Posts filed under ‘Christian Doctrine’
Resurrection Trouble
Easter is hopeful and scandalous all at the same time. It is scandalous because its message insists that what we think we know about death – that it is inescapable – has been escaped by Jesus. It is hopeful because there is something about death’s demise that strikes in us a chord of longing.
Sadly, the message of Easter – that Christ has risen in space and in time and in His body – has often been reduced to little more than a message about general hope for tomorrow and a slightly more spiritual-sounding non-descript existence after death. But it was not this way in the beginning. As N.T. Wright explains:
Death is the last weapon of the tyrant, and the point of the resurrection, despite much misunderstanding, is that death has been defeated. Resurrection is not the redescription of death; it is its overthrow and, with that, the overthrow of those whose power depends on it. Despite the sneers and slurs of some contemporary scholars, it was those who believed in the bodily resurrection who were burned at the stake and thrown to the lions. Resurrection was never a way of settling down and becoming respectable.
The resurrection caused trouble in that world – and it can still cause trouble in this world.
To the tyrant who murders to secure your power – the resurrection will destroy you.
To the disease that saps and sucks the life out of bodies – the resurrection will undo you.
To the hopelessness and helplessness and grief that can set in when a loved one dies – the resurrection will conquer you.
To the devil himself – the resurrection has already defeated you.
This is what we mean when we declare, “Christ is risen.”
And He has, indeed. Alleluia.
Christ, Culture, and Witness
A perennial question of Christianity asks: How should a Christian relate to and interact with broader culture? In his classic work, Christ and Culture, H. Richard Niebuhr outlines what has become the premier taxonomy of the relationship between the two as he explores five different ways that, historically, Christ and culture have corresponded:
- Christ against culture: In this view, Christianity and broader culture are incompatible and Christianity will inevitably be at odds with and should retreat from the rest of the world.
- Christ of culture: In this view, Christianity and broader culture are well suited for each other, and Jesus becomes the fulfiller of society’s hopes and dreams.
- Christ above culture: In this view, broader culture is not bad per se, but it needs to be augmented and perfected by biblical revelation and the Church, with Christ as the head.
- Christ and culture in paradox: In this view, culture is not all bad because it is, after all, created by God, but it has been corrupted by sin. Therefore, there will always be a tension between the potential of culture and its reality as well as between the brokenness of culture and the perfection of Christ.
- Christ the transformer of culture: In this view, because Christ desires to ultimately redeem culture, Christians should work to transform culture.
The categories Niebuhr outlines and the tensions he teases out in his taxonomy are just as salient today as they were when he first posed them in 1951. Indeed, they are perhaps even more so as America slides into what many have christened a “post-Christian age.”
In my view, the first two categories won’t do. To pit Christ against culture, as the first view tries to do, overlooks the fact that there is much good in culture. It can also easily lead Christians into a self-righteousness that spends so much time trying to fight culture that it forgets that Christians are part of the problem in culture, for they too are sinners.
Conversely, to team Christ with culture and to use Christ to endorse your zeitgeist of choice also will not do. As Ross Douthat explains, when this happens:
Traditional churches are supplanted by self-help gurus and spiritual-political entrepreneurs. These figures cobble together pieces of the old orthodoxies, take out the inconvenient bits and pitch them to mass audiences that want part of the old-time religion but nothing too unsettling or challenging or ascetic. The result is a nation where Protestant awakenings have given way to post-Protestant wokeness, where Reinhold Niebuhr and Fulton Sheen have ceded pulpits to Joel Osteen and Oprah Winfrey, where the prosperity gospel and Christian nationalism rule the right and a social gospel denuded of theological content rules the left.
Though I would take issue with Douthat’s characterization of Reinhold Niebuhr and Fulton Sheen as torchbearers for Christian orthodoxy, his broader point about what happens when Christ is made to mindlessly cater to culture is absolutely true. Culture, it turns out, is a much better line dancer than it is a two-stepper. It likes to dance alone and will humor Christ only as long as it needs to until it can find a way to leave Him behind and strike out on its own.
In my view, Niebuhr’s category of “Christ and culture in paradox” best explains the difficult realities of the Church’s interaction with culture and the biblical understanding of how to relate to culture. In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul opens by writing:
When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. (1 Corinthians 2:1-3)
The Corinthians prided themselves on being enlightened and educated. Paul sardonically jibes the Corinthians for their arrogance, teasing, “We are fools for Christ, but you are so wise in Christ! We are weak, but you are strong! You are honored, we are dishonored” (1 Corinthians 4:10). To a church that prided itself in being intellectually and socially elitist, rather than engaging in rhetorical and philosophical acrobatics to impress the Corinthians when he proclaimed the gospel to them, Paul came to them with the rather unimpressive, as he put it, “foolish” message of Christ and Him crucified. Paul cut against the culture of Corinth.
And yet, at the same time he cut against the culture of Corinth, he also declared his love for broader culture and even embedded himself into broader culture in an effort to proclaim the gospel:
Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. (1 Corinthians 9:19-22)
Paul was not afraid to appropriate culture in service to the declaration and proclamation of the gospel so that as many people as possible might be saved.
So there you have it. Paul eschews cultural sensibilities at the same time he employs them. Because Paul knows that Christ and culture live in paradox with one another.
We would do well to follow in Paul’s footsteps. As Christians, we must not be afraid to cut against culture’s sinfulness and brokenness. But at the same time, we must also not be afraid to embrace culture’s creativity and respect its sensibilities as often as we possibly can. And we must have the wisdom to know when to do what. Otherwise, we will only wind up losing the truth to culture or losing the opportunity to share the truth with culture. And we can afford to lose neither.
Let us pray that we would faithfully keep both in 2019.
The Reformation of the Church
Credit: Ferdinand Pauwels, 1872
Tomorrow, many corners of the Christian Church will mark the 500th anniversary of the Reformation. And though the Reformation of the Church was larger than any one event and any one man, the beginning of this grand theological and historical watershed is traditionally traced to October 31, 1517, when an Augustinian monk named Martin Luther posted 95 theses to the door of the castle church in Wittenberg, Germany, outlining his grievances against some of the abuses that were rampant in the Roman Catholic Church of his day.
At the heart of Luther’s protest was the Church’s sale of indulgences. Indeed, in his 95 theses, Luther uses the word “indulgence” some 45 times! An indulgence was a partial remission of punishment for sin, issued by the Church, and could be used either to lessen a person’s future penalties in purgatory, or to shorten a deceased loved one’s current intermediate period in purgatory. Indulgences took both the form of personal good works, such as pilgrimages and acts of devotion, as well as the form of a payment to the Church by which, it was said, one could have some of the good works of one of the Church’s canonized saints imputed to him to counterbalance his sin.
In Luther’s day, a preacher named Johann Tetzel shamelessly peddled the second type of indulgence, claiming that paying for an indulgence could breezily and easily excuse a sin for which one would otherwise have to suffer terribly in purgatory. With clownish flamboyance, he declared:
Consider, that for each and every mortal sin it is necessary to undergo seven years of penitence after confession and contrition, either in this life or in purgatory.
How many mortal sins are committed in a day, how many in a week, how many in a month, how many in a year, how many in the whole extent of life! They are well-nigh numberless, and those that commit them must needs suffer endless punishment in the burning pains of purgatory.
But with these confessional letters you will be able at any time in life to obtain full indulgence for all penalties imposed upon you …
Are you not willing, then, for the fourth part of a florin, to obtain these letters, by virtue of which you may bring, not your money, but your divine and immortal soul, safe and sound into the land of paradise?
According to Tetzel, one sin buys a person seven years of suffering in purgatory. If a person commits only one sin a day, which, according to Tetzel himself, who invites his hearers to ponder “how many mortal sins are committed in a day,” is an unrealistic underestimation, this would mean that, for one year’s worth of sins, a person would spend 2,555 years in purgatory. If a person lived to be 75, they would have to endure 191,625 years of suffering in purgatory. But, Tetzel continues, “for the fourth part of a florin,” one can purchase an indulgence letter, which allows the bearer to “obtain full indulgence for all penalties imposed on you.” A florin was an Italian gold coin worth around $144 in today’s currency. A fourth of a florin, then, would be worth around $36. Thus, Tetzel’s message was this: for $36, your sins can be taken care of, and you can enter effortlessly into paradise. What a deal!
The problem with Tetzel’s deal, of course, is that, ultimately, he cheapened both the penalty and the payment for sin. As harrowing as 191,625 years in purgatory may sound, the true penalty for sin is even more terrifying, for it is not a finite time in purgatory, but an infinite eternity in hell. And the true payment for sin that rescues us from this eternity in hell is certainly more than a measly $36. The true payment for sin is nothing short of priceless. As God says through the prophet Isaiah, “Without money you will be redeemed” (Isaiah 52:3). The true payment for sin is nothing less than the priceless blood of Christ.
The truth Luther rediscovered is that the penalty for sin is much steeper and the payment for sin is much deeper than an indulgence preacher like Johann Tetzel ever let on. And this is the truth that launched a reformation of the Church.
Tetzel passed away in 1519, only two short years after the Reformation began. By this time his ministry had been discredited, and he had been accused of fathering an illegitimate child. When Luther heard that Tetzel was near death, he wrote his old theological sparring partner a kind note, begging him “not to be troubled, for the matter did not begin on his account, but the child had quite a different father.”
Luther was known for preaching grace as a theologian. It turns out that, for all his protestations against and sometimes harsh critiques of the Catholic Church of his day, at times, he was also gracious as a person. And grace is better than any indulgence. This was Luther’s message – and, most importantly, this is the gospel message. And that’s a message worth celebrating, which is why the Reformation is worth celebrating, even 500 years later.
“Indulgences are in truth the most insignificant graces when compared with the grace of God and the piety of the cross.” (Martin Luther)
Common Question: What’s the Relationship Between Predestination and Evangelism?
I first encountered the question when I was in college. “If God is the One who chooses people for salvation,” a buddy asked me, “then why do we need to worry about spreading the gospel? Isn’t God going to save people regardless of whether or not we share our faith with them?”
At the heart of my college buddy’s question was the relationship between two important doctrines: the doctrine of predestination – that God does all the work for our salvation, even down to the level of our wills, by taking the initiative to choose those who are saved – and the doctrine of evangelism – that we, as God’s people, are charged with going forth and spreading the gospel to all the world so that people may believe and be saved.
At first glance, these two doctrines do indeed seem contradictory. The apostle Paul writes of predestination:
[God] chose us in Him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in His sight. In love He predestined us to be adopted as His sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with His pleasure and will – to the praise of His glorious grace, which He has freely given us in the One He loves. (Ephesians 1:4-6)
If God has already chosen people for salvation “before the creation of the world,” as Paul says, then what is the point of sharing the gospel so people will come to faith in Jesus and be saved? Isn’t everything a done deal?
When seeking to explain how these two doctrines work together, two errors have regularly been made.
The first error is that of conditional predestination. This error posits that God only chooses people for salvation on the condition that they first choose to trust in Him. This belief was famously promoted by the Five Articles of the Remonstrance, which outlines the basic tenets of Arminian theology:
God has immutably decreed, from eternity, to save those men who, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, believe in Jesus Christ, and by the same grace persevere in the obedience of faith to the end; and, on the other hand, to condemn the unbelievers and unconverted. Election and condemnation are thus conditioned by foreknowledge, and made dependent on the foreseen faith or unbelief of men.[1]
According to the Five Articles of the Remonstrance, God will not choose a person for salvation unless that person first chooses to have faith in Christ. For the Arminian, then, the burden of sharing one’s faith with others is heavy. After all, how can a person choose to have faith in Christ if he is not given a choice? And how can a person be given a choice if someone does not share with him that there is, in fact, a choice? Presenting to people the message that there is a choice to be made to have faith in Christ is the foundation of evangelism in Arminianism.
But such a theological system is not without problems. First, Scripture does not present God’s choice of us as contingent on our choice of Christ. God’s choices are unilateral. Second, by making God’s choice of us contingent on our choice of Christ, our salvation ultimately becomes dependent not on Christ Himself, but on our ability to choose Christ. It should be noted that Arminians teach that our wills, before our conversions, are helped along by divine prevenient grace, which is supposed to enable and enliven our wills so they can choose Christ, but such a teaching does not comport with Scripture. Scripture clearly teaches that our wills are anything but enabled and enlivened, especially before our conversions. Paul says of his own will: “What I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do – this I keep on doing” (Romans 7:19). To make God’s choice of us contingent on our choice of Christ is a recipe for disaster. We will inevitably choose poorly because our wills are broken by and enslaved to sin.
The second error that is often made when trying to explain the relationship between predestination and evangelism is that of conditional proclamation. In this error, predestination is rightly held up as God’s unilateral decision to choose people apart from and in spite of their fallen, sinful wills. The Westminster Confession of Faith, which forms the basis for Calvinist theology, outlines this view:
Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature.[2]
This synopsis of predestination is certainly much more in line with how Paul talks about the doctrine in Ephesians 1, but even this understanding is not without its problems.
Calvinist theology runs quickly into trouble when it posits that God not only chooses people for salvation, but that He also chooses people for condemnation. Again, from the Westminster Confession:
By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.[3]
This is most certainly not how Paul speaks of predestination in Ephesians 1 and must be rejected. Predestination is not about God’s condemnation. It is only about His salvation. In predestination, God rescues people out of their default destination of damnation by choosing them for salvation. Predestination does not work the other way around. God does not predestine people to hell.
Second, because their doctrine of predestination both to salvation and condemnation is so strongly held, some Calvinists can become hesitant to invite someone to believe in Christ because they do not know whether the person they are inviting has been predestined from eternity for salvation or condemnation.
Perhaps the most historically notable example of such reticence comes in one of the most famous sermons of all time: Jonathan Edwards’ “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” Edwards’ rhetoric is robust and his portrait of hell is horrifying, but his hope of salvation falls flat:
And let everyone that is yet out of Christ, and hanging over the pit of hell, whether they be old men and women, or middle aged, or young people, or little children, now hearken to the loud calls of God’s Word and providence … God seems now to be hastily gathering in His elect in all parts of the land; and probably the bigger part of adult persons that ever shall be saved, will be brought in now in a little time, and that it will be as it was on that great outpouring of the Spirit upon the Jews in the apostles’ days, the election will obtain, and the rest will be blinded.[4]
Notice that Edwards is careful not to extend God’s promise of salvation to the whole congregation. This is because, in Edwards’ thinking, some are predestined for salvation while others are doomed for condemnation and Edwards cannot know for certain who is who. So he simply states the facts of predestination to salvation and condemnation as he sees them.
Such a way of presenting salvation and condemnation is problematic because it strips the Christian witness of its power. No longer can people be invited to believe through the hearing of the Word (cf. Romans 10:13-15). The proclamation of the gospel is simply a window dressing for what is a fait accompli in predestination.
Thus, in some manifestations of Arminian theology, predestination is stripped of its promise because it is made contingent on a person’s decision while in some manifestations of Calvinist theology, evangelism is stripped of its power because it has no real effect on what is already a foregone conclusion from eternity. So what is the way out of this conundrum?
Because predestination takes place outside of time and because we, as God’s people, live in time, God’s eternal decrees in predestination need a way by which they can delivered evangelically into our time and space. Theologically, the vehicle by which God’s eternal decrees are delivered into our finite world is His Word. When God’s people share God’s Word, which, by the way, is the soul and substance of the evangelical task, faith is awakened in hearts and God’s decrees from before time come to pass within time and, most importantly, within lives, as they do in Acts 13:48 when, after Paul and Barnabas preach the gospel to the Gentiles, “all who were appointed,” that is, predestined, “for eternal life believed.” Without God’s people evangelically sharing God’s Word, God’s choice of people from eternity cannot be known or believed. And where there is no belief, there is no salvation. Thus, it is not just that predestination and evangelism do not conflict with each other. It is that they need each other. Predestination must travel from the timeless to the temporal in order to deliver its promise. Speaking God’s Word evangelically is the vehicle by which this promise gets delivered.
Recently, I have heard some within my own confession of faith of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod criticize those who characterize Christ’s evangelical mission as “emptying out the future population of hell,” or as “building a bigger heaven tomorrow by reaching people today.” They assert that such language undermines the doctrine of predestination by making our witness to the world, rather than God’s choice of His elect, responsible for people’s salvation. They prefer to speak of Christ’s mission in terms of “reaching the elect.” Though I understand their concern and share their aversion to making a person’s salvation in any way dependent on human effort, I am much more comfortable with the language of shifting populations of heaven and hell than they are. After all, such language indicates that God’s eternal decrees in predestination have entered time and space through the evangelical proclamation of the Word and have actually accomplished something! Real people are really being converted right here and now much to the real chagrin of the devil and his minions.
Those who criticize the language of shifting eternal populations would do well to remember that characterizing Christ’s mission as “reaching the elect”– even as it carries with it a clear and helpful confession of divine monergism – comes with its own set of pitfalls. For one thing, it should be noted that, exegetically, Christ promises to gather His elect not so much in time missionally, but at the end of time eschatologically (cf. Mark 13:26-27). The Parable of the Wheat and the Tares in Matthew 13:24-30 makes this clear enough. Such language can also mistakenly lead to the implication that no real conversion takes place in people in time because everything has been taken care of ahead of time in predestination. The Church is simply reminding those who are already Christ’s that they are already Christ’s. But if no real conversion takes place in people in time, then there is no real slavery to sin from which people need to be converted. And if there is no real slavery to sin from which people need to be converted, then there is no real need for a Savior to step into time to die and rise for sinners. It’s already all been taken care of ahead of time. Thus, the cross gets stripped of its power.
As it turns out, Christ’s incarnation becomes the proof in the pudding, so to speak, that what is before time in predestination doesn’t stay there. For Christ is not only the Word spoken to us evangelically, He is the Word who steps into time to die and rise for us salvifically. In a very real sense, then, the future population of hell is being emptied and the glorious population of heaven is being filled by Christ’s work as it is proclaimed by Christ’s people today. Real conversions are taking place. And what began outside of time – predestination – is coming to fruition in time and in Christ for us and for our salvation. Praise be to God for this indescribable gift.
____________________________________
[1] Five Articles of the Remonstrance (1610), First Article.
[2] Westminster of Confession of Faith (1647), III:5.
[3] Westminster Confession of Faith, III:3.
[4] Jonathan Edwards, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” Enfield, CT (7.8.1741).
A Pastoral Statement on President Obama’s Endorsement of Same-Sex Marriage
Dear Friends in Christ,
The issues of same-sex marriage, or gay marriage, and the broader topic of homosexuality are not only “hot” topics in our society, they are also tender issues that reach to the heart of many families and individuals. These are issues laced with personal and familial experiences that strike at the basic need we all share to love and be loved. As a result, it is difficult to discuss these matters objectively. Our desire is to do that very thing – to present these issues from a loving and compassionate perspective that seeks to share Biblical truth without compromising our desire to love all people (as Christ has loved us) without regard for their sexual orientation.
The Christian Church is often painted as “the enemy” of homosexual people. Unfortunately, this picture has often been exacerbated by poor and confusing communication from the Church. We, however, see this characterization as a misunderstanding of the Church and its role. Christian people are called to commit themselves to God and His Word. In doing so, we are called to love all people unconditionally while also standing firm on the truths expressed in the holy Word of God.
In response to many questions and concerns expressed over President Obama’s recent statements regarding gay marriage, we have prepared this statement. On the surface, this may seem a clear-cut issue to people on all sides of the argument. However, it is our belief that this issue is complicated and worthy of careful consideration. As a result, this statement is lengthy. Please take the time to work your way through each of the topics and consider each point. Please also, as time allows, take the time to consider the additional resources listed at the end of this document.
Finally, as you read this statement, know that we, your pastors, love you and your families. Our passion to share God’s love and encouragement with you, your families, and all people is deep and compelling in our lives. If you have concerns or questions about this document, please contact us.
God bless you!
Bill Tucker, Senior Pastor
Concordia Lutheran Church, San Antonio, Texas
www.ConcordiaLutheranChurch.com
A Summary of the Statement
This past Wednesday, in an interview with ABC News, President Obama expressed his support of same-sex marriage. In response to the widespread questions over the president’s comments, we thought it would be helpful to address the biblical stance on same-sex marriage in a four-section statement, prepared by the pastors of Concordia Lutheran Church. Because we know that not everyone will have the time or the inclination to read the full statement, what follows is a brief summary of the major points of the paper.
Compassion and Conviction
As Christians, we are called to address every sin and every sinner with both compassion and conviction. This is also true when it comes to the sins of homosexual activity and same-sex marriage. We must speak compassionately to those in homosexual lifestyles, calling to their attention Jesus’ offer of salvation for those trapped in sexual sin (cf. Matthew 21:31). At the same time, we must also speak with conviction concerning the sinfulness of homosexual activity specifically and all sexual immorality generally (cf. Romans 1:25-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-12).
The Marriage Model
Our society is losing respect for the biblical model of marriage as a lifelong covenant relationship between one man and one woman until death parts them (cf. Matthew 19:4-6). The passage of no-fault divorce laws in many states, the prevalence of adultery, pre-marital sex, pornography, and marital abuse all demonstrate this. President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage is merely the latest example of an affront against the biblical model of marriage.
Civic Policy and the Divine Order
Christians can stand against same-sex marriage not only on the basis of the Scriptural witness, but also on the basis of natural, moral law. Because certain moral mandates are written on the heart of every human being (cf. Romans 2:14-15), our society adheres to a broad moral standard, derived from the natural order of things in our world. This is why murder, stealing, lying, and the like are punishable by our civic system. If we follow the natural order of things on these moral issues, why would we abandon this order when it comes to same-sex marriage?
Authority and Autonomy
Our society has a tendency to make moral judgments based not on absolute truth, but on shifting popular opinion. President Obama himself exemplifies this method of moralizing when, in his interview, he references practicing homosexuals he knows and has known as justification for his endorsement of same-sex marriage. As Christians, however, we cannot embrace the shifting sensibilities of our culture or our personal preferences to form our moral stances. Instead, we must turn to the one and final standard of morality and goodness: God Himself, revealed through His Word (cf. Luke 18:19).
We encourage you to read the full statement to learn more. As Christians committed to the witness of Scripture, this is most certainly an issue worthy of our time, attention, and thought.
A Pastoral Statement on President Obama’s Endorsement
of Same-Sex Marriage
This past Wednesday, in an interview with ABC News, President Obama expressed his support of what is commonly referred to as same-sex marriage, or gay marriage:
I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or Marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.[1]
President Obama’s comments mark a major milestone in presidential politics. Never has an incumbent president called for the transformation of one of society’s foundational institutions. Not surprisingly, a fury of political, sociological, and theological punditry has erupted around the president’s statements.
In response to the widespread questions over the president’s stance, because of the rampant confusion over homosexuality and its morality, and because this issue is not merely theoretical, but also relational and personal for many people, we thought it would be prudent to briefly address the biblical stance on this topic in four sections. These sections include: (1) The importance of speaking with both compassion and conviction about homosexuality and to homosexuals; (2) Reiterating the biblical model for marriage; (3) Understanding the interplay between the civic, political realm and the natural, moral realm; and (4) Submitting to Scripture’s authority while recognizing the dangers of our rampant cultural autonomy. Let’s address each of these areas briefly.
Compassion and Conviction
Holy Scripture is clear in its command: we are to show compassion to those caught in sexual sin, including homosexual sin, and we are to show and share the hope and forgiveness of the gospel with all sinners. Indeed, Jesus was known for His compassion toward those mired in sexual sin and even opened His kingdom to them. He says to the religious leaders of His day, “I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you” (Matthew 21:31). People caught in sexual sin are included in God’s kingdom through faith in Christ. Such is the compassion and grace of our God. When a woman is caught in the act of adultery and the religious leaders seek to stone her, Jesus sends her accusers away and says, “I [do not] condemn you…Go now and leave your life of sin” (John 8:11). In an act of extravagant compassion and grace, Jesus forgives this woman’s sin and saves her life. It is important to note, however, that while Jesus offers His deep compassion, at the same time, He refuses to compromise His core conviction concerning the immorality of sexual sin. He calls this woman to repent of her sin and not to return to it. Thus, Jesus holds His compassion and conviction in perfect tension. This is why the Bible says that Jesus comes to us “full of grace [i.e., compassion] and truth [i.e., conviction]” (John 1:14). Both conviction and compassion are needed in a Christian’s response to homosexuality. This means that our homosexual neighbors, friends, and family members deserve both our love and kindness as well as our candid thoughts and concerns.
With this in mind, just as we are compelled by Holy Scripture to show compassion toward those trapped in homosexual sin, we are also compelled by Holy Scripture to state our conviction that homosexual activity is sinful. The apostle Paul writes pointedly:
[People have] exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator – who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (Romans 1:25-27)
Please notice two things about Paul’s statements, inspired by the Holy Spirit, concerning homosexuality. First, at the root of the sin of homosexual practice is the sin of idolatry. The apostle argues that homosexual relationships exchange “the truth of God for a lie” and worship “created things [i.e., sexual desire] rather than the Creator.” Sexual sin, along with every other sin, tries to do no less than dethrone God and crown our own desires as supreme, regardless of and in contradiction to God’s will! It is an affront against the First Commandment: “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:3). Second, Paul clearly sees homosexual activity as morally unacceptable. Words such as “indecent” and “perversion” in verse 27 make this clear enough. Moreover, in verse 24, Paul calls homosexual activity a “sinful desire,” “sexual impurity,” and “degrading.” Scripture’s conviction on the practice of homosexuality is unequivocal: it is sinful.
The Marriage Model
President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage is merely the latest in a long line of attacks resulting in the slow erosion of respect for the biblical model of marriage. Skye Jethani of Christianity Today explains:
The church was silent when state after state passed no-fault divorce laws. These bills essentially removed the state from any interest in preserving or defining marriage. No fault divorce laws defined marriage as an agreement between two individuals that may be entered or dissolved as the individuals desire without state interference or prejudice.[2]
The final sentence is key. For if marriage is defined civically as merely “an agreement between two individuals that may be entered or dissolved as the individuals desire without state interference of prejudice,” the state is stripped of its ability to offer any definition of who those two individuals are and the kind of commitment those two individuals make. Is marriage between a man and a woman? A man and a man? A woman and a woman? Is it entered into under the assumption that it will be a lifelong union? None of this is defined à la our states’ no-fault divorce laws. Thus, so-called gay marriage is merely a consequential progression of the ambiguous marriage laws already on the books.
The Bible is not nearly so ambiguous. Its stance is clear: marriage is meant to be a life-long covenant relationship between one man and one woman until death parts them. This is part and parcel of God’s created order: “A man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). This created order is reiterated and reinforced by Jesus Himself: “Haven’t you read…that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matthew 19:4-6).
The desire of Christians, then, should not be only to stand against same-sex marriage while loving homosexual people, but to stand for biblical marriage, being defined as the union between one man and one woman. This means that we ought to raise the alarm not only over same-sex marriage, but over adultery, pornography, divorce, abuse, and anything else that impugns the biblical model of marriage where one woman and one man commit to each other, become one flesh through sexual intimacy, and serve, honor, and love each other. Indeed, every married Christian should strive to attain this model in his or her marriage. Marriage is God’s gift to us, bestowed in love, and is intended to be both an example of His love for us (cf. Ephesians 5:31-32) and an opportunity for us to experience the blessing and joy of loving each other.
Civic Policy and the Divine Order
When President Obama made his comments supporting same-sex marriage, more than one evangelical Christian rushed to his defense. Consider this from an evangelical blogger:
Supporting gay marriage is not supporting sin. I know it is hard to grasp, but this matter has nothing to do with whether or not homosexuality is a sin. If it does, then you are probably being inconsistent since there are lots of things that Christians consider “sinful” that they do not legislate against. For instance, if God wants us as a nation to live by His laws, why are we okay supporting the freedom of religion? Shouldn’t we be out trying to ban other religions? If we are okay with freedom of religion, which is a law that basically mandates that our country allow for idolatry (according to the Christian), aren’t we being hypocritical?[3]
At first glance, some may find this argument compelling. If we support legislation against gay marriage because of our Christian belief that homosexuality is a sin, what other legislation are we required to support? Is insisting on a federally mandated Christianity an inextricable consequence of supporting a traditional definition of marriage in our civic law as this blogger suggests?
It is important to understand that legislation supporting traditional marriage is not theologically identical to federally mandated Christianity. The difference between the two can be found in the distinction between general revelation and special revelation. General revelation is that which can be known apart from Holy Scripture simply by observing God’s created order and the moral implications of this created order. Another name for this is “natural law.” Many of the Ten Commandments fall under this category of natural, moral law. For instance, our society still recognizes that murder runs contrary to natural, moral law. Likewise, lying, stealing, and (before the no-fault divorce laws cited above) even adultery has been considered by society-at-large to run contrary to this law. Thus, one does not have to be a Christian to accept and adhere to natural, moral law because this law is written on the hearts of all people apart from Scripture and faith in Christ (cf. Romans 2:14-15). In light of the universal character of this law, there are (and always have been) legal consequences in our civic system for actions which contradict natural law.
Homosexual practice and its immorality fall squarely within the realm of general revelation and natural, moral law. Consider again Paul’s argument against homosexuality in Romans 1:
Women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (Romans 1:26-27)
Once more, note Paul’s language. He speaks of “natural” and “unnatural” relations. “Natural” relations are those within heterosexual marriage while “unnatural” relations are those that are homosexual. In this passage, then, Paul does not argue against homosexuality using a divine command, but using creation’s natural order. Thus, same sex marriage is contrary to natural, moral law. And if we as a society honor natural, moral law in instances such as murder, stealing, lying, and the like, why abandon such a precedent when it comes to marriage?
Special revelation is a different matter. Special revelation refers to that which can be known only through the Bible and has to do with God’s specific and special plan to redeem humanity from its sinful condition. General revelation, then, encompasses all people while special revelation is found exclusively in the Old and New Testament Scriptures and declares a specific message of salvation through Christ. Thus, though Christians can support legislation that is broadly moral and applies to all according to the divine ordering of creation, we put ourselves in a precarious position when we demand civic laws that are specifically Christian in nature because faith in Christ cannot be coerced by legislation, it can only be shared by our witness. This is why, while standing against same-sex marriage, Christians do not demand legislation that forces people to worship the Triune God. Worship of the Triune God can be brought about only by faith in the gospel and not an edict of the government.
Authority and Autonomy
The way in which the news media has reported President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage has been quite telling concerning the way many of us often craft our moral views. Consider the following from CNN: “A Gallup Poll released Tuesday indicated 50% of Americans believe same-sex marriages should be recognized by law as valid, with 48% saying such marriages should not be legal.”[4] Many will cite polls like this one to make the case for the moral acceptability of gay marriage, making morality a mere function of democratic enterprise. Indeed, President Obama even cited a democratic acceptance of homosexuality, albeit in an anecdotal way, as part of his reasoning for endorsing same-sex marriage. Consider again his statement:
I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or Marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.[5]
President Obama’s reasoning for same-sex marriage is simply this: because he knows many people who are practicing homosexuals and are in committed relationships, same-sex marriage must be allowed!
As Christians, we must recognize this kind of reasoning for what it is: the expression of an individual moral autonomy that has influenced the thinking of President Obama as well as many in our society. This autonomy refuses to believe in any authority outside of itself. Blogger Rod Dreher summarizes:
This is the fundamental problem we face when we argue over gay marriage, abortion, contraception, and so forth. It’s not about rights, not really; it’s about what it means to be a person, and what is the ultimate source of morality.[6]
The fact of the matter is, for many people, “the ultimate source of morality,” as Dreher calls it, is nothing more than an individual’s own sensibilities and sensitivities. In other words, there is no standard of morality external to each individual. All morality is merely a personal construct, erasing absolute truth. This view of morality, of course, runs directly contrary to the Christian moral imperative which sees moral standards as external, rooted in the divine order and, finally, in God Himself! As Jesus says, “No one is good – except God alone” (Luke 18:19). God is the one and final standard of goodness and morality. And He reveals His standard to us through His Word.
Moreover, when our culture’s autonomous morality is coupled with a selfish hedonism, the results are predictable. Many people cannot imagine a God who would not want them to be happy. If homosexual activity brings them such happiness, the argument runs, such activity cannot be wrong. Statements such as, “If anyone would come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for Me will find it” (Matthew 16:24-25) are either ignored or rejected as impediments to personal fulfillment and happiness. Denying personal and sinful desires in deference to Christ and His call is clearly out of step with our prevailing culture autonomy.
As Christians, we are called to witness to the vanity of such hedonistic pursuits. Even when denying oneself is difficult – especially in the arena of sexual desire, be that heterosexual or homosexual desire – we are called to declare the message that pursuing any desire in a way that is not consistent with God’s design will ultimately lead a person into choices that violate both divine law and basic moral constraints. True fulfillment and satisfaction, along with the strength to overcome our old, sinful nature, can be found only in Christ. As Paul writes, “My God will meet all your needs according to His glorious riches in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4:19). And as Jesus promises, “I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full” (John 10:10). Everything we need for fullness of life is found in Christ!
It is our prayer that this statement serves as a guide to clarify both the biblical record and its natural, moral law corollaries on same-sex marriage. We believe such a stance is foundational and necessary to the decent order and function of society-at-large. We hope, as well, that this statement can be of help to those seeking to share with others a charitable Christian perspective on this issue. We remain committed to both the biblical conviction against same-sex marriage and the biblical mandate to compassionately share Christ’s love with all people regardless of sexual orientation.
Additional Resources
If you would like additional resources which address President Obama’s statement endorsing same-sex marriage from a Christian perspective, you can consult the following:
- http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/05/09/how-to-win-the-public-on-homosexuality/
- http://www.edstetzer.com/2012/05/president-obama-and-same-sex-m.html
- http://www.outofur.com/archives/2012/05/obama_endorses.html#more
[1] Rick Klein, “Obama Declares Support for Gay Marriage” (5.9.12), http://news.yahoo.com/obama-announces-his-support-for-same-sex-marriage.html.
[2] Skye Jethani, “Obama Endorses Same Sex Marriage – Now What?” (5.10.12), http://www.outofur.com/archives/2012/05/obama_endorses.html.
[3] Jared Byas, “I Still Stand as an Evangelical for Gay Marriage” (5.9.12), http://jbyas.com/2012/05/09/i-still-stand-as-an-evangelical-for-gay-marriage/.
[4] Phil Gast, “Obama Announces He Supports Same-Sex Marriage” (5.9.12), http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/09/politics/obama-same-sex-marriage/index.html.
[6] Rod Dreher, “Same-Sex Marriage & Post-Christianity” (5.8.12), http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/2012/05/08/same-sex-marriage-post-christian/.
Adult Bible Class – God in the Gap
What is hell? Is it a real place? Do real people go there? Find out in this Adult Bible Class from Concordia Lutheran Church.
Some Thoughts On Rob Bell’s “Love Wins”
I was curious, so I checked. It’s number one in Amazon’s “Religion and Spirituality” section and number three in Amazon’s overall list of the top 100 books. To say Rob Bell’s newest opus, Love Wins, has made a splash is like saying our recent recession was an economic hiccup. Both are understated. Because of its meteoric rise to the top of national book sales, the pastors at Concordia feel it is important to address what Rob teaches in this book. Here is what you need to know upfront: Concordia’s pastors do not believe that Love Wins presents true biblical or Christ-centered doctrine. In fact, we believe it presents false doctrine that is dangerous and confusing, leading people away from Christ rather than toward Him. If this is all you want or need to know, there is no need to read the balance of this blog. If you want to know why we believe this book presents false doctrine, read on.
The blogs and reviews of Rob’s new book are legion, and so my goal in this blog is not to try to break through the cacophony of clamor surrounding the book’s release. That’s a far too ambitious – and, I might add, unrealistic – goal. But neither do I intend my review to simply be another voice added to the many shouts either celebrating or decrying Rob’s book. Instead, my review is more of a personal sort. I am a pastor. And already, I am receiving questions from people I know and love about Rob’s book. And I am concerned. I am concerned about Rob. I remember him in his earlier years. To this day, I have never heard a finer sermon on Leviticus 16 than the one he preached. And the picture he painted of Ephesus, the Roman emperor Domitian, and John’s Revelation still grips me – and gives me hope – every time I think about it. In fact, I still have a copy of that sermon…on cassette tape! I’m having a hard time understanding what happened to Rob theologically. I am concerned about him. But I am also concerned about the people with whom I am talking. The people who are questioning. The people who are confused. The people who are wondering, “Is this book true?” If this is you, then I mean this blog for you. And though my words may be pointed, they are not meant to be vicious. Rather, they are written in love and a concern for the truth, for “love rejoices with the truth” (1 Corinthians 13:6). And I believe that, finally, the truth will carry the day. For I, like Rob Bell, believe that love wins.
Deconstructing theology is dangerous business. And yet, it’s something people – especially so-called “postmodern” thinkers – love to do. After all, it’s fun to pile on top of certain theological presuppositions and assertions and expose the discontinuities in them, especially if these presuppositions and assertions are widely regarded as traditional and orthodox. And it is this is this deconstructionist method that Rob employs in Love Wins. Consider this quote:
Millions have been taught that if they don’t believe, if they don’t accept in the right way, that is, the way the person telling them the gospel does, and they were hit by a car and died later that same day, God would have no choice but to punish them forever in conscious torment in hell. God would, in essence, become a fundamentally different being to them in that moment of death, a different being to them forever. A loving heavenly father who will go to extraordinary lengths to have a relationship with them would, in the blink of an eye, become a cruel, mean, vicious tormenter who would ensure that they had no escape from an endless future of agony.
If there was an earthly father who was like that, we would call the authorities. If there was an actual human dad who was that volatile, we could contact child protective services immediately.
If God can switch gears like that, switch entire modes of being that quickly, that raises a thousand questions about whether a being like this could ever be trusted, let alone be good. (pages 173-174)
The logic seems, well, logical enough. If God loves us and wants salvation for us, how could He abandon his pursuit of us upon our deaths and consign us to eternal torment? That’s not a loving God! Therefore, goes Rob’s argument, God must allow people the opportunity to repent (though he never uses the word) even, perhaps, after death. Or at least that’s what he tantalizingly infers!
But let’s apply Rob’s same deconstructionist enterprise to his own argument. Rob solves the difficulty of the God who pursues us in the life and judges us in the next by appealing to God’s generous love – a love generous enough to allow for our free will, now on earth and then in eternity:
To reject God’s grace, to turn from God’s love, to resist God’s telling, will lead to misery. It is a form of punishment, all on its own.
This is an important distinction, because in talking about what God is like, we cannot avoid the realities of God’s very essence, which is love. It can be resisted and rejected and denied and avoided, and that will bring another reality. Now and then.
We are that free. (page 176)
So, Rob says I am free – free to “trust God’s retelling of my story” (page 173), as he puts it, and free to reject it. And not only am I free to trust and reject now on earth, but “now and then,” even into eternity. On the one hand, this is quite an enticing prospect because it allows me to trust in God’s retelling of my story even after I die. So if I mess it up here, I need not worry. I get another shot at trusting God on the flipside. It is important to note that Rob’s concern here is fundamentally a therapeutic utilitarianism. The kind of God who would do something as psychologically stressful as consigning people to an eternal hell simply won’t work! Indeed, Rob states this explicitly: “This is the problem with some Gods – you don’t know if they’re good, so why tell others a story that isn’t working for you” (page 181)? The problem is that Rob’s version of God and the gospel doesn’t work either! After all, what happens if I mess up on the flipside? What happens if I trust God’s retelling of my story in this age, but then use the generous freedom that Rob claims love requires to reject God’s retelling of my story in the age to come? Do I slip the surly bonds of heaven and wind up in a hell of my own making? And what if I trust in God’s retelling again? Is it back to heavenly bliss? And then what if I reject it…again? And then trust it…again? Am I stuck in a vicious volley between heaven and hell for all eternity? That certainly doesn’t sound very “heavenly.” In fact, that sounds like what I struggle with right now! That sounds like Paul’s exposition on every Christian’s age old struggle: “I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate” (Romans 7:15). Where’s the hope in that?
The freedom that love brings is only good if it is exercised with the sovereign prerogative that God has. In other words, love without God’s sovereign prerogative is impotent. It cannot do what it desires. It cannot, to use Rob’s book title, “win.” And indeed, love that allows this kind of freedom isn’t even really love. For it simply allows us to do what we please. Who actually loves like this – even here, even now? Love demands that when you see a child chasing his ball onto the interstate, you curb his freedom and tug him back. Love demands that heaven is an age when we are not only free to live with God, but have also been tugged, or, more biblically, “chosen” by God (cf. Ephesians 1:3-14). Love and freedom are not synonymous nor are they inextricable concomitants of each other. That is why God does away with people who persistently demand their freedom. For they cannot demand their freedom to God without demanding their freedom from God. These are the people who go to hell.
To allow me the eternal freedom to trust or reject God’s retelling of my story is only to allow me the eternal opportunity to make myself unspeakably miserable. And I’m not sure that’s a good opportunity. Because I already know what I’d choose…again and again and again. For I’m not truly free. I’m a slave to sin. And so I will always choose wrongly. As the Reformers put it, “We are unable to stop sinning.” I will always fall for the illusion that freedom from God presents rather than the joy that freedom in Christ brings. This is why God coopted my slavery to sin and set me free, only to make me a slave again, this time to righteousness – not out of some sort of sinister divinely wrought determinism, but for the sake of Christ: “Having been set free from sin, you have become slaves of righteousness” (Romans 6:18). This is the good news – that God does not leave things up to us. No, He loves us far too much to do that. And so He conquers sin, death, and the devil, and gives us His righteousness, apart from and in spite of our terrible choices.
Whatever so-called “problems” and questions Rob Bell may try to solve and answer in his book, he only succeeds in creating more problems and begging more questions. Not only that, but he finally replaces the good news with something that is neither good, for it leaves us in an eternal state of struggling against our own wills, nor is it news, for this struggle is much older than any twenty-four news cycle. So, whatever supposed “problems” my “traditional” story of the gospel may have (which I am not convinced there are problems, just paradoxes), this I know: When it comes to a love that is broad enough to allow me my own, dangerous freedom, “the good news is better than that” (page 191).
ABC Extra – On The Multiverse
This past weekend in worship and ABC, we continued our series ”Credo!” with a look at the doctrine of creation. As part of our study, talked about how the how the modern, broad consensus among scientists concerning the universe’s origins is often antagonistic and dismissive toward the biblical account of creation. Thus, many scientists and theologians alike have sought to reconcile these two seemingly conflicting accounts using different theories, two of which I briefly mentioned in ABC: the “Day-Age Theory” and the “Theistic Evolution Theory.”
In order for the theory of evolution to be correct, two things are needed: lots and lots of time and lots and lots of death. You need lots and lots of time because one species does not evolve into another overnight. Rather, billions of years are needed for one species to adapt in such a way that it actually becomes another species. You needs lots and lots of death because the mechanism by which evolution functions is natural selection, a.k.a., the survival of the fittest. In other words, for evolution to happen, species with less desirable traits must die out and give rise to species with more desirable traits. The “Day-Age Theory” of creation, which asserts that each of the days in Genesis 1 are equal to thousands, and probably millions, of years, accounts for the lots and lots of time that evolution requires, while the theory of Theistic Evolution, which states that God got the ball rolling on creation, but then it pretty much evolved the way scientists say it did, accounts for the lots and lots of death demanded by natural selection.
And yet, there is something else needed. Scientists have long noted that the earth and, indeed, even our solar system and universe, seems “fine-tuned” to support our life. In other words, there is a constellation of factors, each of which, if they were even the slightest bit different, would not have allowed evolution to happen at all because the environment would not have supported any life at all, no matter how strong or desirable an organism’s traits might have been! Scientists describe this as the “anthropic principle.” In a recent article for the Wall Street Journal, Stephen Hawking, professor at the University of Cambridge, explains:
The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned. What can we make of these coincidences? Luck in the precise form and nature of fundamental physical law is a different kind of luck from the luck we find in environmental factors. It raises the natural question of why it is that way. (Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, “Why God Did Not Create the Universe,” Wall Street Journal, 9/3/10)
It is Hawking’s final question, posed as a statement, “It raises the natural question of why it is that way,” that he spends the balance of his article seeking to address. And he seeks to address it apart from God:
Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws…Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist.
Stephen Hawking adds another need to the arsenal of requirements for our existence. Not only does our existence require lots and lots of time and lots and lots of death according to the theory of evolution, it also needs lots and lots of space according to the theory of the origins of the universe. For evolution, as it stands, can account only for the existence of life on this planet, not the existence of this planet itself. Something else must account for that. If this something else is not accounted for, then evolution becomes somewhat of a “red herring” theory, for how can evolution account for one form of life giving rise to another form of life, and even a form of non-life giving rise to the first form of life, if it cannot account for that non-life material itself? Enter Stephen Hawking’s theory. Hawking postulates that there are an infinite number of universes, each with their own laws, which have spontaneously arisen out of nothing. Thus, if there are “multiverses” which, taken in toto, exhaust every possible combination of astrophysical laws, it is not surprising at all that our universe and our solar system and our planet with our life should exist. It is merely the inevitable consequence of a countless number of universes doing a countless number of different things.
How does Hawking know these multiple universes exist? Has he observed them? Has he tested them? No! Instead, the multiverse theory “is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology.” In other words, it is a theory predicated on other theories. Is it just me, or does that sound a little speculative for science? Thus, according to Hawking, “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” It is here that we find Hawking’s real motive for postulating the multiverse: it makes the need for God’s creative hand even more obsolete than does evolution. It puts God out of business, so to speak.
It is important to note that Hawking’s theory is nothing new. He, along with other scientists, have promoted the multiverse theory before. And there are many who are scrambling to explain why God is still needed even if there are indeed many universes. But we need not join them in their scramble. For rather than adopting a “God-in-the-gaps” strategy, where we seek to shoehorn God into the spots that science cannot answer by means of its speculative, naturalistic mechanisms, I would suggest that it’s better to take the creation account as it stands, believing in the best intentions of its human author and the divine inspiration of its giver. For the doctrine of creation does not exist merely to explain how God set into motion all the stuff for which science cannot account. Rather, it assures that we have a God who not only created the heavens and the earth a long time ago, but also:
Has given me my body and soul, eyes, ears, and all my limbs, my reason, and all my senses, and still preserves them…He provides me richly and daily with all that I need to support this body and life, protects me from all danger, and guards me and preserves me from all evil; and all this out of pure, fatherly, divine goodness and mercy, without any merit or worthiness in me…This is most certainly true! (Martin Luther, Small Catechism, First Article of the Creed)
And this is most certainly the proper doctrine of creation!
Want to learn more on this passage? Go to
www.ConcordiaLutheranChurch.com
and check out audio and video from Pastor Tucker’s
message or Pastor Zach’s ABC!
For Women Only (But Men Can – And Probably Should – Read Too)
I have recently taken note of a trend which troubles me. In many a conversation, I have met with a husband and a wife in crisis. Their marriage is usually on the rocks, barely hanging by a thread, and steadily heading – if not speeding – down the road to divorce. Although marriage trouble is almost always the product of both parties sinning against one another, I have noticed that, in these situations, the husband often lacks the fortitude to faithfully lead his marriage and his family according to the gospel of Jesus Christ. His interest in the things of God is weak if not non-existent. Indeed, it is often the woman who seeks biblical answers to important questions while the man is interested only in satisfying his own fleeting desires and infatuations.
To be fair, there are many men out there who are faithful, Godly leaders of their homes. I praise God for these men. But I want to speak for a moment to the women, for I know there are many, who are in relationships where the man does not dependably steward his mantle as the head of the household.
Through probably apocryphal, St. Francis of Assisi is quoted as saying, “Preach the gospel always, if necessary, use words.” Certainly this maxim cannot be used to excuse us from clearly and cogently proclaiming the gospel, for Holy Scripture mandates just such a proclamation, but sometimes, a quiet witness to the gospel is a faithful one. Indeed, this is precisely Peter’s argument to wives when he writes: “Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives” (1 Peter 3:1-2). As the apostle pens these words, he is addressing a group of women whose beliefs do not match those of their husbands, probably because they have converted to Christianity while their husbands have not. Peter recommends holy living as a way to witness to these men who refuse to be the spiritual leaders of their households.
It is important to note that Peter’s direction radically contradicts the standard thinking of the first century. For a woman to defy her husband’s sensibilities was considered an affront to his masculinity. If the husband lived as a pagan, the wife was to live as a pagan too. The first century Roman historian Plutarch explains:
A wife ought not to make friends on her own, but to enjoy her husband’s friends in common with him. The gods are the first and most important friends. Therefore it is becoming for a wife to worship and know only the gods that her husband believes in, and to shut the front door tight upon all peculiar rituals and outlandish superstitions [such as Christianity]. (Moralia 140D)
According to Plutarch, a wife is to believe only what her husband believes. Thus, if a husband worships at the altar of football or lust or alcohol or crassness, the wife is to worship there as well. Put Peter directs ladies differently. A wife’s first and foremost responsibility is to the Lord, even when her husband refuses to honor and worship the true God.
Ladies, I know it is hard witnesses to men who do not know or care for the Lord. And yet, there is hope! For Peter’s guidance concerning a quiet witness to unfaithful husbands actually works! Perhaps most famously, it worked with the father of St. Augustine. Augustine writes of his mother:
When she had arrived at a marriageable age, she was given to a husband whom she served as her lord. And she busied herself to gain him to God, preaching God unto him by her behavior…For she waited for God’s mercy upon him, that by believing in Him, he might become chaste…Finally, her own husband, now towards the end of his earthly existence, did she gain over unto the Lord. (Augustine, Confessions, IX:19,22)
This woman’s dear faith proved persuasive to her husband…and to her son as well. Indeed, her faith proved so persuasive that she raised one of the greatest theologians ever to serve the Christian Church.
Ladies, even in difficult circumstances, continue to serve your Lord faithfully. Lead by your behavior if your husband will not lead according to his responsibility. Know that I am praying for you. Gentlemen, if you have fallen short in spiritually leading your household, repent and ask forgiveness from your family. Then teach and live the faith. Know that I am praying for you as well. For there is nothing more important, heavy, and joyous than to teach and live out than the gospel of Jesus Christ!
What’s Worship?
Worship is fundamental to the church’s life. The other day, I came across a paragraph from Ben Witherington III in his book The Indellible Image, where he comments on 1 Peter 2:9: “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” Witherington’s comments on this passage iare helpful in illuminating what is of first importance in worship:
There is no basis in the New Testament for the idea that Christian[s] offer vicarious sacrifices for others or for the world, nor is there any reoffering of Christ to God…One has to import all sorts of Old Testament ideas into the New Testament practice to come up with what some have in “high church” practice. This is a questionable hermeneutical leap at best. Nor is the Lord’s Supper seen as a sacrifice; rather, it is like Passover. It is a celebration of redemption, once for all accomplished by God in the past, whose benefit is appropriated in the present. The main sacrifice that believers offer to God in worship or in particular in the Lord’s Supper is what Paul suggests in Romans 12:1: themselves. However, we must remember that even this offering in itself is not acceptable; as 1 Peter 2:5b suggests, it is acceptable only through Christ, who offered the one perfect and sufficient sacrifice. (356)
There are several aspects of Witherington’s statement worth noting. First and foremost, biblical worship is primarily about God meeting His people with His gifts rather than people meeting God with their gifts. The primary direction of worship is from God to man, not from man to God. This important point is lost in many theologies of worship. Indeed, Witherington’s opening statement about “reoffering Christ to God” is a reference to Roman Catholic theology, where the worship service, and especially the Eucharist, is conceived of as an event during which the priest reoffers Christ to God in an “unbloody sacrifice.” The Council of Trent explains:
Forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly propitiatory and that by means thereof this is effected, that we obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid, if we draw nigh unto God, contrite and penitent, with a sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence. For the Lord, appeased by the oblation thereof, and granting the grace and gift of penitence, forgives even heinous crimes and sins. For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. (Council of Trent, Twenty-Second Session, Ch. 2)
The Council of Trent could not be clearer. Worship in Catholicism is believed to be a re-sacrifice of Christ by a priest, albeit in an “unbloody” manner, for the forgiveness of the worshipers’ sins. This is a patently false view of worship.
Second, it is important to take to heart Withernington’s statement concerning the Lord’s Supper: “It is a celebration of redemption, once for all accomplished by God in the past, whose benefit is appropriated in the present.” In more traditional parlance, we would say that the Lord’s Supper is a “means of grace.” The great Lutheran dogmatician Francis Pieper explains thusly: “[The means of grace are] the divine transmission of the grace which Christ has gained for all men [when] it joins immediately to the objective reconciliation or justification of sinful mankind” (Lutheran Dogmatics, vol. 3, 105). In other words, the means of grace are the ways in which God’s grace gets “delivered” to His people. The Lord’s Supper is certainly one of these ways as Christ comes to us with His body and blood for the forgiveness of our sins. Thus, rather than re-sacrificing Christ to God as Roman Catholic theology teaches, the Lutheran Church confesses that Christ is giving His already sacrificed and risen body to us! Thus, once again, we see that worship is primarily about God meeting us and not about us meeting God.
Finally, it is important to note, along with Witherington, that worship does indeed involve our gifts to God. But these gifts in no way merit our salvation or gain God’s favor. Instead, they are only in grateful response to what God has already given us in worship: His forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation. Indeed, our gift of ourselves to God would be despicably sinful in His sight were it not for “Christ, who offered the one perfect and sufficient sacrifice.” Christ’s sacrifice of salvation sanctifies our sacrifices to God in worship.
So, the next time you join us for worship, remember, you may have hopped in the car and driven a few miles to come to church, but God has crossed heaven to earth to meet you. In worship, God is the One coming to you. God is the One who desires to meet with you. And God is the one who has His good gifts of grace for you. And who wouldn’t want to receive those?
Pastor Zach's Blog 