Gospel Shaped Eyes

Another thought from Gombis’s The Drama of Ephesians:

Because of God’s upside-down logic, performances of God’s triumph will inevitably involve displays of God’s power through human weakness, loss, shame and humiliation. . . . Paul does not merely acknowledge his shameful condition in prison and then move on, hoping not to dwell too long on it. He does not downplay it but exults in his weakness and humiliation. He adopts the title ‘Paul the prisoner’ and uses it throughout his letter. . . . God’s resurrection power is operative in a situation that looks initially like God’s power is absent. But it takes ‘gospel eyes’ to see it. That is why I have talked so much about discernment. If we are not looking at life, at people, with gospel-shaped eyes, we will miss what the gospel wants us to see (Gombis, 112-14).

“Gospel-shaped Eyes,” now that is a thought! God’s way of viewing things looks so different than the world’s. Gospel-glasses delight in weakness, in humility, in impossibilities. People whom the world shakes its head at and discounts as worthless, God looks sees as prime candidates, ripe with weakness, and therefore brimming with the potential of pointing people to Him. I like the way Gombis puts it:

Imagine that your pastor is on sabbatical and a church leader stands up on Sunday morning and announces a guest speaker. She begins rehearsing for the congregation the credentials of the special guest. ‘Mr. Smith ministered for twenty years in a church in the Midwest after earning a seminary degree. Following a three-year stint in a maximum-security prison, he began itinerant ministry, and we are delighted to have him here this morning.’ . . . How can it be that Jesus Christ is victorious Lord, having defeated the powers and authorities, and Paul, the emissary of Jesus, is . . . in prison? (Gombis, 109).

Pigs all

There are two common views regarding human nature: one side thinks that people are basically good, the other that people are basically bad. I’m often surprised at how many people seem to  hold to  the “basically good” position. This issue has been on my mind a lot lately, for some reason.

I read a biography this week about a teenage girl who lived in Germany during the time of Hitler. She writes,

When I was a girl of about 10 years old, we had neighbors who were very decent people. The Nazis came to power and started spying on everyone. Suddenly our neighbors became changed people in a matter of a few weeks. They began to denounce their neighbors in the village and brought a number of them into serious difficulties, all simply in the intent of their own promotion in the ranks of Nazis (Wilder-Smith, 132).

Then, a newspaper article entitled Wealthy, Poor, Pigs All this week discussed a similar theme. The writer reflected on some recent high-profile affairs (Edwards, Schwarzenegger):

No socioeconomic group has a monopoly on piggish behavior. . . . Edwards was indicted Friday on federal charges of using campaign contributions  to conceal his concubine – Rielle Hunter, a woman he met in a New York hotel bar  and with whom he proceeded to make a baby right in the middle of running for  president. . . . The truth is, men of any socioeconomic or political stripe have the pig gene in  them. Whether it predominates is another matter, but it’s there. The difference  is that the news media are not interested in documenting the extra-route  romances of, say, Otto the garbage man. Wasn’t it ironic, and a tad bit reassuring, that Arnold had to confess to doing  the same thing inside his $23.5 million mansion? The American public,  we know, tends to forgive politicians anything – except hypocrisy. Oh, and  cheating on your wife as she lies dying of cancer.

I’m fascinated that a newspaper reporter admits that, rich or poor, people of all levels of society have a “pig” gene; reminds me of a verse: “Lowborn men are but a breath, the highborn are but a lie; if weighed on a balance, they are nothing; together they are only a breath” (Ps 62:9).

Cursing

Mrs. Black has posted an article in which she discusses whether or not a Christian should curse. I found her essay very helpful and thought-provoking; ironically, I was asked just last week if it was ok to curse. There are two things we might add to her essay on cursing:

1. Cursing and “careless speech”

If we are honest with ourselves, cursing is by all means careless. We spew out some words when we’re mad, giving little thought to what we’ve said. Only later do we feel remorse and conviction. So cursing can definitely be classified as careless. Jesus has given us clear instructions about all such careless speech, saying, “But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty [careless] word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned” (Matt 12:36). If we take Jesus’ warning seriously, we should not just be careful about cursing. We should, in fact, guard against every empty, careless form of speech.

2. Cursing and edification

Paul’s language about speech is just as sharp as Jesus’: “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen” (Eph 4:29). Cursing can by no means be considered language that builds up those around us — it tears people down. So, to use some sarcasm, it is fine to curse if you can build up someone in their walk with Christ in the process.

Lavish expressions of Christ’s love?

My friend ERIC has written an excellent article entitled “excess or adoration” in which he questions when it is ok for Christians and churches to buy expensive gifts as lavish expressions of Christ’s love. Eric writes,

So my question is this — is there room for material signs of worship?  Think of the story of Mary anointing Jesus’ feet with expensive perfume.  What is it her critics cried — shouldn’t you have given that to the poor!  Oh, and that lone critic was Judas. . . . I think most of the modern critique of Churches is fair — I’m just trying to make sure I’m not in the company of Judas if someone really is worshipping God with a right heart.

So, why not read Eric’s post and let him know what you think.

Correcting with gentleness

Have you ever had to confront an unbeliever over a spiritual issue? If so, what was your attitude? Paul offers clear instructions about how to go about confronting unbelievers. Rather than being obnoxious, belligerent, or just plain annoying, Paul commands:

correcting those in opposition with gentleness , if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will (2 Tim 2:25-26).

So, Paul hopes unbelievers: (1) will be corrected; (2) will repent; (3) will escape the devil’s clutches; (4) will stop doing the devil’s work. Despite the bleak situation of this person needing correction, Paul instructs that correction should be done with gentleness.

With this in mind, I saw a video this week that illustrates what Paul was NOT talking about. Click HERE to watch the short video where Bart Ehrman is confronted on TV. Rather than having a spirit of gentleness, the interviewer is just plain annoying. I doubt Ehrman would be drawn to the truth by the attitude of his confronter. Rather, he may simply be repulsed even further. I’m reminded in watching this video of Paul’s instructions; when we are presented with opportunities where we must confront unbelievers, let us do so in gentleness.

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will also be like him. Answer a fool as his folly deserves, that he not be wise in his own eyes.

-Prov 26:4-5

 

Legalism

Hannah-Joy has posted some great thoughts about the dangers of legalism. Quoting Beth Moore, she writes:

Legalism–more than any other, that one little word is probably responsible for causing more churches to die, more servants to quit, and more denominations to split, Like a leech, legalism saps the lifeblood out of its victim. It enters the door in the name of righteousness to vacuum out all the dirt and ends up vacuuming out all the spirit. Don’t confuse legalism with recognition and pursuit of godly standards” (pages 88-89). To that list I would add: legalism gives Christians a bad name. All too often lost people see legalism and link it with Christianity. They see a list of do’s and don’ts a mile long and say, “I want none of that.” Unfortunately all too often they see a legalistic “religious” person instead of a sincere believer expressing their life changing relationship with Christ.

Read her full post HERE.

Reformed smarty-pants

ERIC has written a great post in which he raises some issues related to reformed theology. I really liked one statement:

“For whatever reason, many who call themselves Reformed seem to think they are smarter than those who don’t embrace those teachings. Even if it’s not the case, it still comes across that way (and, remember, I’m writing this and I’m Reformed – at least as far as salvation is concerned).”

As someone who is not reformed, I greatly appreciate Eric’s statement. I can say that his admission is true in my own experience. There have been several times I’ve been told, “If you really, REALLY, read the Scriptures, you will inevitably be of the reformed perspective,” or “smart people are Calvinists.”

Now, I try to keep my unreformedness pretty secret, especially since I go to a Baptist seminary. My own experience at seminary has taught me that most students leave die-hard Calvinists. In the rare occurrences when I’ve been brave enough to engage in a discussion on the matter, I’ve often been pointed to such and such an author, such and such a pastor, such and such a theologian. In one discussion, a friend tried to convince me of Calvinism by arguing, “Do you realize that if you do not hold to reformed theology, then you could not teach at this seminary?” Sorry, but convictions about God’s word trump teaching opportunities.

Eric goes on to say,

“If I wanted to sound Reformed and really smart at the same time, I suppose I would write something like . . . “

I’ll add to his list; I would write something like . . .

1) The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.

I’m probably stepping on all kinds of toes right now by bashing the Westminster Confession, but is it really necessary to coin nifty phrases? Does Scripture not define man’s purpose clearly: “Love the Lord your God with all your being and love your neighbor as yourself”?

2) Similar to number one, “God is most glorified in us when we are most glorified in him.”

I’m probably stepping on even more toes than in (1) by quoting Piper here. Anyone, however, who reads Piper realizes that his emphasis on glory is how he justifies God sending people to hell–doing so brings him great glory. I have big problems with arguing that God destined people to hell in order to magnify the glory of his justice.

Well, I’ll stop ranting now. I guess the secret is out, I’m not reformed. See what you started, Eric?

Tattoos and Beards

This past Sunday, JAY preached on Deuteronomy 12-24 and our relationship to the law. It was a great message, but one part really stuck out to me. Jay was explaining that we tend to pick and choose which OT laws apply today and which don’t. He referred to Leviticus 19:28:

“Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord.”

Christians often refer to this verse as proof that it is wrong to get tattoos. Jay asked why v. 28 still applies as law, when we obviously do not feel obligated to obey 19:27–the verse which immediately precedes:

“Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.”

If it is wrong based on the law to get a tattoo then it is also wrong to trim your hair and beard. Pretty convincing example, if you ask me, of how Christians tend to treat the law inconsistently. Paul’s words ring true, “We know that the law is good if one uses it properly” (1 Tim 1:8).

The prayer for the ___ will raise him (Jas 5:13-18)

I have been working on an essay related to James and thought I would pass along my thoughts regarding James 5:13-18. I believe that vv. 13-18 speak of sinners receiving spiritual healing rather than the sick being physically healed. Here’s why:

-That James mentions the anointing being done with ἐλαίῳ (v 14) is no accident. This is a loaded term for James since he has already discussed the fact that a fig tree cannot produce ἐλαίας (3:12). Could it be possible, then, that the anointing performed with the fruit of a plant reminds believers that they are being prayed for in order to be healed and produce fruit of their own.

-James says in 5:15 that the prayer of faith will σώσει the sick one. This term, like the previous one, is loaded contextually. The same exact term was used of about the implanted word saving the soul (1:21), about the impotency of faith without deeds to save (2:14), about God being the one lawgiver and judge who is able to both save and destroy (4:12), and about the one who turns a sinner from his wandering saving his soul (5:20). It seems absolutely clear that this term in James means “save” and not “heal.”

-James states that as a result of prayer for the sinner, the Lord will ἐγερεῖ him (5:15). This future tense verb is often used of future resurrection. It seems unlikely in light of James’s constant focus on eschatology that he would deviate here.

-In light of his instruction about anointing, James says that the natural response is both confession and prayer for each other. It would seem unlikely that if the instruction were about physical healing, he would dogmatically require confession of sin. For if this were the case, James would seem to be linking sin with sickness—a connection sometimes seen in the Gospels, but not in every instance.

-When James speaks of the healing that accompanies confession, the verb ἰαθῆτε is a second person plural. In other words, when the sinner confesses and the community of believers prays and anoints him, the community (plural) is healed, not merely the individual.

-The clause πολὺ ἰσχύει δέησις δικαίου ἐνεργουμένη is loaded with significance. James has focused his entire letter around the theme of the works of righteousness. In this clause of v. 16, James literally says that the prayer of the righteous man is continually working many things. This means that prayer for the sinner is one of the deeds to which James is calling the believer.

-The example of Elijah is crucial to the context. As a result of Elijah’s prayer, the heavens gave rain and the earth produced fruit. James, then, is saying that the result of believers’ prayers upon the sinner is spiritual healing that leads to fruit. The errant one is healed and thus produces the fruit spoken of throughout the letter. It is not insignificant that James has mentioned rain a few verses before this, where in 5:7 he exhorted believers to be patient like farmers waiting for the early and latter rain which bring forth fruit.

-Vv. 19–20 eliminate any doubt that the healing refers to spiritual recovery, for James states that brothers who turn sinners from their wandering ways saves that man’s soul from death and covers a multitude of sin. James has been considering spiritual healing the whole time, and makes that unquestionably clear in his final summation.

-Theologically, if this verse speaks about physical healing, it is the only one in the entire Bible that promises absolute recovery. Scripture, however, seems to shy away from giving formulas for guaranteed results. This would be the only place where Scripture teaches “if you follow these few steps, you get a guaranteed healing.”

-Practically, the formula offered in these verses simply does not work in bringing about absolute recovery. By way of personal example, my father-in-law served as a pastor and was approached by a man wanting prayer for his terminally ill wife. They followed the guidelines of these verses and believed she would be healed. She was not, and the man ended up committing suicide. The personal stories of others that compare to this are more than numerous.

He humbled himself

I think things went alright yesterday in Virgilina, preaching at Florence Avenue Baptist. The congregation seemed to respond well to my message on Philippians 2:5-11.

One particular illustration really seemed to drive home the point I was trying to make. I was speaking about how Christ humbled himself. He did this as God by not grasping at his rights, and as a man by coming as a lowly servant who humbled himself to the extent of the cross.

To illustrate this kind of humility, I referred to the example of American presidents. The president is arguably the most powerful man in the world. Once he has served his term in office, he has reached the pinnacle of his career. What else is left for him? Can he possibly advance beyond that position? But we see that presidents, when they leave the office, generally seek important positions. Some go on speaking tours, others make it their goal to get filthy rich, some use their influence as fund-raisers or important humanitarians. One would look in vain for a president who left the office and became an obscure, insignificant individual.

Yet Christ was no mere president, he was God almighty. All privilege, rights, status, and honor rightfully belonged to him. He chose, however, to let go of all that and come to earth as a servant. To continue the thought of the president, this would be somewhat similar him leaving his job as president and putting in a job application at McDonald’s. And when this president is hired at McDonald’s, he will work for minimum wage, flipping burgers all day over a hot grill, waiting on impatient customers. What a foolish, shameful job for one who has served as the president of America! This, perhaps, gives us just a glimpse of Christ’s humility in choosing to empty himself and come humbly as a servant.

But then, Christ humbled himself even further, dying a shameful death on the cross. This would be like the president working at McDonald’s seeking to do the most filthy, degrading job possible. He is not working as McDonald’s supervisor, or a manager. He is not even running the cash register or flipping burgers. No, the president chooses to work as the janitor. He will spend eight hours a day on his hands and knees cleaning the bathrooms. And as we all know, McDonald’s bathrooms are nothing to be proud of. In fact, most of us deliberately avoid the McDonald’s bathroom unless we are absolutely desperate. We just can’t stand the sticky floor and the stench and the toilet paper strewn everywhere. But the president is on his hands and knees, cleaning the filthy McDonald’s bathroom day after day. What a contrast. He went from serving as the nation’s powerful leader, to McDonald’s janitor.

As humbling as it would seem for the president to do a menial task such as that, it gives us only a glimpse of God’s self-emptying nature seen in Christ. I’m making it my goal to emulate Christ’s humility by living as a servant and humbling myself in big and small ways, following his example.

After my message I went up to the sound man who had run things in the service that morning. You see, everyone had come and shaken my hand and thanked me for speaking at their church. I doubt a single person thanked the sound man for his job. I went up and thanked him for what he did. I also told him that if Christ had been physically present in the service that morning, he probably would have opted for the sound board or the nursery, rather than the pulpit. I thanked him for choosing the position of dishonor.