|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 29, 2024 19:26:53 GMT -5
Helping Kids Sit Quietly in Church
BECKY ANIOL
A few weeks ago our family attended one of our favorite conferences, the Church and Family Life Annual Conference. Besides the excellent preaching and fellowship, one of the things that encourages us most is seeing all the families worshiping together. Moms and dads and grandparents bounce babies in the back and little ones color in the provided sermon notes coloring book during back to back (to back) sermon sessions.
The around 1500 attendees are there because they believe, like we do, in family-integrated, intergenerational worship. We believe in this so much, in fact, that my husband Scott wrote a book looking at the biblical principles behind and practical steps toward training children to sit in the worship service (and doing weekday family worship at home also). It’s called Let the Little Children Come.
But this is no easy task. Small children are vocal and wiggly and can be disobedient at the most inconvenient times! So today I’d like to offer a few resources that have helped our kids over the years to sit still in church. Every child, family, and church is different, so you need to find what helps you most, but these activities are quiet and generally allow children to listen, even if it seems like they’re doing something else. These resources cover a variety of ages.
Resources:
1. Felt food (I prefer food to dolls or animals or vehicles that might suddenly “find their voice” during the silent prayer or sermon.)
2. Paint by Sticker or other sticker books (for the preschool ages)
3. Fabric books (Make sure you don’t get ones with crinkle pages! The one I linked to doesn’t have crinkle, but many, many fabric books do.) or “Indestructibles” baby/toddler books (Babies can pull and chew, and these thin books slip easily into a diaper bag.)
4. Silicone pop fidget toy
5. Quiet book
6. Multi-color pens (may not be best if clicking bothers you, but I find that, when used reasonably, it’s not so loud that it bothers people in other pews; these are infinitely preferable to a pile of various colored pens or pencils)
7. Blank notebooks
8. Coloring book and washable, triangular crayons (that don’t roll) You may also want to bring your favorite stain remover if you bring pens or crayons, especially if your pews have light fabric.
9. Tracing book
10. Chunky yarn for finger knitting
11. Lacing cards
12. LCD drawing board (get one with the stylus tethered on a string; just trust me)
I also encourage churches to provide sermon notes papers or booklets geared specifically for children. If your church doesn’t provide these, you can find generic ones abundantly online.
A few additional tips:
Rocking back and forth from left to right stimulates a child’s vestibular system and gives them the sensation of activity without them actually moving their own bodies.
Mom or Dad tracing a child’s fingers with their own fingers (or rubbing the child’s arms or back) can divert wiggly, grabby hands and relax the child at the same time.
Teach children, as soon as they can talk, to whisper. Practice at home.
As always, you’ll see the most improvement in your child’s ability to sit through the sermon if you practice sitting still and listening at home. Reading books aloud and family worship are both great times to stretch these skills. But don’t be discouraged if it takes time (even years) for you child to sit through the entire sermon. This is a season, and you are doing the important work of rearing worshipers of God.
\
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 30, 2024 17:16:56 GMT -5
JUL 10, 2023
CHRISTIAN CHARACTER
Are You Pugnacious?
Share
g3min.org/are-you-pugnacious/
DAVID HUFFSTUTLER
man in black crew neck shirt
Not many use the term pugnacious today. Looking at just the word itself, if I didn’t know any better, I’d guess it referred to possessing a tenacious love for the dog breed pug (pug + tenacious = pugnacious).
Apart from my own nonsense, pugnacious is indeed a biblical term. “Pugnacious” is the NASB’s translation of plēktēs in 1 Timothy 3:3 and Titus 1:7. Other translations use the adjective “violent” (ESV, NET Bible, NKJV, NIV) or go for a noun, “a bully” (HCSB) or “striker” (KJV). When plēktēs is taken as a noun, it refers to “a person who is pugnacious and demanding.”1 Plēktēs stems from the verb plēssō, meaning “to strike with force”2 and could refer to both verbal and physical abuse.3
Whatever the translation, it is a negative character trait that must not be true of a pastor, let alone be the title for someone so described by this trait (“a bully”). In fact, as a pastor must be an example for all (1 Pet 5:3), no one should be pugnacious, especially Christians who are called to love all people and certainly one another (John 13:34–35).
So, what should we be instead?
A character trait that comes immediately after “pugnacious” in 1 Timothy 3:3 indicates what we should be instead: gentle. The word behind “gentle” is epieikēs and is introduced with the strong adversative “but” (alla), showing a direct contrast pugnacious and gentle.4 Other instances of epieikēs are translated “gentle” and are contrasted with being “unjust” (1 Pet 2:18) or “quarrelsome” (Titus 3:2), the latter of which immediately follows “gentle” in 1 Tim 3:3. A contrast may be intended here as well.5 Being “gentle” is an expression of godly wisdom alongside being “peaceable . . . open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere” (Jas 3:17). Rather than being pugnacious, we should be gentle.
It’s one thing to be gentle and not demand our way. But what if someone else pushes first? How can we be gentle, even in conflict?
Perhaps we could learn from how the apostle Paul handled pugnaciousness in 2 Corinthians 10–13. Paul upheld his apostolic ministry against the “super-apostles” who were criticizing him and pugnaciously pushing the Corinthians around (cf. 2 Cor 11:5, 13; 12:11–12). Paul rebuked the Corinthians for putting up with this pushy behavior, thinking pugnaciousness was good: “For you bear it if someone makes slaves of you, or devours you, or takes advantage of you, or puts on airs, or strikes you in the face” (2 Cor 11:20). To this, Paul sarcastically replied, “To my shame, I must say, we were too weak for that!” (2 Cor 11:21).
This whole section of 2 Corinthians 10–13, rebuke included, was to “entreat” the Corinthians “by the meekness and gentleness of Christ” (2 Cor 10:1). “Gentleness” here is epieikeia, a relative of epieikēs, the word translated “gentle” in our discussion above. Paul could speak strongly and even sarcastically to grip their attention, but only to deal with sin and uphold the truth. Ultimately, his strong rebuke (which included no violence) was so he could be gentle when they saw each other again (2 Cor 13:8–10). Even when we are opposed, we can speak truth firmly but lovingly to others.
Are you pugnacious? Christ calls us to a better way. Speak firmly as you are convinced of the truth, and be meek and gentle like our Lord.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
References
References
1 Louw and Nida, s.v., “πλήκτης.”
2 BDAG, s.v., “πλήσσω.”
3 John F. MacArthur, Jr. Titus (MacArthur New Testament Commentary; Chicago: Moody Press, 1996), 38–39.
4 Ibid., 176.
5 Ibid.; George W. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles (New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI; Eerdmans, 1992), 160.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 5, 2024 19:55:28 GMT -5
Watson’s Recipe for Repentance
Share
g3min.org/watsons-recipe-for-repentance/
R. A. MILLER
Repentance-Prayer
“For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.” —2 Corinthians 7:10
Thomas Watson was a seventeenth-century Puritan pastor whose works are still read today. His books include The Great Gain of Godliness, The Godly Man’s Picture, and A Body of Practical Divinity to name a few. In this article, we will journey into the pharmacy of the soul, as Watson has prepared a recipe for repentance—”a spiritual medicine made up of six special ingredients.” What are these necessary components of repentance? Read on as we consider Watson’s thoughts from The Doctrine of Repentance.1
To begin, Watson says that someone who repents must have “sight of sin.” If you are familiar with the parable of the prodigal son, you will know that the son squandered his inheritance by living recklessly. What sent him back to his father? Luke 15:17 says that “he came to himself,” but what does that mean? Watson explains “Before a man can come to Christ he must first come to himself. . . . A man must first recognize and consider what his sin is, and know the plague of his heart, before he can be duly humbled for it.” This element of repentance is necessary, as none will repent unless they see that they have sin of which to repent.
Second, a repentant person must feel sorrow over sin. 2 Corinthians 7:10 says, “godly sorrow worketh repentance.” This shows that godly sorrow is the parent of repentance. If repentance isn’t felt in the heart, it doesn’t truly exist in the soul. Watson says, “A woman may as well expect to have a child without pangs as one can have repentance without sorrow. Someone who can believe without doubting, should suspect his faith; and someone who can repent without sorrowing, should suspect his repentance.” Therefore, repentance cannot be a mere mental acknowledgment of wrongdoing but must be an authentic affection of the heart.
The third ingredient in this spiritual medicine is the confession of sin. The sorrow that one feels about his sin must be expressed. “Sorrow is such a vehement passion that it must vent. It vents itself at the eyes by weeping, and at the tongue by confession,” says Watson. Additionally, the confessor of sin recognizes that he deserves to suffer from the repercussions of their actions. “The humble sinner does more than accuse himself; as it were, he sits in judgment and passes sentence upon himself. He confesses that he deserves to be bound over to the wrath of God,” remarks the Puritan theologian.
The next two ingredients are shame and hatred for sin. In addition to having great anguish over his iniquity, shame brings feelings of unworthiness to the penitent soul. The prodigal son said to his father, “I am no longer worthy to be called your son.” Watson comments, “Blushing is the color of virtue. When the heart has been made black with sin, grace makes the face red with blushing.” He continues, “Sin has made us naked, and that may breed shame. Sin has stripped us of our white linen of holiness.” If our law-breaking does not make us feel unworthy, then we are not ready to repent.
This shame over breaking God’s law should lead to hatred. If someone has sorrow and shame over sin but fails to loathe it, they will continue to sin. Watson quips, “Sound repentance begins in the love of God, and it ends in the hatred of sin.” Our hatred of sin is a great benefit to us. Romans 8:13 tells us to kill the deeds of the body, and one’s hatred toward sin will make it easier to dispose of.
Finally, turning from sin is the final step of repentance. All of the preceding aspects of repentance build into a crescendo that compels us to forsake our wickedness. This results in a noticeable difference for the person who repents. Watson writes, “There is a change worked in the life. Turning from sin is so visible that others may discern it. Therefore, it is called a change from darkness to light (Eph 5:8). Paul, after he had seen the heavenly vision, was so turned that all men wondered at the change (Acts 9:21). Repentance turned the jailer into a nurse and physician (Act 16:33).”
All of these elements must be found in true repentance. They are all vital. Watson explains, “If any one of these is left out, repentance loses its virtue.” It would be a worthwhile practice to consider these six aspects of repentance the next time we find ourselves asking God for forgiveness. If we find our repentance lacking, we should consider Watson’s words so that our “godly sorrow worketh repentance.”
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
References
References
1 banneroftruth.org/us/store/christian-living/the-doctrine-of-repentance/
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 26, 2024 18:01:37 GMT -5
How Can We Do It?: A Call for Evangelistic Fervor
Share
g3min.org/how-can-we-do-it-a-call-for-evangelistic-fervor/
BRUCE GALE
man in black crew neck t-shirt holding black tablet computer
The call for effective evangelistic fervor within the local church is a more apparent need now than ever. Looking at history raises questions about the future of the local church. Sitting in Mission San Agustin de Isleta, one of the two oldest surviving mission churches in the United States, evokes awe, wonder, and curiosity. Most historians believe the date of the building was around 1610. There is awe in efforts to preserve the chapel, and those efforts have persisted to this day. There is wonder in the history of the chapel. Ultimately, the chapel is categorized as a historic landmark rich with a long-lived story. Finally, the chapel raises the curiosity of the minds that enter. Some questions that draw to mind are: to what end does the preservation of this chapel lead? What is the next chapter in the story of the chapel? Has the chapel lost its original purpose? If not careful, the local church can find itself faced with that last question. The church can be in the same precarious place, serving only as a historical marker of a once vibrant community living out its purpose. Mission San Augustin de Isleta can warn the modern church to be cautious against evangelistic apathy. The author of Hebrews warns, “For this reason, we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it” (Heb 2:1). There are three specific cautions to note from its example.
Challenges in Maintaining Evangelistic Fervor
Beware of Isolation
What once served as a Franciscan initiative to reach the Pueblo peoples with the Catholic faith now lives in isolation, whose primary purpose is tourism. Has the American Church not followed the same path? Are we not in danger of the same thing? If we take an honest look, we can identify the same natural progression in the local church. Churches typically launch with an external focus on reaching the community. Over time, however, a paradigm shift occurs. The local church enters what I call the “sustainment” mode. Within the leadership and the congregation, routines set in, the status quo is established, and complacency rears its ugly head. Ultimately, the church becomes isolationist over missional.
Beware of Secular Influence
The secularization of the Mission San Agustin de Isleta left a lasting effect that slowly degraded their missional impact. In like fashion, the local church must be careful not to allow the influence of society to degrade its mission. Secularization is losing sight of the missional purpose of the church for the sake of cultural issues. This obfuscation leads to a gradual, or even swift, numbing of the congregants toward any evangelistic mobilization. The lull of maintaining relevance within society poses perilous dangers. The church’s focus can drift from the exaltation of a Holy God to the placating of self. Chasing secular whims leaves worship destitute of its biblically intended and mandated purpose—the exaltation of God. If our focus drifts from holy reverence to cultural relevance, then all we are left with is compromise. If we desire to see the lost saved, go to the lost; if we desire to worship God in church, then exalt Him and Him alone. The local church should strive to influence the culture around them. It should not be lulled toward complacency in its evangelistic fervor toward the lost. The church must not allow secular influences to compromise its chief purpose—to glorify God.
Beware of Immediacy
Franciscan monks founded the Mission San Agustin de Isleta to spread Christianity among the local Native Americans. However, conflicts between church and civil officials undermined the mission. There was disagreement over the labor and loyalty of the native peoples and attempts to eradicate native religious practices. The Mission San Agustin de Isleta suffered through it all due to the Pueblo Revolt of 1680. The desire for immediacy in converting the Pueblo people resulted in religious dogmatics fracturing their effectiveness. The Mission San Agustin de Isleta imposed guidelines on issues unrelated to salvation to effect change. The local church must also be cautious in our zeal to see the lost won for Christ.
Warding off Isolationism in the Church
Maintain an Upward Focus
First, prayer should be at the forefront of any evangelistic focus. The Psalmist asserts, “Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain” (Ps 127:1a). Prayer alone lays the foundation of proclaiming the gospel. Prayer moves when people cannot—upon the hearts of mankind by the power of the Holy Spirit. Additionally, prayer has a way of reorienting the prayer with the will of the Father. To pray is to intentionally look beyond yourself toward the only One who can effect lasting change.
Maintain an Outward Focus
Next, the local church should fight against isolationism. A church is isolationist when it emphasizes programs over relationships, budgets over impact, and consistency over compassion. When dealing with church programming, the church must strive to evaluate the value of influence. Rather than assessing attendance as the trademark for success, the church should strive to look for less quantitative measurements. Instead, look toward the community around you for opportunities to shower them with God’s love and mercy, thereby demonstrating the clarity of the gospel through you.
Maintain a Repentant Heart
The glass in the windows within Mission San Agustin de Isleta is old and cloudy. Looking through the glass, you can make out people but lose the crisp clarity of detail. This dirty glass partly obstructs the light as well. Maybe glass like the kind at the Mission San Agustin de Isleta was what Paul looked through when writing the church at Corinth. He stated, “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known” (1 Cor 13:12). Pulling on the tangible to reflect the spiritual reality kept the point clear—our vision diminishes. Staying close to Christ is to stave off secular influence and see the biblical mandate for believers. Keep the gospel and the call to repentance close to our hearts and minds. The local church must continually seek God’s face to accomplish this focus. Without intentionality, we are prone to drift away by the currents of this world. Therefore, maintaining the centrality of the gospel is the driving force that brings into focus the lostness of the world and the hope of Christ. Preach Christ and Him crucified! Let the joy of salvation fill the hearts of the saints. At the same time, let the goodness of God be displayed on the cross and lead those far from Him to repentance and faith.
Maintain an Eternal Perspective
Just as Mission San Agustin de Isleta was built with a purpose, so was the local church—to make disciples. However, an adage is circulating among church leaders, “What you bring them with, you must maintain to keep them.” I contend that the implication is worse than that. Regarding a pragmatic, events-driven approach to church, I would argue that you bring them in with what you must continuously top to keep them. However, if we can return to the roots of the church’s existence, we can give that which eternally satisfies—Jesus Christ. The local church must capture our first love to point effectively to Christ. Cultural relevance must never replace missiological and evangelistic impact.
Maintain Evangelistic Intentionality
My grandpa used to say, “If you aim for nothing, you are sure to hit it every time.” How true this statement is when discussing the local church’s evangelistic effectiveness. Can a church be effective if it lacks a clear and tangible goal? The short answer is no, and they cannot. Setting goals bolsters the intentionality of action. In its simplest form, intentionality with evangelism is the faithful declaration of the message of salvation through Christ, culminating in a request to respond. All evangelistic initiatives can be broken into parts, but each must contain this form to be genuinely evangelistic. For example, the local church attempting to reach out to the community but failing to present the gospel and a call to response has employed an ineffective evangelistic strategy. Their efforts may be building community relationships, meeting physical and emotional needs, or bolstering their church influence. Nevertheless, they have failed to be evangelistic without a gospel proclamation. Therefore, the local church must intentionally proclaim the gospel, calling unbelievers to repentance and faith in Christ. Evangelism will not happen accidentally and must be an intentionally thought-out approach to our daily lives.
Conclusion
In light of the gospel, believers should embrace the call toward evangelism. Jesus’s final command in the Gospel of Matthew is clear, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19). The call was not to strong-arm or coerce but to make disciples. Discipleship begins with the declaration of truth—Jesus saves. Faith, then, comes from hearing the message of the redemptive work of Christ. Ultimately, a divine mystery transpires when a soul is saved. Although there is a mystery, we know that the believer’s role is obedience in a faithful proclamation. How can we do it? We can do it through Christological focus, compassion for the lost, living a life of repentance, maintaining an eternal perspective, and being intentional in our obedience to the Great Commission.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 29, 2024 8:29:35 GMT -5
The Indispensable Affection of Love
Share
g3min.org/the-indispensable-affection-of-love/
TAIGEN JOOS
woman reading book
In 1 Corinthians 12 the apostle Paul begins his important discussion of spiritual gifts within the context of the local church. In that discussion, Paul highlights the need for the church to understand four things. First, there is a unity of the church as one body. Second, there is diversity in the church as many members. Third, God sovereignly places people in each local church. But there is a fourth aspect, which is most important, and that aspect is love.
The Greeks had four words to describe love. One was the word eros and meant primarily the sexual kind of love. This word is not used in the New Testament. Another word was storge which indicated a kind of love natural within families, like a mother with her child. The negative form of this word is used only a few times in the New Testament, indicating people who are without this kind of love (i.e. Rom 1:31; 2 Tim 3:3). The third word is philos and is used many times in the New Testament indicating a strong friendship kind of love. But I would submit that all three of these kinds of love are possible for unbelievers to practice, at least to some degree. It is the fourth love, agape love, that is the supernatural kind. This is the word used in 1 Corinthians 13 and many other places to describe God’s love for us, a husband’s love for his wife (Eph 5:25), and even our love for one another.
This love is supernaturally given to a person upon conversion. It is a fruit of the Spirit of God (Gal 5:22). Therefore, it is not produced merely by human effort, or natural ability. This love is an indispensable affection not only regarding the use of spiritual gifts, but also in the entirety of the Christian life. The affection of love can be described as the inclination of the soul to embrace everything that God is, does, and says, giving the self wholly to God first and subsequently to others. Jonathan Edwards wrote, “The Scriptures do represent true religion, as being summarily comprehended in love, the chief of the affections and fountain of all other affections.”1
Paul speaks to this epitome of love, calling it “the more excellent way” (1 Cor 12:31). Other Scriptures similarly elevate this kind of love as well:
Love is the greatest of all the commandments (Mark 12:29–31)
Love is the hallmark of Christian discipleship (John 13:34–35).
Love is the fulfillment of the law (Rom 13:8–10).
Love is indispensable to Christian ministry (1 Cor 13:1–3).
Love is to characterize all that we do (1 Cor 16:14).
Love is the bond of perfection (Col 3:14).
Love is the aim of Christian doctrine (1 Tim 1:5).
Love covers a multitude of sins (1 Pet 4:8).
Love is the essence of God, and is also a primary evidence of our salvation (1 John 4:7–8).
This kind of loving affection is what will incline us to love God who first loved us. It will dispose us to worship God rightly, submit to him humbly, and live for him wholeheartedly. It will flow through us, inclining us to love others as well. It will dispose us to serve others selflessly, encourage others compassionately, and edify one another faithfully.
The apostle John also speaks of the indispensability of this love. If we do not love others with this quality of love, we cannot rightly say we are Christians. If we say we love God but do not love our brothers and sisters in Christ, we are deceiving ourselves, for if we say we love God, we must love others as well, otherwise our Christian faith is empty (1 John 4:7–21).
As Christians, God has implanted this love in us, but we must cultivate it through continually meditating on God’s love for us, and on the love demonstrated to us through Jesus Christ and his atoning work. We must allow God to shape our love through both our private worship as well as our corporate worship.
If we find ourselves struggling to love people in our church because we think they are undeserving, or unlovely, or unlovable, just remember how God loved us in our undeserving, unlovely, and unlovable condition. God demonstrated his love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Let that love be reciprocated back to God—as imperfect as we are in doing so—and let that love be manifested through us to others around us, all for the glory of God.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 4, 2024 19:10:59 GMT -5
The Decline of Marriage: A Glimpse into an Unsettling Trend
Family
Share
g3min.org/the-decline-of-marriage-a-glimpse-into-an-unsettling-trend/
VIRGIL WALKER
groom beside bride holding bouquet flowers
Richard Baxter (1615–1691), a Puritan minister of the seventeenth century, penned his thoughts on the covenant of marriage, writing, “It is a mercy to have a faithful friend that loveth you entirely to whom you may open your mind and communicate your affairs. And it is a mercy to have so near a friend to be a helper to your soul and to stir up in you the grace of God.”
Unlike Baxter in his time, today, the covenant of marriage is not held in as high regard. Many women remain single longer, seeking independence and pursuing the same career goals as men. Moreover, fewer men see enough advantages to marry nowadays. These men believe that the value women bring as wives and mothers has drastically declined. Additionally, they fear the risk of losing assets and damaging their relationship with their future children in the event of a divorce, which occurs in about 50% of marriages. Consequently, they view marriage as a dangerous proposition.
Finding a life partner has diminished in importance as couples increasingly delay or forgo marriage altogether. The decline in marriage rates can be attributed to the evolving societal roles of women, the perceived concerns that men associate with marriage, and the myriad of new options provided by social media that enable both genders to bypass the once obligatory rite of passage.
Social Media’s Impact on Marriage
When considering the impact of social media on marriage trends, it’s impossible to ignore its influence. With 54% of social media users being women, they utilize the platform 2.8 times more than men. Now, in the palm of her hand, a woman can receive unprecedented male attention. Historically, a woman might receive attention from within her circle of 150 friends, with 45% being male. Now, a woman can post captivating images on her social media platforms, leading to thousands of likes, hundreds of comments, and inbox messages from men worldwide. Now, with her social media apps, a woman can experience an unparalleled dopamine rush previously unmatched in her everyday social context. This new reality diminishes her dependence on in-person social interactions with men, intensifying her addiction to cell phones as social media promptly gratifies her needs and desires.
Morgan Stanley predicts that by 2030, 45% of women aged 25 to 44 will be single and childless.
Social media impacts men and women, but some trends mainly affect women. It’s worth noting that the United States has three million more women than men. When considering unmarried women of marrying age (18 to 35), the national ratio reveals that there are, on average, 90 men to 100 women. Morgan Stanley predicts that by 2030, 45% of women aged 25 to 44 will be single and childless. However, many women disregard these statistics, thinking they are the exception to any rule and that the men they desire will be available when they are ready for relationships.
Women seeking attention and validation in the digital realm often face pressure to objectify themselves, with the pornification of women being portrayed as female empowerment.
However, men are also evolving in their perspectives on women and marriage. The average man now acknowledges that a large number of women are mostly in pursuit of the same type of man. While a woman may initially seek traditional male providers for marriage, she generally finds herself attracted to men who embody a “bad boy” persona or offer an element of challenge.
Most average men, realizing that they are being overlooked in favor of taller, stronger, alpha-male stereotypes, are seeking solace in online groups like “Men Going Their Own Way” (MGTOW). These groups provide a platform for men to find camaraderie and navigate the current cultural climate. Moreover, for many men, social media and pornography have distorted their perception of reality when it comes to women, including appearance and expectations in genuine relationships.
The rise of social media has opened up a world of possibilities and opportunities for both men and women, unlike anything previous generations have experienced. The level of attention that was previously exclusive to a select few, like celebrities, is now within reach for a much larger audience. Unfortunately, women seeking attention and validation in the digital realm often face pressure to objectify themselves, with the pornification of women being portrayed as female empowerment.
The decline of marriage predates the rise of social media, but its current usage has undoubtedly impacted the lives of many. On the other hand, women find themselves receiving more attention than ever through their use of social media, which delays their desire for marital companionship. Men, on the other hand, face social deformation through the objectification of women and the availability of a wider range of options, ultimately resulting in postponing marriage.
The Church Girl Struggle
When exploring the topic of marriage in evangelical circles, the challenges women encounter are from various angles. On Sunday, the majority of church services are attended by 61% of women and 39% of men. The age demographics most impacted by this statistic are widows and unmarried 18- to 25-year-olds. Among the available individuals aged 18 to 35, a significant portion of them once claimed to be devout followers of religious practices. However, after a college education, they no longer identify with any religious affiliation.
Feeling disheartened by these obstacles, young Christian women (18 to 35) are actively searching for alternatives beyond the confines of the church. Some are pursuing relationships with non-believers, participating in hookup culture, or even stepping away from the church while still holding onto their Christian faith.
The struggle for Christian women in the dating realm is multifaceted. As it pertains to dating, far too many Christian women, anxious for marriage, drift away from relying on God’s sovereignty. Instead of seeking godly guidance from the men in authority in their lives—their fathers or a local church pastor—they often pursue husband hunting on their own. This often leads to crossing paths with men who claim to be Christians but whose actions reveal a stronger commitment to worldly desires rather than spiritual growth. This disparity between a profession of faith and an actual lifestyle adds another layer of complexity to the challenges faced by young Christian women in the dating scene.
Women Want Weddings, Not Marriages
Marriage is no longer solely driven by women aspiring to be wives. Nowadays, women pursue fulfillment beyond traditional family roles, focusing instead on higher education and careers while abandoning homemaking and childrearing skills. Women surpass men in college admissions (60% to 40%) and exhibit higher graduation rates with a significant 10-point advantage. Feminism teaches women to be self-reliant, treating marriage as unnecessary or optional only after securing a solid career. Pursuing college is no longer a means to find a husband but a necessary pathway for a career with no family in sight. It also provides a sense of security if one encounters the wrong husband.
However, women are now choosing to marry later in life. In 2000, the median age for women to marry was 25.1 years. As of 2022, that age has risen to 28.6 years.
In today’s world, women have more opportunities than ever before. Still, the message of female empowerment and gender equality is instilled from a young age. This encompasses breaking away from traditional gender roles, pursuing career opportunities, and embracing the freedom to express one’s sexuality in a manner that feels right for each individual woman.
Every decision carries consequences, some of which can be profound. However, acknowledging this reality in conversations with women may prove to be dangerous. Men have taken note of these changes. While the societal expectation for men to fulfill traditional roles as providers, protectors, and leaders within the household has persisted, women have moved away from their traditional roles as homemakers, caretakers of the children, and submissive wives.
In 1867, the divorce rate was 5%, but by 1967, it skyrocketed to 50%. Scholars attribute this increase to women entering the workforce, giving them more independence in difficult marriages.
Despite increasing opportunities for women, many still desire marriage. In fact, 61% of women express this desire. However, women are now choosing to marry later in life. In 2000, the median age for women to marry was 25.1 years. As of 2022, that age has risen to 28.6 years. The choice to delay is causing many to ponder whether women’s true desire lies in a wedding rather than a lifelong partnership in marriage. Interestingly, the median age for men to marry has also reached a new high of 30.5 years.
Men’s Unrealistic Expectations
As men choose to marry later in life, they face important decisions and express deep concerns about commitment. While men no longer expect women to be sexually pure, nearly 90% of American men and women have engaged in premarital sex, often with someone other than their future spouse. This reality has negative consequences for marriage. Although premarital sex does not directly cause divorce, relationships with multiple sexual partners are more likely to end in separation or divorce.
Divorce has also influenced the decision to marry. In 1867, the divorce rate was 5%, but by 1967, it skyrocketed to 50%. Scholars attribute this increase to women entering the workforce, giving them more independence in difficult marriages. Nowadays, the average first marriage lasts around 7.8 years. Second marriages face a 60% divorce rate, while for third marriages, it reaches a staggering 73% failure rate. The millennial generation has witnessed the impact of divorce through their parents’ experiences. Boomers, born between 1946 and 1964, are the most divorced generation in US history. This ongoing phenomenon continues to shape marriage decisions today.
Old Answers to New Questions
When we contemplate the enormity of the issues and their influence on family dynamics and even birth rates, the solution does not present itself readily. For those of us committed to the church, it is all too common to assign blame to the church (an easy target) and devise superficial, pragmatic initiatives that aim to bring boys and girls together in the hope that nature will take its course. While the desire to “do something” may appease some, the solution to these appeals is never self-sustaining or capable of reversing the magnitude of the downward slide.
Instead of an appeal to all of evangelicalism, I encourage those seeking marriage to explore Richard Baxter’s timeless wisdom. As a Puritan writer and theologian, Baxter offered invaluable insights into marriage’s theological and practical aspects. His writing on the mutual duties of husbands and wives provides a strong foundation for understanding the covenant of marriage and offers practical steps for building healthy relationships. These steps should be considered long before entering matrimony.
While the dating phase of relationships can place couples into a state of blind bliss, Baxter warns couples, writing,
“Do not forget that you are both diseased persons, full of infirmities; and therefore expect the fruit of those infirmities in each other; and do not act surprised about it, as if you had never known of it before. Decide to be patient with one another, remembering that you took one another as sinful, frail, imperfect persons, and not as angels, or as blameless and perfect.”
Volume 1, Baxter’s Practical Works, A Christian Directory, page 431
As couples progress in their relationship and become more comfortable with each other, unrealistic expectations often emerge. Disagreements fueled by pride can have devastating effects on a relationship. Baxter also provides instructions in this regard when he writes,
“Both husband and wife must mortify their pride and strong self-centered feelings. These are the feelings that cause intolerance and insensitivity. You must pray and labor for a humble, meek, and quiet spirit. A proud heart is troubled and provoked by every word that seems to assault your self-esteem.”
Volume 1, Baxter’s Practical Works, A Christian Directory, page 431
Puritan writers like Baxter consistently associated love with duty, effectively intertwining emotion with action. This connection ensured a profound sense of purpose and commitment. Baxter would note,
“Remember that justice commands you to love one that has forsaken all the world for you. One who is contented to be the companion of your labors and sufferings and be a sharer in all things with you and that MUST be your companion until death.”
Volume 1, Baxter’s Practical Works, A Christian Directory page 431
Finally, Baxter writes,
“We should be very concerned to know what the duties of our relationships are. And how can we please God in our relationships? Study and do your part, and God will certainly do his. The main matter in which a husband and wife should make a conscience of duty is their mutual love and forbearance. This is the great business of married persons—to study each other’s welfare and to help it forward by all means possible.”
Volume 1, Baxter’s Practical Works, A Christian Directory page 432
In a world where selfishness reigns supreme, Baxter reminds us that marriage should focus on mutual love, not just individual desires. By emphasizing the importance of duty towards one another, he highlights the importance of selflessness and sacrifice in a successful marriage.
We would do well to heed these old answers to new questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 8, 2024 12:51:47 GMT -5
octrinal Triage for Worship
Share
g3min.org/doctrinal-triage-for-worship/
DAVID DE BRUYN
cathedral interior
Many years ago, Al Mohler published a widely-read article on doctrinal triage, a method for evaluating the seriousness of doctrines. Kevin Bauder then pointed out that this approach was something that mainstream fundamentalists had espoused for many years, with possibly more sophistication.
I’ve thought for a while that we need something like that for the question of worship. Too often, we hear blanket statements such as “We shouldn’t divide over worship” or “worship is not something to separate over.” But this sounds rather unwarranted and simplistic, given how important worship is. After all, we wouldn’t say those things when it comes to polity. In fact, our differing ecclesiologies are sources of truncated fellowship. I can fellowship with an evangelical Presbyterian on several levels, but we cannot fellowship in the act of planting or leading a church together. We simply lack fellowship on several questions of church order. If this is the case with orthodoxy and orthopraxy, surely it is the case with orthopathy, too.
No doubt, judging this matter is difficult, for questions of worship combine doctrinal truth, ecclesiastical practice, and questions of wisdom and the affections. But it would be worthwhile for those who already practise something of a triage doctrinally and practically to do so with worship, too. What follows is a suggested approach, using triage for questions of worship.
No doubt, judging this matter is difficult, for questions of worship combine doctrinal truth, ecclesiastical practice, and questions of wisdom and the affections.
First-order questions of worship would be those that affect the gospel itself. A practice that denies one of the five solas, or undermines an essential of the faith is a catastrophic error, a heresy of the first order. Teaching that baptism and the Lord’s Supper bring about regeneration and atonement is an example of this. Introducing a priesthood that usurps the uniqueness of Christ’s High Priestly work, or introducing living or dead mediators that compromise His unique status as sole mediator between God and man are explicit or implicit denials of the gospel. Sacerdotalism is worship heresy.
A practice that denies one of the five solas, or undermines an essential of the faith is a catastrophic error, a heresy of the first order.
Secondary, but important, doctrines of worship would be those that affect the whole approach to worship. Whether worship is regulated by Scripture or not is vital to its shape and order. Whether we can do only what God commanded, or whether we may do what He has not forbidden is a very significant question that shapes what elements of worship we will include. The understanding of how the Holy Spirit works in corporate worship affects the whole system of faith and practice in corporate worship: questions of spontaneous revelation, supernatural gifts, involuntary revival, the use of the altar call, and the understanding of how music is to be used in worship.
Whether we can do only what God commanded, or whether we may do what He has not forbidden is a very significant question that shapes what elements of worship we will include.
How men and women lead or act in corporate worship is another important doctrine affecting the entire shape of corporate worship: views on male headship and female submission come to the fore in corporate worship. Understanding baptism and the Lord’s Supper as gracious sacraments or as memorial and testimonial ordinances is an important secondary doctrine, expressing our understanding of who is a disciple and member and what is occurring during those events. Our understanding of God’s sovereignty and human freedom will also shape worship significantly: concepts of what means God will use (and how effectual they are), how urgent or patient we should be in each corporate worship service, the meaning of revival and of progressive sanctification are important doctrines. They will influence our view on what the “high point” of worship is, how the music functions, what the result of preaching should be, and even whether corporate worship is primarily evangelism or discipleship. Finally, there is the important but difficult question of what the attributes of God deserve: what kind of reverence, what kind of joy, what kind of contrition correspond to the God we believe is revealed in Scripture and what forms and circumstances best communicate that. Errors in any or all of these secondary matters will not be heresies proper, but heterodox worship practices.
Tertiary worship questions will include many of the circumstances of the elements of worship that we include. These are judged by wisdom, knowledge of meaning and ordinate affection. They both flow down from our overall understanding of worship expressed in the second-order doctrines, and also flow back up to express and shape that understanding through their practical embodiment of worship practice. The particular selection of hymns and songs, the use of calendrical liturgies or free forms, the number, form, and length of the prayers and Scripture readings, the kind of preaching and type of sermon, the shape of the service, dress of the worshippers, the architecture of the building, the use of technology, the use of one cup or one loaf in the Lord’s Supper, the form of the music used, are all examples of these third-order matters. Errors, missteps or unwise choices in tertiary worship doctrines are neither heresies nor heterodoxies, but possible heteropathies: examples of inordinate affection.
A few comments about this taxonomy and its application.
First, in a “worship triage,” tertiary questions are not on the same order of importance as tertiary doctrines in a doctrinal triage. That is, questions of who were the sons of God in Genesis 6 are almost diversionary in nature. Questions of what music to use and what hymns to select are not diversionary, but quite formative. Placing them in the third category does not make them unimportant, but it differentiates them from heresy and heterodoxy. Heteropathy is serious, but more difficult to judge, with more flexibility to accommodate shifting cultural meanings. Especially in the long run, heteropathy tends to eventually undermine the second-order doctrines of worship. These, in turn, can eventually even affect the gospel as embodied in ordinate worship. As Charles Hodge put it, “Whenever a change occurs in the religious opinions of a community, it is always preceded by a change in their religious feelings. The natural expression of the feelings of true piety is the doctrines of the Bible. As long as these feelings are retained, these doctrines will be retained; but should they be lost, the doctrines are either held for form sake or rejected, according to circumstance; and if the feelings again be called into life, the doctrines return as a matter of course.” (This is another question altogether, but there can be instances of heteropathy that actually represent not just heterodoxy on what God deserves, but even heresy as to who God is.)
Second, fellowship and separation over worship affects us most often on the local church level, since that is the occasion for corporate worship. How another church worships is not usually a matter for separation, since we do not have to collaborate in order to worship in our individual churches. Fellowship on matters of worship is mostly a question for agreeing to covenant together as members of the same church, and particularly for leaders within the same church.
However, there are areas of targeted collaboration where differences of worship come to the fore. One is missions and church-planting. Those we send as our own representatives to plant churches that we believe are biblical should have fellowship with us on the second-order matters of worship. Agreement on the tertiary level is ideal, but not always likely.
Another is education. If we agree to collaborate to educate leaders for ministry, agreement on first and second order matters is vital. If possible, a seminary that finds much agreement among its faculty on tertiary questions will be great, since much of the application of worship is fleshed out at this level. Again, it might be ideal, but it is not likely.
A third would be conferences, when representatives of different churches congregate for mutual edification. Even though such a conference is not the gathered assembly, it will likely practice some singing, prayer, and Scripture reading and teaching. Here, the wisest approach is deference to as many consciences as possible, employing not what has the widest appeal but what will cause the least offence and encourage the most voluntary participation.
We need not separate over every differing application of worship. But neither should we imagine that worship itself is a tertiary matter. Instead, we should use the same triage we use in doctrinal matters to understand how to weigh up questions of worship and their application to fellowship and collaboration.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 10, 2024 16:18:45 GMT -5
Biblical Fasting: Is it a Practice for the Church Today?
Share
g3min.org/biblical-fasting-is-it-a-practice-for-the-church-today/
ROGER SKEPPLE
person in black long sleeve shirt
Although I grew up in the church, I was not introduced to the idea of fasting until I went to Bible college. It was there that I was first encouraged to practice this discipline and later in the local church with which I connected, I was introduced to the solemn assembly and congregational fasting. It was in this context that I began to ask myself whether fasting was a spiritual discipline commanded of the Christian. In these three articles, we will explore what the Scriptures teach us.
An Introduction to Fasting from the Old Testament
OT Vocabulary
Although fasting was practiced throughout the ancient world in association with many religious groups, the initial mention of the practice in the Bible took place with Moses and his receiving of the Law of God. Exodus 34:28 says he was on the mountain forty days and nights, without eating or drinking (cf. 24:16–18).
The Hebrew word for fasting (tsum) was used for the first time in Judges 20:26–28. That occasion was one of the worst in Scripture. The nation sought an answer on the extent to which they should respond to the sinful degradation of a Levite’s concubine. They fasted, made sacrifices, and sought God’s will regarding the extent of the punishment that should be exacted. Scripture doesn’t record why they fasted, just that they did fast.
If you trace the twenty-one uses of this term in the Old Testament, you will note that tsum was used interchangeably with the Hebrew concept of “to humble the soul” or “to mortify oneself.” Indeed, the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, connects fasting to the following ideas: “weep, mourn, wear sackcloth and ashes, deny oneself, and to do no work.”
Hebrew is a very descriptive language that tends towards concrete expressions rather than abstract ones. For example, rather than say “stubborn,” Hebrew describes a person having a “stiff neck.” Though they describe the same concept, Hebrew is more expressive. Psalm 35:13 is an example of this expressiveness related to fasting: “But as for me, when they were sick, my clothing was sackcloth; I humbled my soul with fasting; And my prayer kept returning to my bosom” (cf. Ps 69:10; Ezra 8:21). So humbling your soul was accomplished through fasting. This seamlessly connects with the only place in Scripture where the people of God were commanded by God to ritually humble themselves, that is, fast.
In Leviticus 16, which describes the “Day of Atonement,” there is a call to humility in light of the sin of the people. Verses 1–28 describe the day, and the conclusion of the chapter identifies it as an annual celebration, a permanent statute. Though the actual title “Day of Atonement” does not appear in the chapter, it is described perfectly because it was a day upon which atonement would take place for all the sins of the entire nation (16:30).
The very first mention of the observance being a permanent statute in Leviticus 16:9 says, “And this shall be a permanent statute for you: in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall humble your souls, and not do any work, whether the native, or the alien who sojourns among you” (16:29). Here we have the phrase “to humble one’s soul,” which Hebrew uses in parallel to or synonymously with fasting. For this reason, it is commonly held that fasting was practiced in connection with the Day of Atonement to express humility before the Lord. This is the only place in the Bible where fasting was commanded by God.
God did not prohibit fasting on other occasions, but it was not prescribed by Mosaic code, nor was it ever identified as a necessary part of the people’s regular spiritual life. Yet fasting grew to become a regular Hebrew spiritual practice.
Growth of Fasting
Various national fasts were called for throughout the Monarchy period, such as in 2 Chronicles 20:3 where Jehoshaphat called a fast in fear of invasion. However, it was after Israel’s return from exile, almost a thousand years after Moses, that fasting became a prescribed part of Israelite life. Within Ezra, both corporate and individual fasting took place in preparation for the return to the Promised Land (Ezra 8:21) and then over the sinfulness of mixed marriages among God’s people (Ezra 9:5).
These fasts, and others like them, were tied to self-examination, as well as mourning over sin (cf. Joel 1:13, 14; Esth 4; 1 Kgs 21). However, it is noteworthy that God did not call for these fasts. Remorse for sin prompted others to call for repentance to be accompanied by fasting. This seems reasonable since the only God-ordained fast was connected to the Day of Atonement when sin was specifically addressed. When the latter fasts took place, it was normally not to prevent sin but as a response to sin. All of these occurrences of fasting were based on human decisions and not divine regulation, expectation, or determination.
As one might expect, given Israel’s history, fasting would eventually become a manifestation of Jewish legalism. Along with prayer and the giving of alms, fasting lost its biblical moorings and became a demonstration of piety and a means of gaining merit before God. Sadly, the children of Israel thought fasting would supercharge their prayers and be more certainly heard by God.
Isaiah’s Critique
Isaiah 58 depicts the devolution of fasting. In this chapter, God condemned Israel for their fasts. It was not that the practice was sinful, but that it was untethered from the repentance and remorse of sin that it was to express. The people were sinning and fasting which was just evidence of hypocrisy.
Rather than the periodic abstinence from food resulting in their prayers being answered, their lack of repentance over sin, which fasting was to be tied to, left them in a state to be judged by God. God began insulting their hypocrisy in verses 1–2 by sarcastically mocking their claims of righteousness in verse 2 as actually manifestations of their transgression and sin (58:1). They claimed not to have “forsaken the ordinances of God,” when they in fact were living in their sin.
In verse 3 the people made the counterclaim that the Lord was indifferent—apathetic—to their spirituality, which, as far as they were concerned, was evidenced by their fasting, “Why have we fasted and Thou dost not see? Why have we humbled ourselves and Thou dost not notice?” (58:3a). Note the paralleling of the idea of self-humbling and fasting, as noted above. They believed their fasting should have drawn the attention and relief of God. They were upset that it did not.
God’s reply was that they were breaking God’s laws as they were fasting: “Behold, on the day of your fast you find your desire, and drive hard all your workers” (58:3b). The Hebrews were mistreating workers, more concerned with making a profit than humbling themselves. Yes, their fasts came with great demonstrations of humility: “bowing one’s head” and “spreading out sackcloth and ashes as a bed,” (58:5). However, they did this while full of “contention and strife” and striking “with a wicked fist.”
God, then, contrasted their fasting from food with the true type of fasting that He wanted and was concerned with in 58:6–7: “Is this not the fast which I choose, to loosen the bonds of wickedness, to undo the bands of the yoke, and to let the oppressed go free, and break every yoke? Is it not to divide your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into the house; When you see the naked, to cover him; And not to hide yourself from your own flesh?”
God recommended, if they wanted to fast, they should fast from sinning, the fasting with which God was pleased. What would be the result of them restraining from sin? Answered prayer—the very thing they thought fasting would have accomplished for them. For God stated, “Then your light will break out like the dawn, And your recovery will speedily spring forth; And your righteousness will go before you; The glory of the Lord will be your rear guard. Then you will call, and the Lord will answer; You will cry, and He will say, ‘Here I am.’ If you remove the yoke from your midst, the pointing of the finger, and speaking wickedness” (58:8–9).
God would answer prayers, not because they fasted from food, but because they turned aside from sin. I love this point because it verifies that simple prayer has power. God hears our prayers and delights to answer them according to His will.
Isaiah’s critique helps us understand what the practice of fasting within the nation of Israel had become. It exposes the fact that Israel elevated fasting to being on par with prayer and then they entrenched it with practice. Interestingly, it also clarifies some of the conflict Jesus had with the Jewish leadership of His day. The nation had taken a religious practice only commanded for the annual fast on the Day of Atonement and required it more regularly as a meritorious act. We will look at this conflict in the next article.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
AUTHOR
person in black long sleeve shirt
Roger Skepple
Senior Pastor Berean Bible Baptist Church
Roger Skepple is the senior pastor of Berean Bible Baptist Church in southwest Atlanta, Georgia. He holds a ThM with a double major in Systematic Theology and New Testament Exegesis and Theology from Dallas Theological Seminary. He was married to his wife of thirty-six years until she passed in 2023. They have four children: Roger, Jennifer, Nathaniel, and Sarah.
The King of Love My Shepherd Is—Psalm 23
Creator and Re-Creator
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 14, 2024 19:47:17 GMT -5
MAR 25, 2017
G3 ANNOUNCEMENTS
How the Easiness of ‘American Christianity’ Minimizes the Atonement of Christ
Biblical theologyChristianityDoctrineFamilyGospelMy WorldviewreligionTheology
DARRELL B. HARRISON
“For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”
– 1 Corinthians 1:18 (NASB)
For several months now I have been burdened by what appears, to me at least, to be an increasing apathy and indifference on the part of Christians, particularly in America, to the import and significance of the death of Jesus Christ on the cross.
These observations have led me to the lamentable conclusion that this spiritual lassitude is rooted primarily in a collective ignorance of and, consequently, a lack of appreciation for, Christ’s vicarious Atonement and its eternal implications to our lives, both in this world and in the world to come.
In his book, The Crucified King: Atonement and Kingdom in Biblical and Systematic Theology, Dr. Jeremy R. Treat has defined the doctrine of the atonement as:
“…faith seeking understanding of the way in which Christ, through all of his work but primarily his death, has dealt with sin and its effects restoring the broken covenant relationship between God and humans and thereby brought about the turn of the ages. At its core, the doctrine of the atonement is the attempt to understand the meaning of Christ’s death as “for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:3).”
When compared to Christians in other parts of the world, believers in America have it easy.
Perhaps too easy.
For the vast majority of professing Christians in America, living the so-called “Christian life” – a term that is becoming more ambiguous by the day – is a relatively effortless and often superficial undertaking.
We attend church if and when we feel like it. Conversely, advances in technology have made the Word of God so readily accessible that we tend to treat it no less casually than we would any other book. Consequently, personal convenience becomes the primary variable by which we determine to commit (or not) ourselves to study to actually know God to any great extent (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
It is with the aforementioned thoughts in mind that I am reminded of the words of J.I. Packer, who comments that:
“He who often thinks of God, will have a larger mind than the man who simply plods around this narrow globe. The most excellent study for expanding the soul is the science of Christ, and Him crucified, and the knowledge of the Godhead in the glorious Trinity. Nothing will so enlarge the intellect, nothing so magnify the whole soul of man, as a devout, earnest, continued investigation of the great subject of the Deity.” – Knowing God, p. 18
Unlike our persecuted brethren in countries like China and North Korea, who must resort to obtaining bibles through clandestine and surreptitious means – often at risk of their own lives – we need not concern ourselves with the hazards of having the gospel smuggled in to us because, as the saying goes, “there’s an app for that”.
The stylistic nuances and ecumenical aesthetics to which we have become so accustomed, particularly as it relates to our personal preferences in corporate worship, have fostered a collective spirit of indifference to the fundamental reason why we gather together to worship to begin with: the death of the Son of God on the cross.
It is against the backdrop of this kind of apathy that Charles Spurgeon declared:
“Nothing provokes the devil like the cross. Modern theology has for its main object the obscuration of the doctrine of atonement. These modern cuttlefishes make the water of life black with their ink. They make our sin to be a trifle, and the punishment of it to be a temporary business; and thus they degrade the remedy by underrating the disease.”
When examined on the whole, there really is nothing about being a Christian in America that can be said to be sacrificially demanding.
Not really.
Notwithstanding certain targeted political attacks against Christians in recent years, the truth is that the Christian experience in America can largely be defined not in terms of suffering (Philippians 1:29), but of indulging in creature-comforts like coffee bar lounges in our churches that resemble the neighborhood Starbucks®.
After all, how can anyone be expected to practice good liturgy without a good latté?
“We live in an age where the one wrong thing to say is that somebody else is wrong. One of the impacts of postmodern epistemology is that we all have our own independent points of view, and we look at things from the perspective of our own small interpretive communities. What is sin to one group is not sin to another group. But not only does the Bible insist that there is such a thing as sin, it insists that the heart of its ugly offensiveness is its horrible odiousness to God – how it offends God.” – D.A. Carson, Scandalous: The Cross and Resurrection of Jesus, p. 42
Christianity in America has become so accommodating, so unexacting, so facile, that we have numbed ourselves to what it truly means to be a follower of Christ (Matthew 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23). And, perhaps more importantly, what was accomplished for us as a result of God volitionally bringing about that reality in our lives (Ephesians 2:8-9).
As the late theologian John R.W. Stott writes in his masterwork, The Cross of Christ, it is vital for Christians to realize that:
“The essential background to the cross…is a balanced understanding of the gravity of sin and the majesty of God. If we diminish either, we thereby diminish the cross. If we reinterpret sin as a lapse instead of a rebellion, and God as indulgent instead of indignant, then naturally the cross appears superfluous. But to dethrone God and enthrone ourselves not only dispenses with the cross; it also degrades both God and humans. A biblical view of God and ourselves, however – that is, of our sin and of God’s wrath – honors both. It honors human beings by affirming them as responsible for their own actions. It honors God by affirming him as having moral character.”
Our nature as sinners is such that the degree of appreciation we have, even for those we say mean the most to us, can tend to wane the more comfortable with them we become. I can only imagine how many marriages today are being destroyed because one spouse is inclined to take the other for granted.
But, as Christians living in America, is our mindset any different when it comes to how lightly we treat the death of Jesus? Are we any less guilty of taking for granted the One who espoused Himself to us, His bride, through His propitiatory death on the cross (Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:2, 4:10)?
Has the easiness of American Christianity reduced the cross of Christ to a mere symbol in our eyes? Or do we carry within us the incredible weight of knowing that the cross is absolutely the only means by which a just and holy God could ever be satisfied with sinners like you and me (Acts 4:12; John 3:36; 2 Peter 3:7)?
As you contemplate those questions, consider prayerfully these words from theologian James M. Hamilton, who reminds us that:
“The cross uniquely displays that both Jesus and the Father are committed to justice and mercy, even unto death. The cross displays that Jesus and the Father are unique – holy – in their devotion to righteousness, to mercy, and to one another. The cross displays the all-conquering love of Father and Son for rebels who will repent and believe in Jesus. Such a sacrifice to save sinners!” – God’s Glory In Salvation Through Judgement: A Biblical Theology, p. 416
Please understand that none of what I have said is to suggest or imply that biblical Christianity either is, or should be, based upon a life of perpetual suffering.
Nor am I intimating that Christians in America should feel guilty for not suffering, either at all or as much as, their brothers and sisters who are in other countries around the world. God is sovereign over all events that occur in the universe; and it is He who ordains the outcomes of those events in our lives (Psalm 115:3).
Nevertheless, I do caution against giving in to the allure of the kind of Christianity that minimizes the death of Christ, making the cross an adornment to be worn around our necks as opposed to a way of life to be borne on our backs (as it were).
“If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me.” – Matthew 16:24 (NASB)
Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate (Colossians 2:9), died a brutal, demeaning, dehumanizing, and gruesome death for unworthy and undeserving sinners like you and me (Mark 14:65; 15:17-20). This reality should serve to remind us that it is we who, by virtue of our innate sinfulness, put Jesus on the cross thereby necessitating the shedding of His blood.
Despite the relative comforts of living as a Christian in America, as followers of Christ we must avoid at all costs the temptation not to take the death of Christ seriously. Instead, we must see ourselves as our gracious and merciful God saw us before the foundation of the world – as worthless sinners in desperate need of a Savior.
American Christianity would have us believe that we are somehow worthy of Christ’s dying on the cross for our sins, but I assure you we are not (Ephesians 2:8-9).
There is no church apart from the cross.
The cross of Christ should not only be worn; it must be borne.
May we not let a single day pass without contemplating the inexplicable wonder of which the great hymnist Charles Wesley wrote nearly 280 years ago:
“And can it be that I should gain an interest in the Savior’s blood! Died He for me who caused His pain? For me who Him to death pursued? Amazing love! How can it be that Thou, my God, should die for me?”
Humbly in Christ,
Darrell
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 17, 2024 15:49:43 GMT -5
Creator and Re-Creator
JAMES ANDERSON
Hannah Overton knew she hadn’t murdered her foster son Andrew.
But the Overton family’s grief over four-year-old Andrew’s death turned to horror as investigators pinned the death on Hannah and her husband Larry. One afternoon in October 2006 when Andrew and Hannah had been in the house together, after the boy had been particularly difficult to control, he began vomiting and experiencing chills. Soon his breathing became labored. Worried, Hannah called Larry, who immediately came home from work. They tried various means to help Andrew, but soon realized that his condition was beyond their expertise. They rushed Andrew to the hospital. Hospital staff became unusally concerned at Andrew’s condition, and informed law enforcement right away. The hospital staff separated Hannah and Larry from Andrew, so that the foster parents could not be by the boy’s bedside that night when his organs finally failed.
Andrew had died of salt poisoning, an unusual occurrence in which a person ingests too much salt. He also had some evidence of bruising and scarring on his body, leading law enforcement to believe that Hannah had in some way force-fed Andrew salt while physically restraining him. Had Hannah become frustrated and angry at Andrew’s behavior and just snapped, killing the boy through discipline gone wrong? Unfortunate circumstancial evidence seemed to reinforce the suspicions of Texas Child Protective Services (CPS), local law enforcement, and the medical team who treated Andrew.
People from the Overtons’ church were just as shocked at the allegations as the Overtons were. They had known Hannah as a dedicated and loving mother, the perfect candidate for foster parenting. Friend and neighbor Kathi Haller adamantly asserted to the police that Hannah had always been patient and composed when dealing with the children in her home.
But the authorities were unconvinced. Hannah and Larry were arrested, and Hannah’s trial began in August 2007. As the judge and jury heard from the medical team who had attended Andrew, as well as various members of law enforcement and CPS, a picture seemed to emerge of a woman who had in cold blood killed the young boy. Even Hannah’s calmness in the face of Andrew’s deteriorating condition proved to be a witness against her.
After nearly 10 months of negative media coverage and a three-week trial, the jury returned their verdict: guilty of capital murder.1 So Hannah Overton—a trained nurse, a wife of 10 years, having just given birth to her fifth child, an evangelical Christian with no previous criminal record—was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
But almost immediately after Hannah’s conviction, questions began to emerge. How had Hannah—five feet tall, six months pregnant, and recovering from whiplash after a car accident—managed to force Andrew to eat a fatal amount of salt diluted in water in a sippy cup? Pediatrician Edgar Cortes, who had examined Andrew a year earlier and also had seen Andrew in the ER, contacted Hannah’s attorney. Dr. Cortes had been ready to testify in support of the prosecution, but was not called during the trial. After the trial, Dr. Cortes was shocked that all evidence of a medical condition had been discounted or ignored during the trial. He believed that Andrew suffered from a variety of medical issues, perhaps including pica, an unexplainable desire to eat items with no nutritional value. Though originally intending to testify against Hannah, Dr. Cortes came to believe that the sentence had been erroneous. Even jury members expressed their doubts about what they had just done. The news media, which had been largely hostile to Hannah as her case worked its way through the judicial system, began to reconsider. Reporter Pamela Colloff with Texas Monthly wrote a lengthy piece detailing the evidence that pointed to Hannah’s innocence.2
In Canada, poet Anna Staples began following Hannah’s case as Hannah served out her life sentence. Ms. Staples was impressed by Hannah’s desire not to waste her imprisonment. While in prison, Hannah planned birthday parties and prepared homeschool lesson plans for her children. She counseled the other women in prison with her, started Bible studies, and convinced the prison to develop a faith-based dorm for the female prisoners. Hannah found Psalm 37:6 particularly meaningful: “He will bring forth your righteousness as the light, and your justice as the noonday.” Anna Staples wrote a metrical version of the psalm, focusing not so much on its most familiar verses but on the overriding theme of the sovereignty of God over the unexplained and unexplainable trials of life:
Let no evil thought distress thee,
Let no fretting grieve thy peace.
Fleeting is this little hour
‘Til all evil things shall cease.
Fear no bitter fleeting hour,
For all evil things shall cease.
God the Lord is well ordaining
All that harms or grieves thee here.
Fools or fiends may now be reigning:
Trust the Lord and do not fear.
They shall fade like flowers at evening
Nevermore to blossom here.
Now the world may speak thee evil,
Now all evil things befall,
But thy judgment stands forever
With the Lord who judges all:
He shall justify forever
Faith and hope and labors all.
Strife and ills are here ordained us,
All the trials of the blessed:
Though we fall, our God maintains us,
Strengthens us and keeps us fast.
He has destined and ordained us
More than conquerors at last.
They who seek a holy treasure
Shall be granted what they seek:
Heart’s desire beyond all measure,
Peace and gladness of the meek.
Love’s great fire shall pass all measure
And shall beautify the meek.
Glory let us give and blessing
To the Father and the Son
With the Holy Ghost, confessing
Holy threefold love in One:
All creating, all redressing,
God alone while ages run.
—Anna Staples, 2014
I became aware of this poem when Kevin Bauder of Central Baptist Theological Seminary included it at the end of one of his weekly “In the Nick of Time” articles. In “An Open Letter to Chris Leavell,” Dr. Bauder wrote to a young pastor who had just been diagnosed with terminal melanoma. My wife Marisa and I had attended Bible college with Chris and his wife Michelle, and though we had not maintained contact since graduation, I had seen Chris’s name pop up enough to know that we were still in the same circles. I was moved by the circumstances and by Chris’s solid faith in God in the face of death. As I read Ms. Staples’s poem, I thought, “The Church needs to sing this!” I contacted Ms. Staples, who graciously gave me permission to set her poem to music. The tune came quickly, and I was able to send it to Chris and Michelle several weeks before Chris entered eternity in late 2015.
Though Chris Leavell’s earthly life ended in 2015, Hannah Overton’s earthly life was in a sense resurrected. Earlier appeals had fallen through, though new evidence came to light in 2010 that the prosecuting attorney had apparently omitted from Hannah’s trial. A new defense lawyer, Cynthia Orr, who had had success in challenging wrongful convictions, took over Hannah’s case. Finally, in late 2014, after seven years in prison, Hannah was released when Texas’s highest appellate court overturned her conviction. In April 2015 the murder charges were officially dropped, and Hannah was declared to be innocent of any crime. Sadly, Andrew’s death likely came about because he ate salt out of the cupboard.
One of the most striking parts of Anna Staples’s “Psalm 37” comes in the last stanza. It’s a traditional “Gloria Patri,” offering praise to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Then it says of God, “All creating, all redressing.” We are used to thinking of God as Creator, but how often do we think of Him as Redresser? To redress is to make wrongs right, and God will make all wrongs right. For Hannah Overton, it came during her lifetime. Others must wait until eternity, but the God who keeps our tears in His bottle and records them in His book (Ps 56:8) will one day wipe all tears from our eyes (Isa 25:8, Rev 21:4). He is not slow concerning His promises (2 Pet 3:9), and “according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (2 Pet 3:13). Death and pain and sorrow will be overthrown, and we will see that the sufferings of the righteous are not in vain.
References
1 The jury was given the unusual choice of convicting Hannah either of actively murdering Andrew or of negligently allowing him to die by failure to seek help quickly enough. They chose the latter, which because of Andrew’s age still resulted in a capital murder charge.
2 Available at www.texasmonthly.com/true-crime/hannah-and-andrew/. Note: the article contains some graphic descriptions and a brief use of strong language.
|
|
