Before I actually get into typing up this blog post, I wanted to say "Thank you" to my dear brother, Cody Kelton. He gave me permission to use a question he posted on Facebook in this post. There are not enough kind words in the English language to express my feelings for him, so I want to simply say, "Thank you, Cody. I love you."
And now, on to the post:
Cody wrote: "It appears that God says [the Hebrews] can eat any animal they want, and then later He appears to change His mind and tells them they cannot, in fact, eat all of those animals... So what does this mean?"
Cody wrote a much longer post than this, and I have removed these two sentences from the concluding section of a passage that was several paragraphs in length, so there is some material missing from the overall thought that went into this point. In way of paraphrasing, the actual point was that at the flood you have eight people and a bunch of animals in an ark. God tells Noah how many of each animal to save, the Bible making clear that this is a distinction between the clean and the unclean (God tells Noah save seven pairs of everything clean but only one pair of everything unclean). After the flood God changes the food law, allowing men to eat animals as well as plants (prior to that God said man could eat every green thing) and thus sets us a system where all food is permitted. But, then later, God restricts what the Hebrew people could eat. So from this comes the above question.
I already wrote a brief response to Cody (so if you are one of his or my Facebook friends and have already read that post, you have my apologies, some of this will be repetitious), but I would like to write a more developed response because his question got me thinking about the whole issue of the food laws and how modern Christians should regard to those laws. My views on the matter are not cutting edge or new, and I'm not going to tell people to empty all the bacon out of the fridge, but I think there are some theological and Christological implications in the food laws that are worth considering. On the whole I think that the food laws point to the greatness of God's grace, they set up a system whereby men might understand their uncleanness before God, and they served as a very real divider between the people of God and those outside of his covenants. If all of these points are understood, and if we can see that Scripture indicates these points are correct, then we are drawn to the redemption offered by Christ as he is the door by which we enter into the grace of God, the one who cleanses us from all unrighteousness, and the one who joins us as a people and reconciles us to God.
I think the following passages of Scripture are relevant to this study: Genesis 9:3-6, Leviticus 1:3, 10; 11 (focusing on verses 24, 27, 36, 39, 43, 44-47), Numbers 23:19, Malachi 3:6, Mark 7:19, Acts 10, Romans 7:7-10 (8-25 is good also, but 7-10 is the focus), Galatians 2:11-21; 3:19-26, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, and James 1:17. There are probably other verses that we could include in this list, but the argument I want to follow touches on all of these verses, and so with these I hope I can lay out my point sufficiently. Some of these verses I use only to illustrate the same point from multiple writers, so as to make that point (hopefully) clearer. (We could, along with these verses bring in 1 Corinthians 8 and go even further in examining how the Christian should react to food in general.)
Where do we begin then? Well, we can begin with what Cody stated he already knew at the intro to his letter: God does not change his mind. We see this in Numbers 23:19, Malachi 3:6, and James 1:17. Each of these verses is clear, God does not change his mind. What he has stated is true, and will be true. We could add to this other verses, such as Hebrews 13:8, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." The point being that while Scripture says that God is grieved over a thing, or that God relents, or we see an instance where God says one thing, but then says because of an act of faith he will not actually do what he has said, we are also told, in no uncertain terms, that God does not change his mind. Thus, if all of Scripture is true, we are left with situations that require us to exercise some additional thought, so that we can see how it can be that God has remained consistent when he gives changing requirements or does not bring about a promised judgment. So then, how can it be that God has not changed his mind in regards to the human diet, but we see at least 3 different dietary commands in the Bible? And what does all of this have to do with Christ?
Here we need to begin with understanding the purpose of the law. We see in Leviticus 11:44-47 that the purpose of the food laws is to mark the Israelites as holy. Holiness means that which is separate, that which is set apart. In terms of human holiness we understand this as meaning that we are set apart to and for God. When we speak of God's holiness it is an expression of his uniqueness, his transcendence over all of creation. He is more holy than anything else, better, above, separate in a good way. Because God is holy, his people are also to be holy, and one of their marks of separation was to be their food.
Thus we read in Leviticus 11:24, 27, 36, 39, and 43 that to touch the carcass of an unclean animal would render the one who touched it unclean. Not only were the Israelites forbidden to eat the unclean, they were forbidden to have contact with the unclean. To be separate, to be holy, meant to have no contact with that which was considered unclean. So the food law given to the Israelites showed them how they were to be uniquely holy before God by telling them what they could and could not eat. No other nation could claim to have this law, to have this knowledge; holiness was given to those in covenant with God, not to those outside the covenant.
This unique covenant relationship was established not through Noah or Adam, but through Abraham. Abraham was the first Hebrew, and he was originally an Aramean. God did not establish a special covenant relationship with Noah and his sons, instead he gave them a general command as regards the food they ate: do not eat meat with the blood in it, everything else is fine. (Genesis 9:3-6) But, when it came to Abraham, God established a special relationship, giving rules for that covenant so that Abraham and his children would be able to always say that they were called by God to a special relationship that no one else could have. But, if God had given the dietary restrictions to Abraham, then Ishmael could have passed those laws down to his children (just as God did bless Ishmael because of Abraham, even if Ishmael was not the son of the promise). If God had given the dietary restrictions to Noah, then what would have set Israel apart in their diet? In setting up a covenant with Israel, God made clear that he wanted a holy people who would be set apart from any other people, and so he did not give dietary restrictions to others because then the point of the restriction would have been lost: those who did not belong to the covenant would have had the same dietary restrictions as those who did belong to the covenant thus weakening a unique covenant sign that would set God's people apart from others.
But, at the same time, the purpose of the dietary law was to enforce the clean/unclean standard that God had already applied to himself upon his people. If this seems an odd statement, then consider that Noah was told to save seven pairs of clean animals and one pair of unclean animals. What would clean and unclean have meant to Noah? Prior to his receiving the command that he could eat of the flesh of animals, it would have been unclean for Noah to eat any flesh at all, so the clean animals could not have indicated a dietary restriction for Noah. However, considering what we see early on in Genesis, where Able is offering God a sacrifice from his flock, and reading that men began to call upon the name of the Lord, it is reasonable to assume that some form of ritualistic worship was common (or at least known) on earth during the time of Noah. This assumption is further buttressed by the fact that Noah built an altar and made an offering to God of some of every clean animal when he and his family exited the ark. Thus, for Noah, clean and unclean would have simply indicated those animals that were acceptable to use for offerings and sacrifices. Now that same understanding, that there are some animals acceptable and some unacceptable, applies not only to sacrificial and religious events, but to the every day events of having dinner or burying a carcass from the fields.
Here we have our first, and I would argue incomplete, answer of why God gave Noah and Moses different food laws. The food laws were part of the larger body of the Mosaic Law given to the Israelites. This body of laws was given so that the Israelites would know what it meant to be holy. Only by following this law perfectly could anyone be holy. Ergo, it did not make sense to give this law to all humans at the time of Noah because God was not establishing a special covenant relationship with all humans wherein he would show them how to be holy. God, in his mercy, chose to reveal the requirements of holiness to the Israelites, in order to accomplish his purposes.
But, what purpose would God have in revealing the requirements of holiness to the Israelites? In examination of this question I argue that we must now turn to the New Testament, where we find not only this answered, but also a more complete answer to the first question as to why God would give different food laws at different times.
The first section I want to look at is Acts 10, where we see Peter visiting a Gentile and we get a resolution to the differences brought about by the dietary laws as given above. In Acts 10 Peter sees a vision from God in which he is told to take and eat from the unclean things set before him. Peter gets this vision three times, and then end up visiting Cornelius and realizing that God is speaking about the Jews and Gentiles, calling the Gentiles clean. Here we have some indication of the distinction that God set up by giving the dietary law in the first place. The Gentiles were unclean not only because they were outside of the covenant of God and his people, but also because of what they ate (granted what they ate was directly related to the fact they had no relationship to God). But, God, through Christ, was so merciful that not only could he draw back the covenant people to himself, he could go even further and draw those to himself who had no covenant relationship with him at all. Cornelius was a God fearer, but he was not Jewish and does not seem to have taken any of the steps necessary to become a Jew, so he had no claim to a covenant relationship with God, but, through Christ, God set aside the limitations of the old covenant and its legal obligations and established a new covenant in which all men could come to God through faith. The old laws of clean and unclean animals no longer served to divide people, but now showed the immeasurable power of God's grace.
The distinction between Jew and Gentile is made even clearer when we consider Paul's testimony in Galatians 2:11-14. Here Paul recalls a time when he stood up to Peter because Peter was being a hypocrite. Peter withdrew from Gentile believers because a group of men who came from James in Jerusalem. Thus even in the early church the distinction between Jew and Gentile persisted, and it seems that this remained an issue of the clean versus the unclean. Paul's complaint against Peter was that Peter was denying the gospel, living like a Gentile and telling the Gentiles that they had to live like Jews. Thus unless they engaged in the steps necessary to become ritually clean, living like Jews, Gentiles were considered unclean by some Jewish Christians in Paul's time. So the Law, as it became a part of Jewish culture, did exactly what it was supposed to in drawing a clear distinction between those who followed it and were considered clean, and those who did not and remained unclean. Yet, as we complete the story by reading through to verse 21 we see that Christ set aside the law, because in and through Christ we have all died to the law, even if we did not know it originally, so that we can live in the righteousness of God. So Christ set aside the distinction between Jew and Gentile, and part of the Gospel is that God has one people, all joined to him through Christ.
We can say then that God gave the Law to the Israelites in order to draw a distinction between them and those around them, but he also gave the Law in order to show the power of his mercy and grace in Christ. The Israelites strained to reach perfection by punctiliously following a set of written rules and obligations, even going so far as to add to them to create barriers so they would not accidentally cross any forbidden lines. But Gentiles were alienated from God, having no conception of God's holiness and no access to the law by which they might have been made aware of the righteousness of God. Yet, in Christ, neither the Jew nor the Gentile can claim any advantage, for Christ made all equal, bringing the righteousness of God to those of us who could not attain it on our own, and were not aware of what righteousness really looked like in the first place. The law makes the grace of God all the more amazing.
But there is more yet. In order to understand God's purpose for the law, we must understand the law. In order to understand the law, in general, we can turn to Galatians 3, Romans 7:7-25, or 1 Timothy 1:8-11. What we see in Galatians 3:19-26 is that the law was given in order to imprison all things under sin, in order that we might believe in Christ. Paul makes clear that the goal of the law was not to cause sin, but the law showed sin, and thereby gave sin power, but also pointed us to Christ. This point is also demonstrated in Romans 7:7-10, in which we read that the law is not sin and is not evil, but that sin uses the law to condemn us and kill us, making our sins all the worse because now we sin not ignorantly, but knowing that what we do is wrong. And, in case we missed it the first couple of times, Paul makes clear to Timothy that the law is laid down not for the righteous but for the unrighteous; the law is good because it applies to those who are law breakers, not the just. So then, the law is there to reveal the sinfulness of humanity, so that in seeing our sinfulness we might be made fully aware of our need for a savior, and so we might come to place our faith in Christ for salvation.
What we see in understanding what Paul says about the Law is that the Law convicts us all. And since we are all convicted under the Law, if we understood it rightly, we would understand what a need we have for a savior. Consider what we read in Leviticus 1:3 and 10. We see that God requires the burnt sacrifices brought to him to be without blemish. God does not accept a sacrifice with blemish or defect.
When we think of this in relation to the food laws we see that anything that is unclean is automatically not fit for sacrifice. God will not accept a perfect and unblemished pig as part of a burnt offering any more than he would accept a blind and lame goat. And if God will not accept that which is unclean, then how can we ever be perfect offerings to him? If the food law shows us how to distinguish between the clean and unclean animals, not only to know what we can eat but also to know what we can offer as part of our sacrifice, then we should know that anything that would be unclean as a matter of diet cannot be an acceptable offering to God. And, if we read the law thoroughly and understand it rightly, we see that we are in need of perpetual cleansing. If we are in need of perpetual cleaning, recognizing as Hebrews says that the blood of animals cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, then we know that we cannot procure righteousness on our own. Thus understood the food laws served as a part of the greater Law in reminding those who attempted to be righteous that they could not achieve righteousness on their own, ultimately men would have to rely on some grace from God to perfect us because we could not perfect ourselves. This then points us back to Christ, for God would have to provide a perfect sacrifice, an unblemished sacrifice, for the sins of humanity if we were to be made righteous and holy as God is, and as God calls us to be.
The Israelites should have understood through the food laws how uncleanness does not come from outside, but from inside. Jesus in Mark 7:19 declares all food to be clean, saying that it is not what goes into the mouth that makes one unclean, but what comes out of the mouth. The Jews were given the food laws so that they could understand how unclean they were internally, no so that they would hold that as unclean which is external. If the food laws were given so as to set up a distinction between the Jews and Gentiles, shouldn't that have caused the Jews to reflect on how much more of a chasm existed between them and God? Because we tend to focus on simply following rules we miss the fact that the Law of God exists also to challenge us to consider how his rules reveal our own unrighteousness. Again, this makes the grace of God amazing, because we who are unclean internally can be called clean, not because of following laws, but because of faith.
The food laws served to distinguish God's people from those around them. The food laws served to show the holiness of God so that his people would be reminded of what they were called to be. But, understood through Christ, the food law shows the magnitude of God's mercy, that those who were unclean could be called clean through the blood of Christ. Those who strived to be clean, knowing they were always unclean, always falling short of the Law, could find redemption in a perfect sacrifice. God did not change his mind in changing what food should be eaten, but he wanted to reveal to us how wondrous his grace his, how holy he himself is, how unclean we are, and how we can draw near to him and be made righteous through his Son.
Showing posts with label Christ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christ. Show all posts
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Friday, December 24, 2010
Merry Christmas!
A thousand people have said it better, and there are a thousand other articles worth reading on the meaning of Christmas and why we should be celebrating, so I'll say only one thing: Merry Christmas! May the meaning of this day, that God was born, a child in the manger was the incarnate Lord himself, and that he lived, walked, died, and rose again for the glory of God and the forgiveness of sins, live in your heart now and forever. Though the holiday feelings may pass, may the truth remain, firmly established in your mind, that he alone is worthy of worship, and whoever has faith in him will be forgiven their sins. May the time with family and friends, if you are so blessed, be joyous and fill your heart with compassion and prayers for those who cannot be with those they love at this time of year, and always. May the Lord bless you, as you have a very, merry Christmas!
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Why International Missions isn't Foreign
Recently I had the privilege of teaching a lesson on international missions at my church here in Carrollton, Georgia. The lesson itself was on missions going on in Thailand. In many of the international missions lessons in local churches congregations learn about the demographics of the country, they hear about a few specific missionaries, and then they are told how they can pray for those missionaries specifically. While there is nothing wrong with this method, and in fact there is a lot of very useful information to be learned from this method of teaching, I decided to take the lesson in a different direction. My goal in the lesson was not simply that the congregation would learn facts about Thailand, but that they would understand that Thailand is not that different from Carrollton, and that international missions is not just something "over there," but that it affects us here at home, and what we do here at home affects international missions.
This post is a follow up to that lesson. The fact is international missions ought not be some foreign concept or idea. International missions should flow directly from home missions, from local missions, and from every Christian's personal mission in the world. International missions is the spread of Christianity to every tribe, people, tongue, and nation, fulfilling the command of Christ to go and make disciples of all nations. (Matthew 28:18-20) Therefore, the mindset of international missions should be part of every Christian, as we strive to be faithful to what our Lord has called us to do.
There are two specific reasons I want to address as to what International missions is not foreign: people, and Scripture. If we understand the reality of who we are serving, and who we have a mission to reach, we will understand that these are not just people who live thousands of miles away, but they are brothers and sisters, and no matter how far away family may be, family is not foreign. Likewise, if we understand Scripture, then we will understand how what we are to minister is never foreign, it is the wonderful Good News of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, that all men might be reconciled to God, redeemed from sin and free to live to the glory of God. The message is not foreign, and the people are not foreign, even if the culture is totally alien to us.
It may seem like a bit of a contradiction to say that the people are not foreign if the culture is foreign, but people are not just their culture. Specifically, in terms of international missions, every person is exactly the same. What I mean is that what Paul says about humans, he says about all of us, he makes no distinction between Jew and Gentile, Greek and barbarian. Paul says, "As it is written:
'None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.'
'Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.'
'The venom of asps is under their lips.'
'Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.'
'Their feet are swift to shed blood;
in their paths are ruin and misery,
and the way of peace they have not known.'
'There is no fear of God before their eyes.'
Every human has sinned. No one fears God naturally. Not one of us is innocent, and all of us are condemned before God, according to what Paul says here. Therefore, when we go to minister to humans in any place, any time, and any culture, we are ministering to sinners. Just as you, if you are a Christian, were a sinner who received the Gospel from someone who ministered to you, so they are sinners in need of ministers who will bring the gospel to them. There is nothing foreign in sin, we who walk in the light know the ways of sin, because we walked in sin ourselves.
But, not only are people the same, Scripture is the same. Yes, translation is an art and a science. And yes, there may be challenges in bringing Scripture to different cultures. Due to linguistic barriers and the lack of a written language, it may be very hard to explain Scripture or make it widely accessible to certain peoples. But, despite these challenges, Scripture itself does not change.
The reason Scripture does not change is because God does not change. Scripture is the personal revelation of a personal God. Unless God changes, his revelation will not change, and God has said of himself that he does not change. (Numbers 23:19, 1 Samuel 15:29, Malachi 3:6, James 1:17) Therefore, in every culture we minister the same Scripture, the same message, and the same God, that all men may know of the Lord who made them and desires that they should come and fellowship with him. This Gospel does not change, because it is the same to everyone, no matter who they are or where they are.
There are a lot of things that can be foreign in international missions, from language and culture, to location and climate. But, the things that really matter, the needs of people and means of addressing those needs, do not change. Every person needs to be reconciled to the God who made them, who requires worship from them. And the only means of reconciliation is faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore, international missions may involve going to foreign places, eating foreign food, learning foreign languages, and living under foreign shelters, but there should be nothing closer to home than the ministering of the gospel to those who desperately need to know of the hope that is found only in Jesus Christ.
This post is a follow up to that lesson. The fact is international missions ought not be some foreign concept or idea. International missions should flow directly from home missions, from local missions, and from every Christian's personal mission in the world. International missions is the spread of Christianity to every tribe, people, tongue, and nation, fulfilling the command of Christ to go and make disciples of all nations. (Matthew 28:18-20) Therefore, the mindset of international missions should be part of every Christian, as we strive to be faithful to what our Lord has called us to do.
There are two specific reasons I want to address as to what International missions is not foreign: people, and Scripture. If we understand the reality of who we are serving, and who we have a mission to reach, we will understand that these are not just people who live thousands of miles away, but they are brothers and sisters, and no matter how far away family may be, family is not foreign. Likewise, if we understand Scripture, then we will understand how what we are to minister is never foreign, it is the wonderful Good News of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, that all men might be reconciled to God, redeemed from sin and free to live to the glory of God. The message is not foreign, and the people are not foreign, even if the culture is totally alien to us.
It may seem like a bit of a contradiction to say that the people are not foreign if the culture is foreign, but people are not just their culture. Specifically, in terms of international missions, every person is exactly the same. What I mean is that what Paul says about humans, he says about all of us, he makes no distinction between Jew and Gentile, Greek and barbarian. Paul says, "As it is written:
'None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.'
'Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.'
'The venom of asps is under their lips.'
'Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.'
'Their feet are swift to shed blood;
in their paths are ruin and misery,
and the way of peace they have not known.'
'There is no fear of God before their eyes.'
Every human has sinned. No one fears God naturally. Not one of us is innocent, and all of us are condemned before God, according to what Paul says here. Therefore, when we go to minister to humans in any place, any time, and any culture, we are ministering to sinners. Just as you, if you are a Christian, were a sinner who received the Gospel from someone who ministered to you, so they are sinners in need of ministers who will bring the gospel to them. There is nothing foreign in sin, we who walk in the light know the ways of sin, because we walked in sin ourselves.
But, not only are people the same, Scripture is the same. Yes, translation is an art and a science. And yes, there may be challenges in bringing Scripture to different cultures. Due to linguistic barriers and the lack of a written language, it may be very hard to explain Scripture or make it widely accessible to certain peoples. But, despite these challenges, Scripture itself does not change.
The reason Scripture does not change is because God does not change. Scripture is the personal revelation of a personal God. Unless God changes, his revelation will not change, and God has said of himself that he does not change. (Numbers 23:19, 1 Samuel 15:29, Malachi 3:6, James 1:17) Therefore, in every culture we minister the same Scripture, the same message, and the same God, that all men may know of the Lord who made them and desires that they should come and fellowship with him. This Gospel does not change, because it is the same to everyone, no matter who they are or where they are.
There are a lot of things that can be foreign in international missions, from language and culture, to location and climate. But, the things that really matter, the needs of people and means of addressing those needs, do not change. Every person needs to be reconciled to the God who made them, who requires worship from them. And the only means of reconciliation is faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore, international missions may involve going to foreign places, eating foreign food, learning foreign languages, and living under foreign shelters, but there should be nothing closer to home than the ministering of the gospel to those who desperately need to know of the hope that is found only in Jesus Christ.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Isaiah 6:1-8
Recently (a couple of weeks ago) my pastor asked me to read this section of Scripture and lead the congregation in prayer as part of our worship service. Reading this passage, and the sermon of that day, both changed the way I have looked at sin since. I wanted to address this passage of Scripture and share a few of the things that really impacted me. A couple of the points come from the Hebrew in this passage, so I beg your leave to discuss those, and I ask that you trust what I'm going to say. Alternatively, I hope that my reading of this passage might encourage you to do some research on the passage yourself, that you may be challenged and transformed by the Word of God.
First, the English of this passage:
In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said:
"Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!"
And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said: "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!"
Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth and said: "Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for."
And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here am I! Send me."
The first thing that struck me was the declaration made by the Seraphim: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts!" (A better rendition might note that he is called the Lord of armies, but that's a secondary point.) The reason this declaration struck me is because of the triple repeated, "Holy!" In the original Hebrew and Greek there was no punctuation. No exclamation marks, no periods, no commas, no way to separate or accentuate a word other than either its placement in the idea, or a play on its form, or a repetition of the word itself. Thus, when we see a repeated word or term it is there for one specific reason: emphasis.
For the Seraphim to call God "holy" three times indicates a serious emphatic statement. It would be like standing in the midst of a courtroom and suddenly the bailiff picks up a bull horn and screams as loud as he can that the judge is honorable and just. If you miss the implication, it is because you choose to ignore that which has been screamed at you.
God is holy! He is utterly, indescribably holy! His holiness is to be shouted, it is declared by those beings which are in his presence day and night. This is the first and most important descriptor of God. His holiness defines his other attributes, because it puts them in proper perspective.
God's holiness is his transcendence above and beyond this world. He is like nothing in this world, utterly distinct and incomparable. It is for this reason that Scripture says of God, "Who is like the Lord?" (Psalm 40:5; Psalm 89:6; Isaiah 40:18, 25; 46:5) And here, you have heavenly beings, flying above the throne of God, which is itself a high and loft throne, and they are declaring this holiness, over and over again, yelling it loudly to one another. That's how important it is that we get that God is holy, the seraphim yell not to creation, but to one another, even though they dwell in the presence of God.
This point only began to really come home to me when I began to consider the rest of God's attributes in relation to this holiness. Think about it this way: God demonstrates his power so that we can understand that his power is beyond what we can comprehend, it is holy. God works great and wondrous miracles so that we can understand that if God is able to do things which amaze us, how much greater are his works which we can not fathom! His holiness, his indescribable nature, is declared by comparison with that which we can understand. Likewise of any of God's attributes, his anger, his patience, his justice, and particularly his love. We cannot really comprehend any of these attributes of God, because his holiness puts them beyond our grasp. We can witness a declaration of his love or justice, but that only gives us a glimpse into the reality that we cannot fully grasp, because God is beyond us.
But, here's what blows me away more than anything else, what made me really begin to consider the beauty of God's holiness: he does not do his great works for himself! What I mean is that God is holy, by his very nature, and there is nothing that adds to or takes away from this holiness. Thus, when God shows his glory through his great works, he does not add anything to himself, but simply shows us, mere humans, how wonderful he is, out of a great love for us. Remember, God has seraphim declaring his holiness, he already knows his holiness, he does not need us to praise him, but he gives us the opportunity to praise him for our good, because he loves us.
God is the only being who deserves this praise, because his beauty is perfect. So, for us to be able to praise God is a gift to us, because being able to praise God means that we are getting some glimpse of perfection, some participation in the amazing glory of the one who defines everything good and beautiful. It's like getting an invite into the most amazing art gallery ever. God is not changed or made more amazing by our worship, but we who witness his holiness are changed, because we experience that which is truly beautiful. This is the situation Isaiah found himself in: ushered into the presence of glory, confronted with that which left him dumbfounded (literally) because of how wondrous it was.
God is holy, he is awesome, and he shows his holiness to us because of his love for us, but this is only the beginning of this passage. Add to that the very beings who are declaring this: seraphim. (In the Hebrew the "im" ending is simply a plural ending, hence some translations read "seraphs" as a valid plural form of the term, since the Hebrew "seraph" is the singular form.) The word itself means "burning ones". Thus, here are "burning ones," or beings whose own glory makes them appear to be on fire (or who really are made of fire), who are declaring how holy God is. His glory is made manifest through comparison with their glory, because they are declaring his holiness, and not their own.
Then, Isaiah gives utterance to words that simply do not translate into the English with the same nuance which they have in Hebrew. Isaiah looks to the Lord and says, "Woe is me! For I am [compelled to be silent, brought to silence, made silent, or undone, ruined, destroyed]." (Everything within the brackets could be viable interpretations of this passage.) Thus, when we read from Isaiah, "I am undone" what he is saying is, "I am brought to silence." Here the idiom of silence represents the idea of death or total destruction. This ties the statement in with the rest of what Isaiah says, "For I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips."
The idea of unclean lips goes far and beyond simply the words of the people, it goes to their lives, their very being. Thus, as Christ declared, "For out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks." (Matthew 12:34) For Isaiah, for his mouth to be silenced was a condemnation of his very life. So, likewise, when Isaiah complains of the uncleanness of the lips of the people, he is condemning the way they live. They are unclean in word and deed. And he is one of those people, he is not innocent, he is not holy, he is not good. I realized as I read those words what a condemnation that should be to me: though I might know how to say the right things, though I might appear to be a "good Christian" to the world, my heart ought to be condemned before God because of my sinfulness. I am in the position of Isaiah, and I need to declare, "Woe is me! I am compelled to be silent, I should be destroyed before my holy God!"
Yet Isaiah was not left there. Here the Hebrew again plays on words and imagery: one of the burning ones takes a "glowing coal" and touches Isaiah's mouth with it. One of those who is on fire takes a coal of fire and touches that which symbolizes Isaiah's wickedness, his lips, and declared Isaiah to be clean. Imagine that scene for a minute, a flying being of fire holding a burning coal in his hand reaches out to you and touches your lips with a searing fire, and declares you to be clean.
Here the full imagery of the situation is brought out: Isaiah is not simply standing in the temple, he is standing in the middle of a sacrifice. Remember, the temple was filled with smoke after God's holiness was declared. Why would the temple be filled with smoke? Because a sacrifice was taking place. We know this because the smoke is not merely from the altar of incense, but there is a burning coal, which came from the altar, which means that a sacrifice was burning on the altar of God.
Here we tie into the imagery of Christ, because he is the lamb who was slain before the foundation of the world. (1 Peter 1:19-21) He is the sacrifice that God accepted to quench his anger, which allows a guilty people to approach a holy God. Isaiah was standing in the presence of the God who makes redemption for his saints, offering up a sacrifice to himself which we could not offer up. And Isaiah was made a participant of that sacrifice. A coal from the fire of God's sacrifice was taken and placed upon Isaiah's lips, so that he became a participant in this symbolic sacrifice that would one day be fulfilled in the death and suffering of the Messiah.
And look what happens to Isaiah because of his exposure to the sacrifice of Christ: the man who was brought to silence, who was compelled to recognize the sinfulness of his life before the holy God of the universe, suddenly has the courage to speak up and say to God, "Here I am, send me!" Because Isaiah saw the holiness of God, he was brought low, he considered himself already dead. But, because Christ died on his behalf and he was able to participate in that sacrifice, his words, the actions of his life, were made acceptable before God. Isaiah was given a boldness to go from laying on his face to standing before the awesome God of all creation, all because of the sacrifice that God prepared for himself.
The more I studied this passage, just in preparation to read it at church, the more I was faced with the reality that I had lost sight of the holiness of God. I had forgotten his glory, and I had forgotten that when I sin I am transgressing that holiness, that glory, that awesome and amazing attribute of God that cannot be fully understood here on earth, because it is the reflection of how utterly incomprehensible and beyond us God really is. But, in addition to that, my sins made light of the sacrifice God prepared for himself. Instead of allowing the coal from the altar of God to touch my lips, I would draw near to it, I would feign to touch it, and then I would go back again into the secret realms of my heart, and I would not let myself be singed by the purifying fire of God.
For this reason, for the last two weeks, I have been continually thinking to myself, "Would it glorify God for me to do that? Would it glorify God for me to go there? Would it glorify God for me to watch that, think that, or listen to that?" The seraphim constantly declare God is holy, so how could I, who have enjoyed the benefits of the death of Christ, do anything less in my own life? Do I really think God is that holy? In being confronted with these questions I was forced to reconsider how I was living, so that I could be like Isaiah, transformed by my experience of seeing the holiness of God.
To be honest, for those who have read this far, I can only apologize. There is something about being exposed to an experience that cannot quite be captured by simply writing about it. Particularly when it is the Word of God that we are confronted with, there is an intrinsic and personal challenge that is hard to express to others. I can only hope that you will be challenged by this section of Scripture as I was. I can only hope that as you have read of my experience of going through this passage, you will be able to appreciate the imagery, the nuances, and the power of this passage more. I hope you are challenged to think about the awesome holiness of God a little bit more, so that you can too can live a life changed by meeting the God of Isaiah, the God of the universe.
First, the English of this passage:
In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said:
"Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!"
And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said: "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!"
Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth and said: "Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for."
And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here am I! Send me."
The first thing that struck me was the declaration made by the Seraphim: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts!" (A better rendition might note that he is called the Lord of armies, but that's a secondary point.) The reason this declaration struck me is because of the triple repeated, "Holy!" In the original Hebrew and Greek there was no punctuation. No exclamation marks, no periods, no commas, no way to separate or accentuate a word other than either its placement in the idea, or a play on its form, or a repetition of the word itself. Thus, when we see a repeated word or term it is there for one specific reason: emphasis.
For the Seraphim to call God "holy" three times indicates a serious emphatic statement. It would be like standing in the midst of a courtroom and suddenly the bailiff picks up a bull horn and screams as loud as he can that the judge is honorable and just. If you miss the implication, it is because you choose to ignore that which has been screamed at you.
God is holy! He is utterly, indescribably holy! His holiness is to be shouted, it is declared by those beings which are in his presence day and night. This is the first and most important descriptor of God. His holiness defines his other attributes, because it puts them in proper perspective.
God's holiness is his transcendence above and beyond this world. He is like nothing in this world, utterly distinct and incomparable. It is for this reason that Scripture says of God, "Who is like the Lord?" (Psalm 40:5; Psalm 89:6; Isaiah 40:18, 25; 46:5) And here, you have heavenly beings, flying above the throne of God, which is itself a high and loft throne, and they are declaring this holiness, over and over again, yelling it loudly to one another. That's how important it is that we get that God is holy, the seraphim yell not to creation, but to one another, even though they dwell in the presence of God.
This point only began to really come home to me when I began to consider the rest of God's attributes in relation to this holiness. Think about it this way: God demonstrates his power so that we can understand that his power is beyond what we can comprehend, it is holy. God works great and wondrous miracles so that we can understand that if God is able to do things which amaze us, how much greater are his works which we can not fathom! His holiness, his indescribable nature, is declared by comparison with that which we can understand. Likewise of any of God's attributes, his anger, his patience, his justice, and particularly his love. We cannot really comprehend any of these attributes of God, because his holiness puts them beyond our grasp. We can witness a declaration of his love or justice, but that only gives us a glimpse into the reality that we cannot fully grasp, because God is beyond us.
But, here's what blows me away more than anything else, what made me really begin to consider the beauty of God's holiness: he does not do his great works for himself! What I mean is that God is holy, by his very nature, and there is nothing that adds to or takes away from this holiness. Thus, when God shows his glory through his great works, he does not add anything to himself, but simply shows us, mere humans, how wonderful he is, out of a great love for us. Remember, God has seraphim declaring his holiness, he already knows his holiness, he does not need us to praise him, but he gives us the opportunity to praise him for our good, because he loves us.
God is the only being who deserves this praise, because his beauty is perfect. So, for us to be able to praise God is a gift to us, because being able to praise God means that we are getting some glimpse of perfection, some participation in the amazing glory of the one who defines everything good and beautiful. It's like getting an invite into the most amazing art gallery ever. God is not changed or made more amazing by our worship, but we who witness his holiness are changed, because we experience that which is truly beautiful. This is the situation Isaiah found himself in: ushered into the presence of glory, confronted with that which left him dumbfounded (literally) because of how wondrous it was.
God is holy, he is awesome, and he shows his holiness to us because of his love for us, but this is only the beginning of this passage. Add to that the very beings who are declaring this: seraphim. (In the Hebrew the "im" ending is simply a plural ending, hence some translations read "seraphs" as a valid plural form of the term, since the Hebrew "seraph" is the singular form.) The word itself means "burning ones". Thus, here are "burning ones," or beings whose own glory makes them appear to be on fire (or who really are made of fire), who are declaring how holy God is. His glory is made manifest through comparison with their glory, because they are declaring his holiness, and not their own.
Then, Isaiah gives utterance to words that simply do not translate into the English with the same nuance which they have in Hebrew. Isaiah looks to the Lord and says, "Woe is me! For I am [compelled to be silent, brought to silence, made silent, or undone, ruined, destroyed]." (Everything within the brackets could be viable interpretations of this passage.) Thus, when we read from Isaiah, "I am undone" what he is saying is, "I am brought to silence." Here the idiom of silence represents the idea of death or total destruction. This ties the statement in with the rest of what Isaiah says, "For I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips."
The idea of unclean lips goes far and beyond simply the words of the people, it goes to their lives, their very being. Thus, as Christ declared, "For out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks." (Matthew 12:34) For Isaiah, for his mouth to be silenced was a condemnation of his very life. So, likewise, when Isaiah complains of the uncleanness of the lips of the people, he is condemning the way they live. They are unclean in word and deed. And he is one of those people, he is not innocent, he is not holy, he is not good. I realized as I read those words what a condemnation that should be to me: though I might know how to say the right things, though I might appear to be a "good Christian" to the world, my heart ought to be condemned before God because of my sinfulness. I am in the position of Isaiah, and I need to declare, "Woe is me! I am compelled to be silent, I should be destroyed before my holy God!"
Yet Isaiah was not left there. Here the Hebrew again plays on words and imagery: one of the burning ones takes a "glowing coal" and touches Isaiah's mouth with it. One of those who is on fire takes a coal of fire and touches that which symbolizes Isaiah's wickedness, his lips, and declared Isaiah to be clean. Imagine that scene for a minute, a flying being of fire holding a burning coal in his hand reaches out to you and touches your lips with a searing fire, and declares you to be clean.
Here the full imagery of the situation is brought out: Isaiah is not simply standing in the temple, he is standing in the middle of a sacrifice. Remember, the temple was filled with smoke after God's holiness was declared. Why would the temple be filled with smoke? Because a sacrifice was taking place. We know this because the smoke is not merely from the altar of incense, but there is a burning coal, which came from the altar, which means that a sacrifice was burning on the altar of God.
Here we tie into the imagery of Christ, because he is the lamb who was slain before the foundation of the world. (1 Peter 1:19-21) He is the sacrifice that God accepted to quench his anger, which allows a guilty people to approach a holy God. Isaiah was standing in the presence of the God who makes redemption for his saints, offering up a sacrifice to himself which we could not offer up. And Isaiah was made a participant of that sacrifice. A coal from the fire of God's sacrifice was taken and placed upon Isaiah's lips, so that he became a participant in this symbolic sacrifice that would one day be fulfilled in the death and suffering of the Messiah.
And look what happens to Isaiah because of his exposure to the sacrifice of Christ: the man who was brought to silence, who was compelled to recognize the sinfulness of his life before the holy God of the universe, suddenly has the courage to speak up and say to God, "Here I am, send me!" Because Isaiah saw the holiness of God, he was brought low, he considered himself already dead. But, because Christ died on his behalf and he was able to participate in that sacrifice, his words, the actions of his life, were made acceptable before God. Isaiah was given a boldness to go from laying on his face to standing before the awesome God of all creation, all because of the sacrifice that God prepared for himself.
The more I studied this passage, just in preparation to read it at church, the more I was faced with the reality that I had lost sight of the holiness of God. I had forgotten his glory, and I had forgotten that when I sin I am transgressing that holiness, that glory, that awesome and amazing attribute of God that cannot be fully understood here on earth, because it is the reflection of how utterly incomprehensible and beyond us God really is. But, in addition to that, my sins made light of the sacrifice God prepared for himself. Instead of allowing the coal from the altar of God to touch my lips, I would draw near to it, I would feign to touch it, and then I would go back again into the secret realms of my heart, and I would not let myself be singed by the purifying fire of God.
For this reason, for the last two weeks, I have been continually thinking to myself, "Would it glorify God for me to do that? Would it glorify God for me to go there? Would it glorify God for me to watch that, think that, or listen to that?" The seraphim constantly declare God is holy, so how could I, who have enjoyed the benefits of the death of Christ, do anything less in my own life? Do I really think God is that holy? In being confronted with these questions I was forced to reconsider how I was living, so that I could be like Isaiah, transformed by my experience of seeing the holiness of God.
To be honest, for those who have read this far, I can only apologize. There is something about being exposed to an experience that cannot quite be captured by simply writing about it. Particularly when it is the Word of God that we are confronted with, there is an intrinsic and personal challenge that is hard to express to others. I can only hope that you will be challenged by this section of Scripture as I was. I can only hope that as you have read of my experience of going through this passage, you will be able to appreciate the imagery, the nuances, and the power of this passage more. I hope you are challenged to think about the awesome holiness of God a little bit more, so that you can too can live a life changed by meeting the God of Isaiah, the God of the universe.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
A Good Father's Discipline
My parents can tell you that I was a curious child. I'm sure in fact that they would confirm both implications of the previous statement, but I want to focus on the questioning nature of a curious soul. My mother used to say I could ask the same question in 20 different ways. I did ask a lot of questions, and often those questions were the same question asked in different ways, because I wanted to make sure that I understood what was being said. Maybe it was because I was a bit thick sometimes, but I know that often I asked questions because I wanted to understand, well, everything.
I think that same principle animates most of us. Not that we realize that we want to know everything, but that we will not do that which we do not see the purpose to doing. For instance, to this day, I rarely make my bed, because I figure I'm going to get back into it anyhow, why bother making the sheets nice just so I can mess them up when I sleep? Besides, I figure leaving the sheets open in a bit of a tangle helps to air out the bed from where I was sleeping on it all night. But, if I know that I have a guest coming, or that, for whatever reason, someone may go into my room or see my bed, I'll take the time to make it, so as to keep a presentable room when necessary. (Fortunately I am married to a wonderful woman who thinks much the same as me in this area.)
I think this is the way most of us live. When we understand the purpose of something, we are willing to do it, we may even embrace an action that we find particularly meaningful. But, when we do not understand we are less willing to do what seems to be a hindrance. Sometimes we skip over what we think to be minor steps in an order of operations, and sometimes that is okay. But, sometimes what appears to be a small thing turns out to be a major thing. The problem is that we cannot understand everything, and sometimes we have to accept that what we are called to do we must do based on our faith in the one who has commanded it, and not based on our own wisdom and understanding.
I think that is what has happened with church discipline. There was a time when we understood that discipline was necessary, and was an integral part of our faith and our walk with God. Now a days, when people can simply go to any church and can move from place to place quickly, it seems more of a hindrance for a church to worry about discipline. However, if we understood how serious discipline really was, perhaps we would be willing to do it. Perhaps, if we understood how serious discipline is, we would embrace it as part of our culture once again.
I want to take a minute to explain what I mean by church discipline. To be honest, until I went to seminary, that term was not one I was familiar with. I belonged to what I have come to think of as the typical Southern Baptist church, one that did not practice church discipline, and had ceased to even teach on the subject at all. Thus I think there is perhaps a large portion of this generation of Christians (in America) who have no idea what church discipline is. I'll try and explain it briefly.
Church discipline, most narrowly conceived, is that process by which a church attempts to correct a wayward member. Usually this starts with one person confronting another with some specific and public sin. After that person has been confronted with this sin, if he refuses to repent and turn from his sin, whoever initially confronted him will bring others with them to confront the person again. After this second confrontation, if the person who has sinned still refuses to repent, then after an appropriate season of prayer, the matter will be brought before the congregation, and the whole congregation will then join in asking the person to repent (often this is done through letter from the congregation hand delivered to the person in question, if they refuse to come to the meeting arranged for this purpose). After this, if the person remains disobedient, the congregation will then move forward to discontinue fellowship with that person, basically saying that the person's continuous disobedience brings their salvation into question.
The last point here addresses the seriousness of church discipline carried through to its end on an unrepentant person. The goal is to make clear that the behavior of the person in question is such that it cannot be tolerated by the church, and that no Christian should willingly engage in this behavior. Therefore, the response of the church, if fellowship is withdrawn, is not that the church is saying, "We don't like you" instead the church is saying, "We cannot discern that you really are a Christian, and because we do not want you to be confusion as to your eternal state, we are going to treat you as a non-Christian, so that you may realize your need for Christ and repent of your sin." Discipline is thus the most loving thing a church can do, because discipline takes seriously the question of a person's eternal fate, and encourages people to examine themselves before God that they may know if they are condemned.
But, because of the very serious nature of discipline carried out this far, it ought not be done for light matters. For matters that can be shrugged off the church should bear with, and bear up, the weaker brother, so that his faith may be strengthened. Judgment ought to be reserved for matters of clear sin, not for petty arguments and complaints. Moreover, discipline ought only ever be done for matters of public sin. "He said, she said" arguments ought never go to the point of discipline, because the matter is private, and ought to be resolved privately.
But, church discipline should not really be that narrowly conceived. The fact is that discipleship is discipline. When we tell someone that God needs to be Lord of his life, and that God has certain ways he wants things done, then we are asking them to submit to church discipline. The goal is to get the person so disciplined in spiritual matters that he can go on to train and discipline others, creating a cycle of discipleship and discipline that glorifies God through many lives. Everything the church does, from encouraging prayer and bible reading, to practicing witnessing and faithful living, is discipline. That means that we need to always be open to rebuke, to correction, and to encouragement, in every aspect of our spiritual lives.
Hebrews says that our fathers punished us for a time as they saw fit, and that no man enjoys discipline while he is going through it. But, the end result of discipline is that a man is better prepared for life, discipline is good. Likewise Hebrews says our Father does the same for us, that he disciplines us for our good. Therefore, the teaching of Hebrews is that discipline from God, when rightly understood is for our benefit. Thus, though it is painful, we should embrace it, because it will bring us glory on the day that Christ is revealed.
Often I have read this verse and thought of the discipline that I have gone through in various trials and troubles in life. From learning to do with little do to unemployment and poverty, to learning to enjoy the simple of things of life through having possessions stripped away from me, I thought this was discipline. It has taken me a long time to realize that God does not just discipline through these events, but also through the church. Those who have come along beside me, my brothers who have prayed for me, my sisters who have shared with me, my family who has taught me and walked with me in good times and bad, they have been the discipline of God in my life, and that discipline has been good for me, and good to me.
Discipline, godly discipline, is good in every way. We ought to embrace discipline, training one another, correcting one another, loving one another enough to share not only in the good, but in the bad as well. We think of discipline as only the hard times when a brother or sister refuses our correction, and we forget that the one who hardens his back is the one who is not being disciplined, because he will not submit. We, who remain pliable clay in the hands of God, are the ones who are disciplined, and we find joy because of that discipline. Sometimes we must disassociate with someone, because we want to love the stubborn soul. Embrace discipline when it first comes upon you, and discipline others as well, because we are the tools of God, his hands and feet in performing his will here on earth.
I think that same principle animates most of us. Not that we realize that we want to know everything, but that we will not do that which we do not see the purpose to doing. For instance, to this day, I rarely make my bed, because I figure I'm going to get back into it anyhow, why bother making the sheets nice just so I can mess them up when I sleep? Besides, I figure leaving the sheets open in a bit of a tangle helps to air out the bed from where I was sleeping on it all night. But, if I know that I have a guest coming, or that, for whatever reason, someone may go into my room or see my bed, I'll take the time to make it, so as to keep a presentable room when necessary. (Fortunately I am married to a wonderful woman who thinks much the same as me in this area.)
I think this is the way most of us live. When we understand the purpose of something, we are willing to do it, we may even embrace an action that we find particularly meaningful. But, when we do not understand we are less willing to do what seems to be a hindrance. Sometimes we skip over what we think to be minor steps in an order of operations, and sometimes that is okay. But, sometimes what appears to be a small thing turns out to be a major thing. The problem is that we cannot understand everything, and sometimes we have to accept that what we are called to do we must do based on our faith in the one who has commanded it, and not based on our own wisdom and understanding.
I think that is what has happened with church discipline. There was a time when we understood that discipline was necessary, and was an integral part of our faith and our walk with God. Now a days, when people can simply go to any church and can move from place to place quickly, it seems more of a hindrance for a church to worry about discipline. However, if we understood how serious discipline really was, perhaps we would be willing to do it. Perhaps, if we understood how serious discipline is, we would embrace it as part of our culture once again.
I want to take a minute to explain what I mean by church discipline. To be honest, until I went to seminary, that term was not one I was familiar with. I belonged to what I have come to think of as the typical Southern Baptist church, one that did not practice church discipline, and had ceased to even teach on the subject at all. Thus I think there is perhaps a large portion of this generation of Christians (in America) who have no idea what church discipline is. I'll try and explain it briefly.
Church discipline, most narrowly conceived, is that process by which a church attempts to correct a wayward member. Usually this starts with one person confronting another with some specific and public sin. After that person has been confronted with this sin, if he refuses to repent and turn from his sin, whoever initially confronted him will bring others with them to confront the person again. After this second confrontation, if the person who has sinned still refuses to repent, then after an appropriate season of prayer, the matter will be brought before the congregation, and the whole congregation will then join in asking the person to repent (often this is done through letter from the congregation hand delivered to the person in question, if they refuse to come to the meeting arranged for this purpose). After this, if the person remains disobedient, the congregation will then move forward to discontinue fellowship with that person, basically saying that the person's continuous disobedience brings their salvation into question.
The last point here addresses the seriousness of church discipline carried through to its end on an unrepentant person. The goal is to make clear that the behavior of the person in question is such that it cannot be tolerated by the church, and that no Christian should willingly engage in this behavior. Therefore, the response of the church, if fellowship is withdrawn, is not that the church is saying, "We don't like you" instead the church is saying, "We cannot discern that you really are a Christian, and because we do not want you to be confusion as to your eternal state, we are going to treat you as a non-Christian, so that you may realize your need for Christ and repent of your sin." Discipline is thus the most loving thing a church can do, because discipline takes seriously the question of a person's eternal fate, and encourages people to examine themselves before God that they may know if they are condemned.
But, because of the very serious nature of discipline carried out this far, it ought not be done for light matters. For matters that can be shrugged off the church should bear with, and bear up, the weaker brother, so that his faith may be strengthened. Judgment ought to be reserved for matters of clear sin, not for petty arguments and complaints. Moreover, discipline ought only ever be done for matters of public sin. "He said, she said" arguments ought never go to the point of discipline, because the matter is private, and ought to be resolved privately.
But, church discipline should not really be that narrowly conceived. The fact is that discipleship is discipline. When we tell someone that God needs to be Lord of his life, and that God has certain ways he wants things done, then we are asking them to submit to church discipline. The goal is to get the person so disciplined in spiritual matters that he can go on to train and discipline others, creating a cycle of discipleship and discipline that glorifies God through many lives. Everything the church does, from encouraging prayer and bible reading, to practicing witnessing and faithful living, is discipline. That means that we need to always be open to rebuke, to correction, and to encouragement, in every aspect of our spiritual lives.
Hebrews says that our fathers punished us for a time as they saw fit, and that no man enjoys discipline while he is going through it. But, the end result of discipline is that a man is better prepared for life, discipline is good. Likewise Hebrews says our Father does the same for us, that he disciplines us for our good. Therefore, the teaching of Hebrews is that discipline from God, when rightly understood is for our benefit. Thus, though it is painful, we should embrace it, because it will bring us glory on the day that Christ is revealed.
Often I have read this verse and thought of the discipline that I have gone through in various trials and troubles in life. From learning to do with little do to unemployment and poverty, to learning to enjoy the simple of things of life through having possessions stripped away from me, I thought this was discipline. It has taken me a long time to realize that God does not just discipline through these events, but also through the church. Those who have come along beside me, my brothers who have prayed for me, my sisters who have shared with me, my family who has taught me and walked with me in good times and bad, they have been the discipline of God in my life, and that discipline has been good for me, and good to me.
Discipline, godly discipline, is good in every way. We ought to embrace discipline, training one another, correcting one another, loving one another enough to share not only in the good, but in the bad as well. We think of discipline as only the hard times when a brother or sister refuses our correction, and we forget that the one who hardens his back is the one who is not being disciplined, because he will not submit. We, who remain pliable clay in the hands of God, are the ones who are disciplined, and we find joy because of that discipline. Sometimes we must disassociate with someone, because we want to love the stubborn soul. Embrace discipline when it first comes upon you, and discipline others as well, because we are the tools of God, his hands and feet in performing his will here on earth.
Friday, September 24, 2010
More Than Bread
While wondering through the desert Satan tempted Christ by appealing to his hunger. Satan said to the Lord, "Turn these stones into bread and so you do not have to go hungry!" It may not sound like much of a temptation, but the real point was to get Christ to rely upon himself, instead of trusting that the Father would provide for him what he needed. Christ responded by quoting Scripture and standing against Satan saying, "Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." We have to eat to live, but if all we take in is bread, then while we may continue to exist, we are far from having full lives.
This was part of the problem that the church in Corinth dealt with. Instead of taking in the Word of God, they were more concerned with the bread and wine of the Lord's table. Paul condemns the church noting that some come and feast, and others are left to starve. Instead of sharing love and compassion for one another they became selfish gluttons. To partake of the Lord's supper is to share in Christ, to eat and drink of his memory and in obedience to his words, it is not just to fill our stomachs, but to live on the Word of God.
Christ promised his presence always, and proclaimed of himself that he is the bread of life. Obviously there is metaphor involved in that statement. Christ is not literally made of bread. Likewise, as much as I respect those Catholics who take seriously the traditions that have been handed down, as a protestant and one who adheres to solo scriptura, I find nothing in Scripture that makes me think that the bread literally becomes the body of Christ and the wine becomes his blood in some metaphysical way. But, despite the fact that the bread is not literally Christ, when we partake of the bread and the wine, we are joined to Christ in his presence, as we partake of the feast that he is preparing for us in heaven.
To eat of the Lord's Table is to partake of a heavenly feast. Consider this: Christ began and ended his ministry with food and wine. When his mother asked him to help with the situation at the wedding feast, Christ turned the water into wine. When Christ gave his last instructions, before his death, to his apostles, he did it over a feast including bread and wine. And, when Christ brings all things to completion, we will once again sit down to a feast with him, at the wedding supper of the Lamb. When we eat of the bread and drink of the wine of the Lord's Table, we are participating in feasting with Christ, joining with him in faith to the Father, believing that one day we will eat at the wedding supper of his Son.
This is why Paul was so severe with the church in Corinth, and why he says that when we eat of the Lord's Table and fail to recognize the body of Christ, we eat and drink judgment on ourselves. When we partake of the Lord's Table, if we do not recognize that we are eating a fellowship meal, a celebration of Christ and the feast that will join all believers together, then we are not acting in faith, but faithlessly. We turn the admonition of Christ on its head: instead of living on the Word of God, we begin to treat the feast of Christ as nothing more than bread and wine. Any church that treats the Lord's Supper lightly, not realizing the significance of what it means to partake of the body of Christ is asking for the same judgment that Paul says was already being poured out on the church at Corinth: weakness, sickness, and premature death.
It ought to be born in mind that death, weakness, and sickness, do not necessarily have to be upon individuals. Those who sit in the congregation, who are ignorant of the reality of the Lord's Supper, while certainly responsible for failing to take seriously the Word of God, are not as accountable as those who teach them. Thus as James says, "Not many of you should desire to be teachers, knowing that we who teach will be judged more strictly." In this way, because those who teach from the pulpit have failed to properly teach the Word of God, and because those who sit in the congregation have failed to hold them accountable to what has been taught, everyone brings judgment upon themselves for their faithless living before God. So, particularly in congregational churches, no one has excuse, and no individual can claim innocence if they have not been faithfully warning their brothers and sisters of the coming wrath of God.
Because Churches do not take seriously the Word of God in what it teaches about why we should do the things we do, the churches get weak. The churches grow sick. Eventually, those churches who fail to be faithful to God, who no longer reflect a healthy image of his body, die. And no amount of man made emotion and passion can change what God has already said will be the judgment of those who take the Lord's Supper lightly. But it does not have to be this way.
Our God is a God who forgives, who restores, who wounds and heals. If we will turn back to him and seek him, then he has promised us blessing in Christ. We, who are in Christ, do not need to fear that God will hold our sins against us, for we are already forgiven, covered by the blood of Christ. If we seek to partake of the blood of Christ at his table, then we must be sure that we are covered in the blood when we are away from the table.
God is faithful to himself, and he will exalt himself through judgment, and through mercy. Thus, we have great reason to pray to God for revival, if we are willing to embrace the discipline of God in our lives. We do not need to continue to eat and drink judgment to ourselves. If we will learn from the Word of God, and understand what it means to be a part of the body of God, then we have great reason to hope in God. Our God is full of grace, and he speaks to us if we will be listen to his admonitions.
Let us eat of the Lord's Table with joy and with sobriety. Let us recognize that what we do here prepares us for a feast we will share there. But, let us also remember that when we eat and drink of the elements of the table, Christ is present with us, partaking with us as we are his body. We eat and drink not simply in his memory, but also in his presence. There is great reason to rejoice for those of us who rightly recognize the body of Christ when we come to the Lord's Table, so let us rejoice!
This was part of the problem that the church in Corinth dealt with. Instead of taking in the Word of God, they were more concerned with the bread and wine of the Lord's table. Paul condemns the church noting that some come and feast, and others are left to starve. Instead of sharing love and compassion for one another they became selfish gluttons. To partake of the Lord's supper is to share in Christ, to eat and drink of his memory and in obedience to his words, it is not just to fill our stomachs, but to live on the Word of God.
Christ promised his presence always, and proclaimed of himself that he is the bread of life. Obviously there is metaphor involved in that statement. Christ is not literally made of bread. Likewise, as much as I respect those Catholics who take seriously the traditions that have been handed down, as a protestant and one who adheres to solo scriptura, I find nothing in Scripture that makes me think that the bread literally becomes the body of Christ and the wine becomes his blood in some metaphysical way. But, despite the fact that the bread is not literally Christ, when we partake of the bread and the wine, we are joined to Christ in his presence, as we partake of the feast that he is preparing for us in heaven.
To eat of the Lord's Table is to partake of a heavenly feast. Consider this: Christ began and ended his ministry with food and wine. When his mother asked him to help with the situation at the wedding feast, Christ turned the water into wine. When Christ gave his last instructions, before his death, to his apostles, he did it over a feast including bread and wine. And, when Christ brings all things to completion, we will once again sit down to a feast with him, at the wedding supper of the Lamb. When we eat of the bread and drink of the wine of the Lord's Table, we are participating in feasting with Christ, joining with him in faith to the Father, believing that one day we will eat at the wedding supper of his Son.
This is why Paul was so severe with the church in Corinth, and why he says that when we eat of the Lord's Table and fail to recognize the body of Christ, we eat and drink judgment on ourselves. When we partake of the Lord's Table, if we do not recognize that we are eating a fellowship meal, a celebration of Christ and the feast that will join all believers together, then we are not acting in faith, but faithlessly. We turn the admonition of Christ on its head: instead of living on the Word of God, we begin to treat the feast of Christ as nothing more than bread and wine. Any church that treats the Lord's Supper lightly, not realizing the significance of what it means to partake of the body of Christ is asking for the same judgment that Paul says was already being poured out on the church at Corinth: weakness, sickness, and premature death.
It ought to be born in mind that death, weakness, and sickness, do not necessarily have to be upon individuals. Those who sit in the congregation, who are ignorant of the reality of the Lord's Supper, while certainly responsible for failing to take seriously the Word of God, are not as accountable as those who teach them. Thus as James says, "Not many of you should desire to be teachers, knowing that we who teach will be judged more strictly." In this way, because those who teach from the pulpit have failed to properly teach the Word of God, and because those who sit in the congregation have failed to hold them accountable to what has been taught, everyone brings judgment upon themselves for their faithless living before God. So, particularly in congregational churches, no one has excuse, and no individual can claim innocence if they have not been faithfully warning their brothers and sisters of the coming wrath of God.
Because Churches do not take seriously the Word of God in what it teaches about why we should do the things we do, the churches get weak. The churches grow sick. Eventually, those churches who fail to be faithful to God, who no longer reflect a healthy image of his body, die. And no amount of man made emotion and passion can change what God has already said will be the judgment of those who take the Lord's Supper lightly. But it does not have to be this way.
Our God is a God who forgives, who restores, who wounds and heals. If we will turn back to him and seek him, then he has promised us blessing in Christ. We, who are in Christ, do not need to fear that God will hold our sins against us, for we are already forgiven, covered by the blood of Christ. If we seek to partake of the blood of Christ at his table, then we must be sure that we are covered in the blood when we are away from the table.
God is faithful to himself, and he will exalt himself through judgment, and through mercy. Thus, we have great reason to pray to God for revival, if we are willing to embrace the discipline of God in our lives. We do not need to continue to eat and drink judgment to ourselves. If we will learn from the Word of God, and understand what it means to be a part of the body of God, then we have great reason to hope in God. Our God is full of grace, and he speaks to us if we will be listen to his admonitions.
Let us eat of the Lord's Table with joy and with sobriety. Let us recognize that what we do here prepares us for a feast we will share there. But, let us also remember that when we eat and drink of the elements of the table, Christ is present with us, partaking with us as we are his body. We eat and drink not simply in his memory, but also in his presence. There is great reason to rejoice for those of us who rightly recognize the body of Christ when we come to the Lord's Table, so let us rejoice!
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Wash and Wear Christians
One of the oldest arguments that baptists of all kinds have engaged in is the importance of believers' baptism. If you are not from a baptist tradition, I'll try to explain the idea quickly, and then address the argument itself. Basically the baptist tradition is that baptism is only for believers. That means that baptists do not baptize infants, and, historically, have not accepted those who were baptized as infants as members of baptist churches. Only those who are believers can submit to baptism, and therefore if someone was "baptized" as an infant, unless they undergo a real baptism, as a believer, they are not generally granted membership in baptist congregations.
There are exceptions to the statement that baptists do not allow membership to those who received only infant baptism (paedobaptists). John Bunyan, for instance, advocated that paedobaptists should be allowed church membership, and that they should be allowed to come to the Lord's Table. However, even in his day, there were those who argued against him. More recently John Piper and Mark Dever argued about this point, with Piper taking Bunyan's side, and Dever taking what I am calling the historical baptist side.
I would like to make a point of clarification though. I am not calling Dever's position the historical position because it predates the position of Piper, but only because it has been the position accepted by most baptists throughout history. This is why most baptist ministers, at least until modern times, would "fence the table" when inviting people to participate in the Lord's Supper. The "fence" could be put up with a statement as simple as, "We invite those of like faith and practice who are in good standing in their church..." wherein the "faith" is the Christian faith, and the "practice" is those who had received believer's baptism. The "good standing in their church" indicated that the person was not under discipline, and therefore there was no question of that individuals standing before Christ.
This last point could be broken into a whole essay of its own, and I intend to address the point eventually, but for now it is sufficient to note that most early baptist churches (and most baptist churches up to the 1950's at least) practiced church discipline and took it very seriously. It was in fact because of church discipline that this whole issue arose.
Why would church discipline cause baptist churches to need to discuss the question of membership of paedobaptists? In part it was because of the Lord's Supper. Most baptist churches held that there were effectively two (or three) ordinances of the church. In the three ordinance division you have foot washing, baptism, and the Lord's Supper. In the two ordinance division you can remove foot washing. Most baptists today do not practice foot washing, nor was it ever the majority of baptists position that it should be practiced.
Ordinances for baptists are not a means of grace. The acts of baptism and the Lord's Supper are spiritually significant and symbolic events. In the case of baptism the believer is joined to the death of Christ, and his resurrection through baptism. But, what baptists mean by that is that the believer who has been baptized has made a public demonstration of their need for cleansing, of which the baptism is only a symbolic demonstration. The actual salvation of the individual happens at conversion, in which the person is sealed by the Holy Spirit and joined to Christ eternally. Thus baptism (as commonly expressed and understood) is an outward sign of an internal reality, and an act of obedience to what Christ has commanded.
For baptists historically then the argument has been that those who refuse to be baptized after coming to faith are living in disobedience to Christ. Because the individuals are living in disobedience to Christ they cannot be given church membership, nor should they be invited to the Lord's Table. To invite someone who is living in disobedience to the Lord's Table to is make light of their sin, which is wrong. Moreover, to invite someone to the Lord's Table who has refused to participate in one ordinance of the church then includes that person in another ordinance of the church, and thus would be to treat the person as a member, even though they do not meet the qualifications of membership. Thus, those who cannot be members of the church, for a refusal to participate in the ordinances of the church, ought not to come to participate in that ordinance which is restricted to only members of the church.
To explain this position from Scripture, baptists take seriously the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11. In verse 18 he says, "For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part." This indicates that what Paul is about to say he says to the church, not individuals. Thus when he says in verse 26, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes," this is not a command to individuals, but to the church. Therefore it is those who are in the church who should eat the bread and drink from the cup.
Further, we read, "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself." (1 Corinthians 11:29) This passage is not telling people that they must simply examine themselves, but that they must understand who they are in Christ. Yes, an individual ought to examine himself to see if there is any unrepentant sin in his life, but what Paul calls us to here is a consideration of who the body of Christ is. The body of Christ is to partake of the Lord's Table, and the body of Christ is the regenerate church here on earth. The question then, for who can partake of the Lord's Supper, is one of who is a member of the regenerate church on earth.
This is where baptism enters the issue. We have already seen that the Lord's Table is to be open to all members of the church. But, baptism is generally recognized (by baptists) as the means by which one enters into the church. Thus, if one has not been baptized, then they are not to be considered members of the church. If they are not to be considered members of the church, then they are not to take of the Lord's Supper, and they are not subject to church discipline.
But, why should baptism be a required ordinance for church membership? If, as baptists have historically professed, faith alone is the means of salvation, shouldn't the church accept all of those who profess faith in Christ, regardless of whether they have been baptized? The answer to that question must be answered "no" if the historic argument is to stand. But is the answer no?
Yes, the answer to the question is no. Yes, all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. Yes, we are saved by grace through faith, and this is not of ourselves, it is the gift of God. (Ephesians 2:8) And yes, all those who are saved are part of the regenerate church here on earth. But, no, the church should not simply accept those who profess faith in Christ as members with no reservations.
The reason for this is what James says, "Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." (James 2:18) The fact is that we, as humans, cannot judge perfectly the salvation of any person. It may be that someone has been genuinely saved, though we cannot discern such from their lives. But, we are called to judge the works of one another (ourselves included) and determine if those works line up with that which Scripture commands us. Therefore, while we may wrongly exclude some from membership with the church because we cannot discern their salvation, we must labor to rightly discern the body, that we may know, as far as possible, that those who are members of the church do appear to be Christians.
Once again, this is where baptism enters the equation. If baptism is a command of Christ (and baptists hold that it is, based on: Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38, Acts 10:47, Romans 6:3, and many more passages besides) then those who refuse to be baptized are not simply refusing to undergo some specific event, they are refusing to submit in obedience to God. Therefore, while these people may evidence many other signs of salvation, the fact that they persist in refusing to be baptized causes the baptist to look at them with some reservation, recognizing that the church should be wholly obedient to Christ, and not only obedient in some, or most ways. Therefore, baptism becomes a necessary step for anyone to enter into church membership, because it is the sign that demonstrates that the person has indeed entered into the death of Christ, and risen with him.
The reason I have attempted to lay out this discussion is because unfortunately many baptists are losing their distinctiveness. Most baptist churches have failed to seriously educate their members as to what the significance of baptism is, and why the Lord's Table is so important. Most baptists would probably still say that they do not want to allow paedobaptists as members, but would they know why, from a biblical perspective? Whether you agree with the argument or not, I hope that you understand now that baptism is not just a matter of one becoming a "wash and wear Christian" but it really is important. Because it is so important we ought not neglect the discussion of baptism in our churches.
If you aren't aware, I am a historic baptist. I was raised in the Southern Baptist tradition, and I have come to embrace that tradition as I think it is the most orthodox biblical position. That does not mean that there aren't skeletons in the closet of Southern Baptists. Our racial divisions and the long standing issue of slavery that lead to the formation of the Southern Baptist convention need to be dealt with. The last generation of Southern Baptists made apology for how our tradition assisted in perpetuating slavery, but they were not able to overcome the racial divisions that still exist in most Southern Baptist churches. But, despite the problems that exist within the Southern Baptist tradition, we must continue to hold to the importance of believers' baptism, and in order to do so we must understand the importance of the Lord's Table and church discipline, understanding which has been lacking in the last 50-60 years.
There are exceptions to the statement that baptists do not allow membership to those who received only infant baptism (paedobaptists). John Bunyan, for instance, advocated that paedobaptists should be allowed church membership, and that they should be allowed to come to the Lord's Table. However, even in his day, there were those who argued against him. More recently John Piper and Mark Dever argued about this point, with Piper taking Bunyan's side, and Dever taking what I am calling the historical baptist side.
I would like to make a point of clarification though. I am not calling Dever's position the historical position because it predates the position of Piper, but only because it has been the position accepted by most baptists throughout history. This is why most baptist ministers, at least until modern times, would "fence the table" when inviting people to participate in the Lord's Supper. The "fence" could be put up with a statement as simple as, "We invite those of like faith and practice who are in good standing in their church..." wherein the "faith" is the Christian faith, and the "practice" is those who had received believer's baptism. The "good standing in their church" indicated that the person was not under discipline, and therefore there was no question of that individuals standing before Christ.
This last point could be broken into a whole essay of its own, and I intend to address the point eventually, but for now it is sufficient to note that most early baptist churches (and most baptist churches up to the 1950's at least) practiced church discipline and took it very seriously. It was in fact because of church discipline that this whole issue arose.
Why would church discipline cause baptist churches to need to discuss the question of membership of paedobaptists? In part it was because of the Lord's Supper. Most baptist churches held that there were effectively two (or three) ordinances of the church. In the three ordinance division you have foot washing, baptism, and the Lord's Supper. In the two ordinance division you can remove foot washing. Most baptists today do not practice foot washing, nor was it ever the majority of baptists position that it should be practiced.
Ordinances for baptists are not a means of grace. The acts of baptism and the Lord's Supper are spiritually significant and symbolic events. In the case of baptism the believer is joined to the death of Christ, and his resurrection through baptism. But, what baptists mean by that is that the believer who has been baptized has made a public demonstration of their need for cleansing, of which the baptism is only a symbolic demonstration. The actual salvation of the individual happens at conversion, in which the person is sealed by the Holy Spirit and joined to Christ eternally. Thus baptism (as commonly expressed and understood) is an outward sign of an internal reality, and an act of obedience to what Christ has commanded.
For baptists historically then the argument has been that those who refuse to be baptized after coming to faith are living in disobedience to Christ. Because the individuals are living in disobedience to Christ they cannot be given church membership, nor should they be invited to the Lord's Table. To invite someone who is living in disobedience to the Lord's Table to is make light of their sin, which is wrong. Moreover, to invite someone to the Lord's Table who has refused to participate in one ordinance of the church then includes that person in another ordinance of the church, and thus would be to treat the person as a member, even though they do not meet the qualifications of membership. Thus, those who cannot be members of the church, for a refusal to participate in the ordinances of the church, ought not to come to participate in that ordinance which is restricted to only members of the church.
To explain this position from Scripture, baptists take seriously the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11. In verse 18 he says, "For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part." This indicates that what Paul is about to say he says to the church, not individuals. Thus when he says in verse 26, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes," this is not a command to individuals, but to the church. Therefore it is those who are in the church who should eat the bread and drink from the cup.
Further, we read, "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself." (1 Corinthians 11:29) This passage is not telling people that they must simply examine themselves, but that they must understand who they are in Christ. Yes, an individual ought to examine himself to see if there is any unrepentant sin in his life, but what Paul calls us to here is a consideration of who the body of Christ is. The body of Christ is to partake of the Lord's Table, and the body of Christ is the regenerate church here on earth. The question then, for who can partake of the Lord's Supper, is one of who is a member of the regenerate church on earth.
This is where baptism enters the issue. We have already seen that the Lord's Table is to be open to all members of the church. But, baptism is generally recognized (by baptists) as the means by which one enters into the church. Thus, if one has not been baptized, then they are not to be considered members of the church. If they are not to be considered members of the church, then they are not to take of the Lord's Supper, and they are not subject to church discipline.
But, why should baptism be a required ordinance for church membership? If, as baptists have historically professed, faith alone is the means of salvation, shouldn't the church accept all of those who profess faith in Christ, regardless of whether they have been baptized? The answer to that question must be answered "no" if the historic argument is to stand. But is the answer no?
Yes, the answer to the question is no. Yes, all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. Yes, we are saved by grace through faith, and this is not of ourselves, it is the gift of God. (Ephesians 2:8) And yes, all those who are saved are part of the regenerate church here on earth. But, no, the church should not simply accept those who profess faith in Christ as members with no reservations.
The reason for this is what James says, "Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." (James 2:18) The fact is that we, as humans, cannot judge perfectly the salvation of any person. It may be that someone has been genuinely saved, though we cannot discern such from their lives. But, we are called to judge the works of one another (ourselves included) and determine if those works line up with that which Scripture commands us. Therefore, while we may wrongly exclude some from membership with the church because we cannot discern their salvation, we must labor to rightly discern the body, that we may know, as far as possible, that those who are members of the church do appear to be Christians.
Once again, this is where baptism enters the equation. If baptism is a command of Christ (and baptists hold that it is, based on: Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38, Acts 10:47, Romans 6:3, and many more passages besides) then those who refuse to be baptized are not simply refusing to undergo some specific event, they are refusing to submit in obedience to God. Therefore, while these people may evidence many other signs of salvation, the fact that they persist in refusing to be baptized causes the baptist to look at them with some reservation, recognizing that the church should be wholly obedient to Christ, and not only obedient in some, or most ways. Therefore, baptism becomes a necessary step for anyone to enter into church membership, because it is the sign that demonstrates that the person has indeed entered into the death of Christ, and risen with him.
The reason I have attempted to lay out this discussion is because unfortunately many baptists are losing their distinctiveness. Most baptist churches have failed to seriously educate their members as to what the significance of baptism is, and why the Lord's Table is so important. Most baptists would probably still say that they do not want to allow paedobaptists as members, but would they know why, from a biblical perspective? Whether you agree with the argument or not, I hope that you understand now that baptism is not just a matter of one becoming a "wash and wear Christian" but it really is important. Because it is so important we ought not neglect the discussion of baptism in our churches.
If you aren't aware, I am a historic baptist. I was raised in the Southern Baptist tradition, and I have come to embrace that tradition as I think it is the most orthodox biblical position. That does not mean that there aren't skeletons in the closet of Southern Baptists. Our racial divisions and the long standing issue of slavery that lead to the formation of the Southern Baptist convention need to be dealt with. The last generation of Southern Baptists made apology for how our tradition assisted in perpetuating slavery, but they were not able to overcome the racial divisions that still exist in most Southern Baptist churches. But, despite the problems that exist within the Southern Baptist tradition, we must continue to hold to the importance of believers' baptism, and in order to do so we must understand the importance of the Lord's Table and church discipline, understanding which has been lacking in the last 50-60 years.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
The Hound of Heaven
On Sunday I listened to the end of one of Ravi Zacharius's sermons with my wife as we were driving to church. If you are not familiar with him, he is a Christian apologist who addresses various philosophical issues with the Christian faith. I have always found him imminently readable and enjoyable. He is not always a scholarly apologist, sometimes writing popular works that address issues at a level easier for those with no philosophical training to appreciate. But, he is also very intelligent, and some of his works are a bit more complex.
One of his favorite poems, if I were to judge based on how often I have heard him quote from it is, "The Hound of Heaven" by Francis Thompson. It really is a very good poem. However, the poem was written in a bit of the old English style of 19th century poets. That means that some of the terms and language used is a bit archaic to our ears. If you've never read the poem though, I would encourage you to do so.
I'll post the poem here, but you should know that poetry.elcore.net has a glossed version of the poem, explaining most of the difficult terms used. The link above will take you to that gloss if you would like to read the poem but need a little help with some of the language. Again, I highly recommend that you take the time to read the poem, and hopefully, from this poetic testimony of a man who came to Christ after fleeing him for so many years, you can appreciate the love of God just a little more. It is good to serve the God who does not give up on wayward sons and daughters.
This version as taken from bartleby.com
One of his favorite poems, if I were to judge based on how often I have heard him quote from it is, "The Hound of Heaven" by Francis Thompson. It really is a very good poem. However, the poem was written in a bit of the old English style of 19th century poets. That means that some of the terms and language used is a bit archaic to our ears. If you've never read the poem though, I would encourage you to do so.
I'll post the poem here, but you should know that poetry.elcore.net has a glossed version of the poem, explaining most of the difficult terms used. The link above will take you to that gloss if you would like to read the poem but need a little help with some of the language. Again, I highly recommend that you take the time to read the poem, and hopefully, from this poetic testimony of a man who came to Christ after fleeing him for so many years, you can appreciate the love of God just a little more. It is good to serve the God who does not give up on wayward sons and daughters.
This version as taken from bartleby.com
The Hound of Heaven by Francis Thompson I FLED Him, down the nights and down the days; | |
| I fled Him, down the arches of the years; | |
| I fled Him, down the labyrinthine ways | |
| Of my own mind; and in the mist of tears | |
| I hid from Him, and under running laughter. | 5 |
| Up vistaed hopes I sped; | |
| And shot, precipitated, | |
| Adown Titanic glooms of chasmèd fears, | |
| From those strong Feet that followed, followed after. | |
| But with unhurrying chase, | 10 |
| And unperturbèd pace, | |
| Deliberate speed, majestic instancy, | |
| They beat—and a Voice beat | |
| More instant than the Feet— | |
| ‘All things betray thee, who betrayest Me.’ | 15 |
| I pleaded, outlaw-wise, | |
| By many a hearted casement, curtained red, | |
| Trellised with intertwining charities; | |
| (For, though I knew His love Who followèd, | |
| Yet was I sore adread | 20 |
| Lest, having Him, I must have naught beside). | |
| But, if one little casement parted wide, | |
| The gust of His approach would clash it to. | |
| Fear wist not to evade, as Love wist to pursue. | |
| Across the margent of the world I fled, | 25 |
| And troubled the gold gateways of the stars, | |
| Smiting for shelter on their clangèd bars; | |
| Fretted to dulcet jars | |
| And silvern chatter the pale ports o’ the moon. | |
| I said to Dawn: Be sudden—to Eve: Be soon; | 30 |
| With thy young skiey blossoms heap me over | |
| From this tremendous Lover— | |
| Float thy vague veil about me, lest He see! | |
| I tempted all His servitors, but to find | |
| My own betrayal in their constancy, | 35 |
| In faith to Him their fickleness to me, | |
| Their traitorous trueness, and their loyal deceit. | |
| To all swift things for swiftness did I sue; | |
| Clung to the whistling mane of every wind. | |
| But whether they swept, smoothly fleet, | 40 |
| The long savannahs of the blue; | |
| Or whether, Thunder-driven, | |
| They clanged his chariot ’thwart a heaven, | |
| Plashy with flying lightnings round the spurn o’ their feet:— | |
| Fear wist not to evade as Love wist to pursue. | 45 |
| Still with unhurrying chase, | |
| And unperturbèd pace, | |
| Deliberate speed, majestic instancy, | |
| Came on the following Feet, | |
| And a Voice above their beat— | 50 |
| ‘Naught shelters thee, who wilt not shelter Me.’ | |
| I sought no more that after which I strayed | |
| In face of man or maid; | |
| But still within the little children’s eyes | |
| Seems something, something that replies, | 55 |
| They at least are for me, surely for me! | |
| I turned me to them very wistfully; | |
| But just as their young eyes grew sudden fair | |
| With dawning answers there, | |
| Their angel plucked them from me by the hair. | 60 |
| ‘Come then, ye other children, Nature’s—share | |
| With me’ (said I) ‘your delicate fellowship; | |
| Let me greet you lip to lip, | |
| Let me twine with you caresses, | |
| Wantoning | 65 |
| With our Lady-Mother’s vagrant tresses, | |
| Banqueting | |
| With her in her wind-walled palace, | |
| Underneath her azured daïs, | |
| Quaffing, as your taintless way is, | 70 |
| From a chalice | |
| Lucent-weeping out of the dayspring.’ | |
| So it was done: | |
| I in their delicate fellowship was one— | |
| Drew the bolt of Nature’s secrecies. | 75 |
| I knew all the swift importings | |
| On the wilful face of skies; | |
| I knew how the clouds arise | |
| Spumèd of the wild sea-snortings; | |
| All that’s born or dies | 80 |
| Rose and drooped with; made them shapers | |
| Of mine own moods, or wailful or divine; | |
| With them joyed and was bereaven. | |
| I was heavy with the even, | |
| When she lit her glimmering tapers | 85 |
| Round the day’s dead sanctities. | |
| I laughed in the morning’s eyes. | |
| I triumphed and I saddened with all weather, | |
| Heaven and I wept together, | |
| And its sweet tears were salt with mortal mine; | 90 |
| Against the red throb of its sunset-heart | |
| I laid my own to beat, | |
| And share commingling heat; | |
| But not by that, by that, was eased my human smart. | |
| In vain my tears were wet on Heaven’s grey cheek. | 95 |
| For ah! we know not what each other says, | |
| These things and I; in sound I speak— | |
| Their sound is but their stir, they speak by silences. | |
| Nature, poor stepdame, cannot slake my drouth; | |
| Let her, if she would owe me, | 100 |
| Drop yon blue bosom-veil of sky, and show me | |
| The breasts o’ her tenderness: | |
| Never did any milk of hers once bless | |
| My thirsting mouth. | |
| Nigh and nigh draws the chase, | 105 |
| With unperturbèd pace, | |
| Deliberate speed, majestic instancy; | |
| And past those noisèd Feet | |
| A voice comes yet more fleet— | |
| ‘Lo! naught contents thee, who content’st not Me!’ | 110 |
| Naked I wait Thy love’s uplifted stroke! | |
| My harness piece by piece Thou hast hewn from me, | |
| And smitten me to my knee; | |
| I am defenceless utterly. | |
| I slept, methinks, and woke, | 115 |
| And, slowly gazing, find me stripped in sleep. | |
| In the rash lustihead of my young powers, | |
| I shook the pillaring hours | |
| And pulled my life upon me; grimed with smears, | |
| I stand amid the dust o’ the mounded years— | 120 |
| My mangled youth lies dead beneath the heap. | |
| My days have crackled and gone up in smoke, | |
| Have puffed and burst as sun-starts on a stream. | |
| Yea, faileth now even dream | |
| The dreamer, and the lute the lutanist; | 125 |
| Even the linked fantasies, in whose blossomy twist | |
| I swung the earth a trinket at my wrist, | |
| Are yielding; cords of all too weak account | |
| For earth with heavy griefs so overplussed. | |
| Ah! is Thy love indeed | 130 |
| A weed, albeit an amaranthine weed, | |
| Suffering no flowers except its own to mount? | |
| Ah! must— | |
| Designer infinite!— | |
| Ah! must Thou char the wood ere Thou canst limn with it? | 135 |
| My freshness spent its wavering shower i’ the dust; | |
| And now my heart is as a broken fount, | |
| Wherein tear-drippings stagnate, spilt down ever | |
| From the dank thoughts that shiver | |
| Upon the sighful branches of my mind. | 140 |
| Such is; what is to be? | |
| The pulp so bitter, how shall taste the rind? | |
| I dimly guess what Time in mists confounds; | |
| Yet ever and anon a trumpet sounds | |
| From the hid battlements of Eternity; | 145 |
| Those shaken mists a space unsettle, then | |
| Round the half-glimpsèd turrets slowly wash again. | |
| But not ere him who summoneth | |
| I first have seen, enwound | |
| With glooming robes purpureal, cypress-crowned; | 150 |
| His name I know, and what his trumpet saith. | |
| Whether man’s heart or life it be which yields | |
| Thee harvest, must Thy harvest-fields | |
| Be dunged with rotten death? | |
| Now of that long pursuit | 155 |
| Comes on at hand the bruit; | |
| That Voice is round me like a bursting sea: | |
| ‘And is thy earth so marred, | |
| Shattered in shard on shard? | |
| Lo, all things fly thee, for thou fliest Me! | 160 |
| Strange, piteous, futile thing! | |
| Wherefore should any set thee love apart? | |
| Seeing none but I makes much of naught’ (He said), | |
| ‘And human love needs human meriting: | |
| How hast thou merited— | 165 |
| Of all man’s clotted clay the dingiest clot? | |
| Alack, thou knowest not | |
| How little worthy of any love thou art! | |
| Whom wilt thou find to love ignoble thee, | |
| Save Me, save only Me? | 170 |
| All which I took from thee I did but take, | |
| Not for thy harms, | |
| But just that thou might’st seek it in My arms. | |
| All which thy child’s mistake | |
| Fancies as lost, I have stored for thee at home: | 175 |
| Rise, clasp My hand, and come!’ | |
| Halts by me that footfall: | |
| Is my gloom, after all, | |
| Shade of His hand, outstretched caressingly? | |
| ‘Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest, | 180 |
| I am He Whom thou seekest! | |
| Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me.’ |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)