Love for Other Begins in the Heart

You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to council; and whoever says ‘you fool’ will be liable to the hell of fire. –Matthew 5:21-22 (ESV)

Jesus here is not saying anything essentially new. He is citing the Old Testament regulation on the sixth commandment. What Jesus is getting at is what the commandment has always been about: the condition of our heart that the commandment is to incite. One we learn here from Jesus is that in order to follow God’s commands, we must begin with our heart.

I find myself struggling daily to obey the two most essential commandments of Scripture, to love God and love others. One thing that I am learning is that these commandments begin with the conditioning of my heart and mind. Here are a few things that I have found help me condition my mind and heart to obey the commandment to love others:

Remember the gospel grace shown to me: In the parable of the unmerciful servant (Mat. 18:21-35), Jesus reminds us that, when he shows grace to us, he demands that we show it to others. Even more terrifying is his statement, “if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Mat. 6:15).

What I believe the point is of these two teachings is not a works-righteousness that negates our forgiveness if we fall short of repentance, but the reality that, if we do not show mercy to others, we have not understood the mercy shown to us. When I think of what I deserve and the grace God has given me, I am encouraged to be gracious and loving to others.

Meditate on the humanity of others: The 17^th century writers, Henry Scougal, has influenced me on this,

We shall find our hearts enlarged in charity toward men by considering the relation wherein they stand unto God, and the impresses of his image which are stamped upon them. They are not only his creatures, the workmanship of his hands, but such of whom he taketh special care, and for whom he hath a very dear and tender regard, having laid the designs of their happiness before the foundations of the world, and being willing to live and converse with them to all the ages of eternity. The meanest and most contemptible person whom we behold is the offspring of heave, one of the children of the Most High; and however unworthy he might behave himself of that relation, so long as God hath not abdicated and disowned him by a final sentence, he will have us to embrace him with a sincere and cordial affection.

Pray for others: When you are praying that other with know Christ more, it is difficult to act in a way that is contrary to that purpose.

Train my speech: Something that I have become increasingly convicted about is training my speech to be edifying. Paul tells us to “let no corrupting talk come out of you mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.” I have come to realize that, if I am truly going to love others, I must restrain my tongue from speaking ill of them (this is particularly difficult when I agree with someone “honest assessment” of another).

In regard, I recommend reading James 3:1-12 on the power and danger of the tongue. I probably need to memorize this.

A Proper Motivation for Discipline and Asceticism

Many of us scorn the idea of discipline or asceticism (temporarily depriving ourselves of something that we desire). This is probably because we don’t see these things rightly. We often look at asceticism for asceticism’s sake (see Doug Wilson quote below). No wonder that isn’t appealing.

We must look at discipline and asceticism as depriving ourselves of something of small importance for the sake of something of great importance.

For an example, let’s look at Jesus’ confrontation with the Satan in the wilderness. There seem to be many reasons why Jesus went to the wilderness (to show himself as a greater Adam, resisting Satan; to show himself as a better Israel, not grumbling in the wilderness; to triumph over Satan to inaugurate his ministry, ect.), but I find his responses to Satan while there really interesting. When Satan offers Jesus bread, Jesus quotes to him Deuteronomy 8:3: “Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God” (Mat. 4:4).

On one hand, this was probably to contrast Jesus to the Israelites in the wilderness, in that he didn’t grumble for food like they did. For the purpose of this post, however, notice that Jesus did not just say, “I don’t need bread.” He was hungry and he felt the very legitimate desire for food. Rather, he was showing that he cherished every word from the Father more than food.

When we think about whether we should carry out a type of discipline of asceticism, we should only do so to attain something even better.

It is not holy in itself to fast. Jesus made quite a point of this at the “Sermon on the Mount” (Mat. 6:16-18). It is only good to fast if we are depriving ourselves of food because of a genuine realization that we want the better things in life more. In this light, fasting is logical.  It isn’t sufficient in itself to read the words in the Bible. We sit and read from the Bible, instead of being somewhere else, because we believe that we will ultimately glean more from what we discover than by doing other things at the moment. We don’t get magical tokens for praying, but it is blessed by God when we count talking to him and fellowshipping with him as more valuable than other things.

Notice too that this does not negate lesser things. True, the Word of God is more valuable and satisfying than food, but we cannot neglect food. We just shouldn’t treasure is too much. Spending an hour praying is probably more essentially valuable than getting my hair cut, but I cannot never cut my hair. Where I would err is wen I care more about by my image in the mirror than my time with my Father.

What matters is seeing things in their proportionate value. Sometimes, it takes discipline to force ourselves to re-align our values. But, we don’t do so for the superficial sake of the action, we do so because we (rightly selfishly) want the best thing for ourselves.

“Indeed, I count everything as loss compared to the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord.” –Paul, Philippians 3:8

“We don’t practice asceticism for asceticism’s sake. We practice asceticism for the sake of greater enjoyment.” –Doug Wilson

“God is most glorified in us, when we are most satisfied in him.” –John Piper

"So, if we wish to follow Christ-and to walk in the easy yoke with him-we will have to accept his overall way of life as our way of life totally. Then, and only then, we may reasonably expect to know by experience how easy is the yoke and how light the burden". -Dallas Willard

The Actuality of God's Love

              Certainly, one of the most important things that is lacking in our culture is the realization that love, especially between a husband and a wife, is a choice. There is another aspect of love, however, that I want elaborate upon a bit: the actualization of love.

By the actualization of love, I mean its becoming tangible. I’ll give an example. When a husband and wife marry, ideally they are entering into a future relationship that will be, from that point on, based on a commitment to love. The commitment is the foundation on which the love stands; however, it is somewhat of a blind commitment. It is ignorant of the future. The person does not actually know all of the ways in which their commitment to love their spouse will play out. As their marriage plays out, there love is actualized. Their future is being shaped and filtered through their commitment to love. Their love is becoming real and tangible as it plays out in actual situations.

This is also the case when we become children of God. Externally, we are baptized into a tangible covenant with the creator of the universe. Internally, we are regenerated through the Holy Spirit and united with Christ in ways more mysterious than we can understand. We imperfectly learn to love God by keeping his commandments as we travel through a passage of time that was once uncertain to us. Our love for God is being actualized.

God’s love does not need to be actualized. From all eternity, he has known himself perfectly. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have been in perfect unity with one another, without a thing to be lacking. The self-love of the Godhead does not need to be actualized. It has always been actual.

 Before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4-5, 11) God knew everything about us that could conceivably be known. The incarnate Christ even suffered as we do, so that he literally felt our pain. His love for us was as tangible before the world was made as it ever will be. God’s love for us does not need to be actualized. It has always been actual.

This should bring deep security to our foundation in the gospel. When Christ atoned for our sins on the cross, he did so with the most complete knowledge of that can be had. Nothing we do surprises him. And, if we are his, nothing can take us away from him. So, rest secure in this peace:

 

28And we know that for those who love God all things work together hfor good,8 for ithose who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he jforeknew he also kpredestined lto be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be mthe firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also njustified, and those whom he justified he also oglorified.

31 What then shall we say to these things? pIf God is for us, who can be9 against us? 32 qHe who did not spare his own Son but rgave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? 33 Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? sIt is God who justifies. 34 tWho is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—uwho is at the right hand of God, vwho indeed is interceding for us.10 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? 36 As it is written,

w“For your sake xwe are being killed all the day long;

we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”

37 No, in all these things we are more than yconquerors through zhim who loved us. 38 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Legalism: Clarifying Our Terms

We hear the word “legalism” a lot in Christian circles.

“I don’t want to be a legalist.” “Isn’t that legalistic?” “Jesus hates legalism.”

There are some things that seem common about its usage. It’s always negative. It’s always combative (it’s used to dismiss another person or party.) The person using it assumes that the other person knows what they mean.

I have noticed that different people mean different things by the term. So, I thought I would try to outline different uses of legalism that I have noticed. The first 4, I think, can be legitimate in proper perspective. The last 2 never are.

Legalism as seeking salvation by works: This was the primary concern of Luther in the Protestant Reformation and the thrust behind the reformational sola fide (“faith alone”) and sola gratia (“grace alone”). As Paul said in Romans 3, “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” No one will earn favor apart from the atoning work of Christ (Eph. 1:7; 2:14). This seems to be the emphasis of much of Paul’s writings in Romans and Galatians. I heard John Piper once say, “works are the fruit, not the root of salvation.” I think that is a good axiom to go by.

Legalism as sanctification by works: This kind of legalism is often more subconscious. A common symptom is the person who feels un-blessed for the day because they have not had their daily devotions. This tendency is a two-sided danger. On one hand, we can live in anti-gospel fear that feels we cannot be loved by God because we are not good enough. That is discrediting the work that Jesus did. On the other hand, we can feel o.k. because we are doing this or that good works. That is also anti-gospel, and it discredits God’s holiness.

Legalism as adding to the law: As Christians we are called to use the Bible to be morally discerning, but we should never call a law what is not a law. This is often used against fundamentalists who think that things like drinking alcohol, smoking tabacco, or watching R-rated movies are always sin. Fundamentalists are not the only people who are susceptible to this though. We need to all be careful to not cross this boundary. I find that many of us, even if we would not verbally add to the law, we sometimes do so instinctually when judging others.

Legalism as sticking to the letter of the law: This can be seen in biblical interpretation or with rules in general. I have this tendency. I’m a rules guy. If the rules say “do not,” it means “never.” There is a fine line here between integrity and a lack of common sense. Sometime, greater laws supersede lesser ones in certain circumstances. We saw Jesus make this point when he critiqued the Pharisees for giving to the poor, but not taking care of their parents, or when he accused them of making man for the Sabbath and not the Sabbath for man.

Legalism as equivalent to law: There are many today who place such an emphasis on grace that they reject law altogether. The theological word for this is antinomianism (coming from the Greek word for law, nomos). There are many statements from Paul that seem, on the surface, to imply this (e.g. Rom. 6:14). A more thorough reading of Paul, however, shows that it is not the law that is the problem, it is us (See Romans 7). The law is good. We are bad.

There are two common misunderstandings here:  

One is a failure to distinguish between laws that were distinctly for national Israel (cleanliness law, sacrificial laws, temple laws, ect.). These laws were abolished when Jesus fulfilled them. Other laws are moral, and are repeated as commandments in the Old Testament. A good example of this is the Ten Commandments (read Exodus 20).

Another is a failure to distinguish the different uses of the law. John Calvin pointed out that the law does three things: It convicts us of sin, sets moral standards for society, and commands us how to live.

Legalism as discipline in general: Some consider legalism as any attempt to do discipline ourselves for good works. Don’t let someone call you a legalist for disciplining yourself for righteousness. We must remember that Paul, in Romans 6, in the same passage that we are told that we are not under the law, but under grace, said that we are to present members as instruments for righteousness (Rom. 6:13).

 

The point here is that it’s never sufficient to dismiss another person’s thoughts or actions just by placing a term on them. We need to be careful about the language we use and discerning about how we interpret the language of others.

Work, Humanity, and Redemption

The first full-time job that I had was a Housekeeping job for Liberty University. Every day, four eight hours, I cleaned the 1^st floor of Demosse Hall. The nature of the job gave me a lot of time to think. One question constantly came to mind: How do I glorify God in this job?

An obvious answer was that I can glorify God through my attitude and through providing for my wife and myself. But, what about the work itself? As I thought it, I realized that I spent most of my waking hours doing this job. I counted my time with Amanda and in my relationships as far more valuable than my time at work, but, frankly I still had to live with the reality that I spend far more time at work than doing the things I enjoyed naturally. It began to make me think about why God made work. Why do humans work and how should I treat it?

When trying to think about humanity, it is always a good place to start at the Garden of Eden, the first and ideal humanity. We see something striking in the description of this pre-fall existence: they worked.

And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” -Gen. 1:28

Even more striking, God, in whose image man was made, worked (Genesis 2:1-3). He rested, setting that standard of weekly rest in the fabric of creation (Ex. 20:8-11). Logically, if rest was holy from the beginning, so then was work.

Then, there was the fall. Let’s make clear that what we do not see work as a curse of the fall. We see that to work is added sweat, thorns, and thistles (Genesis 3:17-19). Most of us don’t work manual labor jobs today, but those “thorns and thistles” may come in the form of headaches, afternoon slumps, conflict with colleges, lay-offs, boredom, distractedness, ect.

So, work is good. Sin is not.

What’s the point?

The point is that many of us need to stop thinking of work as a necessary evil, but rather be frustrated with evil for corrupting work. To work is human. Christ came as the ideal human in order that he might restore us to the proper humanity. Therefore, work is not to be scorned, but to be redeemed.

Why I Am Becoming Presbyterian: Some Reasons for Moving from SBC to PCA

Amanda and I have recently decided to make the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) our denominational home for now. To most people, denominations are arbitrary. But, for me, who desires to teach the Bible vocationally, previously hoping to make the SBC my denominational support through seminary, this felt like a big decision. So, since I have talked about it with many of my friends, I wanted to, in blog format, express some of my reasoning for choosing the PCA.

Calvinism: You can be a Baptist and a Calvinist. I was. And, in fact, I first really learned about Calvinism from John Piper and Charles Spurgeon (both Baptists). But, I have found that to be a Baptist Calvinist is to be an embattled Calvinist. Anyone who follows the SBC at all will know what I am talking about. These issues shouldn’t divide us, and I definitely will not let the issue of Calvinism and non-Calvinism (which is really what most people mean when they say “Arminianist”) be an issue of contention with other believers. I have come to learn, however, that people who say the debate doesn’t matter tend not to be Calvinists. That is because Calvinism is more than just a belief about how people are saved. It becomes (at least, for me) a worldview. It affects the way that I think about worship, evangelism, family life, and the list goes on. So, it is important enough for me that I like to think that my direct co-laborers in future ministry would agree with me on that.

Covenantal Hermeneutics: The first Bible book-study that I ever did on my own was on the book of Romans. During that time, I learned a lot of things from Paul that I later discovered were categorized as “Covenant Theology.” If I could explain Covenant Theology in a sentence (I hope I’m not butchering this), I would say that it is the belief that what Christ inaugurated in the church is exactly what was promised to Israel through Abraham. So, there is not a plan for Israel and a plan for the church. It is one covenant and one people. So, even though I realize that the “covenant of grace” isn’t a term in Scripture, what most Covenant Theologians mean by it seems right to me.

The Means of Grace: Whether it was taught to me or not, I have nearly always come to church with an attitude of wanted to position my heart rightly to the Lord in order to access him in worship. For example, when we sing, I have tried to feel how I should feel about God. During communion, I was always taught to get my heart right with God before I approach the table. But how can my heart ever be clear of fault? Regarding proper baptism, there were a lot of issues that caused a good deal of anxiety. When is baptism proper? How do you know if someone is ready for baptism? Do you have to get re-baptized if you may not have been a Christian when you were? Can someone be a member of your church and take communion if they were not baptized as an adult? If not, would we not have accepted Augustine, Calvin, and Luther as members of our churches?

The Reformed tradition sees it differently, and I find it refreshing. They teach what they call “the means of grace.” What they mean by that is that we go to church, not to present something pleasing to God, but to be ministered to by God. The means of grace for the church are the preaching of the Scripture and the Sacraments (baptism and the Lord’s Supper). In these, it is primarily God ministering to his people, not us blessing Him.

How is this different? I’ll give an example. When we sing at our PCA church, we start with a corporate confession of sins. We are acknowledging together that we do not rightly embody the truths that we are about to sing about. We need them. When we come to the Lord’s Table, we don’t come haphazardly, but we also know that we come as sinners, in needed of the grace represented at the table. When we baptize the infant of a believer, it isn’t because we think that child has a faith that merits baptism, it is because we acknowledge that this child is graciously born into a covenant family, where the truths represented in baptism will be offered to her or him.

Liturgical Uniformity: Originally, one of the main things that drew me to the SBC what its flexibility in secondary issues (issues that don’t determine orthodoxy). I never understood how someone could commit to a confession that was not Scripture and not hold it to the same level as Scripture.

There is something to be said though about being part of a tradition that has held strong for centuries.  It is not that confessions are held to the level of Scripture. I see it as us saying, “Let’s be in agreement on this.”

I like that. I like reading from a confession that has dated itself as worthy. I like the idea of reading catechisms to my children to teach them about the foundational truths of the faith.

Authority: Baptists are Congregationalists, which means that all of the authority for the church is internal. In a Presbyterian model, there are overseers outside of the church. To be honest, I haven’t settled this debate in my mind. I do see the benefit of the Congregationalist model in that it can avoid corruption from the top down. I have also seen from experience, that it can lead to disorder.

It seems like the Presbyterian model compliments the biblical idea of church discipline, which functions in layers. If a there is sin in a relationship, it is addressed on a personal level. If it can’t be resolved on that level, more believers are involved. If that doesn’t help, the church is involved. But what if an entire church has a problem? The Presbyterian model seems like another helpful layer of accountability.

Rich Tradition: At this point, I don’t feel that I know enough to critique any tradition. But, if I wait until I know “enough” before acting, I will never hold any convictions. What I do know is that what I have learned so far form the Reformed Tradition has been greeted with a hardy “amen!” I could change my mind as I grow. I know that men and their traditions are not infallible. But, for now, I will drink from these wells.

Phil Robertson and the Cultural Conversation: An appeal for intelligent conversation

I don’t want to join in on the hysteria over the Phil Robertson controversy, but I do want to point out some of the underlying issues that I see apparent in this controversy and every controversy of its like in the recent media.

First, I should say that I am a Christian who believes in the historical Christian orthodoxy, which holds that God’s intention for marriage is for a monogamous marital relationship between a man and a woman (there are some thoughtful Christian in recent times who disagree); however, I am often embarrassed by those with whom I agree. I have learned that you can be right and still be a bigot. Altogether, I am embarrassed with our culture by those on both sides of the discussion.

Have you ever seen two people in an argument who, instead of reasoning with each other, they simply continue to yell louder. Nothing is accomplished. That is what I see our culture doing at large. If you look at the blogs and Facebook memes, very few of them seem to have the intension of bringing a mutual understanding. They are functioning more like passionate fans at a sporting event, taunting the other team and getting each other riled up.

I want to direct you to an article by a writer with whom I disagree on the issues at hand (http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/19/the-duck-dynasty-fiasco-says-more-about-our-bigotry-than-phils/), yet I greatly appreciate his intelligent attitude. The author quotes G. K. Chesterton, who defines bigotry as "“an incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition.” He then points out that those on his “side” are acting just as bigoted as they belief Phil to be. I want to confess the same closed-mindedness from my “side.”

We are not understanding each other. I see both sides holding presuppositions that they don’t seem to be able to articulate very well and refusing to try to understand the presuppositions from the other side of the debate.

For example, the gay rights side sees this as a civil rights debate. To them, this is on the same level as racism. A person cannot do anything more about their sexual orientation than a person can their race. Christians need to respect this concern and understand that this concern exists. In fact, if they are correct in this, than I would be on their side. That is why I believe that Christians were rightfully the trailblazers in both in the abolitionist movement and the civil rights movement. Because, to Christians, every person is made in the image of God and has a worth so deep that no human should dare to rob them of it. Christians get this belief from our belief in the creation order, that God created man in His own image (Genesis 1:27). Every person, regardless of race, social status, or (yes even) sexual proclivity cannot be robbed of that sacred worth.

The issue for Christians is different though. It is different because the same creation account from which we assess that infinitely sacred personhood of each individual is the same place in which God designates the sacredness of the marriage union (Genesis 2:24-25). And this marital order, between a man and a wife, is continually defended throughout Scripture, to which we grant authority (see esp. Romans 1).

This is where the conversation needs to take place, on the worldview level. And, it needs to take place graciously and intelligently. People are complex and so are the issues with which they wrestle. As an article from the same writer referred to above points out (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/12/being-against-gay-marriage-doesnt-make-you-a-homophobe/282333/), there is more to a person than their particular stance on an issue. Both sides of this debate have advocates who have gotten embarrassingly out of hand. Both sides of this argument have advocates who are intelligent and reasonable. The reasons that someone may hold a view are complex and multifaceted. Just as I want it to be known that most intelligent Christians do not desire to suppress people’s constitutional rights, I also want to be fair that not every gay rights advocate wants the complete overthrow of Christian morality.

I am not a relativist on this. I not only believe that marriage as described in the history of Christian orthodoxy is accurate, but I believe that it is important to defend. I just want to have that conversation intelligently.

One last thought: I recently took a seminary class on Christian missions. As I read a plethora of articles on missions strategy, I noticed a common conviction. When entering a foreign culture that we hope to reach for the gospel, we have to do so carefully. We should be aware of indigenous presuppositions and, while we want to speak truth, we want to be fearfully careful not to offend unnecessarily, thus closing the doors for open conversation. Why do we not take the same approach in our own culture?