God establishes the kingship

It's amazing the stuff in the Bible that's right out there in the open, and yet seems so suddenly surprising when the Holy Spirit brings it to our attention.

So in 1 Samuel, God thoroughly warns Israel about asking for a king, right? And yet the Davidic line of kings is central to Israel, and even the concept of who the Messiah is! It seems to be an unusually strident warning, for something that God seemingly wanted to do anyway.

However, it's the details of God's warning which gives the context. The king "takes your sons" and puts them into his army, he takes them to "plow his ground" and "reap his harvest". He will "take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants." He will take a "tenth of your seed, your vineyards, your olive groves,[...] your flocks", and give them to his servants. In fact, "you yourselves will becomes his servants."

And how do the people reply? "No, but there shall be a king over us, [...] so that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles."

I've heard some people interpret this passage to mean that Israel is simply rejecting God here. But in the entire Old Testament up until this point, there isn't any clear description of God as "king", with the very notable exception of the last line of the Song of Moses (after they crossed the Red Sea and the army of Pharoah was destroyed), where it says -- quite prophetically, in fact -- that "God reigns for ever and ever". Though even here, one could assume that this describes a generic reign over the entire earth.

But in this passage, God is clearly establishing the criteria and powers of a king, then hears Israel's fervent assent to it, and then later identifies himself with David (a man after God's own heart), and unites God's chosen servant -- the Messiah -- with the Davidic kingship. In later prophets this Messiah is named as "God with us", further cementing the process by which God himself is the king, who rules over the kingdom of his people.

This is why Jesus speaks so strongly of the "kingdom of God"! There's a firm connection between this passage, and the stated purpose of Jesus' ministry. He is referred to, over and over, as king of this kingdom, indeed the "king of kings". He calls people to "plow, sow, and harvest" in his fields, we offer portions of our goods, which benefit God's servants (i.e. pastors, but more generally all the saints). And we certainly join his holy army when he comes again, as "the armies of heaven, dressed in fine linen, white and pure" (Rev 19). "Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus!"

No moral law in the Mosaic Law

Reflecting on the "law", it's interesting that the Mosaic Law describes and expounds upon the "moral law", but it does NOT create it or establish it. Rather, it *assumes* it. Even in the Garden, the serpent was evil because he lied, before any "law" about lying was given. We were made to know and obey these precepts, thus why even Gentiles are guilty before God, without the Mosaic Law or Ten Commandments being involved at all.

The Mosaic Law was *always* about gaining "wisdom and understanding" in order to walk with an "upright heart". Psalm 119 is a long love letter to God's laws, precepts, commands, rules, and testimonies. And in this psalm it emphasizes way more how God's laws give "wisdom and understanding", rather than personal moral goodness or commendable behavior. All of the demands of this Law was fulfilled and put aside in Christ, there's no need to "preserve" the "moral parts", it's not even a "law" for us anymore, only an opportunity to gain wisdom about God and ourselves. Let's call it the "Mosaic Wisdom" instead!

And indeed, Paul repeatedly and emphatically anchors his encouragement to live godly, righteous, and holy lives, in the encouragement to gain "wisdom and understanding" into the "will of God" which is contained in "God's commandments". And the principles of all of God's commands, are derived from the Great Commandments to "love God and one another". 

So don't get legalistically hung up on the Ten Commandments. If we have faith in Jesus, and seek humble unity with God's people, we will fulfil the command to "seek first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all the rest will be added to you." To paraphrase Augustine a bit, "Love God [and love one another], and do as you please."

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."

The Limitations of the Old Testament Law

I love reading the Old Testament, I deeply appreciate the wisdom of the Old Testament Law, but we should also speak clearly about the limitations of the Old Testament Law. 

The Law simply could not make humans good by itself. Even in the Old Testament, God judges the nation of Israel, and says basically, "Even the ways in which you keep the details of the Law (like sacrifices and offerings) are offensive to me, because at the same time you're taking bribes and mistreating the poor." How are you supposed to have detailed instructions in the Law about protecting the poor? Also in the Old Testament, there are passages like "love your neighbor as yourself", which are clearly trying to give underlying principles for obedience to the Law, but there was still something missing.

So that's why Romans says that the Law in "insufficient" in some fundamental way. Paul points out a bunch of Old Testament people who looked forward in faith to "something better". And then he says that Jesus was that "something better" -- A way of dealing with lawbreaking, AND a way to make people actually understand and follow the principles behind the Law (the combination of Jesus dying in the place of lawbreakers, and the Holy Spirit being part of salvation).

And even the imperfect OT Law couldn't be kept by the Israelites, and they were defeated and carried away in exile. And the New Testament very clearly does NOT look back to the Old Testament Law as the pinnacle of good behavior. The new Gentile converts were clearly not required to know it or follow it. Instead, they were told about the principles like, "love God, love your neighbor," which were expounded on, and also sometimes a letter writer would draw a principle from the Old Testament, but that's it.

Even in the Old Testament, the Law was just a starting point, there was SO MUCH history and teaching after, showing what God considered "good". Literally hundreds of years of accounts of moral or immoral behavior, past where the nation of Israel even exists, through the time of exile. So that's yet another reason we should not "freeze frame" the details of the Old Testament Law and call that the "ultimate standard of Christian morality".

On Trauma

Trauma is often long-lasting, because the victim often (and understandably) feels obligated to revisit it over and over in their memory. If the victim stops thinking about it, who will? Who is going to fix this, if the victim forgets? This makes the victim feel like a witness in some trial that never comes, always ready to give their testimony to the crimes committed against them. This isn't universal in how trauma affects the victims, but it's certainly common.

But GOD can and will remember these wrongs. "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord" is not about how God is angry, in general. It says that people don't need to seek vengeance or stay angry or look for perfect justice here on earth, because God will remember and judge fully in the end. We can ask God to remember and judge these wrongdoers, so that we can be set free from the obligation. Using the previous analogy, the victim is the witness who presents all of their accusations and testimonies to God, and then God says, in effect, "You have no more responsibility for this trial, I will present all the evidence myself when the trial comes." And in fact, some counselling for PTSD has the person walk carefully through their trauma, undermining the "panic response" by breaking the trauma up into multiple small chronological steps, to deal with them one at a time. For the Christian, we can take this and go even further, listing out each offense at each small step, boldly asking God to remember and to judge.
It's probably unavoidable that when trauma happens, it redefines the life of the victim. In fact, they become "a victim", and this identity often follows them for a long time, personally if not legally. Now, everyone heals in different ways, at different rates. We should not burden trauma victims with our own expectations. However, once God receives the "testimony" of those who have suffered wrong, they certainly have the potential to look forward to a time when they no longer call themselves a "victim" or someone "suffering from trauma". Eventually, just living one's life will fill up the soul with other things, and the trauma will occupy a smaller and smaller area of the heart. Sometimes I think about Jesus saying, "I came that they may have life and have it abundantly." The painful parts of our lives don't go away, but they get "diluted" by the abundant experience of life -- even Jesus himself -- that the Holy Spirit pours into our souls. 

Now, it is true that we have a couple of verses that say something like, "God, forgive them, they don't know what they are doing." This is WAY beyond merely forgiving someone for wrongs done to us, this is asking GOD to forgive them ENTIRELY, to ask God to forgive them for the wrong against GOD, against his law. I think sometimes we take these verses as burdens on ourselves, "Oh, if I'm not asking God to forgive them in this way, I'm not truly forgiving them at all." I think this is a recipe for despair, and a bad lesson to draw from these passages. We should think of these statements as basically miracles of the Holy Spirit, exceptional acts that mirror the exceptional forgiveness of Jesus on the cross. But God deals with us where we are right now: "A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not quench, until he brings justice to victory."

Uncoupling Apologetics and Evangelism

Apologetics has an interesting recent history, especially in the US. There have been some trends stretching back to the Second Great Awakening, and then other trends that kicked off in the 20th century (related to but not synonymous with the rise of fundamentalism) where apologetics and evangelism has had a large priority and focus, especially as "the mission of every Christian". Think of all the university-based Christian groups, where students might see themselves as "missionaries" to a secular campus. You can imagine in that context, "apologetics" would be seen as a way to interact with non-Christians.

This might be a majority view, but this is certainly not the only game in town, or how "Christian groups" have always seen their priorities. For example, there are currently some university-based Christian groups that are not "evangelism-focused", but rather "Christian-focused", as it were. That is, they are meant as a place for Christian fellowship, in a place where regular church attendance is difficult. So you can imagine that in THAT context, Christian students might be faced with difficult information, or even outright hostility, concerning their faith. So in that context, "apologetics" would be for Christians themselves, providing support and context for their faith.

So TL;DR: both sides of "apologetics" in the OP are pretty common, though often in different contexts. It's probably obvious from how I presented the information, but I am a strong supporter of the latter view above, that Christian groups are most effective when their priority is supporting Christians, whether apologetics or anything else.

I actually love apologetics, and in my youth I prioritized it, but these days I'm very much in favor of de-emphasizing it, with regards to evangelism. Christians are better evangelists by showing a genuine interest in the lives and cares of their non-Christian neighbors, than by constantly getting into intellectual head-butting with them (or feeling obligated to answer every challenge that others put to them). So I think that apologetics is best-suited to help Christians (especially new ones), many of whom aren't equipped (or taught by their churches) how to answer common challenges to their faith.

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

So it's self-evident that the Christian church is divided into many branches and many denominations. One common response to this is to lament it, or to nostalgically look back to some time in the past when the church was, in one sense or another, more unified. It's true that, historically, denominations have often been at each other's throats. But recently, these boundaries have meant less, and it's fascinating that "meta-concerns" have been overriding denominational allegiances. That is, many mainline or "liberal" denominations have found themselves in more agreement, and likewise what's called the "conservative" wings of those denominations have aligned with each other explicitly or implicitly. 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).

The result is that healthy denominations are recognizing that their distinctives are often simply the result of a particular time and place. The members of a denomination don't need to prove that theirs is "the best" or even "most biblical", just that their ecclesiastic system works well in America in the 21st century. We can debate with others on a whole host of practical and theological matters, but in the lower-stake context of here and now, not eternally.
Looking back, we see that the fundamentalist movement of the early 20th century set the stage for this present reality. People of many backgrounds came together to set down the "fundamentals" of the faith. Now, not everything that came out of that movement was worth keeping. I think there's valid criticisms that it was reductionistic, and tended towards anti-intellectualism. However, the ideas of "various backgrounds, one faith" has quietly become the model of how different Christian groups relate to each other.

So looking at these different groups today, 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 especially 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.

We even can see a model of this in the Old Testament, from the history of Israel told in Exodus, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. It's easy to think of a unified 12 tribes under David and Solomon as somehow being the most important point of their history, as "true" Israel, but that's profoundly reductionistic, and doesn't match how the Bible itself tells that story. The passages of Judges are powerful and memorable, even if the the tribes aren't unified. But even more powerful and memorable are the books from exile, after the entire nation is carried off in captivity, like Isaiah, Daniel, and Ezekiel. Or consider the rivalry between the Northern and Southern Kingdoms of Israel, how they had their own histories and cultures, even coming into conflict, but both were clearly stated as "belonging to God".

The outworking of all this is very practical. There's nothing in my (Presbyterian) 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. If those who hold to Baptist beliefs extend grace towards our congregation in their baptizing of infants (and sprinkling vs dipping), and if our congregation extends grace and consideration towards them in their decision to delay baptism, we can worship and baptize together without conflict, and we can 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."

Whom is the Bible addressed to?

A few days ago I posited the question, "What exactly is a Christian?" and made the point that it's not well defined in scripture. Let me expand on that a bit, by speaking of something else: the "audience" of scripture.

Who is the Bible addressed to? Well, to start with, let's focus on the New Testament. Those individual letters were mostly addressed to whom? Well to churches... but that kind of begs the point, were they addressed to the church as a group? Or to individual hearers? Or... what? When Paul exhorts people, what are his major concerns? Individual sins? Social work? Or... what?

Let's take as an example 1 Corinthians. The first concern is about "divisions among you". The "you" here is clearly plural, he is speaking to a group, and concerned about the group not acting as a group. So then we look at Galatians, and we see him talking about "the gospel preached to you". Again, his concern is the group choosing a preacher who leads the whole group astray.

For a contrast, we look at Ephesians, where election is highlighted right away, and certainly only individuals are elected and saved. We see him praising "your faith... and your love," which is addressed to a group, but those are aggregate qualities of individuals. But then even here, what is the *point* of this election, what's the result? As soon as Paul says, "So then..." what does he say? That they are "fellow citizens with the saints... members of the household of God... a holy temple... a dwelling place for God." Their group-ness and fundamental unity is the result. And following on that, as soon as he says, "I urge you..." it is for "bearing with one another... maintaining unity... one body and one Spirit... over all and in all and through all." These individually-elected believers are identified by their inclusion in this "group"; but this is not an abstract group, some vague connection to ALL believers, but epitomized by their harmonious existence as they physically worship and fellowship with each other in their local congregation.

There's unity between different churches, to be sure, but even this language recognizes the existence of a "congregational body-ness" that underlies it. We don't usually phrase it, "there is unity between churchgoers of different cities/congregations." No, but rather, the visible unity of the local congregation is the MODEL of the greater unity that we can only see by faith. We know if there are divisions or hostilities between the people we see every week, but by faith and by the Holy Spirit, we trust that our separate churches are in fact unified into a single great Holy City, that Revelations describes as descending out of heaven for us all to see on the Last Day.

So when we read the New Testament, we should absolutely see it addressed to "us", spoken to those who worship together in the same place. We should ask ourselves about the unity we have (or don't have) with the people in the next pew over. We should understand "love" in the context of the indifference or even hostility we bear against fellow worshippers. May the Holy Spirit make us one!