and I hope to address them briefly toward the end. I will also make a short application for pastors (something Keller does elsewhere).

He introduces the passage with the stark difference between traditional and modern thought about people’s problems. Traditionally, pride (hubris) has been identified as one of our problems that creates other problems. Criminals think more of themselves than others, for instance, and this justifies their crimes. Something odd happened in the Western world in the not too distant past. The prevailing notion, still prevalent in education, is that people actually suffer from low self-esteem. If only they would have a better view of themselves they wouldn’t be criminals, poor etc. We now, statistically, have students who are progressively worse but feel better and better about themselves despite failure. Thankfully, this view regarding self-esteem is finally being challenged academically.

The passage Keller is handling is addressing the divisions that have been plaguing the church of Corinth. The factions have allied themselves to particular teacher. The factions are filled with pride and boastful of their relationship or adherence to their favorite teacher (Paul, Peter, Apollos etc.). I know, we would never do anything like that. This leads us into contemplating the ego.

The natural state of the ego, Keller argues, is that it is inflated. Paul does not use hubris, but a word he uses often in the letters to the Corinthians and in Colossians 2. It isn’t used elsewhere in Scripture. It does have that idea of over-inflated or bloated. This means that the human ego is empty (just filled with hot air), painful (stretched too far), busy (looking to fill that emptiness) and fragile (not this is not a special award). He draws on (surprise!) C.S. Lewis, Soren Kierkegaard and Madonna.

(more…)

Read Full Post »


Tom Petty was more right than he ever knew- the waiting is the hardest part. By the time we got to our second adoption process you’d think CavWife and I would have had Ph.D.s in waiting. After all, both of us had spent most of our adult lives, then over 20 years, waiting for one thing or another.

We both waited vocationally. CavWife wanted to be a teacher, in a Christian school: a particular Christian school (mine is not to wonder why). After graduating with her degree in Elementary Education, she waited. No, she didn’t sit in a room by the phone waiting for them to call until she was covered in dust and cobwebs. She ended up working at the Bible Institute she had attended for 2 years. But her eye was always on that Christian school. For 8 years she waited, hoping, enduring long Adirondack winters.

She’d given up- the demanding anyway.  She still had the desire, but she was no longer demanding God do this for her.  She was amazed when they called. Oddly, it was difficult for her to leave upstate NY and her dearest friends that she met during that period of life.

I left the small city I grew up in just before I turned 25. I was going to seminary: over 1,000 miles away. I was escaping the cold, and a series of relational disappointments. Seminary wasn’t my plan even though it was The Plan. I thought God was crazy, but one day He turned the light bulb on and The Plan was suddenly sweet. So I wasn’t just running from things, I was also running to something. But my plan was to return to New England when I was done. Little did I know that I’d be stuck in Florida for the next 19 years. Sometimes the wait is how we move from our plan to His plan; it is a slow course correction. Our hearts need time to transition from our plan to His.

(more…)

Read Full Post »


Pride is a problem for everyone, and this includes people in ministry. Pride is “the mother of all sins”, and the third of the Mistakes Leaders Make. The chapter is “Allowing Pride to Replace Humility“. Since pride is our default mode as sinners, I think “Not replacing pride with humility” would be more accurate. Just saying.

“It often hides under the cloak of confidence and conviction.”

Kraft rightly says that pride is often in stealth mode. It does not often come out overtly, brash and in your face. It lurks under the surface, corrupting our motives and tainting our actions.

Often churches set themselves up for the problem of the prideful pastor. They hire guys based more upon gifts than character. We want competence, or exceptionalism, and realize that we have to let people go because their character sabotages their ministry.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »