14.1.14
Cultural Christianity: Everyone's Enemy
It often takes the wind out of someone's argumentative sails when you agree with them...
I had a soldier explaining to me the list of social ills caused by Christianity (and I appreciate his honesty): marginalization of others, theocratic political quests, etc.
I agreed, with a caviat.
Those ills are derived from a cultural Christianity that redefines its core beliefs away from the Savior of sin to cultural and political objectives. For some, Christianity is synonymous with being a "good person," and those who aren't good people aren't Christians. For some, it is about the restoration of morals to society. For others, it might be the pursuit of health and wealth.
In whatever cases, these worldviews are not Christianity. They are a this-worldly culture created in its place. They are counterfeits. They are heresies.
Orthodox Christianity primarily concerns itself with the biblical account of God and man and the salvation accomplished by Christ by faith in His name in order to bridge the two.
While orthodox Christians are still most certainly sinners, they recognize that they are sinners saved by grace, and this breeds gratitude. Self-righteousness and hypocrisy (which is endemic to all of us) is not a fruit of Christianity, but an expression of its replacement in thought and/or deed.
We need to stop adopting earthly utopias as the primary mission of Christianity, accomplished through politics, cultural movements, etc.
Paraphrasing Machen, in order to move the world you must first have a place outside of the world to stand. That place is in biblical Christianity, and causes no offense but in the cross of Christ.
I had a soldier explaining to me the list of social ills caused by Christianity (and I appreciate his honesty): marginalization of others, theocratic political quests, etc.
I agreed, with a caviat.
Those ills are derived from a cultural Christianity that redefines its core beliefs away from the Savior of sin to cultural and political objectives. For some, Christianity is synonymous with being a "good person," and those who aren't good people aren't Christians. For some, it is about the restoration of morals to society. For others, it might be the pursuit of health and wealth.
In whatever cases, these worldviews are not Christianity. They are a this-worldly culture created in its place. They are counterfeits. They are heresies.
Orthodox Christianity primarily concerns itself with the biblical account of God and man and the salvation accomplished by Christ by faith in His name in order to bridge the two.
While orthodox Christians are still most certainly sinners, they recognize that they are sinners saved by grace, and this breeds gratitude. Self-righteousness and hypocrisy (which is endemic to all of us) is not a fruit of Christianity, but an expression of its replacement in thought and/or deed.
We need to stop adopting earthly utopias as the primary mission of Christianity, accomplished through politics, cultural movements, etc.
Paraphrasing Machen, in order to move the world you must first have a place outside of the world to stand. That place is in biblical Christianity, and causes no offense but in the cross of Christ.
13.1.14
FYI
Greetings, friends.
I might be offline for a day or two, but that is all for the best! I'll be back up and running soon and the wifey will let you know when I am Stateside.
With Gratitude in Christ,
Stephen
I might be offline for a day or two, but that is all for the best! I'll be back up and running soon and the wifey will let you know when I am Stateside.
With Gratitude in Christ,
Stephen
The Cost of War
As a quick aside, there is a Senate candidate in Nebraska who will rise in prominence pretty soon and has my admiration: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/368081/obamacares-cornhusker-nemesis-john-j-millerhttp://www.nationalreview.com/article/368081/obamacares-cornhusker-nemesis-john-j-miller.
He is a charitable intellectual in the mold of Paul Ryan, and I had the pleasure of organizing an election party in McLean at which he was a guest. His is a phenomenal story of rags-to-riches sort of success. He is a generalist, showing a vast aptitude for politics, philosophy, law, economics, and theology. It also doesn't hurt that he's firmly entrenched within my preferred theological circles:
http://www.amazon.com/Here-Stand-Confessing-Evangelicals-Reformation/dp/0875526705/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1389641371&sr=1-5&keywords=here+we+stand
That aside now aside, I gathered most of my deploying soldiers into our small little movie room to watch Lone Survivor tonight. It is the true story of a team of four Navy Seals who went out on one of their special missions, only to have everything foiled by a couple of goat herders. It involves one of the most consequential moral decisions made in this war--whether to let the civilians, likely with Taliban connections--loose, and thus expose their position and risk their lives.
You'll have to watch the movie to see the decisions they made and their consequences, but in doing so, you will likely see the best war movie of the current generation of warfare. The hype from other soldiers had already reached the ears of my own, and even with the hype, not a one of them--from the colonel to the specialist--came away disappointed.
When it looked like the movie was over, I heard soldiers muttering about how good it was. Then the concluding screen gave way to pictures of some of the lost soldiers holding their children, and video of one of them dancing with his bride at his wedding. Every soldier with me sat back down and didn't make a noise. Afterward, one of my enlisted soldiers said that if he was at a theater in the States, and people tried to get up during that portion, he would tell them to show some respect and sit back down.
Soldiers are particularly sensitive about the families and families of those lost. These families are the uncounted cost of war. You can see it in the pictures of love shown at the end that are now but memories.
I asked a group of my soldiers about the movie at midnight chow. I asked them whether they thought the movie oversold or undersold what soldiers have to go through. Most of these soldiers have deployed multiple times to Iraq and/or Afghanistan. They thought it was dead on. It was realistic in that it was a bit gruesome, but not toned down nor over-dramatized.
I asked them whether they thought the movie demonized soldiers (like, say, Full Metal Jacket does at times) or deifies them (like, say, Glory). Again, the soldiers thought it struck the right balance. The soldiers in the movie were forced to make tough decisions, for better or worse, were shot up and hurt but resilient, made jokes and indicated their affection for another, with a few sweet words said about their families throughout.
My hope for a movie like this is that it continues to enjoy popularity throughout the country--that people would see flesh and blood soldiers fighting for each other and for flesh and blood families, that they would know that the fight is still going on, and that it's not the military's fight, but America's fight.
But the best recommendations, from our fighting men and women, have already come in. The names that are tattooed on many of their arms or hearts have been honored by this film. For that, they are thankful.
He is a charitable intellectual in the mold of Paul Ryan, and I had the pleasure of organizing an election party in McLean at which he was a guest. His is a phenomenal story of rags-to-riches sort of success. He is a generalist, showing a vast aptitude for politics, philosophy, law, economics, and theology. It also doesn't hurt that he's firmly entrenched within my preferred theological circles:
http://www.amazon.com/Here-Stand-Confessing-Evangelicals-Reformation/dp/0875526705/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1389641371&sr=1-5&keywords=here+we+stand
That aside now aside, I gathered most of my deploying soldiers into our small little movie room to watch Lone Survivor tonight. It is the true story of a team of four Navy Seals who went out on one of their special missions, only to have everything foiled by a couple of goat herders. It involves one of the most consequential moral decisions made in this war--whether to let the civilians, likely with Taliban connections--loose, and thus expose their position and risk their lives.
You'll have to watch the movie to see the decisions they made and their consequences, but in doing so, you will likely see the best war movie of the current generation of warfare. The hype from other soldiers had already reached the ears of my own, and even with the hype, not a one of them--from the colonel to the specialist--came away disappointed.
When it looked like the movie was over, I heard soldiers muttering about how good it was. Then the concluding screen gave way to pictures of some of the lost soldiers holding their children, and video of one of them dancing with his bride at his wedding. Every soldier with me sat back down and didn't make a noise. Afterward, one of my enlisted soldiers said that if he was at a theater in the States, and people tried to get up during that portion, he would tell them to show some respect and sit back down.
Soldiers are particularly sensitive about the families and families of those lost. These families are the uncounted cost of war. You can see it in the pictures of love shown at the end that are now but memories.
I asked a group of my soldiers about the movie at midnight chow. I asked them whether they thought the movie oversold or undersold what soldiers have to go through. Most of these soldiers have deployed multiple times to Iraq and/or Afghanistan. They thought it was dead on. It was realistic in that it was a bit gruesome, but not toned down nor over-dramatized.
I asked them whether they thought the movie demonized soldiers (like, say, Full Metal Jacket does at times) or deifies them (like, say, Glory). Again, the soldiers thought it struck the right balance. The soldiers in the movie were forced to make tough decisions, for better or worse, were shot up and hurt but resilient, made jokes and indicated their affection for another, with a few sweet words said about their families throughout.
My hope for a movie like this is that it continues to enjoy popularity throughout the country--that people would see flesh and blood soldiers fighting for each other and for flesh and blood families, that they would know that the fight is still going on, and that it's not the military's fight, but America's fight.
But the best recommendations, from our fighting men and women, have already come in. The names that are tattooed on many of their arms or hearts have been honored by this film. For that, they are thankful.
Random Tidbits
I have watched three movies recently: The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug, Anchorman 2, and most of American Hustle.
The Hobbit was a thoroughly enjoyable movie with fine acting and great visual effects. There is also nothing morally objectionable about the movie, which makes it a good option for family time.
Anchorman 2, with Will Ferrell at the helm, produced all the great laughing lines that one might expect. Ferrell's brand of punchy comedy is best suited for young adults, particularly males.
American Hustle was an incredibly weak movie, in my mind. For me, the kiss of death for a movie seems to come when it receives ample acclaim and awards from the Hollywood elites. If a movie appears artsy or edgy, that seems enough to earn it a stamp of approval. The characters were not endearing, nor was the storyline compelling. In a rare pique of disinterest, I decided about an hour in that the movie was not worth my time and I'd rather read a book.
Speaking of books, I am nearing the end of Ross Douthat's A Nation of Heretics. Douthat, a former editor at The Atlantic, current movie reviewer for National Review, and token conservative for the editorial pages of The New York Times is always worth a good read. His logical precision is matched by a rare gift for prose that you would only expect from one trained-up in Roman Catholic institutions. He makes enough bold assertions to provoke complaint from virtually any audience, but his contentions are strong enough to deserve consideration and his erudite rhetoric makes such an engagement an enjoyable one.
His primary contention, leveled against both those broadly belonging the New Atheist school and those who would broadly associate with the Religious Right: America is neither becoming more "theocratic" or more "secular." The nation as a whole has maintained about the same level of vague spirituality throughout its history. Rather, Christianity in America is simply becoming increasingly heretical.
The cultural accommodation of theological liberals and the anti-intellectualism of fundamentalists both have drastically undermined the intellectual and cultural tour de force that orthodox Christianity naturally represents. He chronicles the demise of orthodox Christianity in America in the second half of the twentieth century, and already knowing much of the Protestant story, I find his account of Roman Catholicism's demise to be particularly interesting.
He notes two trends in particular that have eroded the solid foundations of biblical, orthodox Christianity. One is the "prosperity gospel" (also called "health and wealth"). Rather than abiding by the stark, other-worldliness of orthodox Christianity, this group (headlined by the televangelists of the '80s, and folks like Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, and Creflo Dollar today) baptizes an obsession with materialism and self-esteem with Christian jargon. God does not promise earthly riches to the Christian, but warns of its danger and instead promises suffering. You cannot possibly have "Your Best Life Now" (an Osteen title), when the treasures we accumulate are in heaven. To promise the "best life" in this world of sin and tears in a heinous thing to do for broken people. These figures have also largely disposed of the substance, if not the vocabulary as well, of orthodox Christianity. God's holiness, man's depravity, salvation through Christ--all of these things are redefined if not disposed of entirely.
The other trend Douthat labels the "God Within" movement. People are not leaving Christianity for nothing, he argues, but rather are becoming "spiritual but not religious." In essence, he is referring to the modern paganism so beloved by Oprah and Elizabeth Gilbert in Eat, Pray, Love. This movement, very much existing within the Church as well at outside, identifies God with one's innermost being and desires--so seeking out God means seeking deeply within oneself. This is what Gilbert does, when she leaves her husband, dabbles in a bunch of Eastern spiritualities, takes upon herself a new lover, and discovers the revelation that all religions are the same and are merely expression of the human spirit.
Much of this spirituality can be identified with the ancient Gnostic heresy (well chronicled in many books by Dr. Peter Jones), which countered the clear claims of Christianity with a "secret knowledge" of inward spirituality. The big difference between today's paganism and ancient Gnostic-paganism is that today's paganism doesn't disdain the material world like the old, but instead, embraces a pantheism (God is in all things). The movie, Avatar, very much represented this spirituality.
Of course, this spirituality, much like postmodern experientialism more generally, has come under withering critique from many corners for basically spiritualizing one's selfish, uninhibited hedonism (pleasure is God). There is no responsibility for oneself except to oneself, and no accountability to call someone to live for something that in any way challenges their desires.
Both of these currents of thought, which exist in latent form in much of our society, if not explicit through people like Oprah, also now makeup a sizable percentage of the visible Church, including a wide swath of evangelicals. Increasingly, despite sharp differences on matters of salvation and biblical authority, orthodox evangelicals are finding greater commonality with Roman Catholicism than with many of their heterodox evangelical counterparts.
The battle being fought in somewhat new in modern times, but the cause being defended is the same. In the early twentieth century, orthodox Christianity was besieged by a deistic rationalism (God of the autonomous human intellect) that often sought to "save" Christianity be accommodating it to science and modern conceptions of truth. With the pretensions of such rationalism now largely washed away, orthodox Christianity now contends with a pantheistic mysticism (God of the autonomous human experience). In both cases, many people sought to save Christianity by destroying the most essential parts of it. A transcendent God who will judge the world who made Himself immanently personal and accessible through Jesus Christ is utterly unacceptable to these folks.
Unlike the prior generations of rationalists, we cannot banish the supernatural God in favor of a more intelligible God of our own making. Unlike the current generation of mystics, we cannot weave God into our own being to baptize all of our selfish desires. Thus, Christians must reassert the truth--both within the Church and without--that the God of the Bible is who He says His is in His Word. Any attempt to throw God away or drag Him down into ourselves will prove futile, and it is not Christianity, plain and simple.
We must recognize that the sovereign God of the universe became man in the person of Jesus Christ, offering salvation from sin through faith in Him alone. We can either embrace the Savior who made Himself accessible in love and grace while bearing God's justice in His own body, or we can await the Day when this same Savior returns as Judge, calling all to account for trying to banish Him from the universe or incorporate Him into human experience.
The Hobbit was a thoroughly enjoyable movie with fine acting and great visual effects. There is also nothing morally objectionable about the movie, which makes it a good option for family time.
Anchorman 2, with Will Ferrell at the helm, produced all the great laughing lines that one might expect. Ferrell's brand of punchy comedy is best suited for young adults, particularly males.
American Hustle was an incredibly weak movie, in my mind. For me, the kiss of death for a movie seems to come when it receives ample acclaim and awards from the Hollywood elites. If a movie appears artsy or edgy, that seems enough to earn it a stamp of approval. The characters were not endearing, nor was the storyline compelling. In a rare pique of disinterest, I decided about an hour in that the movie was not worth my time and I'd rather read a book.
Speaking of books, I am nearing the end of Ross Douthat's A Nation of Heretics. Douthat, a former editor at The Atlantic, current movie reviewer for National Review, and token conservative for the editorial pages of The New York Times is always worth a good read. His logical precision is matched by a rare gift for prose that you would only expect from one trained-up in Roman Catholic institutions. He makes enough bold assertions to provoke complaint from virtually any audience, but his contentions are strong enough to deserve consideration and his erudite rhetoric makes such an engagement an enjoyable one.
His primary contention, leveled against both those broadly belonging the New Atheist school and those who would broadly associate with the Religious Right: America is neither becoming more "theocratic" or more "secular." The nation as a whole has maintained about the same level of vague spirituality throughout its history. Rather, Christianity in America is simply becoming increasingly heretical.
The cultural accommodation of theological liberals and the anti-intellectualism of fundamentalists both have drastically undermined the intellectual and cultural tour de force that orthodox Christianity naturally represents. He chronicles the demise of orthodox Christianity in America in the second half of the twentieth century, and already knowing much of the Protestant story, I find his account of Roman Catholicism's demise to be particularly interesting.
He notes two trends in particular that have eroded the solid foundations of biblical, orthodox Christianity. One is the "prosperity gospel" (also called "health and wealth"). Rather than abiding by the stark, other-worldliness of orthodox Christianity, this group (headlined by the televangelists of the '80s, and folks like Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, and Creflo Dollar today) baptizes an obsession with materialism and self-esteem with Christian jargon. God does not promise earthly riches to the Christian, but warns of its danger and instead promises suffering. You cannot possibly have "Your Best Life Now" (an Osteen title), when the treasures we accumulate are in heaven. To promise the "best life" in this world of sin and tears in a heinous thing to do for broken people. These figures have also largely disposed of the substance, if not the vocabulary as well, of orthodox Christianity. God's holiness, man's depravity, salvation through Christ--all of these things are redefined if not disposed of entirely.
The other trend Douthat labels the "God Within" movement. People are not leaving Christianity for nothing, he argues, but rather are becoming "spiritual but not religious." In essence, he is referring to the modern paganism so beloved by Oprah and Elizabeth Gilbert in Eat, Pray, Love. This movement, very much existing within the Church as well at outside, identifies God with one's innermost being and desires--so seeking out God means seeking deeply within oneself. This is what Gilbert does, when she leaves her husband, dabbles in a bunch of Eastern spiritualities, takes upon herself a new lover, and discovers the revelation that all religions are the same and are merely expression of the human spirit.
Much of this spirituality can be identified with the ancient Gnostic heresy (well chronicled in many books by Dr. Peter Jones), which countered the clear claims of Christianity with a "secret knowledge" of inward spirituality. The big difference between today's paganism and ancient Gnostic-paganism is that today's paganism doesn't disdain the material world like the old, but instead, embraces a pantheism (God is in all things). The movie, Avatar, very much represented this spirituality.
Of course, this spirituality, much like postmodern experientialism more generally, has come under withering critique from many corners for basically spiritualizing one's selfish, uninhibited hedonism (pleasure is God). There is no responsibility for oneself except to oneself, and no accountability to call someone to live for something that in any way challenges their desires.
Both of these currents of thought, which exist in latent form in much of our society, if not explicit through people like Oprah, also now makeup a sizable percentage of the visible Church, including a wide swath of evangelicals. Increasingly, despite sharp differences on matters of salvation and biblical authority, orthodox evangelicals are finding greater commonality with Roman Catholicism than with many of their heterodox evangelical counterparts.
The battle being fought in somewhat new in modern times, but the cause being defended is the same. In the early twentieth century, orthodox Christianity was besieged by a deistic rationalism (God of the autonomous human intellect) that often sought to "save" Christianity be accommodating it to science and modern conceptions of truth. With the pretensions of such rationalism now largely washed away, orthodox Christianity now contends with a pantheistic mysticism (God of the autonomous human experience). In both cases, many people sought to save Christianity by destroying the most essential parts of it. A transcendent God who will judge the world who made Himself immanently personal and accessible through Jesus Christ is utterly unacceptable to these folks.
Unlike the prior generations of rationalists, we cannot banish the supernatural God in favor of a more intelligible God of our own making. Unlike the current generation of mystics, we cannot weave God into our own being to baptize all of our selfish desires. Thus, Christians must reassert the truth--both within the Church and without--that the God of the Bible is who He says His is in His Word. Any attempt to throw God away or drag Him down into ourselves will prove futile, and it is not Christianity, plain and simple.
We must recognize that the sovereign God of the universe became man in the person of Jesus Christ, offering salvation from sin through faith in Him alone. We can either embrace the Savior who made Himself accessible in love and grace while bearing God's justice in His own body, or we can await the Day when this same Savior returns as Judge, calling all to account for trying to banish Him from the universe or incorporate Him into human experience.
12.1.14
Chick-Fil-A and a Piano
But not both at the same time.
Thinking of things I look forward to when I return home. This is where owning a home close to Chick-Fil-A pays huge dividends. I have no choice but to pass the home of the world's best chicken on my way home. And I'll still be wearing my uniform, which means that the nice folks there will give me half off the price.
And someday I really want a piano. I've hardly touched even a keyboard on this deployment, but if people realized how often I played piano/keyboard just for fun and as a devotional exercise, they'd see the urgent need for a piano. By urgent, I mean after a few years of saving money and owning a bigger house.
I played worship songs on the keyboard at the post chapel for over an hour today. The pedal didn't work, so everything was staccato. Makes me feel like I'm praising God using techno.
About ten soldiers or so joined me for cappuccinos and croissants this morning, which were both delicious! I couldn't get my hands on Lone Survivor for tonight's movie night, but some 15 soldiers (including our commander) joined me for The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug and a few stayed around to watch Anchorman 2. I hope to find a black market copy of LS tomorrow for another movie night (such movies are legal for those deployed overseas).
Now I'm going to go enjoy some midnight chow at the Coalition DFAC and try some interesting British deserts alongside some Twinings tea, again with a handful of my soldiers. If only quality time came this easy during the meat of the deployment!
Thinking of things I look forward to when I return home. This is where owning a home close to Chick-Fil-A pays huge dividends. I have no choice but to pass the home of the world's best chicken on my way home. And I'll still be wearing my uniform, which means that the nice folks there will give me half off the price.
And someday I really want a piano. I've hardly touched even a keyboard on this deployment, but if people realized how often I played piano/keyboard just for fun and as a devotional exercise, they'd see the urgent need for a piano. By urgent, I mean after a few years of saving money and owning a bigger house.
I played worship songs on the keyboard at the post chapel for over an hour today. The pedal didn't work, so everything was staccato. Makes me feel like I'm praising God using techno.
About ten soldiers or so joined me for cappuccinos and croissants this morning, which were both delicious! I couldn't get my hands on Lone Survivor for tonight's movie night, but some 15 soldiers (including our commander) joined me for The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug and a few stayed around to watch Anchorman 2. I hope to find a black market copy of LS tomorrow for another movie night (such movies are legal for those deployed overseas).
Now I'm going to go enjoy some midnight chow at the Coalition DFAC and try some interesting British deserts alongside some Twinings tea, again with a handful of my soldiers. If only quality time came this easy during the meat of the deployment!
Running the Race in Marriage and in Life
I had the pleasure of attending a chapel service at our staging post this morning, and lo and behold, the focus of the sermon was on running the race of faith.
If you had to guess what the topic would be before attending a chapel service in the Army, and you guessed something to do with running the race of faith, you would have decent odds of being correct. Chaplains preach on that biblical metaphor all the time, probably because it's very applicable to soldiers.
The strength of these sermons often comes in their emphasis on the law in the Christian life. It is important for Christians to hear the constant biblical imperatives (commands/what you should do) that structure their life in gratitude for the Gospel.
The weakness of these sermons often comes in their neglect of the Gospel in the Christian life. It is important for Christians to hear the constant biblical indicatives (statements of fact/what has been done for you) that provide the basis for the imperatives and the way we ought to live.
The practical way to do this with the race passages is to first apply the law--here is how we are to run, and man, do we often fail to run in this manner! But then we focus on the more important race. Paul tells us that unless Christ was raised, our faith is in vain. The race that defines our lives is not the one we run, but the one Christ ran perfectly in our place.
In fact, Hebrews 11 and 12 gives us a biblical basis for thinking this way. Hebrews 11 focuses on an array of Old Testament believers who heard the Word concerning the promised Messiah and walked with absolute assurance and conviction that the Messiah would indeed come and usher them into a heavenly promised land, whose builder and maker is God.
Just after this section, we are told that since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses (witnesses of what?), we are to lay aside the sin that so easily entangles and run the race with perseverance. But this imperative is immediately followed by the indicative:
2 looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.
We are to follow the example of the Old Testament believers in that we look to Jesus first in order to run the race. They still look to Jesus--that is what makes them a cloud of witnesses. They might also bear witness/testimony to our race, but they do so with eyes afixed on Christ, who was proven faithful to save them. They witness/testify to us that this race begun by faith in Christ, sustained by faith in Christ, and rewarded by faith in Christ, will not prove to be in vain.
You see, Jesus first ran the race. He withstood the mighty blows of Satan in the desert, the brokenness of this world, and the betrayal of mankind. Yet He kept His eyes affixed on the prize of securing His people to the loving heart of their God, considered His daunting race nothing but joy, endured the brutal final stretch in which He died as a sacrifice for sinners, and is not seated on the victor's platform as Savior, King, and Judge of this world. We run because He ran first and won. Praise be to God. We now run with joy before us.
One of the great joys of this life is that in marriage, God has set beside us a partner to join us in this race. When I stumble, my wife, by God's grace, helps me regain my step, and vice-versa. Part of the beauty of this sanctification process is how my God-enabled sacrifice and her God-enabled submission creates a beautiful spiral of deepening love and perseverance.
Neither sacrifice or submission is easy in the least. In fact, it is dangerous. History, including in the Church, is littered with tyrannical men who exploited their wives' vulnerable submission, and with seditious wives who exploited their husbands' vulnerable sacrifice. Such exploitation creates the opposite effect of the joyous sanctification spiral--a descending spiral of sin, decay, and death.
I am much more reluctant to lead than my wife is to have me lead. I think this is part of the sanctification spiral. I talk of future dreams--church work, chaplaincy, Africa--and expect that such ruminations will terrify my wife and cause anxiety and resentment. In the past, such talk did inspire anxiety and I was more reluctant to share such dreams (both of us showing our frailty in such exchanges). She likely saw the fickleness and insecurity in my dreaming, and was sensibly reluctant. I was sense the reluctance and become more insecure.
Yet, despite these frailties of a young married couple, she always gave me that pledge of Ruth to Noami, "Where you go, I'll go. Where you lodge, I'll lodge." Even in her vulnerability, she would trust me and trust the Lord with our future, wherever He took us.
But she has become more proactive on that front, and I think this deployment, surprisingly enough (from a worldly perspective) has been used to make her bolder. Her response to my ruminations on any future options during this past year has been "I'm open." Early on in our marriage, there were many more "I don't knows." But in the past year, before I can even start giving various reasons and justifications for different options, she'll preempt me with "I'm open." Her starting point is not fear, but trust and willingness to explore all options.
As a result, I think of the future with more freedom and more wisdom. I don't have to fear my wife's anxiety and uncertainly. She trusts me and she trusts the Lord. What I fear is taking that trust for granted. So I strive harder to act with greater discernment and humility, striving to honor her submission with my sacrifice.
Over the years, in our insecurity, we have both desired to have peace and wisdom of believers much older and more mature than us. I think we have both wondered what would happen when our sin and frailties were put to the test in great trials (like a post-surgery, post-pregnancy deployment and consequent single motherhood of a firstborn child). What we have learned, more than ever, is that God transforms us through the suffering more than He does in preparation for it.
It's analogous to marriage and parenting. People often talk about how they're "not ready" for these phases of life. No one is or will ever be ready. Marriage and parenting are not the final product--they are a lifelong process of learning and growing. You become a better spouse and parent, by God's grace, through being a spouse and parent. You become a more persevering follower of Christ through being a follower of Christ over time and through suffer and learning anew the joys of the Gospel.
Together, my wife and I have run a Ragnar-like race this past year--running through mud that slows us down and braving a chill that cuts to the bone. But we are coming out on the other side stronger, with more trust in each other and in the Lord who was ever-faithful, and know that as Author and Perfecter of our faith, He will finish what He started. Now, the race truly begins.
If you had to guess what the topic would be before attending a chapel service in the Army, and you guessed something to do with running the race of faith, you would have decent odds of being correct. Chaplains preach on that biblical metaphor all the time, probably because it's very applicable to soldiers.
The strength of these sermons often comes in their emphasis on the law in the Christian life. It is important for Christians to hear the constant biblical imperatives (commands/what you should do) that structure their life in gratitude for the Gospel.
The weakness of these sermons often comes in their neglect of the Gospel in the Christian life. It is important for Christians to hear the constant biblical indicatives (statements of fact/what has been done for you) that provide the basis for the imperatives and the way we ought to live.
The practical way to do this with the race passages is to first apply the law--here is how we are to run, and man, do we often fail to run in this manner! But then we focus on the more important race. Paul tells us that unless Christ was raised, our faith is in vain. The race that defines our lives is not the one we run, but the one Christ ran perfectly in our place.
In fact, Hebrews 11 and 12 gives us a biblical basis for thinking this way. Hebrews 11 focuses on an array of Old Testament believers who heard the Word concerning the promised Messiah and walked with absolute assurance and conviction that the Messiah would indeed come and usher them into a heavenly promised land, whose builder and maker is God.
Just after this section, we are told that since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses (witnesses of what?), we are to lay aside the sin that so easily entangles and run the race with perseverance. But this imperative is immediately followed by the indicative:
2 looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.
We are to follow the example of the Old Testament believers in that we look to Jesus first in order to run the race. They still look to Jesus--that is what makes them a cloud of witnesses. They might also bear witness/testimony to our race, but they do so with eyes afixed on Christ, who was proven faithful to save them. They witness/testify to us that this race begun by faith in Christ, sustained by faith in Christ, and rewarded by faith in Christ, will not prove to be in vain.
You see, Jesus first ran the race. He withstood the mighty blows of Satan in the desert, the brokenness of this world, and the betrayal of mankind. Yet He kept His eyes affixed on the prize of securing His people to the loving heart of their God, considered His daunting race nothing but joy, endured the brutal final stretch in which He died as a sacrifice for sinners, and is not seated on the victor's platform as Savior, King, and Judge of this world. We run because He ran first and won. Praise be to God. We now run with joy before us.
One of the great joys of this life is that in marriage, God has set beside us a partner to join us in this race. When I stumble, my wife, by God's grace, helps me regain my step, and vice-versa. Part of the beauty of this sanctification process is how my God-enabled sacrifice and her God-enabled submission creates a beautiful spiral of deepening love and perseverance.
Neither sacrifice or submission is easy in the least. In fact, it is dangerous. History, including in the Church, is littered with tyrannical men who exploited their wives' vulnerable submission, and with seditious wives who exploited their husbands' vulnerable sacrifice. Such exploitation creates the opposite effect of the joyous sanctification spiral--a descending spiral of sin, decay, and death.
I am much more reluctant to lead than my wife is to have me lead. I think this is part of the sanctification spiral. I talk of future dreams--church work, chaplaincy, Africa--and expect that such ruminations will terrify my wife and cause anxiety and resentment. In the past, such talk did inspire anxiety and I was more reluctant to share such dreams (both of us showing our frailty in such exchanges). She likely saw the fickleness and insecurity in my dreaming, and was sensibly reluctant. I was sense the reluctance and become more insecure.
Yet, despite these frailties of a young married couple, she always gave me that pledge of Ruth to Noami, "Where you go, I'll go. Where you lodge, I'll lodge." Even in her vulnerability, she would trust me and trust the Lord with our future, wherever He took us.
But she has become more proactive on that front, and I think this deployment, surprisingly enough (from a worldly perspective) has been used to make her bolder. Her response to my ruminations on any future options during this past year has been "I'm open." Early on in our marriage, there were many more "I don't knows." But in the past year, before I can even start giving various reasons and justifications for different options, she'll preempt me with "I'm open." Her starting point is not fear, but trust and willingness to explore all options.
As a result, I think of the future with more freedom and more wisdom. I don't have to fear my wife's anxiety and uncertainly. She trusts me and she trusts the Lord. What I fear is taking that trust for granted. So I strive harder to act with greater discernment and humility, striving to honor her submission with my sacrifice.
Over the years, in our insecurity, we have both desired to have peace and wisdom of believers much older and more mature than us. I think we have both wondered what would happen when our sin and frailties were put to the test in great trials (like a post-surgery, post-pregnancy deployment and consequent single motherhood of a firstborn child). What we have learned, more than ever, is that God transforms us through the suffering more than He does in preparation for it.
It's analogous to marriage and parenting. People often talk about how they're "not ready" for these phases of life. No one is or will ever be ready. Marriage and parenting are not the final product--they are a lifelong process of learning and growing. You become a better spouse and parent, by God's grace, through being a spouse and parent. You become a more persevering follower of Christ through being a follower of Christ over time and through suffer and learning anew the joys of the Gospel.
Together, my wife and I have run a Ragnar-like race this past year--running through mud that slows us down and braving a chill that cuts to the bone. But we are coming out on the other side stronger, with more trust in each other and in the Lord who was ever-faithful, and know that as Author and Perfecter of our faith, He will finish what He started. Now, the race truly begins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)