Is God our Gospel?

While in the touristy West End district of Dallas, I encountered a team of “missionaries.” These men were engaged in various jobs, some doing a faux magic show, one on a chair preaching and others handing out tracts (an experience I recounted in an earlier post). I took a tract from a man who seemed a little unsure of what he was doing, allowing the printed word to interact with this sea of people rather than the spoken word.

When I returned home, I read the tract. It began interesting enough: Are you a good person? Seems that nothing I do is good enough (I wonder how many people suffered mother-in-law flash backs while reading the tract). The proof for this given by a lengthy discussion about how we all violate the 10 commandments. Then at the end, on two three-inch by two-inch pages it gave the good news! A man named Jesus died and if you believe that, you get to go to heaven. Now, boiling down the gospel into a short presentation is a difficult task, and an admirable project. Yet, the focus of the gospel in this tract was clear: There’s a problem with what you do, some vague event happened with a man named Jesus and now things are better and you get to live forever. This tract exposes some huge blindspots in the way evangelicals present the gospel and even makes me wonder about a decision made on such facts for three reasons:.

1) The focus was on what you do (sin) and not who you are (a sinner)

2) There was no mention about why one would want to be in heaven, namely that God is there to be enjoyed.

3) Most importantly, the tract only gives a few lines to who Jesus is, and never mentions that Jesus was God!

When I married my wife, I wanted to have some sort of “take away” that shared our faith with our guests beyond the homily. I looked through some tracts, but all seemed to have this problem. So, I decided to give the guests a small version of the Gospel of John. The reason? John’s gospel is different from the gospel of most tracts.

A recent fad in Evangelical circles has been looking at John for techniques of how to do evangelism according to Jesus. Best scenario to look at? The woman at the well, where Jesus offers her the bread of life. Principles are drawn out such as meeting someone where they are, or getting into their lives. Yet, we may have missed the message: “seek the bread of life.” Those doing their reading of John 4 as part of their daily devotion might miss the tension of discovering what this bread of life is. The reader must wait until John 6 until this is revealed.

In John 6, after Christ fed a crowd of thousands, the people follow him across the lake to Capernaum (John 6:24). Jesus, perceiving their intentions, pointed to the bread he had given them and told them they should not follow him for food, but Himself. (John 6:26-27) When the crowd again asked for food and another sign in addition to the food already given, Christ knew they did not follow Him for His own sake, but for earthly reward. He was using the bread as an analogy for Himself, declaring: “I am the bread of life.” (John 6:35)

Instead of trying to perceive the truth Christ was pointing to, the crowd asks “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52) Christ, instead of explaining further to the crowd that is now mocking Him, presses the metaphor without explaining it to the level of the ridiculous and ludicrous, insisting that unless they eat his flesh and drink His blood, they will die. (John 6:53) Most of the crowd leaves, and so this becomes a technique I have not heard imitated much in Evangelical seminars…

In John 6:53, Jesus uses language that sounds very Eucharistic, speaking of blood and flesh. The concept being communicated, however, is not the necessity of the Eucharist for salvation, but the necessity of Christ for salvation. Bread is a common metaphor for sustenance. In Psalm 104:14, the Psalmist specifically says God gave “bread [that] sustains the heart of man.” Both the Eucharist and this teaching point to the sustaining aspect of Christ as gained by belief. By Christ all things have their very existence (1 Cor 8:6). On one level all have their very existence in Christ, but those who believe are fed eternally with a manna that does not rot like that of Moses in the desert. (Ex 16) As John Calvin puts it: “Christ is the bread on which we must feed.”

If Christ is our center, the object of our worship and affections, He should be more than a gear, a link, a bridge or a means in our conception of the gospel. Christ certainly provides the way. Did not Christ say he was the Way? The question then is not “Is Christ the means to salvation.” He certainly is. But is Christ also the end of our quest, the prize of our salvation? God tells us He is our reward (Gen 15:1) and the image of our salvation is partaking of God Himself (2 Pet 1:4). Indeed, if we are Reformed, why do we not communicate that our end is to glorify God, and enjoy Him forever? (WC Q1)
.

I believe in Free Will

"There is always within us a free will - but it is not always good; for it is either free from righteousness when it serves sin, - and then it is evil, - or else it is free from sin when it serves righteousness, and then it is good. But the grace of God is always good; and by it, it comes to pass that a man is of good will."

-St. Augustine On Grace and Free Will.

Give me three minutes and I will tell you... not much.

Augustine tells of a vision of seeing a little boy at a beach scooping up the ocean thimbleful by thimbleful and emptying it out on the sand. Then he sees an angel who tells him that this boy will have emptied out the entire ocean long before Augustine has exhausted what can be said about God.

So what’s the difference between two Baptists and two Episcopalians when they meet in the liquor store? The Episcopalians will say hi to each other. Jared told me that one but I think I just butchered it. Anyway I had a similar experience the other day. Only I think the Baptist said hi. I was driving home from work and I was totally bored with what I had on my MP3 player and with talk radio, so I reluctantly found myself turning on my local Christian music station. I felt a little dirty but my wife has softened me up a bit and I have been known to tune in now from time to time. Still, I was thinking “Has it come to this? I am reaching for the cheap beer here?” Well then the announcer introduced a new song. The guy seemed to be even more apologetic for being on the radio as I was for listening. It is called “3 Minute Song”. It's not perfect but it seemed somewhat Augustinian. Can you imagine asking Augustine to talk about God in a little three minute song that will flow nice to a commercial break? The guy who was losing me on the subject of “Time” in Confessions then said “look at how much time I have spent talking about time!” Yeah I don’t think he could do it either... Anyway it was good song, happened a couple of weeks ago, have not tuned into the Christian station since.

Check out out here if you want
http://www.myspace.com/joshwilson

Lyrics
I tried to write a song, and keep it three minutes long
Get in, get out, nobody gets hurt
And I tried a thousand times to fit God between the lines
But I'm finding out that doesn't really work
I just don't have the words to say
Because words only get in my way
I must apologize, I have the hardest time
Finding something to define a God that I can't define
And even if I could, it would take way too long
If all I've got's a 3 minute song
I've got a hundred metaphors, and if I had a hundred more
I could never ever seem to sum this up
Besides, how can some melody communicate eternity?It's like trying to fit the ocean in a cup
I'll never find the words to say
Cause words only get in the way
I would like to dumb this down to 3 chords or maybe 4
But I've tried and I can't and I won't cause there will always be more

http://www.amazon.com/3-Minute-Song/dp/B00162C88S

Christ and Scripture

The Evangelical Theological Society began with one doctrine to affirm: the inerrancy of the Scriptures. Since the Modernist-Fundamentalist debates of the early 20th Century, it is nearly indisputable that the defining characteristic and center focus of Evangelicalism in America is Bibliology. The evidence is hard to miss. Look at the first doctrine of most churches. Look at the signs and symbols of many Evangelical seminaries (like here and here) and institutions and can even dominate the images and signs of churches. I even saw on the back of a Christian catalog this phrase: “The Bible alone is the Word of God”

And what else would we expect? Isn’t the Bible the Word of God and the basis of our knowledge of God? I would like to suggest such a formulation, and especially that phrase I quoted from the back of the catalog, is insufficient and under-developed. The Christian faith certainly centers around the Word of God, but the Word of God is not primarily defined as a book...I would also like to contend, that this American Bible-central focus is not healthy and not, at heart, Reformed.


One may get the impression that Reformed theology deserves some credit for this Bible focus. Take a look at the major Reformed Confessions, and you will see the first Article is usually one on Scripture. This is wholly appropriate. For the foundation of our particulars of our theology of God is based on written Scripture.

Scripture itself, however, does not testify to itself as the pinicle and end of faith. For Muslims, the Koran is the perfect Word of God and the means of salvation. We are not Muslims, and the Bible is not merely the Christian Koran. Jesus Christ tells the Pharisees that this was their great sin. John 5:39 puts it beautifully: “You search the Scriptures, for you think in them you have everlasting life. And they are the ones witnessing concerning Me.”

At minimum, we should see the Scriptures do not claim themselves as the center of our faith, but are our sure and faithful guide to our true center: God, especially revealed in the Second Person of the Trinity, Christ.

I say nothing new here, in fact I say things very old. Perhaps so old we have forgotten them. And perhaps we would readily agree that the Scriptures point to Christ. Would we go further and admit that we have sometimes neglected to assign to Christ a title given to Him by those Scriptures: Word of God?

But of course, Christ is the Word of God in John 1, and so the Word of God incarnate. The Scriptures on the other hand are the Word of God written, a totally different discussion. They need not be thought of in the same thought, let alone the same class, day, month or even year.

This seemingly valid distinction has unfortunately become a division. If we trace the language of “Word of God” in the Early Church, we find not a division, but a union so tightly knit together that it confuses the modern reader. Take for instance Clement of Alexandria. When quoting Scripture, Clement often used phraseology like: “The Logos has proclaimed this loudly through Moses…” Clement uses Logos, not as an inanimate noun, but as a Personality that proclaims. The Word of God incarnate was so closely associated with the Word of God written, the two occupied the same thought and breath so intricately that to speak of Scripture proclaiming something was to see the words as imputed to Christ Himself. The starting point of faith was in the Personality rather than the written word. The inspiration of Scripture was based on the divine nature of the Logos as God rather than any internal structure. Our Bibliology requires a foundation in our Christiology, as part of the work of Christ:

Our reading of the Scriptures lack this close association. Read Hebrews 4:12. Does this immediately first make you think of Christ or Scripture? I have yet to find an early church father that took this as pointing to Scripture, all see Christ. From the entirety of the canon, this interpretation follows the Biblical usage, as this phraseology is actually used of Christ first in Luke 2. Is the Bible a piercing sword? Yes. Is Christ a piercing sword? Yes. Because the Word of God is a piercing sword.

But again, I claim no new teaching in this regard. Pelikan summed up the mind of the early church on this matter thusly:

'Word of God' was, of course, one of the most important technical terms for Jesus Christ in his relation to the Father; and when 'the gospel' or 'Scripture' was equated with the 'word of God,' the presence of Christ in this means of grace was seen as in some way analogous to his presence in the flesh...Christ was the preaching of God." (Christian Tradition Vol 1 - pg 161)

But also importantly for us, this is not merely the teaching of the early Church. Dutch Reformed theologican Herman Bavinck writes:

He [Christ] is the Logos in an utterly unique sense, revealer and revelation alike. In him, all revelations of God, all words of God, in nature and history, in creation and re-creation, under the Old and New Testaments, have their ground, their unity and center. He is the sun; the particular words of God are its rays. The word of God in nature, in Israel, in the New Testament, in Scripture may not for a moment be detached or thought about apart from Him. God’s revelation exists only because He is the Logos. He is the principium cognoscendi [the principle of knowing], in the general sense of all knowledge, in the special sense, as logos ensarkos [the word infleshed], of all knowledge of God, of religion and theology, Matt 11:27. (Reformed Dogmatics - Vol 1, pg 402)

So I stand by my original blog post: Christ is the center of our faith. Even as the Scriptures are our text to understand our faith, even as our Christian epistemology may wonder if our Scriptures are the only true basis for our knowing - ultimately Christ is the basis of our knowing.

The important question we have to ask is: have we allowed the "Word of God" merely to mean God's commands or instructions in a book? Or does "Word of God" mean a Person who pierces us to our soul and look for this Person in our Scriptures. Muslims believe in the Word of God as revealed writings, but we are Christians and we believe in the Word of God made flesh. This does not lessen our view of Scripture, instead the Scriptures gain more power when we realize that in reading them, we are not ruled by a book, but by the Lord Christ that book reveals, and Whose words they are.
.

At the Center: The Foundation of Christian Theology

It seems different traditions will have a different central focus. Roman Catholicism starts with Ecclesiology and build a theology from there. Restorationist Stone-Campbellites seem to do the same. Open theism builds a theology from a certain concept of the will. Dispensationalism emphasizes eschatology and much of American evangelicalism seems built on Bibliology or a certain concept of a gospel offer.

Even within the Reformed camp there seems to be a debate on the “center” of the faith. There is a large TULIP-happy, soteriologically-centered crowd that sees everything centered around the Reformed concept of Soteriology and predestination. Another crowd seems to have, what I would term, a Theo-centric view. This sees God as transcendent and grand and builds everything off of such a view, with much talk about how not to view things as man-centric.

Both of these approaches are correct in their teaching, yet also slightly askew as the question of emphasis, center, and the foundation of your theology affects how you look at other aspects of theology, even if the basics are the same. The Soteriology-centered crowd seems to have little concern for the detail of worship, other than mentioning our depravity often and never giving an invitation. The Theo-centric crowd can sometimes talk of God in such grand ways as to make God impersonal, and while God may be too humanized in other parts of evangelicalism, a full swing to the other extreme is problematic as well.

I’ve been stuck as I study theology how true is the statement of Karl Barth: “show me your Christology, and I will show you the rest of your theology.” Concurrently, while reading Alister McGrath’s Iustitia Dei, I was struck by his description of Calvin’s approach to theology. While Luther centered everything around justification and Beza had more of the Theo-centric approach (like above), Calvin centered all talk of ecclesiology, Soteriology, and Theology Proper around the person of Christ. It was more than a throw away line about how important Jesus is, or an add on line to please the folks who prefer to talk to God through Jesus “thank you Jesus, help me Jesus, Come Lord Jesus, etc.” No, every aspect of Salvation related to the question, “how does Christ teach us about salvation?” Christ becomes type, teacher and image in any discussion. Ecclesiology is a question about: how do we understand the church as the Bride of Christ, or the Body of Christ? Theology proper is about how do we learn about God through Christ. Soteriology is about how Christ saves us. Some do not realize the title of the last book of the Bible is a great method to Theology. It is “the Revelation of Jesus Christ.” In Greek, we learned that the use of the genitive in the title means it can also be translated: “Jesus Christ reveals.” I like three word theological guides (see “God saves sinners.”) While "God saves sinners" can be a good summary of theology, "Jesus Christ reveals" can be a beginning to a hermeneutic or methodology within our theological study. This emphasis has particularly hit me over the past year. Before that, I had a well developed Soteriology, a poor Theology Proper, a non-existent Ecclesiology and a skeletal Bibliology. All of which was due to an underdeveloped Christology; and all of which I have seen invigorated by robust, and centric Christology. At the least, it is a good question to ask when looking at a new area of theology: What does Jesus Christ reveal about this…

Help my Unbelief

Isaac Watts might have known a thing or two about writing hymns. Another hymn of healing doubt. I was introduced to this hymn while enjoying Indelible Grace's Fifth Album: This song adapted to a modern folky treatment by Andrew Osenga. Man, Andy knows how to pick those gems to redo!:

1. How sad our state by nature is!
Our sin, how deep it stains!
And Satan binds our captive minds
Fast in his slavish chains
But there's a voice of sov'reign grace,
Sounds from the sacred word:
"O, ye despairing sinners come,
And trust upon the Lord."

2. My soul obeys th' almighty call,
And runs to this relief
I would believe thy promise, Lord;
O help my unbelief!
To the dear fountain of thy blood,
Incarnate God, I fly;
Here let me wash my spotted soul,
From crimes of deepest dye.

3. Stretch out Thine arm, victorious King,
My reigning sins subdue;
Drive the old dragon from his seat,
With all his hellish crew.
A guilty, weak, and helpless worm,
On thy kind arms I fall;
Be thou my strength and righteousness,
My Jesus, and my all.

Summer Reading List

I posted this on my other page, but since it is dead theologian related, thought I would restate it here - this is my summer reading list [I am open for suggestions for my reading on Reformed Spirituality!]:

Thomas Cranmer by Diamond MacCulloch

Started this book already on the first Protestant Archbishop of Cantebury. Cranmer and Edward VI brought real reform to the Church of England resulting in the 39 Articles and a Reformed Church before the aftermath moved the church closer to a via media (middle way) position during the reign of Elizabeth I. I’m interested to see the development of this man that eventually gave his life on the stake for his devotion to the gospel in England.


Marriage in the Early Church ed by David Hunter

For a group from PCPC that will be going through it this Summer. This book is a collection of texts from Early Church Leaders on the subject of marriage


Van Til’s Apologetic by Greg Bahnsen

Under more of a conviction that sin has had major impact on our minds, I need to look more at Van Til’s approach to apologetics. I am a child of Thomas Aquinas and so why people do not merely agree with good reason puzzles me - and in fact why I often do not agree with good reason proves that reason may not be enough. Hence Van Til.


A Reformed Spirituality?

I am looking into teaching another course on the concept of a “reformed spirituality.” This is an oxymoron to some, but I hope to do enough reading and experimenting to have material to present a Biblical approach to spirituality in Spring of 09. Towards that end on my reading list is:

A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life

Christian Spirituality by Alister McGrath

The Life of God in the Soul of Man by Henry Scougal

The Religious Affections by Jonathan Edwards

The Christian Life by Sinclair Ferguson

Worldly Saints: The Puritans as They Really Were. By Leland Ryken

Puritan Reformed Spirituality by Joel Beeke

Luther’s Spirituality

Streams of Living Water by Richard Foster

The Mystical Presence by Nevin

I also have this itch to go through Calvin’s Institutes from start to finish. I may need a group to help me though…

Sad Day for the Anglican Church

Two ordained priests in the Church of England have married each other in the England against their Bishop's direction. It will be an interesting time to see if Rowan Williams (the Archbishop of Canterbury) will enforce discipline in the Church of England. Williams is a great writer and I have enjoyed some of his

books. However, he seems to be a weak leader with no resolve on this issue. It may be time for him to go and for someone else to come in to help save unity and promote Biblical morality in the largest Protestant communion in the world. If Williams does nothing, the African churches are out for sure.

Pride

The last bastion of pride is the belief that we are the originators of our faith.—John Piper, Taste and See, p. 328.

Extra! Extra! New Revelation!

How Does God reveal himself to us? Jay Bennett covered this question in our course on Church History. Some said certain Scriptures were God’s revelation, but not others (Marcionites, Ebonites). Others said the Scriptures were revelation plus prophetic illumination that was ongoing (Montanists). Orthodox Christianity settled on the Scriptures as the sufficient authority. Though the Church dealt with these errors early in its history, Montanism seems to have never fully gone away.

We see this in the clamor over Todd Bentley, a revivalist Pentecostal preacher in Florida, claiming direct revelation over things like the authorship of Hebrews. If you want the perspective of a non-Pentecostal who witnessed the events in Florida, read here: [Part 1, Part 2, Part 3]

I would like to suggest that Pentecostal preachers like Bentley have given up any claim to the label Protestant. One of the great truths asserted in the Reformation was Sola Scriptura. This meant the final authority and only special revelation we have access to are the Scriptures. And if we take Galatians 1:8 and Revelation 22:18 seriously, people claiming new revelation different from the Scriptures should not just be embarrassed at their eccentricities, but fearful of judgment. To add to what is considered God’s revelation is beyond the bounds.

Lewis on Old Books

As I have been too busy to post anything of substance lately, I will offer a little encouragement from C.S. Lewis to read older books, rather than the latest post here or latest book on the new releases. Lewis wrote this as an introduction to Athanasius' wonderful little book: "On the Incarnation." So if Lewis inspires you, pick up a copy on amazon.com, or read it online here.

Wherever you find a little study circle of Christian laity you can be almost certain that they are studying not St. Luke or St. Paul or St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas or Hooker or Butler, but M. Berdyaev or M. Maritain or M. Niebuhr or Miss Sayers or even myself. Now this seems to me topsy-turvy. Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old. And I would give him this advice precisely because he is an amateur and therefore much less protected than the expert against the dangers of an exclusive contemporary diet. A new book is still on its trial and the amateur is not in a position to judge it. It has to be tested against the great body of Christian thought down the ages, and all its hidden implications (often unsuspected by the author himself) have to be brought to light. Often it cannot be fully understood without the knowledge of a good many other modern books. If you join at eleven o'clock a conversation which began at eight you will often not see the real bearing of what is said. Remarks which seem to you very ordinary will produce laughter or irritation and you will not see why—the reason, of course, being that the earlier stages of the conversation have given them a special point...


But it will be noticed that these [books that modern readers read] are all books of devotion rather than of doctrine. Now the layman or amateur needs to be instructed as well as to be exhorted. In this age his need for knowledge is particularly pressing. Nor would I admit any sharp division between the two kinds of book. For my own part I tend to find the doctrinal books often more helpful in devotion than the devotional books, and I rather suspect that the same experience may await many others. I believe that many who find that "nothing happens" when they sit down, or kneel down, to a book of devotion, would find that the heart sings unbidden while they are working their way through a tough bit of theology with a pipe in their teeth and a pencil in their hand.

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.

Who do you say I am? - The Need for Creeds

American Christianity has bred a suspicion of creeds. Yet, a creed connects us with Christians across time, space and denomination. Before he died, Jaroslav Pelikan gave an interview about his multivolume collection of Christian Creeds (outlined in his book Credo).

Listen to the interview here.

Pelikan also published a 5 volume history of Christian Doctrine. His defining of the role and development of tradition and its relation to Christian faith helps Protestants accept tradition while maintaining the supremecy of the Scriptures. As Pelikan says in his interview: "The only substitute for tradition is bad tradition" (i.e. the tradition you make up and try to pass on)

Relevant

"Whatever is true, it is emphatically not true that the ideas of Jesus of Nazareth were suitable to His time but no longer suitable to our time. Exactly how suitable they were to His time is perhaps suggested in the end of His story."
-G.K. Chesterton

Do I mistake my happiness for blessing?

Suppose I address some Christian who is happy, and joyous, and cheerful, and has such dainty bits sent home to him out of the promises, such precious words from Scripture applied to his heart. Dear friend, are you apt to think that there is something specially good about you because you get all these remarkable enjoyments? Then let me disabuse your mind. It is your weakness which gets you these favors. When you are living in a hotel you will remark that certain persons have their dinners sent upstairs. What for? Oh, that is because they are ill. If you are well you must go down to the table d'hote with the rest; but if you are ill they will send it upstairs, and pay you extra attention. These very comforts that God gives you ought to make you enquire whether there is not something amiss with you, and instead of thinking you are strong and well you should search and see if there is not some weakness which the Lord in his mercy intends to remove by the double comforts which he gives to you. Nothing in the world ought to be a cause of self-exaltation; nothing that our God gives us ought to make us think highly of ourselves. Lower down, brother, lower down, and so you will rise. The way to heaven is downhill, not uphill. As Christ went down to the grave that he might come up again and fill all things, so must you go to the cross, and down to the grave of self and be buried with Christ, and learn the meaning of your baptism, and make it true that you are buried with him to all the world, and to yourself also, for so only can you rise into the fullness of the new life.

C.H. Spurgeon

Update: 5/3/08:

Point 95 of Luther's 95 Theses. I love that this is found in the last point of so important of document for Prodestents who what to see Christ lifted up.

95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many tribulations, than through the assurance of peace.

Act 14:22 strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.

Trinitarian Revelation?

Ok, I'll admit I've gone a little Trinity crazy lately. Yet, everything in theology seems to point back to Theology Proper (the doctrine of God). I recently had an assignment where I was told to "define God." I went back and forth on how to begin my definition. The Anglican 39 Articles starts with God as Trinity. Reformed Confessions tend to start with revelation in Scripture, then base a confession of God on special revelation in Scripture. Finally, I decided I must preface the definition with how I know God. But, instead of using the special revelation and general revelation divide, I decided to set forth my preface of revelation in Trinitarian Formula, as follows:

God reveals Himself to us by means of the Father's purposed works in creation,[i] His incarnate Son[ii] (Who is God,[iii] and human,[iv]) and His Scriptures,[v] written by men and the Holy Spirit.[vi] (Who is God.[vii]) God is our greatest good[viii] and highest pleasure,[ix] and does all things for His own Glory.[x]

Does this work? A general revelation in nature by the Father, a special revelation in flesh by the Son, and another special revelation by the Spirit in the Scriptures. Feedback welcome.

[i] Rom 1:20 – also called general revelation
[ii] Heb 1:2, 2 Cor 4:4. [Or the Word – John 1:1]
[iii] John 1:1-14, John 20:28.
[iv] John 1:14
[v] 2 Tim 3:16, [also called the word of God, the Son being the Word of God made flesh, and Scripture being the word of God written]
[vi] Heb 1:1
[vii] Acts 5:3-4, 2 Cor 3:17-18, Eph 1:3-14
[viii] or “exceedingly great reward” Gen 15:1 KJV
[ix] Ps 16:11
[x] Ps 79:9, Ps 106:6-8, Isa 43:7, Ezk 20:5-9, 13-14, 21-22.

Walking the Tightrope: The Perils of Studying Theology

While studying theology, I’ve noticed two distinct categories of attitudes towards theology.

1) Theological Apathy

The first attitude is one of theological apathy. This attitude is typified in a comment I have heard more than once: “I don’t see why I need to read all this junk, I just want to tell people about Jesus.” This attitude tends to occur during an experiential period where the student just “feels” they know what’s right and they do not need new vocabulary or other people’s thoughts to figure out what exactly they mean by the Christianese they speak. (“How’s your walk?” – “Um, nice, it’s temperate outside so it’s umm…pleasant.”)

2) The Theological Militancy

The second attitude is what I would like to call theological militancy. This attitude enjoys employing the “h-word” a lot. (heresy) This attitude is typified in the general denunciation of everyone else – the theologically apathetic certainly, but in particular those with a different theological militancy. If the other group is not pre-mill, pre-trib; well, the obviously don’t know Jesus. Or, if the other group does not baptize babies, or does baptize babies, they are not worthy of the term church. Or if they do not share our eschatological chart, or soteriological chart to the letter, then obviously they are heretics, not Bible-believers and not Christian.

Getting Along?

Now, I don’t just share these observed attitudes of what everybody else does, but what I frequently do depending on the moment. Usually when around the theologically militant, I become apathetic: “Am I pre-millenial? No, I’m pan-millenial, it will all pan out.” Then around the theologically apathetic I turn militant: “You just want to talk about Jesus? What do you mean by Jesus? He’s a man, huh, why should I listen to him? He’s God? How does that work? Wait, stop using theological talk…”

The problem is not new. In teaching a mid-week class with my friend Jay Bennett, he posited a model for religion that had on one end emotion and on the other intellectual orthodoxy. Much of the history of the Church has been a swinging back and forth between those who see religion as an experiential reality, and those that see it as an affirmation of certain intellectual truths. Those on the emotional side err by sliding into emotionalism or enthusiasm and becoming feelings-oriented in our search for true religion. The other side errs in becoming a form of dead orthodox, an affirmation of certain truths without a sense of emotion or joy about it. True religion is both of the emotions, and of intellectual truths.
Yet, another factor comes into play. Both Dead Orthodoxy and Enthusiasm become Schismatic – The dead orthodox attack the enthusiasts and other dead orthodox that hold the wrong beliefs. The enthusiasts attack the cold doctrines of the other group or other enthusiasts who have the “wrong emotions” at the wrong times. What is missing is a sense of catholicity. What is missing is the knowledge that Christians must have an emotional reaction and certain doctrines they confess without anathematizing the other side as agents of Satan. This is especially true when we assume the role of the theologically militant. The theologically militant can have a lot of emotion with their doctrine, yet this is not displaying true religion as it is damaging when it is directed against fellow Christians that may truly just have a difference of opinion. True religion will be able to have a difference over non-essentials -still holding them with conviction- yet accepting the other person as a Christian and treating them with loving respect. Of course, that takes a lot of humilty - much more humilty than anyone can muster without help...

C.S. Lewis to a Catholic

"The real reason I cannot be in communion with you is ... that to accept your Church means not to accept a given body of doctrine but to accept in advance any doctrine that your Church hereafter produces."

-C.S. Lewis

Peter, Paul and Street Preachers

I’ve had street preachers on the mind since Sunday. We talked a little about them in Sunday School. I am reminded about a little journal entry I wrote about witnessing a street preacher about a year ago. I thought I would share what I wrote then, now:

I experienced a new event in my Christian life the other day. I witnessed a street preacher. I have heard in the past of these preachers being effective in New York in lower class neighborhoods in the late 1800s and the early 1900s. But this I witnessed in Dallas Texas in a tourist neighborhood. A man stood on a chair and offered a dollar for the answer to a question of the most dangerous profession. We went into the restaurant and did not hear the answer, when we exited the man had a different message, still in the role of the man with the answers and authority. He was preaching hell. He described the torment and pronounced this as the end for those who sin in various ways. A group of 15-20 people were gathered around, same when we came out as when we went in. All his age, social group, and conservative dress. Later the group left and the same group came back as we walked around the shops, this time with a different speaker but the same (artificial) audience and message. One person walked through the middle of the group and received scorn at his sin, the man then flipped them off. Another woman stopped a few feet in front of the speaker and asked if he could just come down and talk to her. The man pleaded that “Jesus is calling you into relationship!” The woman just kept repeating “can you just come down and talk to me normal?” Then when the woman did not relent the preacher continued his condemnation of all those in earshot.

I’ve often wondered if a focus on avoiding hell is as orthodox as a focus on gaining Christ. At that moment if someone asked me, while standing there watching the street preacher if I was a Christian, I may have defined the term. As a man who’s never preached a sermon, I might offer quick condemnation. In fact, I wondered if the preacher would be able to recite the end or just the first part of 1 Peter 3:15 “in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” but then that troubling ending: “yet do it with gentleness and respect.”

Questions entered my head: Is this street preacher what evangelicalism is supposed to be? Is fear of hell the only thing driving a person towards a “decision”? Is being a Christian even a matter of a decision?

I’ve been instructed to write a “sales pitch” for my class on Evangelism. Well, not a sales pitch as much as a 100-word description of my conversion to communicate to someone else. But when was I converted? Many take Paul as an example, with a road to Damascus experience. Light shines down and Jesus goes from hated to Lord.

But then I think of my “sinner’s prayer” at seven and subsequent baptism. The rediscovery of faith in high school through the writings of C.S. Lewis. The discovery of grace in college in Ephesians and Romans. Which one was my road to Damascus?

Here’s a harder question, when was Peter converted? What if I look back and see a calling out of my boat, a general disbelief at the words of Christ, a total misunderstanding of what it means to be a disciple, denial, restoration, further failure, disassociation with fellow Christians, disobedience and verbal orthodoxy? Which part of the story is the conversion part? What if I’m more like Peter than Paul?

What if God didn’t use a formula in my drawing out, do I need to put my experience into a formula? Well, if I want to get a good grade I do, even though I know there are more Peters than Pauls in Christendom. I know there are many sinners (yet saints) in Christ’s army. All this to say: sometimes I just want to go up to some evangelicals, standing on their chair, and ask them to come down and just talk to me.

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.”

Architecture and the Glory of God

According to this survey, having a "church that doesn't look like a church" is actually a hinderance to the unchurched. If your church looks like a medieval church, the unchurched are actually more likely to want to go to it. This survey actually angers me. The church growth experts came in and stripped our services of Christian liturgy and architecture and said just put the gospel in the sermon and that's all you need and people will like it. WRONG! The high ceilings that draw our eyes upward, the cross shaped buildings that remind us of our being in Christ, and the crosses and stain glass that communicate the gospel in picture - NEVER NEEDED TO GO. Now, by principle and pragmaticism, we have to relearn that the gospel can be told through art, liturgy, architecture and more than just a sermon, and that worship is more than "music." We must learn again how to incarnate the word, within the bounds of Scripture - avoiding idolotry, but subjecting all things to the reign of Christ.

Random stuff, Edwards, Augustine, Death & Penance. And Luther too.

Speaking of stern evil Protestant Puritan types what about that awful Jonathan Edwards and all of his silly resolutions. I was thinking about this one in relation to the death of Augustine.

"9. Resolved, to think much on all occasions of my own dying, and of the common circumstances which attend death. "
What a drag I know. Man how that can change your outlook though. What will hit me when I die? (Spiritually, I am not thinking Mack truck verses falling anvil) What will my thoughts be about? (Again spiritually, not wow that anvil is falling on me and really going to hurt). Well Augustine’s thoughts made my heart sink. His thoughts were of sin and penance.The ill Augustine: “had ordered the four Psalms of David that deal with penance copied out. From his sick bed he could see these sheets of paper every day, hanging on his walls, and would read them, crying constantly and deeply.” Few were allowed to see him so he could pray uninterrupted.
When commenting on his work “Confessions” around this time he was sensitive to those who criticized the work. “Therefore, what remains for me to do, is to judge myself under my single Master, whose judgment I desire to escape, for all my offenses.” This was a man who was deeply aware and broken hearted over his sins. Of his son he once said “I did nothing to profit that boy”. He analyzed his motives to the core. But he went deeper still trying to know his single Master. I have come to believe that anyone who would call Augustine’s God a “devil God” either does not understand Augustine, or actually worships a different God then me. I am committing myself to ponder Edwards’ resolution in the light of Saint Augustine’s last days.

Two other things come to mind as I try to balance this out in my head. Another resolution by Edwards
"19. Resolved, never to do anything that I should be afraid to do if I expect it would not be above an hour before I should hear the last trump. "
And good old Saint Martin Luther. While he would love Edwards’ resolution 19 and embrace it there is that famous quote that is so misunderstood.
"SIN BOLDLY! BUT BELIEVE MORE BOLDLY STILL!"
For some reason my heart leap at typing that. For I know that I am a sinner still. It is not what I do it is what I am. Can I believe more boldly then I have sinned?! (Augustine gave it a good run.) I think I will go get a good night sleep to take on the next day. God go with us all.

Why Bother with Trinitarianism?

The most often heard denigration of the doctrine of the Trinity (and really for all Theology) is that it may be true, but it doesn’t matter. There’s no application in our daily lives.

There are actually three problems with this:

1) It is false, the doctrine of the Trinity does have application
2) A concern for application is good, but not when everything has to benefit me in areas separate from Who God is, then the problem in the question is not the “problem” but the questioner.
3) It is telling of our lack of concern for God, who is supposed to be the object of our desires. If we truly do not care Who God is, it means our love for God is lacking or absent.

Though I do believe the doctrine of the Trinity has application for our daily lives, I will leave those concerns for last; because of first priority should be the third point: our need to worship a God we know. Imagine telling your wife how thankful you are to her for giving birth to you. The idea is absurd. You should not thank your wife for the gift of your mother! Yet, in worship and prayer we often do this very thing thanking the Father for dying for us, or the Son for converting us.

WORSHIP

The question has arisen, “Who should we worship in the Trinity?” Should our praise be centered on the Father as Jesus told the woman at the well that the Father is seeking worshippers? (John 4:23) While the Father is often the object of our worship, both tradition and Scripture reveal that the other members of the Godhead also are to be worshipped. The Nicene Creed tells us the “Holy Spirit…with the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.” And in the book of Revelation 22:3, of Jesus it is said: “the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship Him.” Many of the hymns in [good] hymnbooks reflect this concern, with verses dedicated to the Father, then to the Son, then to the Spirit. If your hymnal does not do this, consider this one that does:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_Hymnal
http://www.gcp.org/products_b.asp?id=987663333&cat=A

PRAYER

This might also be extended to our prayer life. We often pray to the Father, ending with an appeal to the Son (in Jesus name). The Father is traditionally the object of our prayers in worship, often with us thanking the Father for His only-begotten Son and for the Spirit He sent. This formula originates in the very earliest liturgies of the church:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.html

While the Father may be object of the Lord’s Prayer, this should not restrict us to prayer only to the Father. However, we should be conscious of which Person we are praying to. Paul prays (speaks) directly to Christ in his conversion. Much of the worship of Christ in Revelation is in the form of prayer. Also, tradition has developed liturgical prayers with this very concern in mind. Puritans often had Trinitarian petitions in their prayers beginning with “O Father” or “O Son” depending on the object of that prayer or petition. For examples see: the Valley of Vision.

HUMAN IDENTITY

Scripture tells us that man is made in God’s Image. More than that, Scripture tells us that man is made up of two parts, male and female. Anyone concerned about the equality and diversity of gender should take notice here. This “Image of God” and the knowledge that God is Triune, informs our idea of the relationship between men and women. Scholar Bruce Waltke says as much about relationship in his commentary on Genesis writing, “Relationship is modeled after God who does not exist in isolation but is a trinity, surrounded by a heavenly court” When the model for marriage is given in Genesis 2:24, the man and woman are said to come together and become “one” or “echad.” This is the same word used in Deuteronomy 6:4 when God tells us He is “one.” This truth stands beside the truth of God’s diversity in the Persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The fact is that the Son has equal worth as the Father, even though the roles may differ. As we consider the difference of roles between men and women, the fact that the two (men and women) are one mankind, tells us that while we may differentiate the roles, if we denigrate the worth of women, a similar action to the denigration of Christ is occurring.

There are more implications for the doctrine of the Trinity, but for our purposes, and my time, I can only leave you with the exhortation to give closer thought and study to the doctrine of the Trinity. It has implication for our lives, but more importantly, it is the nature of the object that should be our greatest desire, because the Triune God is the highest good, our highest good and our greatest joy is found in Him.

Caspar David Friedrich

Just ran across and old favorite. Like it in black and white best. Wish it was real.

Update:
These images I was able to find are poor. But since it came up here is an attempt at the color version.

Trinitarian work of Resurrection

Who raised Jesus from the dead? I read a post over at another blog that addressed this will just a few Biblical quotations, I thought I would rip it off and share:

God the Father: "Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead" Gal 1:1

Jesus the Son: "Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” John 2:19

The Holy Spirit: "But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you." Rom 8:11

BCP: Easter

O God, who for our redemption didst give thine only-begotten Son to the death of the cross, and by his glorious resurrection hast delivered us from the power of our enemy: Grant us so to die daily to sin, that we may evermore live with him in the joy of his resurrection; through Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

Augustine vs. Pelagius

Augustine vs. Pelagius

Well I have had one of those great weeks where I have failed to get along with those around me. Actually swallowed my pride today and put things right with a coworker where things had gone sour. So I was thinking of that wonderful Augustine quote “As flattering friends corrupt so quarrelsome enemies bring much needed correction”. Has ended up being an awesome week to remember how much I need God and how easily I am crushed by little things that should not matter. How prideful I am and how I constantly need God to humble me and push me on my way of sanctification. I judge not how that is going but it feels good to remember that I am so very little and God... well he is so very, Ineffable. Yep that from a fairly insignificant argument.

So anyway, Augustine. I continue to meander through Peter Brown’s bio if him. I love it! I read the chapter “causa gratiae”, “the case for grace” where he sets up the debate well between Augustine and Pelagius. Augustine makes causa gratiae. The next chapter begins with these two paragraphs which I love. The second paragraph is the only one I just took my pen ands circled in the whole book so far.

“…The basic conviction of Pelagius and his followers was that man’s nature was certain and fundamentally unchanging. Originally created good by God, the powers of human nature had, admittedly, been constricted by the weight of past habits and by the corruption of society. But such constriction was purely superficial. The ‘remission of sins’ in Baptism, could mean for the Christian, the immediate recovery of a full freedom of action, that had merely been kept in abeyance by ignorance and convention.”

Ok so there is one way of looking at it. Yawn! So as for Augustine’s take? Well again I put a big old circle around this part:

“Augustine’s audience by contrast, would be told repeatedly that even the baptized Christian must remain an invalid: like the wounded man found near death by the wayside in the Parable of the Good Samaritan, his life had been saved by the rite of Baptism; but he must be content to endure, for the rest of his life, a prolonged and precarious convalescence in the ‘Inn’ of the Church. For to Augustine, man’s nature was at a nadir of uncertainty: and it would be cured, in an equally distant future, only by transformation so total and so glorious that, in its light, the least symptom of man’s present collapse must always be regarded as a cause of profound sadness.”

Yeah that is the tonic I am talking about! If you don’t get why that is a point of rejoicing then brother I can not explain it. God is ineffable! As for us, we suck.

In what sense Christ died for all men, In what sense He died for the elect.

[Update: I think Jay Bennett does a good job of making the case that common grace does not require atonement, which I speculated about in point 2 under 'in what way Christ died for all,' see what you think: LINK HERE]


Limited Atonement, by far, is the most debated doctrine of grace. Part of this, I believe, is due to its unfortunate title. The title seems to cheapen the atonement by limiting it. Yet, perhaps without knowing it, every group of Christians is forced to limit it in some manner, unless we are Universalists and believe everyone is headed to heaven. I do believe, we might explore the ways in which we might talk about both realities, of Christ's death in regards to the Church/Elect and all men

The Particular, Special nature of the Atonement
[What ways we say that Christ died particularly for the Elect]

1) It’s application of true reconciliation. Even if we attach a trigger, to say Christ did all and merely requires faith for the salvation of the believer to be complete, we still limit the application of the atonement to the elect, or believing Christians. (more on that in the conclusion)

2) It’s intent - Did Christ die intending that every person end up in heaven? Many would quote the verse from 2 Peter 3:9:

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

So does the Lord not wish for any person in the world ever born to perish? Within the content of the verse, we can see the word “any” point back to “you” or in Texan “y’all” since it is plural (ὑμᾶς). Who is “you”? When writing a letter, when the 2nd person is used, the author is talking to the intended audience of the letter, which is told to us in 2 Peter 1:1:

2 Peter 1:1 - Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

Rather than speaking of the wish that may not be fulfilled in 2 Peter 3:9, Peter is assuring those of true faith (of equal worth with ours I.e. the apostles) they will not be abandoned by God in their salvation.

So again to our question, Who did Christ intend to be adopted in His death?

Eph 1:4-6 “He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace.”

We must confess that Christ’s intention for His death is for the elect, those He chose.


But don't other people experience grace?

1) We can all confess that Christ’s death is of limitless worth. Even the Canon of Dort on the Atonement says as much. If Christ was God, then His payment must have the element of infinity attached to it. Even if every man was saved, it would not drain the merit of Christ’s death.

2) All are benefits of some graces that are not saving. However, these are not attached to the work of atonement. The Reformed faith includes an element of Common Grace, or grace given to both the elect and the non-elect. The rain falls on the just and the unjust (Matt 5:45). That God forebears in His justice, is a part of His grace in being merciful to the reprobate. That the reprobate enjoy the beauty, pleasure and delights of creation is a grace unexplained and seemingly wasted on those who will never turn that enjoyment into praise toward the Glory of God.

I would distinguish atoning grace from other graces. But Christ died for atoning grace, not common grace. And Christ atoned only for the elect.

The only place that the idea of atonement or propitiation seems to be applied to more than the elect is in John, in particular

1Jn 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

In what sense is “whole world” meant here? I do believe there is a compelling case that the intent of this verse, as recorded in explanation in tradition, is multiracial, as in some from all peoples. This was a hard lesson for the Jews to learn (look at Peter, who needed it pounded into his head, that Cornelius was to be a recipient of the gospel too).

Thereby, the whole world mean here the elect. (see Michael Svigel’s post here, where I steal this argument from).

Follow me here: When the disciple of John, Polycarp, is being killed, his students declare:

“They [the pagans] did not know that we [Christians] will never be able either to abandon the Christ who suffered for the salvation of the whole world of those who are saved, the blameless on behalf of sinners, or to worship anyone else.”

Polycarp taught his disciples that this was the proper way to understand 1 John 2:2. If those in closest contact with the disciples have given us the exposition and meaning of the words “whole world,” should our modern sentimentality correct this?

Does it matter?

When we speak of the death of Christ especially in the gospel message, we are primarily speaking of the atoning work of Christ. So in the atoning sense, we cannot say that Christ died for all.

By faith the sinner is made a recipient of the work of atonement. And God knows, if He did not give this as a gift to me, I would never be a recipient of the atonement, for I am incapable of faith and repentance. This faith is a work of God in his Holy Spirit, given to all He has chosen, to the elect of His Bride. Given to all those whom he intend to apply the atonement.

In that way, I confess the particular death of the groom for His Bride, as much as she has ignored Him, denigrated Him, disbelieved Him and left with Her inheritance, still she, still I am His son and His bride because He has pursued and purchased me, never to leave me.

Actual, not Potential, Atonement

Jay Bennett has a great post quoting J.I. Packer evaluating the wide-spread idea among Evangelicals that Christ died equally for everyone, creating a potential, but not actual salvation for His people. Here's my favorite part:

"The true evangelical evaluation of the claim that Christ died for every man, even those who perish, comes through at point after point in Owen’s book. So far from magnifying the love and grace of God, this claim dishonors both it and him, for it reduces God’s love to an impotent wish and turns the whole economy of ‘saving’ grace, so-called (‘saving’ is really a misnomer on this view), into a monumental divine failure. Also, so far from magnifying the merit and worth of Christ’s death, it cheapens it, for it makes Christ die in vain. Lastly, so far from affording faith additional encouragement, it destroys the scriptural ground of assurance altogether, for it denies that the knowledge that Christ died for me (or did or does anything else for me) is a sufficient ground for inferring my eternal salvation; my salvation, on this view, depends not on what Christ did for me, but on what I subsequently do for myself."

Lenten Prayer

Collect for the Fourth Sunday in Lent:

Grant, we beseech thee, Almighty God, that we, who for our evil deeds do worthily deserve to be punished, by the comfort of thy grace may mercifully be relieved; through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen

-Book of Common Prayer 1928

Quote of Week: Our sin of theft

Basil of Caesarea was one of the three great Cappadocian fathers who helped explain the Trinity after Nicea. Basil also had a heart for the poor. Here, Basil walks straight into our living rooms and accuses us of theft:

“Is God unjust, dividing unequally the goods of our life? Why are you rich, while the other is poor? Isn't it, if not for any other reason, in order for you to gain a reward for your kindness and faithful providence, and for him to be honored with the great awards of patience? But … what was granted to you, in order for you to take care of the others, you took it and you made it your own… The bread that you possess belongs to the hungry. The clothes that you store in boxes, belong to the naked. The shoes rotting by you, belong to the bare-foot. The money that you hide belongs to anyone in need. You wrong as many people as you [are] able to help [and do not].”

Oh Lord, when will I stop talking about the poor and do something?