The Voyages...

The Real Radical

2013-02-01T10:48:00.001-05:00

Over at the "The Blazing Center," Stephen Altrogge has a post entitled "Jesus Doesn’t Want Your Risk, He Wants Your Life." He says a number of things that I've been mulling over for a couple of years.

In all our evangelical emphasis in doing great things for God, being bold, taking risks, etc., I think, we have more often appealed to an idol of youth: the glamour of adrenaline filled risk taking. Admittedly I am more of a cautious introvert so my thoughts might be skewed the other way. But the emphasis on doing "big" things for God can play into idols that the heart has to be big.

Obviously if God calls you to be a missionary, to go overseas, to do something that is beyond your comfort zone, you should do it. But how many young people get fired up to do "the big" but haven't first had a life habit of faithfulness in the little things? It seems to me, Jesus tells us to be faithful in little before we are faithful in much.

Let me illustrate with a story. When I was a young man in youth group, I knew of some individuals who would go on "missions trips" through these high adventure programs that involved boot camp like training followed by a work trip to some exotic place with a real need. I cannot judge these individuals hearts, but by their own admission they did it at least in part to "get away for the summer." It seems the lure of excitement was primary and secondary was "oh I get to serve God too." I, on the other hand, spent a number of summers working as a camp counselor at your average run-of-the-mill Bible camp. I loved this ministry. On occasion at college mission rallies and other venues people in my situation, were subtle berated or looked down upon because we we're being bold with our summers by going overseas or taking risks for God. What was our fear? Why wouldn't we take a bold step of face for God? Didn't we love the lost? Apparently we weren't radical or adventurous enough. It was always "you need to get out of your comfort zone" by implication if you didn't not you weren't really following God.

With this, there comes into our Christianity this sort of two tier structure of average Christians verses those who "really sacrifice." It happens all the time. The missionary who gives it all up to go overseas--they are bold. But the quiet wife who sacrifices day in and day out to stay with her drunkard husband and slowly sees God's grace change him... well she wasn't bold for God. The person who takes the wild crazy adventure: they are really living for God. But the quiet Sunday School teacher who shows quiet love and long term patience with that group of rowdy boys... well that's good for them but they aren't taking any bold risks.

On and on it goes. We rank things not by how people are being faithful to God's calling and being obedient but rather by 21st century appeals to adventures. Yes, God calls people to those type of things too--and if it's God's call, good, go for it. But let's not let the world's rating system of risk, glamour and adrenaline junky become the measure of what a "radically submissive Christian" must look like.

As a pastor, I have counseled people who want to run away do something bold for God. But when you talk to them, you find out they really just want to retreat and run from the battle God has called them to fight. The bold thing is a glamorous escape, the mundane fight is boring and hard, with little notoriety. God often calls us to fight our Christian life in the trenches, and their is nothing glamorous about the trenches. The gritty work of discipline and sanctification God produces in us is the fruit of real sweat, tears and anguish. It is never sexy just messy and painful. The "glamorous, bold and risky" has a sort of Hollywood movie star appeal.

Altrogge says it this way:

In Mark 8:35, Jesus said, “For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it.” To be a Christian, we must lose our life for the sake of Jesus. We must be willing to give up everything for the sake of Jesus. This at the heart of what it means to be a Christian. Jesus gets all of my life. Jesus gets all of me. Whatever he says goes. I am no longer my own. That’s crazy, radical, risky talk.

What does this look like practically? What does it look like to be radical for Jesus every single day? Well, it actually looks pretty ordinary. At least in the world’s eyes. Being radical for Jesus means fighting against our sin aggressively, and being willing to do whatever it takes to cut sin out of our lives (Matt. 5:29). It means blessing those who hate you, and giving your possessions to your enemies (Matt. 5:39). It means being poor in spirit, meek, and hungering and thirsting after righteousness (Matt. 5:2-11).

The Bible’s description of the radical Christian life is not particularly sexy or glamorous. Being radical for Jesus means being subject to the authorities (Rom. 13:1). It means being patient in tribulation, constant in prayer, contributing to the needs of the saints, and showing hospitality (Rom. 12:12-13). These aren’t particularly exciting things, but I think we need to realize that these are radical! The world does not operate this way. Those who don’t know God curse in the midst of tribulation, never pray, indulge their sins, curse their enemies, and despise righteousness. If we seek to obey the Bible, we will be radical. If we seek to follow Jesus, that will inevitably lead to crazy love.

Sometimes "losing our life" means sticking in the hard unglamourous fight for years, without any renown or recognition. The spouse who stays with their difficult partner. The sick person who endures a long illness with not much to show for it. The older woman who can barely get out of the house but becomes a private prayer warrior and makes it to church. The young person who takes an afternoon to visit the elderly and shovel their snow. The father who works two jobs to put food on the table and still sacrifices sleep and "me time" to play with his kids and make their sporting events because he knows God's high calling upon fathers. These are all "unglamorous" and by most standards hardly get points for being radical--but doing them may involve you putting down your selfishness. The latter should be the aim.

Especially for my generation and younger, seeking the glamorous, the exotic, the adventurous, or the radical may [although not always] be more of a way for some to feed their selfishness rather than actually deny yourself and put self to death. Do we ask the probing heart questions to root this out? Or are we more captivated by the intoxication of 'doing big things for God.'

My advice would be worry about being faithful and obedient. If that is your goal, you will find plenty of places in your daily life where you have to be bold or do radical things that are not set by the world's standards of bold and radical (true forgiveness is radical by the world's standards). Out of that, if God calls you on a "wild adventure" in the traditional sense of that phrase then you have been faithful where you are and follow the open door.

One final thought: watch out for pride and the lust for celebrity. Sometimes these things are the very reason the bold and glamorous appeal to us, we just cover it with the excuse "think of what I could do for God." Do you want to follow God because you love Him and you are just honored to serve him, even if all you ever do is clean up puke in a rescue shelter, or do you want to follow God because you know "I can do really big things for Him, he could really use me in a mighty way."

Christ's Exaltation

2012-12-19T17:43:00.000-05:00

Here is a recent essay I wrote for the Bible Fellowship Church magazine One Voice:
Christ's Exaltation

Chalcedon and Your Christmas

2012-12-14T07:00:00.000-05:00

Whether you realize it or not, this Christmas season you are very dependent upon the Council of Chalcedon if you are a Biblical Christian. I do not mean to say or imply that the doctrine of Christ’s incarnation is not clearly contained and defined in the Word of God. Quite the opposite, the virgin birth of Jesus, the incarnation of the eternal Son of God and Christ being like us in 100% true humanity are all doctrines clearly articulated in the Word of God.

Yet, clearly the early church struggled to articulate this as views arouse that were not in keeping with the truth of Scripture. How is it that God became human? How does the humanity and deity come together?

The early church struggled with some of the articulation of this as church fathers debated against aberrant views. In 451 AD it became necessary for a church council. The Council of Nicea (325AD) and Constantinople (381AD) had already clarified the Bible’s teaching for the whole church that Jesus Christ was truly God and equal with the Father. But in the next century the issue of how Christ’s deity united with His humanity became the crucial issue.

As one scholar writes “Chalcedon is the place in ‘the history of Christian thought where the New Testament compound was explicated in exact balance so as to discourage the four favorite was by which the divine and human ‘energies’ of the Christ event are commonly misconstrued.’” (John Leith, Creeds of the Churches, p. 35, quoting Albert Outlier).

Every time you and I reflect this Christmas season on how the Word became flesh and that Jesus was truly God and truly man, we are indebted not only to the Word of God but also the Council of Chalcedon.

As Carl Trueman of Westminster Theological Seminary has recently argued in his book The Creedal Imperative, creeds bring strength to the church and solve debates over the meaning of what Scripture is saying. Creeds are not unbiblical nor are they subbiblical. Creeds are not an authority over Scripture but an attempt to summarize, clarify and expound what Scripture says. The one who argues “I have no creed but the Bible” ironically is being swept away by more current traditions than the one who says “I believe this creed accurately summarizes core Biblical doctrine.”

When you and I come to Christmas, we need to remember who Jesus is (the Son of God) and what he became in the fullness of time (truly human). But how does the divine nature and the human nature come together?

The Bible is clear in its teaching Jesus is truly God. He always was and is truly God. So whatever Jesus does in the act of His coming, we need to be clear that He does not set aside His nature, divine attributes, or divinity. He cannot be truly God, who is unchanging, if He can take deity off like a coat.

But equally true, Jesus cannot truly redeem us if He does not assume our nature. I believe it was one of the Cappodocian Fathers who said “What is not assumed cannot be healed.” Therefore, as Hebrews teaches us, He had to become like us in all things. He had to take on 100% of human nature, yet of course he was without sin since sin was not intrinsic to human nature as God created it.

But how does the divine and human come together? Is Jesus a sort of God-man hybrid? Is he a third thing, a tertium quid? Is Jesus being the God-man sort of a Jewish Hercules?

When I was teaching as a youth pastor, on occasion I would say “Jesus Christ is not Chocolate Milk.” When you mix chocolate syrup (and please use quality stuff like Hershey’s Chocolate Syrup) with milk you get a new product. The chocolate milk contains chocolate and it contains milk. But because of the mixture it is neither pure or fully chocolate, nor is it any longer pure or fully milk. It is a third thing--a tertium quid.

When the divine nature and the human nature come together in the person of Jesus, Jesus Christ is not chocolate millk, i.e. a tertium quid. IF he was then he'd be not quite fully human and not quite fully divine, but a combination.

Enter the doctrine that is crucial for Christmas: the hypostatic union. When the divine and human nature unite in the person of Jesus Christ each retains fully all of its characteristics, properties and attributes. There is no mixture of the two nor degradation of either one. There is a union of the two so that both come together without any changing of attributes or ‘watering down’ of characteristics.

Christ’s humanity is not “added to" because He also is divine. Nor is His deity reduced as if humanity somehow dilutes His divinity.

When you think of Jesus in the manager, you are to believe that He was at that moment truly God--upholding the world by the word of His mighty power. But at that same moment He was also truly man being held in His mother’s arms, consenting to be weak in His humanity. The one who was sustaining creation in His deity at the same moment needed in the humanity that He took on to be sustained by His mother’s milk.

This is a tremendous mystery, but it is what the Bible portrays. It is also a cause for great worship, marveling and standing at awe before the one who is truly God and truly man. It truly makes Christmas worthy of celebration.

This Christmas, as you think of these truth, you are indebted to Chalcedon.

The Creed says:

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable (rational) soul and body; consubstantial (coessential) with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather of the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God, the Word the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning (have declared) concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

The most important words of the creed are arguably: “to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather of the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person...”

I for one am very thankful for the conciseness and clarity of these words. While I submit the Creed to the authority of Scripture, I find that this crystalizes and succinctly states that which the Scripture portray.

My Christmas reflections into the Word of God and the marvelous acts of that first Christmas are guided and guarded by the words of Chalcedon.

It means something powerful to say that Jesus was truly God yet He assumed true humanity. Praise the Lord, his deity was not diminished. When we sing the words “veiled in flesh the Godhead see, hail incarnate deity,” we readily know and understand that it was an assumption of true humanity. To see Jesus was to see the glory of God.

When you sing carols with words like this, whether or not you know it you are indebted to Chalcedon. Chalcedon is of course itself indebted to Scripture.

The wondrous mystery of God incarnate is why the angels appear to the Shepherds and praise God. This is why the Magi bring gifts and bow before the King.

Chalcedon’s Creed is a powerful reflection on the meaning of Christmas.

Book Review: Carson's Jesus: The Son of God

2012-12-06T21:02:00.000-05:00

D.A. Carson has written a helpful little book that will be of interest to pastors, missionaries, Bible students and aspiring theologians. This book was originally given as a short lecture series delivered at Reformed Theological Seminary, then repeated at Westminster Theological Seminary and Colloque Réformée held in Lyon, France. It is a helpful albeit brief examination of the title Son of God and its relationship to Christology. As we would expect from Dr. Carson it is a model of solid exegesis in order to address pressing theological issues.

The first chapter is an examination of the title “Son of God” as a christological title. In this brief lecture Carson gives us a scope of the varied uses of the idiom ‘son of’ and how it is translated into English. Here he quickly condenses a lot of Biblical data into general categories. His larger point is that the phrase “son of” is more than a reference to genetic and familial identity as often limited in the English usage of such a phrase. This data is placed into two helpful charts on pages 21 and 23-24.

This discussion lays the groundwork for discussing how “Son of God” itself is used a title in various ways in some cases referring to angels, Israel, the Davidic King and New Testament believers. Anyone familiar with the Biblical data and the Biblical semantics will already be abreast with this treatment. Nevertheless, this work gives one a general survey and could serve as an introduction to the topic. Chapter one concludes with a brief reference to the unique use of the title Son of God, which will build into the next chapter.

Chapter two is a treatment of select ‘Son of God’ passages as it relates to Christ. The bulk of the chapter is spent in Hebrews 1 and John 5:16-30. Along the way, Carson will drop hints of what his argument would look like if sketched out in the Gospels and other New Testament books. Carson clearly shows how the title ‘Son of God’ as a Davidic reference comes together with a clear reference to deity. So for example, in Hebrews 1, Son of God clearly has a Davidic referent--that Jesus is the Messiah. But the flow of the passage and the use of the Old Testament clearly identifies Jesus as God. Thus, sonship language referring to Jesus “cannot be restricted to a strictly Davidic-messianic horizon” (59). This is not a novel thesis to those familiar with Biblical studies. However, Carson’s work serves as a healthy introduction to the issues.

Chapter 2 ends with a briefer discussion of John 5:16-30. Carson argues that 5:26 where the Father grants the quality of life-in-himself is an eternal grant from the Father to the Son. This sets some exegetical grounds for what becomes known in historical theology as ‘the eternal generation of the Son.’ It is in this discussion, to which Carson will return in the third chapter, that Carson models the connection between exegesis and systematic theology. This modeling will serve students, pastors and even Biblical scholars adverse to making systematizing claims.

In the final chapter, Carson turns his attention to the theological use of the title ‘Son of God’ to tackle a pressing missiological issue that has arisen. In recent years, some Bible translators have suggested that in Muslim contexts the title ‘Son of God’ should not be translated as such because of the potential misunderstanding. Depending on the verse, these translators often suggest a title that emphasizes Jesus’ messianic identity. While the Christian title ‘Son of God’ has never meant God the Father produced a son in union with Mary, seeking to avoid the title to correct this misunderstanding will lead to misunderstandings of its own. Carson draws out the pitfalls and reductionism such translation creates. Carson argues that one cannot reduce a translation of ‘Son of God’ to messianic identity precisely because the New Testament especially in Hebrews 1 uses Messianic identity together with divine identity. In one chapter we have “two analytically differentiable uses of ‘Son’ terminology” (p.106).

Overall, there is a lot of content back in this short book. It is a solid argument that moves along. Readers unfamiliar with the issues will receive a good introduction. The only criticism of this work that I would offer is its brevity. At times I found myself wishing that certain points could be developed more or that certain areas or works of scholarship could receive interaction. Along the way, Carson himself drops hints of what we be needed to fully defend his case or what other twists and turns the argument could take. One would hope that perhaps Carson would consider expanding this work into a full blown scholarly monograph. This is not to take away from the strength of what he has produced.

I would highly recommend picking up this work and reading it.

I wish to thank Crossway books for providing a review copy of this work. A favorable review was not a condition of review.

cross-posted at Christians in Context

The Pulpit and Politics

2012-10-09T07:00:00.000-04:00

This past Sunday was an event called "Pulpit Freedom Sunday."

Here is a introductory video:

Certainly when it comes to politics and the pulpit, I agree that faithful preaching of the Word of God must address the moral issues of our day when the text of Scripture addresses them and according to the manner with which the Holy Writ addresses them. We should not cower when it comes to speaking the truth. If anything, the pulpit should be prophetic in the sense that like the Old Testament prophets we boldly proclaim the truth in a culture that largely rejects the truth.

Yet, I would argue that American nationalism and a quest to "save our nation" should not set the agenda for the pulpit.

The week before Pulpit Freedom Sunday, I was preaching on Jesus' cleansing of the temple. (I blog posted some thoughts here on the 'Cleansing'). Even though at the time I hadn't even heard of Pulpit Freedom Sunday, I briefly addressed the issue of politics and the pulpit because I believe it was a faithful application of the text.

One of Jesus' concerns in the passage is that the Temple had become a "nationalist stronghold" (C.K. Barrett, D.A. Carson) instead of being a house of prayer. It had been turned into more of a political and revolutionary symbol. It was a symbol of Jewish nationalism and anti-Roman ideology instead of being a place of prayer for Gentiles.

While there is not a one-to-one correspondence between the Temple of old and the church today, I think we should legitimately be concerned about the contemporary preoccupation with turning the pulpit into a place to address American values and American nationalism.

While Pulpit Freedom Sunday is one day a year and we should be concerned that we do not lose genuine freedom of speech from our pulpits, a more pressing concern among evangelicals should be the undo influence coming from those whose concerns are largely political and entail winning, maintaining, and/or recovering political influence. In our attempt to see that the pulpit is set free, we are pandering to a set of political values and the pulpit becomes a means to this end.

In the applications of my sermon, here's what I said:

The Church in America today has become a place of nationalism and partisan politics.

When evangelicalism is known more for it’s power as a voting block than for the power of God’s gospel--we have gone of the rails.

If your concern is to see the pulpit rally the electorate, your priorities are misplaced.

Let me be clear, Christians should take stands on ethical issues--especially abortion. You do not set your morals aside in the voting booth. We should evaluate the morals and ethics of anyone we vote for.

But it is not the job of the church of America to save the nation of America--as a nation or a set of laws and ideals. Christians should be a salt and light in the community--but the job of the church is not to push a brand of American politics.

I love our country and I love the freedoms it embodies. I believe our freedoms are God given rights. I believe despite stains in our history, like slavery, we have pursued our ideals and in pursuing those good ideals many people around the world have benefited. As a citizen, I want to see these rights and ideals preserved--but the church--as Christ’s body and Temple--has a higher calling to a higher Kingdom.

America is not irreplaceable in the history of the world. America is not an irrevocable promise from God or the climax of God’s history of salvation. We do not nor did we ever have special privilege or pride of place before God. America is not sinless, nor is she mankind’s greatest hope. She is not the greatest force for peace and righteousness--that spot is reserved for Jesus.

At best, America is a good page in the history of mankind and her preservation and voice for freedom has been used in a small way by God’s hand of providence.

To the extent that the church today seeks as its mission to ‘save the country’ and support a national agenda is the extent to which we betray our heritage in an eternal kingdom.

If you greatest fear/worry/ or anger right now is that __________ gets elected the country, you have a false hope. You are looking for man to save mankind. Your hope is largely misplaced. The American dream has never saved anyone and it will not matter one lick for eternity if we lose it.

Just as Anti-Roman Jewish nationalism had no place inside the Temple because the Temple was to be a house of prayer for people of all nations so forms of American nationalism have no place inside the church.

Do we value the ministry of the Word? The Word of God will address life issues in every area. The Word of God cannot be held captive to politics and nationalism.

Is our church a house of prayer?

Let me ask you this: would you be more interested in hearing a sermon on politics or America’s “Christian heritage” or more interested in coming to prayer meeting?