John Owen on the Law

One of my favorite works by John Owen is "The Dominion of Sin and Grace." (Buy book here) Here, Owen deftly expounds on the Biblical teaching of the dominion of sin, and the dominion of grace (and also issues of Law and Gospel) that helps Christians understand both the failure and victory in sin we have as believers. I've highlighted my favorite parts.

The ground of this assurance is, that believers are “not under the law, but under grace.” And the force of this reason we may manifest in some few instances:—

First, The law giveth no strength against sin unto them that are under it, but grace doth. Sin will neither be cast nor kept out of its throne, but by a spiritual power and strength in the soul to oppose, conquer, and dethrone it. Where it is not conquered it will reign; and conquered it will not be without a mighty prevailing power: this the law will not, cannot give.

The law is taken two ways:— 1. For the whole revelation of the mind and will of God in the Old Testament. In this sense it had grace in it, and so did give both life, and light, and strength against sin, as the psalmist declares, Ps. xix. 7–9. In this sense it contained not only the law of precepts, but the promise also and the covenant, which was the means of conveying spiritual life and strength unto the church. In this sense it is not here spoken of, nor is anywhere opposed unto grace. 2. For the covenant rule of perfect obedience: “Do this, and live.” In this sense men are said to be “under it,” in opposition unto being “under grace.” They are under its power, rule, conditions, and authority, as a covenant. And in this sense all men are under it who are not instated in the new covenant through faith in Christ Jesus, who sets up in them and over them the rule of grace; for all men must be one way or other under the rule of God, and he rules only by the law or by grace, and none can be under both at the same time.

In this sense the law was never ordained of God to convey grace or spiritual strength unto the souls of men; had it been so, the promise and the gospel had been needless: “If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law,” Gal. iii. 21. If it could have given life or strength, it would have produced righteousness, we should have been justified by it. It discovers sin and condemns it, but gives no strength to oppose it. It is not God’s ordinance for the dethroning of sin, nor for the destruction of its dominion.

This law falls under a double consideration, but in neither of them was designed to give power or strength against sin:—

1. As it was given unto mankind in the state of innocency; and it did then absolutely and exactly declare the whole duty of man, whatever God in his wisdom and holiness did require of us. It was God’s ruling of man according to the principle of the righteousness wherein he was created. But it gave no new aids against sin; nor was there any need that so it should do. It was not the ordinance of God to administer new or more grace unto man, but to rule and govern him according to what he had received; and this it continueth to do forever. It claims and continues a rule over all men, according to what they had and what they have; but it never had power to bar the entrance of sin, nor to cast it out when it is once enthroned.

2. As it was renewed and enjoined unto the church of Israel on Mount Sinai, and with them unto all that would join themselves unto the Lord out of the nations of the world. Yet neither was it then, nor as such, designed unto any such end as to destroy or dethrone sin by an administration of spiritual strength and grace. It had some new ends given then unto it, which it had not in its original constitution, the principal whereof was to drive men to the promise, and Christ therein; and this it doth by all the acts and powers of it on the souls of men. As it discovers sin, as it irritates and provokes it by its severity, as it judgeth and condemneth it, as it denounceth a curse on sinners, it drives unto this end; for this was added of grace in the renovation of it, this new end was given unto it. In itself it hath nothing to do with sinners, but to judge, curse, and condemn them.

There is, therefore, no help to be expected against the dominion of sin from the law. It was never ordained of God unto that end; nor doth it contain, nor is it communicative of, the grace necessary unto that end, Rom. viii. 3.

Wherefore, those who are “under the law” are under the dominion of sin. “The law is holy,” but it cannot make them holy who have made themselves unholy; it is “just,” but it cannot make them so, — it cannot justify them whom it doth condemn; it is “good,” but can do them no good, as unto their deliverance from the power of sin. God hath not appointed it unto that end. Sin will never be dethroned by it; it will not give place unto the law, neither in its title nor its power.

...

Men under the law will attend unto their convictions, and endeavour for a while to shake off the yoke of sin. They will attend unto what the law saith, under whose power they are, and endeavour a compliance therewith; many duties shall be performed, and many evils abstained from, in order to the quitting themselves of sin’s dominion. But, alas! the law cannot enable them hereunto, — it cannot give them life and strength to go through with what their convictions press them unto; therefore, after a while they begin to faint and wax weary in their progress, and at length give quite over. It may be they may break off from some great sins in particular, but shake off the whole dominion of sin they cannot.

It is otherwise with them that are “under grace.” Sin shall not have dominion over them; strength shall be administered unto them to dethrone it.

“Grace” is a word of various acceptations in the Scripture. As we are here said to be under it, and as it is opposed unto the law, it is used or taken for the gospel, as it is the instrument of God for the communication of himself and his grace by Jesus Christ unto those that do believe, with that state of acceptation with himself which they are brought into thereby, Rom. v. 1, 2. Wherefore, to be “under grace” is to have an interest in the gospel covenant and state, with a right unto all the privileges and benefits thereof, to be brought under the administration of grace by Jesus Christ, — to be a true believer.

But the inquiry hereon is, how it follows from hence that sin shall not have dominion over us, that sin cannot extend its territories and rule into that state, and in what sense this is affirmed.

1. Is it that there shall be no sin in them any more? Even this is true in some sense. Sin as unto its condemning power hath no place in this state, Rom. viii. 1. All the sins of them that believe are expiated or done away, as to the guilt of them, in the blood of Christ, Heb. i. 3, 1 John i. 7. This branch of the dominion of sin, which consists in its condemning power, is utterly cast out of this state. But sin as unto its being and operation doth still continue in believers whilst they are in this world; they are all sensible of it. Those who deceive themselves with a contrary apprehension are most of all under the power of it, 1 John i. 8. Wherefore, to be freed from the dominion of sin is not to be freed absolutely from all sin, so as that it should in no sense abide in us any more. This is not to be under grace, but to be in glory.

2. Is it that sin, though it abides, yet it shall not fight or contend for dominion in us? That this is otherwise we have before declared. Scripture and the universal experience of all that believe do testify the contrary; so doth the assurance here given us that it shall not obtain that dominion: for if it did not contend for it, there could be no grace in this promise, — there is none in deliverance from that whereof we are in no danger.

But the assurance here given is built on other considerations; whereof the first is, that the gospel is the means ordained and instrument used by God for the communication of spiritual strength unto them that believe, for the dethroning of sin. It is the “power of God unto salvation,” Rom. i. 16, that whereby and wherein he puts forth his power unto that end. And sin must be really dethroned by the powerful acting of grace in us, and that in a way of duty in ourselves. We are absolved, quitted, freed from the rule of sin, as unto its pretended right and title, by the promise of the gospel; for thereby are we freed and discharged from the rule of the law, wherein all the title of sin unto dominion is founded, for “the strength of sin is the law:” but we are freed from it, as unto its internal power and exercise of its dominion, by internal spiritual grace and strength in its due exercise. Now, this is communicated by the gospel; it gives life and power, with such continual supplies of grace as are able to dethrone sin, and forever to prohibit its return.

Troubling Declaration

A new statement is making the rounds called "The Manhattan Declaration." It affirms, with Christians from diverse backgrounds (Orthodox, Catholic, Evangelical) 3 points of public policy:

1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

While some of the content certainly has validity in a certain context, I think the document itself is a sign of what's wrong with American Evangelicalism. Yes, I'm picking on Evangelicals since the statement has gained some Evangelicals supporters (James Dobson, Chuck Colson, Timothy George). But this is troubling for the following reasons:

1. These manifestos/declarations are becoming a flavor of the month. Remember "The Evangelical Manifesto"? Of course not. It was a flimsy "vision statment" rather than a confessional document. It speaks in perceptions and generalities. The London Baptist Confession, the Westminster Confession, the 39 Articles, and the Augsburg Confession have been in use for hundreds of years. The Evangelical Manifesto is a year old and no one remembers it (nor should).

2. This is a stand for the Law as exercised in civil society. The question is: why should anyone listen to this statement? The first use of the law is testified to also in Natural Law. Honestly, civil government does not need special revelation. This also explains how Christians should live their lives ethically...to the world. Why should the world listen? First the Law must drive the sinner to Christ and His Gospel before they are conformed to the will of God in the Law. This is the cart before the horse.

3. This is a broad testimony to the Law in practice. This is not a stand for the Gospel. It wants to affirm something with broad "Christian" support, so the gospel is ignored.
The absense of the gospel displays the concern of evangelicals as moral and ethical, not...well...evangelical. Do we believe the world is evil? If so, they will abort their babies, marry and divorce who they wish, and persecute religious minorities. That's what evil people do. Is our message: how to be a better reprobate? Or is our message: The Law reveals our deep and desperate need of redemption in Christ? If we want a declaration of the Law, then I'm happy to wait for a declaration of God's wrath against sin. That's a good place to begin. Let that be the delcaration of the year, followed the next year by a declaration of propitiation in Christ. I'll sign those documents.

Are we as passionate for the repentance of sinners to Christ as we are for marriage amendments, abortion legislation and secular people being nice to religious people?To quote my pastor: "The deepest most pressing need in the world today is the gospel." Not civil law. Not ethics. Not winning the culture for the church and making it safe for the whole family. The most pressing need is death and resurrection, and the world needs to be told it needs to die before it is told it needs to live a resurrected life. Evangelicalism needs to learn to confess and declare the right things:

"Heb 10:22-23 - Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful."

Bible: Explicit Content

Over the past three years, I have studied Scripture in a way that I only pretended to before. Such a project has yielded quite a few surprises. Prophecy does not work the way I thought it would. The narrative has a finer point, and a more singular theme, than I assumed. And the content is not as family friendly as expected.

It is a cliché today that if the Bible was made into a movie, it would at least be rated R. We say that mostly because of episodes of violence such as most of the book of Joshua. We may even mean hints of sexual immorality in characters like Judah and David. It is well known that some graphic episodes are recorded.

This is not what I am talking about. What I mean is the words of men, speaking on behalf of God, saying things that would get them an "explicit content" warning if they put it on a CD, or a “banned” status in a church library. Not that you have noticed these things, because the English translators tend to protect our tender ears. Three passages have stood out to me, that when I have studied them more closely have shocked me at their actual content, none of which comes across in modern English translations, like say, in the ESV or NIV.

The legitimate question arises: to what degree does a Christian have the right to shock with their language and in what way? What may be helpful is to see how the Bible does so, assuming of course that the Bible is not to be condemned for its language. The point is to see what the Bible does in its language as a pattern for our own limits of speech, not to look at “naughty” parts in the Bible for shock or “giggle” effect.

We'll start off tame.

First is a familiar verse.

Phillipians 3:8:

Php 3:8 ESV - "Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ."

THE IMAGE: The word translated as “rubbish” is much more specific. The word “σκύβαλον” or skubalon refers to, according to the NET note, “a vulgar term for fecal matter.” Wycliffe chose the word “turds” for his medieval English translation. A closer translation would be, (as privately explained by a Greek expert) a harsher term than crap, closer to “sh*t.” Martin Luther used an equivalent in his German translation of the Bible. (and Daniel Wallace concurs in a word study on σκύβαλον)

THE PURPOSE: Paul is using sh*t as an image of what is produced apart from Christ. It has no worth or value. It is considered to be as worthy of honor as feces. Paul does not use this image as a teenager might for the “naughty” or “giggle” factor, but to shock his audience that may be tempted to honor their works. He wants them to know their works are not just worth a little less, but worthless. As worthy as of a place in their trophy case as their excrement.

ISAIAH 64:6

Isaiah 64:6 ESV - We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

THE IMAGE: The word translated “polluted garment” or in other versions “filthy rags” also is much more specific. The NET, again, is more literal: “all our so-called righteous acts are like a menstrual rag in your sight.” BDB confirms the word translated “filthy” is purposefully mistranslated, instead means “menstrual.” The image is one of a soiled rag used during female menstration. In our modern speech, it would be more understood as “a used tampon.”

THE PURPOSE: Paul learns his explicit language from Isaiah who is using his language in the same way. Isaiah is comparing the best, the “righteousness acts,” of the people of God to something that is valueless. They have the market value of “used tampons.” Not a positive value, but a negative value. Isaiah uses this imagery to shock Israel into a re-evaluation of their own goodness.

EZEKIEL 23:20

Eze 23:19-20 ESV - Yet she increased her whoring, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her paramours there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose issue was like that of horses.

THE IMAGE: The ESV extremely sanitizes the image of Ez 23:20 to the point that the translation no longer communicates the message. The translators of the ESV might as well have left the verse in the original Hebrew. Multiple words are archaicly translated or mistranslated to hide the meaning. “paramours” are concubines, prostitutes or as the ESV translates it in other places: whores. “Members” is the word that can be translated "flesh" or here meaning “penis.” And the word “issue” is so opaque as to hide the true definition: “semen discharge.” One can see why the ESV (and most other modern) translators wished to keep it vague. If your child had a book that read, “she lusted after whores, whose penises were like those of donkeys, and whose semen discharge was like that of horses” you probably would freak out a little.

THE PURPOSE: Ezekiel is a strange book to me. Revelation has nothing on it in my mind. This is one image I truly read and wonder what was the purpose. It seems nearly to be shock for the sake of shock. Yet the image does have a striking and powerful point. The point is that Israel had committed idolatry, and an image so disgusting had to be painted in order to show just how offended God was by their behavior. This was not a small matter, a small offense, something God was just supposed to shrug off. The image is of an act of adultery so shocking and vial as to make one completely sure that it was unforgiveable. The grace of God is only shocking, and loved and something to shead tears over in pursuing, and obtaining, when the weight of our own sin is personally felt, disgusting to us, and mourned.

WHY THE LANGUAGE?

In seeing three examples (and there are more in that barely-cracked OT section of your Bible), we see Paul, Isaiah, and Ezekiel using images that are hard to read, and definitely not comforting. They were not meant to be. Which pushes us to a few natural questions:

1)Why do translators protect us from Isaiah, Ezekiel and Paul's offensive language?

Is it to sanitize the Bible so as to make it “family friendly” or to purposeful hide the message? The former is almost certainly so. Modern translators are not conspiring to hide God's truth. They probably wish not to be offense to the reader. But sanitizing the Bible also has another effect. In the American church, sin is not mourned, and when it is, it is rather hated in easily identifyable and foreign terms. It is identified as the acts of those outside the church (read: homosexuality, drug use, etc.) and not as Paul, Isaiah and Ezekiel identify it: as acts of those in the church. The church could use some shocking language of their own sin.

2)To what degree should such explicit language be used by Christians communicating the kerygma?

This is a harder question. Perhaps the most famous of “shock quotes” comes from Tony Campolo who said in a few speeches:

"I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a sh*t. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said 'sh*t' than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.”

One of my favorite artists, Derek Webb, used a similar line (“give a sh*t”) in a new song of his. The question is: are Derek Webb and Tony Campolo being like Paul, Isaiah and Ezekiel?

Not exactly. I think the use is more crude with Campolo. Paul uses the word with a direct comparison. Skubala = what you value that came before Christ. For Campolo, the word is merely an explative. Phrases such as “give a sh*t” or “what the f*&$” are merely vulgar without a shocking comparison. The words do not fill in or compare to something that we are offended are being compared to it. The purpose is shock for the sake of shock and showing a comparison of your shock at one offense at another. It is comparing two sins, my vulgarity and your apathy, rather than comparing your sin to something. Perhaps a good rhetorical device, but not exactly on the level of Paul or Isaiah. I don't necessarily condemn it though, as a use in art (Webb's new song) or as a speech to a certain audience (Campolo). However it is a different question than:

Should a preacher use such language? Here, I think my answer must be yes/no. The Campolo use (shock for the sake of shock) is not the job of a preacher. Paul did not say “you don't give a sh*t about the gospel!” or “what the f*%k are you Galatians doing abandoning the gospel?!” Rather, Paul used the word to shock his readers in a comparison of values. What you value is worthless. Worse than worthless, it is feces. So too, with Isaiah. Ezekiel uses his image to show not that he can shock with language, but how shocking the sin of the people of God is, as shocking as an explicit image of adultery. When used this way, when following the text, the preacher should use explicit language to expose the hidden idolatry and shocking sin of his congregation. The Bible does so and the Bible is the text of the preacher's proclamation.

The lesson from looking at this text is not to be shocking for its own sake, at least in the pulpit. Rather, it is to be selectively shocking. The preacher must be careful not to desensitize the audience to explicit and shocking images, but to indeed expound them when presented in Scripture to the end that Scripture demands. Scripture demands we be shocked about our idolatry, sin and misguided affections. Scripture does not merely give us warrant to be shocking from the pulpit for the shear effect. So while I like Derek Webb's music, and he is free to do things in his music a preacher would not do, I would not quote it in the pulpit. Now Isaiah is an entirely different matter...

Derek Webb's new album...

...should be coming out soon. A bit of the feel of the album is here below. I love the title: Stockholm Syndrome. This is "a psychological response sometimes seen in abducted hostages, in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger or risk in which they have been placed."
[UPDATE: Check out my take on Webb's use of explicit language here]


Sounds like what happen to us with Sin to me.


The Spirit vs. Kickdrum
(click here for an mp3 of an early mix)

I don’t want the spirit; I want the kickdrum
I don’t want the spirit; I want the kickdrum
I know how it works, so I’m not dumb
I don’t want the spirit; I want the kickdrum

Like sex without love
Like peace without the dove
Like a crime scene without the blood
I don’t want the spirit; you know I want a kickdrum

I don’t want the son; I want a jury of peers
I don’t want the son; I want a jury of peers
Stares go low when you see my tears
I don’t want the son; I want a jury of peers

Like lies without the truth
Like wine without the food
Like a skydive without the chute
I don’t want the son; you know I want a jury of peers
I don’t want the spirit; you know I want a kickdrum

I don’t want the father; want a vending machine
I don’t want the father; want a vending machine
I know, what’s your point if you know what I mean
I don’t want the father; want a vending machine

Like heaven without gates
Like hell without flames
Like life without pain
I don’t want the father; you know I want a vending machine
I don’t want the son; you know I want a jury of peers
I don’t want the spirit; you know I want a kickdrum

Reformed Spirituality: Overcoming Sin

The fourth session in Reformed Spirituality was to be on overcoming sin, using John Owen's works as a guide. However, the class ended prematurely and this was the class I was least prepared for, and thus with everything on my plate now, the one I will have to come back to fill in later if I wish to re-teach this.

For those interested in the subject, here are a couple of resources. One is the book "Overcoming Sin and Temptation" by John Owen, which is actually a collection of three works by Owen on the subject. The second is an audio interview with the men responsible for editing the above book with helpful footnotes, Justin Taylor and Kelly Kapic.

1. Book: "Overcoming Sin and Temptation"

2. Interview with Justin Taylor and Kelly Kapic. (itunes)

We have not known Thee as we ought

I’ve already highlighted Thomas Pollock’s Hymn: “Jesus with Thy Church Abide.” Another Of Thomas Pollock’s hymns I’ve come to love is “We have not known Thee as we ought.” It is a hymn of confession. Typically, we like to sing songs that are victorious (“God reigns”), or dutiful (“I will praise You”), but rarely do our hymns match the diversity of the Psalms, which included hymns of praise (Psalm 67), lament (Psalm 22), longing (Psalm 13), and confession (Ps 41:4, Ps 51:4). It was not always this way. When I look at many who lived before this hollowing out of the totality of Christian experience, I find descriptions that match not just the good times of Ecclesiastes 3, but the bad as well. There is a time to be victorious, but there is a time to confess. This side of heaven, there are more times to confess than we currently give time to:


“We have not known Thee as we ought”
By Thomas Pollock, 1889 [Modern Version here]

We have not known Thee as we ought,
Nor learned Thy wisdom, grace and power;
The things of earth have filled our thought,
And trifles of the passing hour.
Lord, give us light Thy truth to see,
And make us wise in knowing Thee.

We have not feared Thee as we ought,
Nor bowed beneath Thine awful eye,
Nor guarded deed and word and thought,
Remembering that God was nigh.
Lord, give us faith to know Thee near,
And grant the grace of holy fear.

We have not loved Thee as we ought,
Nor cared that we are loved by Thee;
Thy presence we have coldly sought,
And feebly longed Thy face to see.
Lord, give a pure and loving heart
To feel and know the love Thou art.

We have not served Thee as we ought,
Alas, the duties left undone,
The work with little fervor wrought,
The battles lost or scarcely won!
Lord, give the zeal, and give the might,
For Thee to toil, for Thee to fight.

When shall we know Thee as we ought,
And fear and love and serve aright?
When shall we, out of trial brought,
Be perfect in the land of light?
Lord, may we day by day prepare
To see Thy face and serve Thee there.

Augustine and Pelagius Pt. 1: Free Will and the Early Church

When explaining the Christian beliefs, eventually you will come across a wide spread belief in American culture of a benevolent passive God. If you explain that God is good and offers life in His Son, a response will come back that if God is good he will save everyone and wouldn’t be so “not nice” as to send anyone to hell. For a good example of how an informed Christian should respond, see Tim Keller’s talk at Berkley. However, I am not addressing that problem here.

But just like our need to have an answer to the modern objection of passive benevolence, so the early church had to respond to the Greco-Roman culture of their time when presented with the gospel. The early church, in proclaiming the gospel, encountered resistance to the idea that people are responsible before God for their actions. In pagan and Stoic philosophy, the idea (and eventually god) “Fortuna” ruled the universe. To the typical Greco-Roman, everything is fated. To say our sinfulness can be counted against us is to not realize that Fate had made them do bad things, thus they are not responsible.

This philosophy is called Fatalism. True Fatalism destroys human responsibility for sin. Fatalists do not look to a Savior, as they are not responsible for their sin, and thus are in no need of action on their part to find a solution. What will be will be so why worry about it?

This background is essential in understanding the writings of the early church. Much of the New Testament literature argues for Christianity in the background of a Judaic understanding of God and the world. After the New Testament, the early church literature can be seen as a development of what Paul started in Acts 17 in dialoging with the Athenians. One must enter the thought world of an alien culture in order to help them understand another culture. Thus Paul uses the language of Athenian religion and literary culture to communicate ideas to them.

If one reads the early church, one inevitably comes across the phrase “free will.” Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria all talk about it. Many times Reformed Christians can see such references as a misunderstanding of human nature, just as Arminians can see these references as supporting their Enlightenment ideas of a libertarian free will (as Norm Geisler does in just listing the references as if they are definitive because they use the buzz words “free will")

Paying attention to the context, however, we see that the sense and concept they argue for, we too must acknowledge. Clement says the will is “self-determined” but also “nothing happens apart from the will of God” and thus God “permits evil.” Irenaeus wrote that “there is no coercion with God.” Archellaus wrote “To sin is ours, and that we sin not is God’s gift.” All these statements we must acknowledge as true. That we sin is our responsibility. We cannot appeal to fate or providence as an excuse, for we “are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20).

These truths lead to other inevitable questions: Then, are we responsible for our good too? Is salvation our choice? Isn’t true freedom the ability to choose neutrally between good and evil?

These questions were answered differently by two of the church’s rising stars: Pelagius and Augustine. [Part 2, forthcoming]

Theology by Music - Depravity

I love music. I find, even after I have just criticized the latest Matt Redman song that people have sung as “worship,” I will still go to my ipod and listen to Sufjan Stevens, or Pedro the Lion or Johnny Cash or even Derek Webb and feel like I am having a spiritual experience. I do not share Plato’s rejection of music as entirely base and animal. Words and music often can convey more together than apart.

Believing the above, I have sometimes pondered what songs best speak to the soul on truth. On one topic, the Depravity of man, I find I have a plethora of songs which come to mind. In fact, entire albums like Pedro the Lion’s Control, or Johnny Cash’s Murder thoroughly tackle the topic. But if I had to choose one song that conveyed the concept the best it is Sufjan Steven’s song John Wayne Gacy Jr. [video below]



Listen to the lyrics about the nice boy people described Gacy as. The later facts are starkly stated in the song:

(He killed) Twenty-seven people
Even more, they were boys
With their cars, summer jobs
Oh my God

Then the sickness of the acts linger, as Sufjan ends the haunting song with these lines:

And in my best behavior
I am really just like him
Look beneath the floor boards
For the secrets I have hid

What was broken in John Wayne Gacy Jr., is shared in Sufjan, and in all people. The most haunting and gut-wrenching fact is not Gacy’s crime, but our common humanity; the capability of each man to do what Gacy did. Succinctly, Sufjan’s song communicates the first thing one must know to be a saint: you are a sinner…a greater one than you tell others or even yourself.

Summary of All Theology

J.I. Packer, in his forward to Death of Death, gives these three words as the summary of all theology: God saves sinners. The more I thought about the summary, the more I liked it. So much is said there, so much to unpack. I wonder how many of my favorite theologians can be put into those three words.

After reading that, I looked over at my three volume Systematic Theology by Charles Hodge. The names of the three volumes? Theology [Proper] (Theology of God), Anthropology (theology of man), and Soteriology (Theology of Salvation). God saves man, or sinners. All of theology in three words.


One of Augustine’s favorite phrases was “God justifies the ungodly.” God saves sinners.


Calvin said all knowledge consists in knowledge of God and man. To supply a little, knowledge of God is knowledge of His alone being Savior (Is 43:11). God saves man.


The very order implies Reformed Theology. Not man saves man, or God and man save, but God. Saves. Sinners/man. God first, who takes the action of salvation of fallen man. Just something to remember if someone asks you to summarize your theology, all it takes is three words: God saves sinners.

The Enemy Within

We search for the enemy out there in a certain group of people espousing certain evil deeds, or beliefs or idols. Yet, the whole time we rape and murder in our thoughts, we (as Derek Webb puts it) “have faith in the bank and money in our hearts,” and we worship approval or looking pious or knowledgeable. Perhaps the best way to combat evil deeds, wrong beliefs and idolatry is to confess our own evil deeds, wrong beliefs, and idolatry. Not as once I was like this one I wish to condemn, but as truly a confession of our own weakness. The sermon today at church ended with the pastor stating that God first judges His own people rather than a people out there His people don’t like. That “God saves sinners,” not the righteous, is the message for the church – to remind her that she is sinful. The last entry of Jim Elliot’s journal before he died reads as follows:

“I have been very low inside me struggling and casting myself hourly on Christ for help. Marriage is divorce from the privacy a man loves, but there is some privacy nothing can share. It is the knowledge of a sinful heart.”

Sin List

Many believe the Bible is the guide to Christian ethics. The problem is, the Bible takes a lot of time talking about stories, grace, Jesus, and stuff, and doesn't really give us enough of what we should be doing to make us Christians. So what are the Christians who want to be a cut above, who want to earn a few more merits, supposed to do to earn those points?


One respected influencial Christian leader gives as guide for Christian ethics (when you have all the ethics from the Bible down): " if I were to be doing [something, and] somebody would stumble over it, I don’t do it"? This leader was giving us an interpretation of Romans 14:21, which talks about not making a brother stumble. The passage is talking about wine and meat eating, but with his interpretation this can be extended to everything, since in fact he was saying this of Card Playing. [note: this leader is a bit of a hypocrite on this though since he does take his interpretation to the point of abstention from wine but not vegetarianism]


This interpretation of "stumble" means that, basically, if a group of Christians think something is a sin, it becomes a sin for everyone, because someone would "stumble" over it. Jackpot! So, I would like to keep a list, so that fellow Christians can know what they are not allowed to do, consume or think, because a group of Christians think it is a sin. And remember, Joy in Christ!:


Play Cards

Eat Pork

Eat Meat

Watch Star Wars

Drink Caffeine

Practice Psychology

Take Psychiatric drugs

Proselytize Jews

Watch Cartoons

Engage in War

Dance

Have sex, (at all)

Celebrate Easter

Celebrate Halloween

Celebrate Christmas

Drink Alcohol

Listen to Rock Music

Observe the Sabbath

Not observe the Sabbath

Go to the movies

Swimming with the opposite sex


This is not comprehensive, in fact I would encourage others to help [with a website], so we make sure we have every doctrine of man here, so as not to offend or cause anyone to stumble, and along the way, give ourselves grounds for boasting!

[By the way, yes this is sarcastic and a break from my fast of not criticizing Christian leaders. And if it seems negative, I have already stated briefly what my philosophy of ethics is here. But in short, "stumble" in the Bible is not just doing something that someone else decided is bad.]

A Prayer for the Church: A Hymn to get you through the rest of the week

Jesus, with Thy Church abide

I never tire of complaining about the church. I complain that she turns herself into a community center, a self-help center and a concert hall. Of course, it rarely occurs to me:

1. she is us; and
2. We cannot leave her for she is our mother as
3. She is the body of Christ


To realize the Church is made up of depraved people (us) makes us realize the necessity of prayer for her sin (our sin). To realize she is the body of Christ makes us accept we have no hope of being in Christ without her. This moving hymn by Thomas Pollock (pictured right) is a prayer for the Church. Pollock ministered to the poor of London as a minister in the Church of England. Here are the better verses:

Jesus, with Thy Church abide,

Be her Savior, Lord, and Guide,

While on earth her faith is tried:

We beseech Thee, hear us.


Keep her life and doctrine pure,

Help her, patient, to endure,

Trusting in Thy promise sure:

We beseech Thee, hear us.



All her fettered powers release

Bid our strife and envy cease,

Grant the heav'nly gift of peace:

We beseech Thee, hear us.




May she guide the poor and blind,

Seek the lost until she find,

And the broken hearted bind:

We beseech Thee, hear us.



All that she has lost, restore,

May her strength and zeal be more

Than in brightest days of yore:

We beseech Thee, hear us.




May she holy triumphs win,

Overthrow the hosts of sin,

Gather all the nations in,

We beseech Thee, hear us.

Hymn for the Day. (from preferably dead hymnists)

A while ago, my brother posted on hymns. Hymns, like biographies of saints, are an untapped treasure of the church. I think I might start periodically posting some lesser known hymns (like with the Newton post) from Isaac Watts, John Newton, Charles Wesley, William Cowper, and others. I join my friend Mike Freitag in lamenting how they are slowly being replaced by self-focused choruses like:

Over the mountains and the sea
Your river runs with love for me
[Ain't I great! Well...and the Son]
And I will open up my heart
[really, the Holy Spirit doesn't do that?]
And let the healer set me free
["Let Him"? If you are not free how can you "let Him"?]
I’m happy to be in the truth
And I will daily lift my hands
[Daily? That's some good discipline. Better than me]
For I will always sing
[Ever stop for air?]
Of when your love came down
[What does that even mean? maybe when "Your Son" came down?]

Chorus:
I Could Sing Of Your Love Forever
[Is God's name "You"? Could you really sing forever presently?]

These lyrics are sung, because it preserves the "dignity of man" as important and "empowered." As Mark Noll said, we are what we sing. We don't know what to do with hymns that when they use "I" a lot, talk about our inadequacy and sin like:

A Hymn to God the Father:

Wilt Thou forgive that sin where I begun,
Which was my sin, though it were done before?
Wilt Thou forgive that sin, through which I run,
And do run still, though still I do deplore?
When Thou hast done, Thou hast not done,
For I have more.

Wilt Thou forgive that sin which I have won
Others to sin, and made my sin their door?
Wilt Thou forgive that sin which I did shun
A year or two, but wallow'd in, a score?
When Thou hast done, Thou hast not done,
For I have more.

I have a sin of fear, that when I have spun
My last thread, I shall perish on the shore;
But swear by Thyself, that at my death thy Son
Shall shine as He shines now, and heretofore;
And, having done that, Thou hast done;
I fear no more.

[Thou [God] hast done, not "I will" do. Hmm...and John Donne wasn't even a Calvinist...]

I Suck: Why I Need Hope.

I wrote this post, then found this essay which captures the idea much better than I could. Here's the point in better prose.

Eph 1:13-14 - You were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

I am saved. But I still sin, hurt others, hurt myself and I am going to die.

We often talk about the work of salvation as a past event. “When were you saved?” A popular answer is “when I asked Jesus into my heart at age ___.” Yet, we still sin, we still hurt, we still hurt others and we all die. Why? This is what the Bible says: Because we are not yet saved.

While we have been saved, and are presently saved, if that is all we have in “the finished work of redemption,” then salvation is a disappointment. We are not yet glorified and the problem still exists: we all hurt, sin and die. What is so great about that?

Paul, however, tells us by God sealing us in the Spirit, we have an earnest (or down-payment) of our inheritance. Paul reminds us of the necessity of hope. We hope because salvation is not finished and we look towards “the redemption of the purchased possession.” We have been bought and we will one day be saved.

John tells us:

Rev 21:4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.

The next verse floors me. The final two chapters of Revelation pull back the curtain and flood our mind with hope and Christ declares:

Rev 21:5 And He who was seated on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new."

We have been told Christ is done. It is finished. He sat down at the right hand of God. While the payment has been made, He is not done. He tells us so. This is not as good as it gets. Hallelujah for that.