Minute rice, texting , instant messaging, cable on demand, drive through fast food, drive through pharmacies and the like are common place in our day and time. High speed Internet enables us to access information at an accelerated rate. Virtually everything that we need, or perhaps to put it more accurately, every thing that we want is at our fingertips.
It goes without saying that this understandably produces positive results that we derive benefits from in many differing ways and on many differing days. Conversely, though, these high speed & readily available dynamics have produced a culture that espouses an 'expectancy of immediacy' or a 'demand & supply' mentality.
I have been leading the local church that I help pastor through the first few chapters of the Psalter as part of our sermon series covering the Psalms. In so doing we have given consideration to this 'expectancy of immediacy' and this 'demand & supply' mentality that pervades our western culture in relation to suffering and distress due to the remaining presence of sin in this world. More, precisely we considered the effects that instantaneous expectations and immediate access such as these have upon our joy, hope & peace as we are experiencing suffering in its variegated forms.
It is all too easy to succumb to the result/s oriented culture or the micro-wave minded mentality that emerges from the aforementioned dynamics to such an extent that we perceive our suffering in much the same way. We approach suffering with expectations of immediate relief, if we expect to suffer at all. We handle our suffering by engorging ourselves with pharmaceuticals, placebo's and other supplements. We find outlets for our stress through exercise and comfort food. We handle days of lethargy with cups and cups of coffee or energy drinks and the like. So forth and so on. All of these examples are inherently immediate counter measures that we take to achieve relief from distress, comfort in the face of suffering, joy in throws of disappointment, and peace while enduring conflict.
Obviously, in and of themselves these things are not vices necessarily. I exercise and drink coffee. And, of course we should pop ibuprofen for a head ache. After all Paul advised Timothy to drink a little wine for a stomach ailment and James made reference to applying medicinal oil to the sick.
The salient point is that when we locate our joy, hope, peace and the like in such transient and external measures (as and when we are suffering) our joy, hope, peace and the like will be equally transient and external. Those are impermanent measures that produce fleeting and erratic results.
David throughout the Psalms undergoes re-occurring periods of suffering and distress. As will we. The question that we need to pose is, 'Where will we find our peace, joy and hope while enduring suffering?'. As for David you will find him locating his refuge, relief, peace, joy et cetera in his King and God throughout the Psalms. In Psalms 3-5 particularly David fled the comfort zone of his kingdom as his son Absalom (roughly translated 'peace') sought his life. Needless to say the King was experiencing a duration of suffering. Despite these most awry circumstances David writes:
1. "you, O Lord, are a shield about me, my glory, and the lifter of my head...I lay down and slept; I awoke again, for the Lord sustained me...I will not be afraid..."(Psalm 3)
2. "You have given me relief when I was in distress...The Lord hears when I call to him...you (the Lord) have put more joy in my heart...In peace I will both lie down and sleep, for you, O Lord, make me lie down in safety" (Psalm 4)
3. "In the morning you hear my voice...I, through the abundance of your steadfast love, will enter your house...let all who take refuge in you rejoice, let them ever sing for joy and spread your protection over them...you bless the righteous, O Lord: you cover him with favor as with a shield." (Psalm 5)
David found his joy, peace, hope, security and the like in his King and God. (Psalm 5:2) While he took counter measures with regard to his various forms of suffering (cf. the superscript of Psalm 3 notes that David fled from his threat) these things were not located in those measures. They were located in his King who sovereignly rules and governs over all things! Including his suffering and the cause/s of his sufferings!
What was true for King David is just as true for us. If not more so in Christ Jesus to whom we turn for our sustained hope, joy, peace, security and the like.
These expressions of grace are not produced like minute rice whereby we microwave our product in minutes and consume in minutes to satisfy our need while continuing along until the same need arises again necessitating the same impermanent measures that produce the same impermanent effects and so on. These expressions of grace, amid our intermittent sufferring/s, are permanently given by and found in Christ Jesus our Sovereign Lord and Saviour who alone can and will sustain our joy, peace and hope! He alone provides us with the constancy of grace as we experience occassional suffering/s. Unfading and unchanging graces that overwhelm the changing contours of our experience. Having joy when inclined to discontent...IN CHRIST ALONE! Having peace when conflict surrounds us...IN CHRIST ALONE! Having hope when prone to despair...IN CHRIST ALONE!
My prayer for Sovereign Grace church of Lagrange is that we will turn to Christ for our joy, peace, hope, security, confidence, encouragement, acceptance, assurance et al amid our varying forms of suffering/s instead of locating them in fleeting substitutes.
Psalmody in most discourse is more often than not considered exclusively in terms of liturgical forms, musical expression, congregational singing and the like. I will be the first to concede the appropriateness and relevance of this discourse. After all the Psalter is entitled 'Praises' according the Hebrew corpus. And of course this omnibus collection came to be recognized by the rabbis as the 'Book of Praises' which became a mainstay that more or less defined their worship, both the content of worship and the spirit of worship. (Ironically, most traditional, formal and/or liturgical practitioners fail miserably to practice or even acknowledge the latter when strictly incorporating psalms into their worship and in so doing misrepresent the Psalter). Oh yea, the superscripts of most Psalms substantiate that the compositions were later presented as musical praise. Paul even writes to the Ephesians and Colossians about 'singing to one another in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs'.
All the evidence evinces this usage and consideration of psalms to be inarguably viable. However, it seems to me that another far more valuable use for the Psalms is being unwittingly truncated due to the fact that the meaning of the Psalms is so often {mis}interpreted as primarily liturgical as a result of the aforementioned emphases. It is quite possible that the more sublime meaning of the Psalms has precipitously escaped us by and large as a result.
The meaning of the Psalms is not to be found in the ebb and flow of singing the Psalms. Quite the contrary the overarching meaning of the Psalms is to be found in living the Psalms! Anybody can go through the liturgical mode of vocalizing and musically performing the Psalms while no psalmodic resonance is to be found within the reverberations of their 'living'. After all the Psalms were actually lived long before they were designated a template for liturgical forms of singing. Psalm singing should proceed out of Psalm living.
The profundity of the Psalter is to be understood in terms of living life coram deo; before God. The title 'Psalms' or 'Praises' is inextricably bound to the entirety of life represented by the anecdotal glimpses of 'living' found in the compositions of all the individual contributors. The Psalms are to be lived not merely sung or performed! We are to be living Psalms just as Asaph, the sons of Korah, David, Moses and the other authors of the Psalms were as they grappled with the full range of human experience. Our lives are to be Psalms of praise during anxiety, discontent, despair, ecstasy, victory and all other experiences of this life. While our experiences will vary His glory is constant.
We should turn to the Psalms so that our Lord, Jesus Christ can show and teach us, through the activity of His Holy Spirit, how to live lives of praise unto His glory. After all He is the truly blessed (or happy according to the Hebrew text) man of Psalm 1 who alone lived a psalmodic life that we should aspire to live ourselves and who alone can empower us by the inward work of that same life resonating within us to live because He has so rapturously lived it.
About this time every year I here casual conversation pertaining to the validity of the Christmas tree. Its about as predictable as the lyrics to the song 'The twelve days of Christmas' and just as monotonous!! It goes without saying that those representing either side have the best of intentions and are certainly well meaning. Well, at least the lion's share of them. I am sure some are just being quarrelsome because of a predilection for being cantankerous. The latter of course is characteristic of sin.
Now, for those who genuinely and honestly grapple with this topic I would like to clarify a couple of things that have been, more often than not, misrepresented both biblically & historically.
For those who gainsay the Christmas tree a passage often cited in support of their position is Jeremiah 10:1-10. It reads as follows:
This is what the LORD says: "Do not learn the ways of the nations or be terrified by signs in the sky, though the nations are terrified by them. 3 For the customs of the peoples are worthless; they cut a tree out of the forest, and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel. 4 They adorn it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so it will not totter. 5 Like a scarecrow in a melon patch, their idols cannot speak; they must be carried because they cannot walk. Do not fear them; they can do no harm nor can they do any good." 6 No one is like you, O LORD; you are great, and your name is mighty in power. 7 Who should not revere you, O King of the nations? This is your due. Among all the wise men of the nations and in all their kingdoms, there is no one like you. 8 They are all senseless and foolish; they are taught by worthless wooden idols. 9 Hammered silver is brought from Tarshish and gold from Uphaz. What the craftsman and goldsmith have made is then dressed in blue and purple-- all made by skilled workers. 10 But the LORD is the true God; he is the living God, the eternal King. When he is angry, the earth trembles; the nations cannot endure his wrath
The language of the underlined, at prima facie value, seems to support their position. However, the context clearly evinces that the Christmas tree is not in mind. The context is clear that God, through Jeremiah, is forbidding idol worship. Cutting down trees predicated on the intent to idolize them or worship them in God's place is what is forbidden....not the Christmas tree. An occasion of this tree worship is recorded in Isaiah 44:14-20:
He cut down cedars, or perhaps took a cypress or oak. He let it grow among the trees of the forest, or planted a pine, and the rain made it grow. 15 It is man's fuel for burning; some of it he takes and warms himself, he kindles a fire and bakes bread. But he also fashions a god and worships it; he makes an idol and bows down to it. 16 Half of the wood he burns in the fire; over it he prepares his meal, he roasts his meat and eats his fill. He also warms himself and says, "Ah! I am warm; I see the fire." 17 From the rest he makes a god, his idol; he bows down to it and worships. He prays to it and says, "Save me; you are my god."
This idolatrous expression is what is meant in the context of Jeremiah 10. The common usage of a tree for symbolic or decorative purposes, per se, is not meant or intended. After all the Terebinth tree played an integral role within the cultus of Israel. (Joshua 24:26, Judges 6:11 et al).
While idolatrous usage of various species of trees have been commonplace throughout history within many pagan ritualistic forms of worship (the Roman Kalends, the Germanic Yule tree, etc.) the Christmas tree does not find its inception within these sinful rituals.
The Christmas tree came into prominence within the borders of Germany around the 16th century, at least residentially/domestically. The actual origins of the tree can be traced back to the eleventh century as they appeared in the customary mystery plays. One of these performances in particular, the Paradise Play, utilized a tree to depict the tree from the garden of Eden.
These mystery plays were eventually ousted by the Church due to egregious immorality. However, the Paradise tree remained as it made its way into peoples domiciles. The people introduced the tree into their homes on Dec. 24 in conjunction with one of the Eastern church's feasts. The Paradise tree came to symbolize a tree of sin and a tree of life. This is why the trees were adorned with apples, signifying the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, as well as wafers, signifying the fruit of life, Jesus Christ.
It is historically most plausible that what we now know as the Christmas tree emerged from the Paradise tree (as well as another Germanic custom of the middle ages known as the 'Christmas light').
For those who would rather not have a Christmas tree there is nothing that requires you to. Be blessed. For those who involve a Christmas tree there is nothing forbidding you not to. Be blessed. There is nothing sinful about a Christmas tree and it would be wrong to bind anybodies conscience to something that is not defined as a biblical sin especially when privy to information and history that shows it not to be a pagan ritual or of pagan origin.
It was an exhausting day. There is so much to do. Time is scarce. I have prior commitments. The children need my attention. I didn't sleep well last night. These ad hoc reasons probably sound familiar. We have all employed them at one time or another as grounds to put off prayer or we have interjected them to excuse our lack of active prayer. Time seems to be against us so to speak when prayer is in mind. But if we are honest with ourselves time is not the bane of prayerlessness so much as how we use our time is.
Those aforementioned reasons are indicative of how we manage our time or what we prioritize. Time is not against us as it where...our priorities, though are. Maintaining that time is against us or asserting that there simply isn't enough time in the day are both red herrings (a logical fallacy where pieces of information are inserted to distract or mislead from the actual question or issue). How often do we allow time for prayer to escape us by putting it off because the tyranny of the urgent or the business of everyday life? So we resolve to pray later. Yet later more often than not is reduced to never!!
Martin Luther gave preponderance to this pitfall in a letter to his barber, Peter Beskendorf, entitled A Simple Way to Pray (for Master Peter the barber). He penned that,
"It is a good thing to let prayer be the first business of the morning and the last at night. Guard yourself carefully against those false, deluding ideas which tell you, "Wait a little while. I will pray in an hour; first I must attend to this or that." Such thoughts get you away from prayer into other affairs which so hold your attention and involve you that nothing comes of prayer for that day.
Prayer, by and large, has become a casuality of this mentality. We have busied ourselves with so many other lesser things that prayer has been reduced to an after thought. From the vantage point of scripture, however, prayer is not something to be 'put off' or even done later. Prayer was so central to the busy apostle Paul that he urged his readers to pray at 'all times' (Eph.6:18) while doing so "without ceasing" (I Thess. 5:17). He elsewhere urges the church to, "Continue steadfastly in prayer" (Col.4:2) while desiring for men in every place be given to prayer (I Tim. 2:8). He instructed the Romans to, "be constant in prayer" (Rom. 12:12)
What is more Paul, himself exemplified the constacy of prayer he promulgated. He assures the Thessalonians that he "constantly" mentioned them in his prayers. (I Thess. 1:2; cf. Rom. 1:9 where similar verbiage is employed). The salutatory allusions to prayer and concluding doxologies found in the lionshare of his letters further underscores this. Paul was clearly a praying man.
What is more, we do not find him providing reasons to excuse prayerlessness regardless of his missionary work, persecution, letter writing, tent building et cetera. He had every reason to advance for not prioritizing prayer. And yet we find him praying constantly and commending every Christian to do so. (a survey of the role of prayer throughout the life of Christ would serve to magnify this modus vivendi or way of life. Ex. 'In the days of His flesh , Jesus offered up prayers and supplications...Heb. 5:7)
The reality is when we elect to put someting off, whatever it may be, it ostensibly isn't as important to us as what we are not putting off. The putting off of prayer in our lives needs to desist.
Here are some helpful questions to pose to gauge the absence of prayer. How often do you pray? What reasons do you give for not praying? Do you find reasons for not participating in prayer meetings? What don't you put off in order to pray? How often do you put off prayer? Do you pray beyond giving thanks before a meal? Why don't you want or desire to commune with Father God vis a vis prayer? Do you consider it an intrusion when the church reminds you of corporate prayer?
In the first three blogs I have endeavored to broach some often overlooked areas in our doctrinal dialogue and/or theological discourse that often times precipitates ungodly tones and tenors that are themselves untrue. As I move forward I certainly do not want anyone to divorce the aforementioned from the content of this typed interjection.
That being said, it is incumbent upon us to recognize the need to intrepidly take up arms when issues of fundamental doctrinal truths that are sine qua none to the gospel confront us. Aside from issues of tone and tenor, which must always be sanctified, biblical truths must be defended and cogently articulated whenever and wherever 'God's breath' is being muffled or gagged. (Paul describes scripture as God breathed in his letter to Timothy)
Controversy and serious debate are necessary to effectively counteract and suppress the voice of heresiology(heresy). Especially when false doctrine is so creatively phrased using a guise of orthodox verbiage in our day. The core truths of the gospel demand our willingness and readiness to speak against her gainsayers. In an age of thesis and antithesis controversy is unavoidable and necessary. To posture oneself as a pacifist or silent observer is to, in effect, allow heresiology to fester untreated and to non-verbally suggest that God's truth isn't that essential after all. As Albert Mohler Jr. has opined, "The only way to avoid all controversy would be to consider nothing we believe important enough to defend and no truth too costly to compromise" Silence is a concession to falsehood.
Church history is marked with the church's ministers marshaling her forces and rallying her Christian disciples against exponents of 'new doctrines', 'ancient heresy', 'scholastic ingenuity', 'enlightened reasoning' and the like. 'Credo' emerged within the church community as early as the the New Testament era. (ex. I Cor. 15:3-6, Phil. 2:5-11 et al) The New Testament contributors repeatedly admonished disciples and the N.T community to guard the truths of the faith (ex. I Tim. 6:20, II Tim. 1:13, 2,2; II Peter 3:16-17, I John 4:1-3; Jude 3 et al). This pattern and modus operandi continued throughout subsequent centuries in the form of church councils and synods meeting to establish creeds that represented the 'pattern of sound words' that had been preserved from the days of Christ and his disciples. The Apostles Creed & the erstwhile seven ecumenical councils (from the first council of Nicaea[325 a.d.] to the second council of Nicaea [787 a.d.]) evince the church's unabashed posture to defend the truths of the gospel.
It is no less imperative for us to confidently stand upon the apostolic & historic truths in our day as those men did then. The gospel, after all, is the greatest treasure to be known and had throughout the history of the human drama. We cannot, nay, we must not allow the capricious postulations and inventions of madmen nor the formalistic traditions of the religious to tarnish the luster of this treasure in the church's hearts and minds despite how well intentioned they may be.
Stand your orthodox ground!! Do not surrender the high ground in the name of diplomacy.
While it remains an abiding necessity for the church to staunchly defend her truths and go toe to toe with any detractors of the truths she has been vouchsafed with...a line of demarcation must always be respected.
This line distinguishes essentials from non-essentials. We must selectively and perspicaciously choose what hills we are willing to die on or fight for. There are simply certain arguments that do not need to be had and certains debates that we need not engage in. Sometimes we can lapse into talking to much.
Sometimes silence is more effective than argumentation especially against a curmudgeon or self-infatuated 'debater of the ages'. I am reminded of an occassion recorded in Isaiah 36-37. Assyria attacked Israel and an Assyrian officer (the Rabshakeh) instigated a controversy. He was deliberately making effort to "mock the living God." Instead of reacting and retorting to such maledictions "they (Israel's leaders) were silent and answered him not a word for the kings command was, 'do not answer him'. God vindicated their silence by killing 185,000 Assyrians!! Bloated egos are simply not worth the effort of formulating a cogent response or articulating a word at all. In the end their words, actions and demeaner are their own undoing. Sometimes folk just like hearing themselves talk or having an audience to work up into a frenzy. Such persons need to be avoided and ignored, by and large. They can be recognized by their incessant practice of stirring up debate, arguing and running on at the mouth.
Paul also provides us with nuggets of insight germane to talking too much. He advises Timothy to have "nothing to do with irreverent silly myths..." (I Tim. 4:7) and "not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers..." because such dribble "spreads like gangrene" (II Tim. 2:14,17). Timothy was to "have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies" because they "breed quarrels" (II Tim. 2:23). We must surmise from this rhetoric that there will be many times that we MUST withdrawal from pointless and inane conversations that do nothing but inflame passions and breed sin. James reminds us that quarrels and fights among us are caused b passion at war within us (James 4:1-2). I have learned from my brief duration as lead pastor that it is simply counterproductive to argue over things that people bring up as concerns that are obviously personal preferences or pet peeves. It is important to listen but not necessary to quibble over.
We must guard against bickering and disruptive quarreling over matters that are 'minors' or non-essentials. Sometimes things are better left unsaid because when those things that should have remained unsaid are vocalized it detracts from more important matters such as the gospel and discipleship. As Albert Mohler has opined, "some churches seem to thrive on controversy, even as some church members and leaders are agents of disunity. This brings shame and reproach on the church, and it DISTRACTS the church from its taks of preaching the gospel and making disciples."
Oftentimes, valuable time is wasted discoursing about things that aren't worth wasting the breath to assert. The problem more often than not is that we have higher opinions of our preferences and interests than we ought to. We then impose them on everyone else and disrupt progress. Instead of dwelling on infinitesimal points and matters it may better serve the church for us to think before we speak instead of broadcasting every fleeting thought we may have or vigorously trying to impose our every thought onto everyone else in an effort to conform everyone to our will. We can learn a lesson from the apostle Paul who conceded that not everyone will think the way he did on a certain lesser matter. (Phil. 3:15-16)
Intro: The first and previous installment of 'Let's Talk' gave preponderance to the variegated motives and reasons we have for wading into the waters of debate and argumentation. Does our interest lie in our vainglory of God's glory. Often times our reason's, whatever they may invariably be, give rise to a broad range of tone's, undertones &/or overtone's. Aside from whatever our reason's may be often times our passion's play us like fiddles. You know, we are so zealous to convince, persuade or defend our positions that our tone's eschalate into obnoxious and pernicious overtones! What is more, often times self-control is discarded in the name of a passionate plea, uncomprimising polemics, an intrepid commitment to orthodoxy and the like. So we excuse our tones on the basis of our passion. As Christians though our tones and/or overtones should be just as important to us as what we are arguing or debating for or against.
As Sinclair Ferguson has said, "if we act in a wrong spirit, we shall bring little glory to God." Orthopraxy (right representation) for a Christian should be given its proper place. Sound orthodoxy, after all will promote sound orthopraxy any way. I have seen too many occassions where a person will eschew right representation on the grounds that truth supersedes the value of their tone. That is nothing other than an inventive rationalization and in fact untruthful. Scripture unambiguously addresses what the tone and posture of the Christian should be.
Therefore, the tone and posture of a Christian is to be just as truthful as their theological position. Think about it. Though our incorporeal doctrinal position (theological formulae) may be true it is entirely possible that our corporeal position (personal representation) may be untrue thus rendering our entire postion a half truth. It is not a biblical virtue to argue for truth in an untruthful way!
At the onset I am reminded of an old production entitled Back to the Future. There is an occassion where a character named Biff (a quintessential bully) illustratively knocks on the head of a character named Mcfly (a quintessential push over) saying, "Hello, McFly. Is anybody in their?" How often is this act degradation done in our debates or arguments with non-Christians and Christians alike?
Now, I have heard the assertion, "Well, the prophets were often bellicose and vociferous. Or there is this little chestnut, "Jesus chased many out of the temple with a whip and he was often vitriolic toward the religious caste." There is also what is touted as the Pauline modus operandi. It sounds something like this, "Paul spoke of many as wolves, dogs and told the Corinthians that he may return with a rod..." These fallacious reasonings are commonly employed to excuse anger and justify sinful rage. While such postures have their place they are few and far between. These sort of biblcal accounts are scant at best in comparison to the corpus of specific teaching on Christian sanctification and to build a behavioral doctrine on such grounds is biblically inconsistent or nieve. This posture routinely resounds an unwarranted 'overtone'.
There is also the opposite extreme that is equally incongruous with biblical nomenclature. This position tends to avoid confrontation or correction on grounds of 'love'. Reference is often made to I Cor. "love is patient, love is kind, love does not insist on its own way..." This posture routinely whispers an unwarranted 'undertone'. Paul regularly admonishes and corrects various congregations for not guarding the faith (Galatians & Colossians for example). Victorian niceties must not be allowed to distort what is a permissible and appropriate tone and/or posture
Both of the above postures fail to properly contextualize their proof texts within the overall sweep of what scripture espouses for proper posturing while engaging in debate or argumentation. The Reformed hermeneutical principle that the narratival portions of scripture cannot supersede the didactic portions of scripture must be injected into this topic. The didactic, or instructional genre of scripture must guide the narratival genre.
For instance, while there are accounts of Paul responding with a sarcastic, satirical or aggressive tone he specifically instructs Timothy to engage in argumentation with a certain posture and a particular tone: "And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness." (II Timothy 2:24-25) This was the tone and posture Timothy was to exemplify when addressing any maledictions. Paul prescribed this necessary manner of locution just after referring to those who were denying the resurrection, a core tenent of the gospel.
While there are instances interspersed throughout holy writ where godly personalities are demonstrably 'overtoned', and to be sure under certain circumstances and in the right context they are still warranted, those variegated instances must be properly contextualized and not taken as a paradigmatic license to be overtoned. What is more those occassions simply do not circumvent the clear 'teaching' of Paul on tone and posture.
Moreover, Paul also presents us with a portrait of godless debate and argumentation in his letters to Timothy. For Paul godless debate and argumentation exudes the following sinful characteristics: II Timothy- quarreling over words (2:14), irreverant babble (2:16), foolish, ignorant controversies that breed quarrels (2:23), abusive, proud, arrogant, lovers of self, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self control, brutal, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, having the appearance of godliness (3: 2-5). I Timothy - conceited, unhealthy craving for controversy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, constant friction (6:4-5).
It is incumbent upon us as Christians to engage in respectable and admirable debate and argumentation. We should aim to always exhibit the fruits of the Spirit such as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control (Gal. 5:22). How can we argue or maintain that the truth of scripture is binding upon others while not being governed by that sanctifying truth ourselves?? As Polycarp as opined, "If a man cannot govern himself in such matters, how shall he join them on others?"
Credo Ut Intelligam
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
