Revealing the Father

My family was reading from Colossians the other day, and we started talking about how "in Christ all the fullness of God lives in bodily form". We started talking about how God spoke and worked and revealed himself to Israel in the Old Testament, but Jesus reveals this work of the Father even more clearly and completely. So how DID Yahweh reveal himself in the Old Testament, and how did Jesus "show the Father" to his disciples? 

One compelling example that came up, was how God "brought the rains" and was owed thanks and praise for the harvest. There was even a tithe on it to acknowledge that it originally came from God (it's not just a "gift" but a "giving back"). But it's hard for us humans, in our lack of faith and constancy, to properly thank God for each harvest, year in and year out. 

So then when we come across the miracle of Jesus feeding the thousands from a handful of bread and fish, he teaches us something new about the "Kingdom of God" come to earth, but it is also NOT a new thing. It's just another type of "harvest", where bits of bread and fish are sent out, and back comes a harvest of 30-fold or 60-fold or 100-fold. Doesn't it always happen like that anyway? But when it happens through a person who looks like us, from hands that we can see, and it happens right away, it's easier for us to see the miracle in it, and praise the one by whom it comes. 

And so we SHOULD give Jesus all the honor and glory and praise and blessing. But part of his ministry was to allow us to see and understand his Father better. And so we should seek to recognize -- clearly and often -- how our heavenly Father works to bless us every day, in the "ordinary" world around us. 

We know that the Holy Spirit resides in us, and that Jesus sent this Spirit when he left this world, to guide us in his place. But we shouldn't forget that part of the work of Jesus was to "reveal the Father", and that the Holy Spirit also gives us "eyes to see" how God provides for us and blesses us in the world we inhabit, year in and year out.

Wise Works

When the Old Testament places moral obligations on its audience, it does so, broadly speaking, in two different styles or frameworks. On the one hand you have the Mosaic Law, which (on the surface) gives specific behaviors to do or to avoid, covering both interpersonal interactions and the religious regulation of festival and sacrifice. On the other hand you have Proverbs, in which "wisdom" is the primary topic, defined as something like "guidelines and principles", to (on the surface) reduce suffering and to have a well-ordered and blessed and productive life. I think that many Christians struggle to know how best to reconcile and prioritize these two moral "systems". Does God care about obedience to specific commands, or does he want us to live a wise and well-ordered life? Is it about "doing good", or about "being wise" and "living well"?

But Jesus breaks down the distinctions between "doing good" and "living well". It's not enough to just "not murder", there's far more to understand and consider. And then rich and well-off people -- the ones who seem to enjoy the blessings of Proverbs -- have a difficult time "entering the kingdom of heaven". Stepping back even further, Jesus says that the Great Commandments of "loving God and loving neighbor" are the foundation and basis of the entire Mosaic Law, saying that "on these two commands hang all the Law and the Prophets". But, of course, this makes "obeying God's commandments" less straightforward. We need some kind of special "wisdom" to live by these principles.

And, in fact, this is exactly the kind of "wisdom and understanding" that Paul encourages us to seek from God, over and over, in his letters to Ephesus and Colossae. So true wisdom, given by the Holy Spirit, helps us to understand both how to do right and how to live, at the same time, in a practical and day-to-day way. Loving others and living well requires us to know and understand the people around us, and the circumstances we are in together. To make this more concrete, Paul spends a LOT of time establishing that interpersonal conflict is MUCH worse than most people realize. Over and over he tells Christians to "be of one mind", and that kindness, forgiving others, and "bearing one another's burdens" is the hallmark of "love", which "fulfils the law".

The "how" of all this is wisdom (or more specifically "godly" wisdom). Wisdom forces us to consider who a person is, what that person needs, what their circumstances are, and what would encourage or help that person. "What is going on in this person's life? What can I congratulate or comfort them about? Whoops, I lost my temper at this person, how should I apologize? How can I make it right?" These can be hard questions, so we ask God for wisdom in handling these kinds of circumstances. We also receive wisdom from reading and thinking about and understanding the Bible, and many times a specific incident will bring to mind a passage from scripture.

So perhaps one of the most striking revelations in the New Testament, is this extremely clear unity of wisdom and morality, of "doing good" and "doing/living well", to the glory of God.

Against "Virtue Ethics"

The journal First Things recently posted an article called "Protestants Need Virtue Ethics", where it argues for Protestants to work towards a general or consistent "virtue ethics", trying to determine what is virtuous in the modern age, and expressing concern over certain recent policies by the current administration.

On the one hand, as a Protestant, I do agree that we Protestants can often do more to consider how exactly we should live out our Christian faith. We have, at times, conflated "doing good" with "works righteousness".

However, this article seems to want to hash out a universal or generally applicable "virtue system", in the spirit of Aquinas, and I don't think that is a very sound foundation for such an endeavor. The book mentioned in this article, "Ethics Beyond Rules", appears to get stuck on this point, establishing the "problem" of "moral relativism", without considering his own use of the words "moral" or "absolute" or "relative".

Protestantism, at its best, highlights that many important things -- even such things as church governance or hierarchy -- can only be considered "good" in a cultural and/or historical context. Even the Old Testament Law itself contains many specific instructions and commands, that even the New Testament writers like Paul freely reimagine and reinterpret to best fit their own circumstance. Paul takes the instruction of "muzzling an ox treading out the grain", not to narrowly apply this command to other farming animals, but dives down into the *principle* of it, to resurface and argue for paying wages to those who preach the Word. That is a transformative way to apply God's law, and it gives us a model for seeking to apply it to our modern situation.

And what are these "principles"? Jesus says clearly that it's not the Ten Commandments, but rather the Great Commandments -- "loving God" and "loving neighbor" -- that establish the foundation for the Ten Commandments and all the rest of the moral law. Again, it's NOT that the Ten Commandments show us how to love, it's that love shows us how to properly keep the Ten Commandments. And indeed, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus expounds on murder and adultery to get to the underlying principles, to give us a proper and full understanding of each commandment.

And if we were still confused about the meaning of "love", the New Testament spends a lot of time making it clear. Kindness, patience, not keeping a record of wrong, humbleness, seeking the good of others... all of these paint a consistent and clear pictures of a "new virtue", one enabled by the Holy Spirit, which is repeatedly stated as "fulfilling the requirements of the Law." But it requires us to *seek out and know that which is outside ourself*. To extend the metaphor a bit, in order to do good in today's society, we need to *know and understand the society* well enough to love it best. In that sense there IS something "relative" about this kind of "moral" behavior. The PRINCIPLE is absolute and timeless, the APPLICATION of it is relative to the time and place of each Christian. So let's teach Christians how to "love", how to reach outside themselves, and thus live "virtuous" lives in the circumstances they find themselves in.

Beatitudes

One thing that really sticks out is that many of the lines have a "punchline". So it's clear that many of the people who were poor and powerless came to listen to him (and even to be fed by his miracles). So he says things like, "blessed are the poor..." and "blessed are those that hunger and thirst...", as thought he was giving a message about self-denial or the spiritual benefit of poverty or fasting.

In fact, I think there's evidence that the Pharisees spoke like this, judging by the rules about giving money set aside for parents (Matt 15:5) or how Jesus pointed out the widow who gave her last coins to the temple, right after saying that the Pharisees "devour widows’ houses" (Mark 12:40). They likely encouraged giving to the Temple as a "religious duty", as an act of worship to God. In other passages Jesus call out the Pharisees for receiving but never giving, forgetting the acts of charity and care for the poor.

But as he does so often, Jesus takes us from the "external" to the "internal", taking us away from mere outward facts or behavior, and to a deeper truth: "Blessed are the poor... *in spirit*" and "Blessed are those that hunger and thirst... *for righteousness*". It's not outward poverty that is a blessing, but a "humble and contrite heart" that God wants.

And if the above virtues are about the blessings of humbleness before God, Jesus also goes on to speak of other virtues, like being "merciful" and "peacemakers". These seem to be virtues expressed to *other people*.

Jesus goes on to cover other "moral teachings", and likely is directly correcting what that the Pharisees likely taught. Jesus again and again moves "sin" to what is inside of us, to our intentions, such as moving past the simple act of "murder" to the hate and resentment burning inside all of us. Sin and virtue are matters of the heart.

This is all very consistent with how Jesus speaks of the Great Commandments of "loving God" and "loving neighbor", which "fulfill the entire law". They are integral with the "kingdom of heaven" which Jesus mentions in the first verse, but of course also mentions many other times in his ministry. Jesus gives us a much more profound way to think of blessing and virtue and "good deeds".

And of course this whole sermon ends with this: "Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock." It's not just trusting the content of these words, but trusting Jesus who speaks them. It's trusting Jesus who exemplifies all of these virtues in himself.

Infant Baptism

So for those that don't baptize infants, I think there's often a misunderstanding -- shoot, also even among those that do it -- about the outcome and expectations around infant baptism.

So to get clarity about this, there's a thought to ponder: is "becoming a Christian" the same thing as having one's sins forgiven before God? 

Or what about this: is the church a community of Christians, or is the church a community of those who have been been forgiven and redeemed by God? Is there a difference?

So I totally respect the simplicity and consistency of those who say that only those who make a credible profession of faith should be baptized, be a member of church, and then to be considered "Christian". They are trying to strongly emphasize the importance of the act of consciously turning away from the world and following the way of Christ. They emphasize the church as "the redeemed by God".

However, we live in a particular modern and rather individualistic mindset, compared to many Christian who lived in the past. The above way of seeing salvation and Christendom makes certain assumptions, and historically there have been different assumptions that were dominant. We don't have to agree, but we should try to put ourselves in their shoes.

So here's the idea: historically, the concept of baptism, plus the concept of being part of a specific church congregation, plus the idea of being called "Christian", have been all very closely tied together. For many (arguably most?) of them, their identity as a Christian was derived from being part of a church, from being a member of a Christian community.

If children are in worship, they learn from their Christian parents and from Christian leaders and teachers, and are associated with those that profess Christ, so even without their assent they are already called "Christians" by those around them and by those outside the church looking in. So in this context, you can think of baptism as merely saying, "yes, this child is part of this community". And in fact, many church traditions and denominations ALSO contain prayers or even confessional statements that look forward to this "presumption", as it were, that their children will one day strongly confess that which they were baptized into.

So okay, for a Bible passage that captures this idea, consider the description of the "kingdom of heaven" in the parable of the wheat and weeds (in Matthew 13). In this passage, a field is seeded with wheat, but also there's a bunch of seeds from weeds. So as soon as it starts growing, the workers are like, "Oh man, look at all these weeds! Should we pull them up?" But the owner says (paraphrasing a bit), "No, at this stage, you might uproot the wheat accidentally. Let both grow together until the harvest, once they show their fruit, it will be easy to distinguish them." If God is the "owner" in this analogy, than we "workers" wait for God's harvest, and we don't start trying to pull out weeds before then. 

All it takes to be a member of a church, is to make an outward profession of faith and to be baptized. This is a really low bar for a "requirement", we KNOW that some people who say this don't understand what they're saying, or don't actually believe it. This is not fundamentally threatening to the church, and this is not fundamentally different from what happens in infant baptism. A Christian church should not be "weeding out" people -- even infants! -- who might one day end up "turning away" from the faith. Baptism and church membership are given generously, all alike are taught and cared for equally, until a person explicitly separates from the community, or is kicked out over egregious unrepentant sin (an example of that "fruit" mentioned before).

So whether you practice this or not, it should surely be helpful for mutual understanding, to avoid uncharitable accusations or hostility from ignorance. But I would also invite you to consider WHY large parts of the Church have held this view, up until the present day. Personally, I greatly appreciate the "wide open invitation" that such a doctrine implies, and I think it's certainly consistent with the biblical picture of the Church -- the Kingdom of God -- is welcoming to people at all stages of maturity, insight, understanding, and sanctification.

What is "Satanic", anyhow?

I something called "Satanic" the other day, and at first dismissed it, but then it made me sit down and consider what "Satanic" actually meant, in a biblical sense. So the word "Satan" has it's origin in words like "oppose" and "accuse", and in Biblical literature it's especially the latter. Satan accuses Job, for example.

I'm not denying that there's a rich history, tradition, and even artistic output examining what the work of Satan consists of. Or consider Jesus' temptation in the wilderness, Satan is described as the "ruler of this age".

So I don't want to minimize or dismiss any of that, but I think it's still useful to say that the most consistent "Satanic activity" is that which opposes the kingdom of God (i.e. the church, with Jesus as the head), and in a related way, especially that which accuses Christians.

Why does Job start with Satan accusing Job of unrighteousness? Because there's a thematic link between what HE does, and what Job's friends do, when they say that Job's suffering are due to his sin or unrighteousness. Job's "friends" are just other accusers, doing what Satan does.

Or think of the serpent in the Garden of Eden. He tempts Eve, but he does it by accusing God of wrongdoing. Even the "evil spirits" in the New Testament directly oppose and accuse Jesus ("Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?").

Or consider how the Pharisees are called the "sons of Satan". The implication is that the Pharisees are called that, specifically because of the ways that they accuse Jesus, like being "from Satan" or that he violates the Sabbath, and so on. And ultimately they even have Jesus killed by falsely accusing him of sedition against Caesar.

The final example is also the best conclusion. In Revelations 12, Satan is thrown down, and the resulting song in heaven sings out, "For the accuser of our brothers and sisters, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down."

So for us, let this be a warning to us, never to become the accusers of our fellow Christians!

The Ten Commandments are NOT a guide for Christians

Westminster Shorter Catechism Q.14: "What is sin?"

"Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God."

Westminster Confession (excerpt from Ch 19): "[The law] continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness, [...] and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in ten commandments." 

WHY do we still have the Ten Commandments in our creeds? Why is it still thought of as some kind of summary of God's Law for Christians today?

Even the creeds in my own Presbyterian denomination (Westminster Confession & Catechism) tend to talk about sin as a violation of "God's law", as things that we might say, do, or think. Moreover, many of these creeds (including my own) also explicitly include the Ten Commandments in some way, as the core or encapsulation of God's law.

But these are both just plain incorrect. I'm not trying to "clickbait" you all, many pastors and Christians know and preach and live this already, even if they don't say it in exactly this way.

Sin is not about things we do, say, or think, but about intention, about the heart. It makes no difference what outward "good thing" we might do, it's still sin if done without love for others, or without love for God. That's why, "love God" and "love your neighbor" are called the "great commandments", and NOT the Ten Commandments, because they aren't specific, but rather general principles that works with the Holy Spirit in us, to produce actions pleasing to God. And it works the other way too, the Holy Spirit convicts us of how our actions fail to meet that standard, regardless of what the specific actions are.

So it's not that we ignore the command, "do not murder", but for one thing, it's covered by "love your neighbor", and for another, it doesn't NEARLY cover what pleases God. Only by filtering it through the Great Commandments does it then expand in scope, to cover stuff like insulting others or hating them in our heart.

And indeed, in the New Testament, were the Gentiles taught the Ten Commandments (or any other Mosaic Law) to guide their behavior? No! Even when these are mentioned, they are immediately de-emphasized. Paul's words about this form a good way to close this:

"Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,' and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."