Passover and Jesus

Exodus is such a familiar story, but I was newly-struck with how resonant the analogy is:

The Passover was given to Israel as a "founding holiday", in that it marked the very beginning of that nation, and the fulfilment of the promise given to Abraham. The lamb was slain, and the blood marked their doorways, so that the angel of the Lord passed over them in his wrath. They were then torn away from Egypt, out into the wilderness, to worship and to learn how to become God's holy people. They were led by the spirit of God in the form of the pillar of cloud and flame, and fed daily with manna.

This becomes the model for the work of Jesus, and a radical expansion in how Abraham's promises were fulfilled. Jesus' crucifixion marks the beginning of the Church as a new nation, a holy kingdom, as God's people. Jesus is our "lamb who was slain", whose blood covers us from God's wrath. We were torn away from our bondage to sin, and went out together, learning how to worship God and become a holy community. We are not yet "home", but look forward to a land that has been promised to us, that God has prepared for us. We are led by the Holy Spirit, and fed daily by the living bread which is Jesus himself ("I am the bread of life... which comes down from heaven"). 

The analogy feels almost endless, in how it reflects the Old Testament into the New. Who can measure the wisdom and power and loving-kindness of the Lord towards his people?

Slippery Slope

 One of the worst arguments, especially for Christians, is the "slippery slope" argument.

It happens in worship. "Oh, if there's instruments (or a specific instrument), that will lead to entertainment-based worship." Church history shows a WIDE latitude in worship practices, and music in particular.

It happens in biblical "literalism". "Oh, if this (non-doctrinal) passage isn't literally true (regarding, for example, the age of the earth), that will lead to a rejection of the historicity of the bible."

It happens in morals. "Oh, if you let yourself become the tiniest bit angry, you'll become a slave to it." The Pharisees especially LOVED creating extra rules to "protect" people from sinning... by burdening them with man-made rules.

It happens with creeds. "Oh, if this person deviates just a bit from the historic confession, it opens the door to heresy." Where's the robust dialogue that typified the Reformation?

The "slippery slope" argument is bad because it shows a lack of faith in your brother or sister in Christ. A lack of faith that the Holy Spirit guides and preserves him or her. A lack of faith that Christ -- the head of his church, the king of his heavenly kingdom -- is the one who protects and fights for the church.

The contrast to this is grace and charity. Grace allows us to overlook offenses, and charity allows us to assume the best of others' intentions. Charity especially allows us to see ALL Christians -- even across lines like Protestant, Roman Catholicism, and Orthodox -- as brothers and sisters. How many of us (myself included) haven't laughed or mocked when trouble or even scandal came to some other denomination or wing of the church? Lord, give us love, unity, and charity.

God's Perfect Condescension

 When reading the Old Testament, it's easy to misunderstand God's dealings with them, especially compared to his dealings with the post-resurrection Church. 

On the one hand, it's common to feel something akin to pity, "Oh, poor Israelites, they didn't have the full revelation we have." It's true that we are blessed to have the _personal_ revelation of Jesus on earth. But it's also true that "to whom much is given, much is required." Then as now, God's people have always been given the full measure of His grace and provision and guiding hand.

On the other hand, it's also common to see ancient Israel as some kind of religious ideal. In ancient Israel, they had a strong cultural identity centered around worship of the One True God, and a community that -- at their best -- both worshipped God together, and corporately protected the weak and helpless among them, even foreigners. Don't you ever long for such a thing? Isn't that what American Christians often ask for explicitly today? A nation, even up to the national leaders, intricately identifying themselves with the One True God? But such a desire betrays a misunderstand of our new Kingdom, created by God and ruled by Christ. It misapplies the lessons we ought to learn from Israel. 

The way that God reveals himself is always perfectly suited to His people, to the circumstances they are in. It's immensely edifying to recognize the same, constant God dealing with Abraham, with Moses, with David, with Daniel, and then with many many more when Jesus incarnated to live among us. 

Paul says that the prophets looked forward to the time of Jesus and his Kingdom, but that doesn't mean that we have LESS need of faith. To the contrary, some call this the "Age of the Spirit", because we need the Holy Spirit even more. We don't have an external nation, we don't have special prophets, we don't have the imminent presence of Jesus to look to. "Blessed are those who have NOT seen [me], and yet believe".

That's why it's so important for us to both work hard, and trust strongly in the grace of the Holy Spirit, to be in community with fellow believers. It's an expression and exercise of faith to look to this "visible yet invisible" Kingdom, and see the imminent working hand of our Lord. In that way we join closely with the saints of all ages, like them relying on the ultimate fulfilment of the Lord's promises, trusting in what we do not see, trusting the Word of our Lord.

Multiplicity of Denominations are Great, Actually

I totally get that historically, denominations have often been at each other's throats. But recently, it's fascinating that "meta-concerns" have trumped denominational allegiances. For example, we Reformed Presbyterians have WAY more in common -- both theologically and personally -- with Reformed Baptists, than the liberal wings of Presbyterianism (e.g. PCUSA).

But more broadly than that, a healthy denomination recognizes that their distinctives are often the result of a particular time and place. So the members of my denomination (PCA) don't need to prove that it's "the best" or even "most biblical", just that their ecclesiastic system works well in America in the 21st century. We can debate with, for example, our Baptist brothers on practical and theological matters, but in the lower-stake context of here and now, not eternally.

So armed with that knowledge, we can look at different denominations as outworkings of the Holy Spirt in various and sundry ways. It would be surprising if just one ecclesiastical system worked everywhere. And when we don't consider our own denomination at the be-all and end-all, we can learn from and even be corrected by other Christian traditions. There's faith that Christendom will not come crashing down just because our own denomination adjusts its priorities or teachings. It allows us to "always be reforming", by the grace of Christ.

The outworking of this is very practical. There's nothing in my denominational creeds that exclude other baptized Christians from fellowship or, especially, sharing with us in the Lord's Supper. There are, in fact, people from many different church backgrounds in our congregation.

Even people who hold to Baptist beliefs, if they extend grace towards those who baptize infants (and teach it), and if our congregation extends grace towards them in their decision to delay baptism, can worship with us and even have their older professing children baptized in our church, without anyone violating their conscience. It allows for "big tent" congregations.

Because the most important thing is that, in our local congregation, we are not divided. That we are at peace with our Christian brothers and sisters in the pew over. That we trust the work of the Holy Spirit to lead and shepherd our congregation, and also to work in the hearts of our fellow congregants. We can overlook offenses because we trust Christ. And from that foundation of Christian charity, we can extend it beyond our church, to trust the work of God's Spirit wherever people put their faith in Christ.

The Paradox of Good Works

For the Christian, good works (the fruits of the Spirit) are critically important... but at the same time, the works in themselves are NOT what God commends or rewards.

So to be clear, salvation comes through faith in Jesus. But then what happens after that? How does a Christian live his or her life?

It's all too common that even Christian authors will fall into two opposing errors. On the one side: God rewards good behavior, so you should focus on that. Maybe it's prayer or giving or charity or kindness or forgiveness. On the other side: our behavior CAN'T be good because of our sinfulness, it's all about our trust and faith in Jesus. So what matters is how much faith and trust we have in him.

The problem with both of these positions is just how selfish they are. Is it really all about me? AND, moreover, they miss what the bible -- especially the letters of the New Testament -- commends and expects for Christ-followers. Isn't it kind of surprising that Christ's summary of the Old Testament law says NOTHING about "personal holiness" or individual righteousness? But rather, "loving God entirely," and more to the point I'm making, "loving your neighbor as yourself."

Loving -- seeking the good of others -- is outside of ourself, it's the basis of community. And it's a COMMUNITY that God wants. Not just any community, like work or sports or even family, but the community of believers, HIS community. Jesus gives one "new" commandment, which is really just a clarification of his previous summary of the law: "Love one another, as I have loved you. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

So if you are "kind" and "forgiving", so what? Is God impressed? I mean, it's better than violence and resentment, but even nonchristians can exhibit that. What are the UNIQUE good works given to Christians? It's to show that kindness and forgiveness to their fellowship of believers, the worshipping congregation they are a part of, above their other communities of work, school, and even family.

And why? Because God wants us to love what HE loves, and he loves and cherishes the church. He loves it enough to call it the "body of Christ", uniting it with the love he has for his own Son. And he will certainly commend those who loves what he loves.

Now, to be clear, we are commended to extend our kindness and forgiveness to all people, but what's the justification given for this? It's to bring credit to God as a Christ-follower, to the body of Christ, acting as a representative of his church. Once again, "kindness" isn't some abstract good behavior that God counts on a scale, but it's a means to an end, a means to bring glory to God and his church on earth.

Curse

An apple, an ankle

They fester and rankle

A balm is prepared

The shoulders are bared

The field of the potter

the lamb for the slaughter

A heart in two pieces 

Darkness increases

The crack of a whip

A stumble, a slip

The flesh and the thorn

A hope yet unborn

...

...

...

...

The spirit releases

To flaming increases

A great conflagration

The birth of a nation 

Ascent to the throne

He gathers his own

And draws out the rot

Beyond sight or thought

And treats the disease

And heals by degrees

The grave is amended

A glory intended.

Contemplations on Reformation Day

On this Reformation Day, how should we think about the divisions in the church today, especially between Protestants and Roman Catholics? This is obviously the perspective of a Protestant, but this is my response: When we look back into the pages of church history, or look across the world today, what does this "fracturing" or "division" actually mean? If it means that Protestants and Roman Catholics fight and war against each other, no argument, that is a HORRIBLE thing. But if they don't, what is "missing" in the body of Christ?

Put another way, if the ecclesiastic hierarchy of my Presbyterian church does not have unity with the ecclesiastic hierarchy of another denomination -- or the RCC for that matter -- what's the result? Once again, if it means that Christians in the same city have hostility against each other, that is terrible; but in practical terms, it would be unreasonable to expect EVERY Christian in a decent-sized city to have close relations with each other. 

Look at the letters in the NT, and the account of Acts. One local congregation is not put over or against any other congregation. Indeed it is rare for cross-congregational relations to be mentioned, EXCEPT when it comes to simple acts of charity and gifts, of showing this kind of selfless "love" for one another. 

Or consider the incompatible practices between Jewish and Gentile believers in the book of Acts, that needed to be moderated by the Jerusalem church. What was the result? Even if you think it was binding to other churches, the result was a compromise, a removing of offenses so that both sides could fellowship (especially eat and drink) with one another. Jewish Christians were not forbidden from circumcision, for example, just forbidden from requiring it of Gentile believers. Gentiles were told to refrain from eating certain things, so that they could eat together with their Jewish brethren. 

And indeed the Roman Catholic Church should look to the behavior of those early Jewish Christians. Did they cling to the practices and religious forms that, at the beginning, defined what "the church" was? When those early Jewish churches saw the expansion of the church into Gentile lands, into unimaginable peoples and places, worshiped in new ways and with new practices, did they -- who were once at the center -- fight to maintain their ecclesiastical preeminence or to keep the same practices? Or should the RCC say, like Peter in Acts, "Therefore, if God gave them the same gift as He also gave to us after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has also granted to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life.”"

And likewise the Protestant world should not despise the Roman Catholic church. Even if you think that they have "fallen away" in some manner, certain these words from Romans are still true for them: 

"But if some of the branches [Roman Catholics] were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot [Protestants], were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree."