Archive for the 'Religion' Category

Should We “Obey Those Who Rule Over” Us? - A Short Commentary on Hebrews 13:17

Published by Colin January 27, 2010 in Theology. 2 Comments

Part of the problem with being a Christian who is also a libertarian, unless one goes to a pretty unique church, is questions (either from one’s self or others) about just how the anti-authoritarianism inherent in libertarianism meshes with the bible. In my personal devotional time yesterday, I came across one of those passages which can provide Christian libertarians some trouble:

Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you (Hebrews 13:17 NKJV).

This verse does not seem to leave any room for interpretation. It definitely appears to make a strong case for both obedience and submission to “those who rule.” There is no question that a Christian reading this passage would have to conclude - yes, we must obey and submit to those who rule over us.

But who are “those who rule?”

The ESV and the NIV use a slightly less secular sounding word: obey “your leaders.”

I then busted out my Greek New Testament and Lexicon and looked up the word. The Greek word used is “ηγουμενος” and it is exactly the same word used in verse 7 and is translated in both places as “a chief officer in the church.” This gels well with verse 7’s qualification of the roles of “those who rule:” they speak the word to us, demonstrate faith to us and have Godly conduct.

So the answer is that we should obey and submit to the leaders mentioned in Hebrews 13 - because these leaders are our pastors and elders in the church. That authority is a voluntary authority for the sake of order in God’s church, and God holds them accountable. This may not be a verse commanding obedience and submission to secular rulers, but it does remind us of God’s order in the church and his wisdom and care in putting men in pastoral authority to provide as teachers, leaders, servants and examples to us in our Christian walk.

Tips for Leaders and Pastors on Being Approachable

Published by Colin January 19, 2010 in Religion and Theology. 2 Comments

My wife sends me some great stuff in the old email. This article on how leaders and pastors can be more approachable was especially challenging and insightful.

I’ve led worship for eleven years and in two churches, and I can say that approachability has been one of those areas that has frustrated, confused and perplexed me. How is it that a person can be interacting with a church almost every Sunday, for almost as much time as the pastor himself, and yet experience completely varying amounts of intimacy with others in the congregation? At the same time, I have met different leaders in churches and some just seemed “aloof” and the idea of confiding in them or seeking their help for real, important issues seemed discouraged or unwanted.

Many leaders conceal a proud attitude under a demeanor of humility, which is not the same as actual humility. One of the many evidences of actual humility is the inclination to “consider others better than yourself,” which results in valuing their thoughts and interests as highly as your own (Phil. 2:3-4). A closely related evidence of humility is to sincerely welcome critique and correction, no matter who brings the “observation” (Prov. 13:10, 17:10). Therefore, wise leaders regularly meditate and pray about the “pride and humility” passages in Scripture (see Prov. 11:2, 19:20; Isa. 66:3; 1 Pet. 5:5-6), asking God to help them put off self-confidence, pride, and every hint of arrogance, and to put on a humility that genuinely welcomes questions, suggestions, criticism, and anything else that might aid us in the process of presenting ourselves before God as empty vessels, so that we might be utterly dependent on and fulfilled in him, which is the essence of true humility.

It’s easy as a leader to assume that simply because we lead in some way that we simply are approachable. This article along with a few other teachings and resources (CJ Mahaney’s Humility among others) has been a real eye-opener for me, enabling me to learn more about cultivating an attitude and mindset which promotes deeper and more effective ministry. It was even more (”fun” - is that the right word?) to go through this book along with another man, whom I could trust for honest feedback and critical, loving suggestions about my own life in this area (next, we are going through this book, and I am absolutely squirming with dread/excitement).

Christianity and Covenants: The Local Church

Published by Colin January 4, 2010 in Religion and Theology. 1 Comment

This is the fifth article in a multi-part series examining contracts and Christianity. Here is the full list of written and upcoming works in this series:

Christians and Their Local Church
First of all let me state that it is essential for Christians to be part of a local church. Christianity is not merely an individualistic, solitary pursuit of God - but the gospel compels us to seek and save the lost in our community and also to support, encourage and challenge other Christians. While advances in technology and transportation have enabled “the local church” to comprise people living in wider and wider geographic spaces - it has not yet made it such that Christianity is “beyond” the need of local fellowship, support and service.

The internet especially has made it possible for many pastors and pastor-like figures to minister to people all over the world. Yet could, say, John Piper or Rick Warren provide me accountability and encouragement like my local pastor or small group leader?

Pastors exist for more than just teaching. They also serve a role in counselling and contributing to the discipline of church members. But this is not because pastors are in a position of hierarchical authority - but authority for the sake of order. The agreement between pastors and members (and there should be some kind of explicit agreement - a relationship between pastors and “church attenders” is often ambiguous and weak) is one where the member agrees to submit to the pastor’s authority for the sake of order and where the pastor agrees to care for and accept some responsibility for the discipline and growth of a member.

Pastors, however, need to be supported. Church members should support their pastor financially so that his basic needs are met and he can make his living from the gospel. Yet the church also is not a jobs program. The giving in the early church was to support the gospel and to help the poor. Members should not feel obligated to give for extravagant marketing, “outreach” programs which have unclear goals and dubious methods or to support unneeded staff and purchases. Churches should be open about their budgets to enable members to scrutinise and evaluate how their money is being spent (and it is their money).

Serving in the Local Church
Serving in the local church has been a topic that has been clouded by the principles of government and business. It has become hip for churches to hand out fancy titles to people serving along with recognition and various forms of ego-stroking. It is also difficult for church members not to assign status and rankings to various kinds of service: things like teaching, leading worship and other more visible opportunities are favoured while cleaning, Sunday School and preparing coffee are seen as less important. But serving is serving - and we are not serving an organisation which ranks us and values us according to the “level” of our service - but we are serving God, who we cannot impress or earn favour from.

Serving in the local church can take a lot of forms - and need not necessarily be in some “official” capacity on a Sunday morning. Opening up one’s house for students or other families can be ministry - as can helping someone work on their house. The local church is a collection of people - not a building or set of leaders. Serving these people is serving the church.

What The Local Church Shouldn’t Be Doing
A good old friend of mine used to pastor a church in Idaho somewhere. He told me once about a woman in his congregation who had been wanting to see her neighbour saved. She called the pastor one day, telling him that he should come over and speak to the person about the gospel. The pastor informed her that it was not his job to evangelise for her - it was her neighbour and her responsibility to be sharing the gospel. The woman was not happy.

This pastor’s response may have been a little crass - but it was correct. Part of the entitlement mentality brought on by the explosion of material wealth in the western world has affected even this most basic Christian institution - evangelism. Christians are too busy with their careers, friends, family and church responsibilities to evangelise - better leave that to official church “outreaches” or, even better, just invite people to church and maybe they will just “get it.” Personal, one-to-one evangelism which expresses individual care and attention to sinners is too much work in today’s world. Economies of scale now requires these people to get the gospel en masse in church services, community events, holiday services or concerts.

But it is not the job of pastors and other church leaders to do evangelism for Christians. It is their job to equip Christians to do these things themselves (Ephesians 4:12).

Evangelism for a Christian is not asking someone along to church or some other activity. It is not taking someone out for dinner or having them over. Evangelism is sharing the gospel - it is speaking the words of the gospel in compassion to individuals. Church members must not expect that because their church puts on events for the public, they are exempt from actually sharing the gospel with people. The local church also needs to be focussing more resources on teaching and encouraging people to share the gospel themselves, not wasting money and resources building up lifestyle-evangelism practices.

Financial Support of the Local Church
How we support the local church, and indeed, whether we even should, is tied back to the question of why a local church exists. The local church is not a jobs program, a business or a representative actor for what Christians should be doing on their own. It is, however, a collective gathering of Christians, administered by pastors, for corporate worship, ministry and teaching, a source of material aide for poor Christians and a resource to support Christians in evangelism.

This model requires some financing, and Christians should be giving to undergird such a resource. But the local church is in no way comparable to any Hebrew institution which was tithed to, nor is the local church God. The local church is the primary means for God to work in the life of a believer so it should be getting funded in corresponding priority. I believe that the bible gives only a few “rules” about how the church is funded - as one is able, voluntarily, cheerfully and in grace (2 Corinthians 9).

Christianity and Covenants: Debt

Published by Colin December 1, 2009 in Religion and Theology. 4 Comments

This is the fourth article in a multi-part series examining contracts and Christianity. Here is the full list of written and upcoming works in this series:

Christians And Debt
In many ways, this article is a companion to the previous post on Christians and employers. Many of the exact same principles are in play. Let me just note again, that it is not my intent to sound like one who is coming from an elevated position of perfection down onto others who have made large mistakes.

For the record, I have about $15,000 in school debt, and by the time I am done with my education, I anticipate having somewhere between $40,000-$54,000.  So I am part of the audience here - let there be no illusions about that.

Let me also say that I do not believe in tithing, but rather in proportional giving. I believe that Christians should give as they are able and willing - with no minimum or maximum limits on gifts. This view is explained well in Decision Making and The Will of God by Garry Friesen.

Debt Now and Then
We have to remember that there are some fundamental differences between debt in the Ancient Near East and Roman world. Debt in the modern world is a generally stable way to extend purchasing power and manipulate time preference in order to secure goods or services which otherwise would be more difficult to obtain. Debt, especially at low levels of unsecured debt and even higher levels of secured debt (for, say, a house) is a relatively stable and secure tool in a personal or family budget. No one in the modern western world risks debt-bondage - or even bears anything remotely similar to the kinds of risks in the ancient world. There is a lot of debt in the modern world that is probably less risky then transporting a cart of goods 30 miles in the 1st century AD.

There are also some similarities. Debt today, just like in antiquity, can place people into contracts which conflict with their obligations to God. Debt can be an indicator of a love of money (which is a root of many evils). Debt can hinder or even conflict with Christian giving. Debt can be incredibly unwise, imprudent and risky - akin to gambling or casting lots.

In this respect,  what the bible has to say about debt is entirely relevant to the Christian today - whether it is addressed specifically or by implication (as with vows and contracts). Moreover, our approach towards debt can reveal the motives of our heart and show us our need to depend more on God.

Debt and Giving
There are a couple of questionable views out there about the relationship between debt and giving. First, should people in debt be giving? By this, I mean people without an income (such as students) or whose income is substantially affected by debt. I believe the bible addresses this topic by way of principle here:

Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. For if anyone thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. But let each one examine his own work, and then he will have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. For each one shall bear his own load (Galatians 6:1-5).

Yes, this is a passage about sin, not debt. But there is a principle here - bear one another’s burdens, but beware, lest we also become burdens to others! It is echoed here:

Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others (Philippians 2:3-4)).

Continue reading ‘Christianity and Covenants: Debt’

Christian “Manhattan Declaration” Hit and Miss

Published by Colin November 23, 2009 in Religion, Politics and Apologetics. 47 Comments

A group of Christian leaders from Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical churches have signed a seven page declaration which is supposed to affirm an adherence to certain biblical principles which have recently become hot button political issues in the United States:

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

Here is a short clip from Fox News:

The group argues that these are “fundamental truths” not so much about God or about conduct within his church, but rather pertain to: “justice and the common good… to human dignity and the well-being of society.”

This is the beginning of what is surely theologically dangerous language. Why do leaders in the church feel the need to make statements and adhere to declarations which apply to the entire secular culture? It is not our job as Christians to threaten civil disobedience for “the common good” - we are to do it for the glory of God and the magnification of his name - among the nations. We are not called to change the behaviour of the nations.

In fact, when a nation simply focusses on changing behaviour without conversion - this is called hypocrisy. When religions leaders are calling for changes of behaviour of non-believers without the essential and fundamental application of the gospel - it is Phariseeism.

I am not saying this declaration is “bad” or that there are not right principles in it. However, it is advertised as primarily a tool for social change, not for conversion of souls. That is a distraction.

It would have been much better to make a declaration affirming Christian’s responsibility to evangelise and to share the gospel, knowing that aside from the essential fruit of salvation and eternal life - believing and trusting in Jesus Christ and repentance from sin will necessary transform this world for the better.

What the Declaration Gets Right
There is also emphasis in the declaration on affirming our duty to God above the state. This is entirely appropriate - and can not be stated enough:

…that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.

This is correct. The modern state, being an authority structure fundamentally and definitionally opposed to Christian principles and the authority of God, is always a threat to Christianity. It is not a complimentary organisation, as many misreadings of Romans 13 would indicate, but rather it is in direct competition with God. Christians should often assert their desire to follow God and his kingdom when these two entities inevitably come into conflict.

Most governments right now permit much religious liberty - but even this language reveals the problem: religious liberty is not a “permission” from the state. The right to worship God comes from him - and he rules over all the earth and all that is in it. The state has no right to dictate what is permissible or not in this arena. The state has no authority here.

Summary
Nevertheless, it is not good to confuse religious liberty, which is a negative right (being free from aggression against us) into a positive right (being entitled to force our customs and behaviours onto others). This declaration conflates these two kinds of rights. We should be affirming our right to not be aggressed against, but we must avoid language which changes “sharing the gospel” - an act consistent with salvation by faith, human freedom and voluntary choice - into “affirming the state’s role to enforce our values in civic life.” We have no right to do this. It is idolatry.

Soldiers Give Us Neither Freedom Nor Peace

Published by Colin November 12, 2009 in Religion and Politics. 29 Comments

Yesterday was veterans day in many countries around the world. And while mourning those who have died in conflict and war is a understandable and worthy effort, this holiday has long been used as a means of promoting imperialism, warmongering and soldier/military worship.

If we truly desire to be advocates of peace, justice and freedom in this world, then we would not be supporters of war, militarism, nationalism or imperialism. War does not bring peace in almost any capacity. In the short-term - people are killed, property is destroyed and men are taught to hate other men with whom they otherwise would have no conflict. In the long-term, resentment is fostered, free peoples are occupied and despotic regimes are installed or even elected in response to the memory of violence and aggression.

Our freedoms come from a benevolent and gracious Creator, who has given us life and life abundantly. He has delivered us from our sins and offered us peace with Him and peace with each other. War is not the domain of Christians and it is not in the footsteps of Christ.

Charles Spurgeon once eloquently said:

 War is to our minds the most difficult thing to sanctify to God. The genius of the Christian religion is altogether contrary to everything like strife of any kind, much more to the deadly clash of arms. . . . Now I say again, I am no apologist for war, from my soul I loathe it, and I do not understand the position of a Christian man as a warrior, but still I greatly rejoice that there are to be found at this present day in the ranks many of those who fear God and adorn the doctrine of God their Saviour (”A Peal of Bells,” July 7, 1861, Metropolitan Tabernacle).

The freedom to worship, to dissent, to speak, to work, to create, to trade and to associate first come from God. They do not come from the military, or because soldiers are dying in other parts of the world. The military, by its very nature, is destructive of these freedoms. It calls men to worship the state, to pledge allegiance to the state, to be silent and take orders, to sacrifice one’s life, to do as one is told, to eat from the state’s hand and to hate it’s enemies.

Veterans day is not a day to be grateful for the military or the state. It is a day to remember the dead, who have died for the vanity, greed and sin of men. It is a day to pray to the Prince of peace for his intervention in this violent world, that he would not tarry in his coming. It is a day to forsake trusting in men and his sinful appetites, and hope in the assurance of God’s grace and peace which he has promised us, and demonstrated with the blood of his Son.

Christianity and Covenants: Christians And Employers

Published by Colin November 10, 2009 in Religion, Politics, Philosophy and Theology. 3 Comments

This is the third article in a multi-part series examining contracts and Christianity. Here is the full list of written and upcoming works in this series:

Christians And Employers
I want to preface by saying that some may find this article offensive. However, my goal here is not to judge the decisions that others have made or to condemn them, but to try and look at some biblical passages and consider what they mean with regard to the topic of employment. Let me also state that I am not coming at this from a position of compliance or adherence, my own employment history is full of disregard for biblical principles, and the course to right it is ongoing and has required many sacrifices. So please consider this as a word from one sinner saved by grace to another.

The most fundamental question to ask in working out the mess or the relationship between Christians and their employers is this: what kind of contract do Christians have with their employers?

The Greco-Roman cultural context of the new testament had several classes of labour relationships: slaves/masters, employees/employers, patrons/clients, heads of house/family and others. So when Peter writes “Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear…”(1 Peter 2:18-20) or Paul writes “Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters…” (Ephesians 6:5), we have to keep it in it’s proper historical and cultural context.

Modern employees most certainly are not in the same category as ancient slaves. This is because employees are freely contracted - and they have been able to do this because our culture views a contract as an agreement between two or more parties or equal status. In the ancient world, slaves (and to a lesser extent: debtors and clients) had an inferior status to their masters - and this includes bond-slaves. It’s a concept entirely radical in a modern society which holds equality as a fundamental part of humanity.

Slavery is a relationship also defined by force - that is the threatening or delivering of aggressive violence. People who are being forced to work against their will, without an explicit contract, are slaves. In this sense, the relation of most people to their governments then, is a slave/master relationship - but this will have to be dealt with elsewhere, as we are focussing on employment. However, employment is a voluntary contract - not a coercive or forced one. We choose to work for an employer.

But the point is this: that the biblical language about slaves/servants and masters in not applicable to most employment. You boss is not your master and your co-workers aren’t slaves. However, this doesn’t mean that the bible has nothing to say about employees.

Making Employment Contracts
Because contracts with employers are voluntary, that is, we make them by our own free choice and as people of equal status with our employers, then we are responsible for our decisions. These relationships fall under the same kind of categories as “vows” in the bible - verbal (or written) agreements, often involving mutual obligation. And the bible has plenty to say about these relationships. A few examples:

Proverbs 20:25 - It is a snare for a man to devote rashly something as holy, And afterward to reconsider his vows.

Ecclesiastes 5:4-5 - Pay what you have vowed— Better not to vow than to vow and not pay.

Luke 16:9-13 - And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by unrighteous mammon, that when you fail, they may receive you into an everlasting home. He who is faithful in what is least is faithful also in much; and he who is unjust in what is least is unjust also in much. Therefore if you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? And if you have not been faithful in what is another man’s, who will give you what is your own? No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”

If we agree to do something for our employer, then we should do it, and we should do it with quality and diligence. We need to leave no question that we have fulfilled our vows.

But implied here is a bigger principle - the place where the most care is needed is before we even make an employment contract. We should make vows that can exist in harmony with our Christian lifestyle and worship of God. Before even entering into an employment contract, we need to be asking basic questions:

Could this job interfere with my Christian obligations? As Christians, we are to be part of a local church, sharing the gospel and ministering to the body. It would not be wise to get a job which interferes with these things. Would my workplace be a gospel-free zone? Would my work schedule cause dramatic conflicts with fellowship and ministry in my local church? Does my job place undue burdens on my family, and my ability to lead/serve them? Are my children or spouse lacking in the reception of my biblical role/responsibilities because of this job?

Could this job require me to engage in immoral/unbiblical activities?  We might be surprised, if we thought about it, that there are a large number of culturally acceptable jobs which might go against biblical principles. I wonder how many soldiers ask themselves if what they are doing is defending against aggression or if they are actually engaging in a hostile initiation of violence against others. Could my my job be exploiting others? Might it promote, fund or contribute towards advocacy or endorsement of sinful or immoral lifestyle?

Could this job stifle my worship? We need to beware of taking on so much responsibility to our employer that it affects our mental and emotional capacity to engage meaningfully with God. Again the best solution is pro-active: could this job/promotion lead to me not having enough time to pray, to read my bible or consider who God is and what he has done for me?

It’s Never Too Late
We often don’t realise we’ve bit off more than we can chew with our employers until we’ve already made the contract. The bible takes this into account in other places - such as with divorces or marrying an unbeliever. We’re commanded not to do these things, but God has foreseen our inability - and yet he still sent his son to die on the cross for us. He knows that we are but dust. Just because we can’t share the gospel at work, have neglected the raising of our children or find ourselves “too busy” to commune with God does not mean we are hopeless or “outside” of God’s capacity to work with us. My family needs this word just as much as anyone - as we have both taken on plenty of contracts which have interfered with our Christian faith.

Many jobs and responsibilities can be drawn down, altered and amended to provide more time for more important things. However, this could mean that our material lifestyles must also be drawn down. My wife and I will likely never own a house or have a new car - but that is a small sacrifice. And Christians are not entitled to a middle or even lower-middle class lifestyle.

Ideally, a person who is working in an unethical profession would quit as soon as contractually possible. With some military jobs - this may not be possible, but even the military often allows for transfers/demotions to positions which are not directly contributing to the killing or harming of others.

Its easy for a person with a blog to say what should and shouldn’t be, and then throw out life-altering solutions. Trust me, it’s impacting me as well (just wait until I talk about debt!). But the point is that biblical principles aren’t measured relative to the contracts and vows we’ve made - rather, our life needs to conform to these principles.

Christianity and Covenants: Husbands and Wives

Published by Colin November 3, 2009 in Religion and Theology. 36 Comments

This is the second article in a multi-part series on Christianity and covenants. Other topics are:

Husbands and Wives
It is an incredible thing that many churches will sometimes spend valuable sermon time preaching on the evils of homosexuality, pre-marital sex or general “left-wing” debauchery, and yet often ignore fundamental aspects of the marriage relationship as layed out in scripture and deduced in Christian theology. Many Christians view this as a “defense of marriage” against encroaching secular humanism or (leftist) moral relativism. Some even go to the polls or to protests against gay marriage as part of the purely “defensive” effort.

Ironically, these highly visible, yet “defensively” dubious activities, have no ability whatsoever to “save” or “protect” the sanctity of marriage - rather, husbands and wives loving and submitting to one another in light of the gospel is where the power is.

Marriage does not exist as a political tool for the government to use to promote family values or even reproduction. Marriage also is not just any relationship between two people who “love” each other. Marriage is, first and foremost, an image, a covenant that is a representation of Christ’s relationship with the church (Ephesians 5:22-33).

The Marriage Covenant
A marriage is not a contract. The husband does not agree to love the wife if she submits to him. The wife does not agree to submit to the husband if he loves her. In fact, the marriage relationship is actually two separate covenants that are acknowledged before God.

When a man and woman take marriage vows, they each make a promise to unconditionally, and unilaterally fulfill a set of promises. It is the same kind of covenant that God makes with man. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) puts it perfectly:

[Husbands:] Your unconditional acceptance of your wife is not based upon her performance, but on her worth as God’s gift to you.

Ironically, even on the CBMW website, a bastion of complementarianism, it was difficult to find a corresponding statement for wives. This was the best I could do:

There are many situations where a husband is selfish, unreasonable, and hypocritical. This alone does not release a wife from her responsibility to respect and submit to him.

But really, the point is simple - the roles and structure in marriage is ordained by God. It is voluntarily entered into by husbands and wives, both of whom engage an unconditional set of vows to one another.

This is what makes marital love so special - it is a self-sacrificing love - a love that does not come from merit or profit. The best synonym I can think of for this kind of love is “commitment.” It means that spouses make a deliberate, intentional choice to overlook each other’s faults, to forgive one another and to commit to one another in the same way that God has done these things toward us.

Christ forgave us while we were still sinners - so we love our spouses, knowing that they have, do and will sin against us. Christ gave himself for us, so we too surrender our lives, our pride and our independence for the benefit of our spouse. Christ clothes us in his righteousness and has saved us - we protect, honour and affirm the role of our spouse and their worth as a child of God.

The marriage relationship comes back to the gospel. As it should - Paul already reminded us of this in Ephesians 5.

Perverting the Gospel
The feminist movement in the hearts of men and women has been the greatest modern assault on marriages. I worded that sentence carefully. It is not simply feminism - in the sense of certain intellectuals, books or even ideology. It is the fact that something other than biblical marriage has encroached upon the marriage covenant in the hearts of husbands and wives.

A quick way to survey these views, is to go back to Ephesians 5, and interpret them in the theology of marriage being an image of Christ and the Church.

Marriage is a 50/50 partnership:  If my salvation from sin were a 50/50 partnership with God, I’d be in big trouble. If Christ and I are both responsible for salvation, how can I expect that I maintain it in all of my continuing sin and falling short of God’s standards? What if Christ and I disagree on how best to save me?

Marriage is a give and take relationship: Imagine if the gospel were give and take. Maybe God should stop “taking” all the time and give me a little more leeway to indulge sin? But if I wanted to give to God, what can I bring that is worthy of a perfect, self-sufficient God?

Marriage roles are interchangeable: Perhaps it isn’t me who needs saving, it’s God! And I can save him just as well as he can save me.

Marriage is conditional: God only has to forgive me if I first apologise. God will only save me if I make a vow to praise him forever. What if Christ’s death and resurrection were only available to people of a certain pre-existing righteousness?

Now if marriage has less to do with the gospel, then more egalitarian, even feminist views on marriage are potentially compatible with marriage. However, scripture argues that marriage and the gospel go hand in hand.

This goes back to an earlier point. What is the best way to affirm and support the biblical view of marriage? It is not to attack feminism in others, or egalitarianism - but rather for us to have a deeper knowledge of the gospel. For us to continue to probe the love with which God has loved us and to meditate on the work of Christ on the cross. In doing this, we will have a better understanding and vision for loving our spouses.

Christianity And Covenants: God’s Covenant With Mankind

Published by Colin October 26, 2009 in Religion and Theology. 2 Comments

This is the first in a multi-part series on Christianity and covenants. Other topics are:

God and Man
This topic is one which, even in beginning to think about it, overwhelms me with gratitude towards God. This is because the contract between God and man is completely and utterly one sided - it is a unilateral contract initiated by God towards people who have wanted absolutely nothing to do with him and, in fact, have been openly hostile and at war with God.

But this is a difficult concept to grasp - especially in light of the fact that we see nothing like this in our world, in our church and even in ourselves. Each and every day, we hold grudges, remember wrongs, complain, gossip, slander one another and set up all kinds of conditions for our relationships. We love those whom we perceive as loving us and we scorn and dislike those who we believe (real or imagined) have wronged us. Our “love” is drowned with conditions and clauses - and all of these are rooted in sinful, selfish, self-righteous pride which is quick to condemn and slow to forgive.

I can think of no better contrast then Ephesians 2:4-9 (NKJV). After laying out the pure and perfect wretchedness of mankind, Paul contrasts this with the great mercy and grace of God:

But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.

God, in order to demonstrate his grace and kindness, has chosen to save us - despite our being completely dead.

For the purposes of covenants, this is an apt image of a unilateral act - a corpse being raised to life. A corpse cannot make contracts - it is dead. There is no life in it. A dead thing, in order to act, must first be acted upon - it must be made alive. God, in his grace, made us alive, and thus enabled us to have faith and receive his grace.

Contrasting God and Man
As sinful people, what is it that we would do with our enemies? If we could avoid the consequences, we would see them made dead, not alive. We desire vengeance, justice (by our own hypocritical standards) and often enduring punishment through ostracism, exile and exclusion. When someone has wronged us, even as Christians who have experienced God’s grace, we find ourselves incapable of generating the godly characteristics to forgive - it is never our first response. This is because we are obsessed, by nature, with conditional covenants.

But God has instead chosen to act upon man, making promises to him about what he, as a sovereign free being, will do. Moreover he has followed through on those promises in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, who provided the promised deliverance of sins. God made the promise and then did all of the work himself.

There is no greater example of a unilateral covenant.

The Benefits of a Unilateral Covenant
If God’s covenant with man is a unilateral covenant, then man can breathe a little easier. If salvation is dependent upon the grace of God, and not on conditional works of man, then salvation is held by God. The bible reveals that God is just, honest, forgiving, loving, unchanging and keeps his word - therefore, his promise and delivery of saving grace is not revocable by man. Those who have placed their faith in Christ are protected by Christ and “sealed” by God the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 1:22 and Ephesians 1:13, 4:30).

Another benefit of a unilateral covenant is a right perspective of sin. Knowing that it was God who saved us, and that our works and decisions are not conditions of grace, frees us from seeing our sin as putting us in jeopardy of breaking any covenants. Rather it stimulates us towards deeper worship, knowing that in spite of our sin, God has still graciously saved us. Our thanks to God is not tainted by any sense of accomplishment.

Moreover, it points us towards a sustainable and powerful solution for our sins - God himself, rather than our own initiative, methods and tricks to simply change our behaviour or external appearances. A lot of Christians go through cycles of guilt and and self-righteousness as they temporarily adjust their behaviour and put away some sin - and then it comes roaring back and the cycle starts again. But if we realise that it is only God who can completely deal with sin, then we acknowledge that our abilities are meaningless and we stop trying to simply change our behaviour and appearance of sin. We can go to God and petition him for his grace and ask him to change us from the inside out, as only he can.

Also, knowing this should trickle down to our relationships with each other. If grace is of God, then we need not compare ourselves to each other and seek to judge one another. We can be honest and open about our sin, and we can receive rebuke, encouragement and correction without being “hurt”, “exposed” or “wounded”(which is really just our pride and self-righteousness revealing itself). Knowing that our sin is not going to rob us of grace, allows us to be used by God to help one another confront and cut-away sin.

Summary
God’s covenant with man is one-sided. Unlike men, who are vengeful and unforgiving towards our enemies, God is forgiving and merciful to those who have wronged him. The bible says we are “dead” in transgressions, and therefore, we are the receivers of grace and cannot initiate or seek out a contract with God - rather, God seeks out us.

Being the recipient of God’s promises gives us a right view of sin, a deeper worship and provides complete and total assurance of our salvation. It also provides us the opportunity to have healthy and intimate relationships with other Christians where we can pursue holiness together.

Christianity And Covenants: The Logic of Christian Relationships

Published by Colin October 22, 2009 in Religion, Politics and Theology. 7 Comments

I would like to do a series on Christian relationships - specifically, the logical, theological and philosophical nuts and bolts of how and why Christians form relationships with God, Christians and non-Christians. As I have been thinking about this topic, the word which often popped into my mind was “contracts” rather than “covenants” or “relationships” but I am going to forego using that word because in modern vernacular “contract” has an economic connotation, and I don’t want to confuse this issue.

The covenants/relationships at which I plan to look are (though I may think of more as time goes on):

  • God and Christians - what kind of covenant exists between God and man? How do issues of free-will and choice come into play? What are the significant differences between God and man that affect this relationship?
  • Christians and Marriage - is Marriage a “give and take” relationship? Is there a designated “head” of a marriage? What is the fundamental definition of love in marriage?
  • Christians and the Local Church - what should Christians expect from pastors and ministers? How should Christians serve the church? How is the local church supported? What about fellowship?
  • Christians and Employers - Does the bible’s language about “slaves” and “masters” apply to business relationships? How can Christians balance obligations to God and obligations to employers? What about work practices and rules which are unethical or restrict Christians?
  • Christians and Finances/Debt - what kind of contractual obligations do Christians have with their debt? Should Christians go into debt? Is it legitimate for Christians to pay/charge interest? Is bankruptcy a legitimate option for Christians?
  • Christians and Governments - What role do politics have in the life of a Christian? How should Christians decide when and how to obey leaders? What kind of covenant (if any) exists between Christians and governments?
  • Christians and Animals and the Environment - what is the nature of a Christian’s interaction with animals and nature? What about pollution? What about property rights? Is animal abuse wrong, and if so, why?

Some Ground Work on Covenants
The most important thing to look at when it comes to these topics is the terms which are being used. A covenant is a (usually) formal agreement between two or more parties to do something or not do something: Colin and Jason agree to be best friends forever. It can also involve a condition: Colin will be Gabe’s best friend forever, if Gabe emails him at least once a year.

Some covenants are formed only for a specific purpose - such as to accomplish a goal or trade material goods: Colin will give a cookie to Phil, if Phil will give Colin a juice-box. Or, in bigger contexts: if a country declares war on England, the United State will declare war against that country.

In additional there are also unilateral covenants (or promises) which are made by one party to another: Colin will love Sadie as long as he lives. These are covenants where there is no condition (no “if”) and there is no agreement or consent from the other party. Again, these can be quite drastic. Japan declaring war on the United States, for example, doesn’t require that the US do or receive anything - it is a unilateral promise by Japan.

Covenants, contracts and relationships make up all of human interaction (including human interaction with God). This is the major premise of my entire discussion on this topic: that human beings have the capacity to act, the inherent right to form covenants and also are the beneficiaries of some unilateral covenants. Moreover, without these things, human relationships could not happen.

Also, if there is anything I’ve missed - feel free to ask about it, or, even better, address the issue yourself in the comments section or submit it for publication.

Recent Forum Topics

Archives

You are currently browsing the Zeal For Truth weblog archives for the Religion category.

You are currently browsing the Zeal For Truth weblog archives for the Religion category.

February 2010
M T W T F S S
« Jan    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728

You are currently browsing the Zeal For Truth weblog archives for the Religion category.