Cultural Shifts and Personal Shifts

This will be a cheap blog post in that I am encouraging you to read this other blog post instead of mine. There, James Wood helpfully articulates the shift that many of us have experienced over the last 5-6 years since the Western world (in particular, in America) has become what can be called a "negative world." In the negative world, Christianity is no longer seen by the culture as an "eccentric lifestyle option among many" (to quote Wood), but as the problem from which there needs to be cultural evolution. In other words, Christianity used to just be there as a part of society, but now it is viewed as the problem from which society needs delivered.

Such a shift has meant that committed (and culturally engaged) Christians have had to make a decision about how to stay engaged. Many of us have felt forced to adopt a position that holds that the once-beloved winsome third-way-ism of giants like Tim Keller (still one of my favorite preachers) is less and less plausible. We have therefore had to take harder and more dogmatic-sounding stances because we feel that if we don't, that which we have stood for in the Lord will be lost. While we have not wanted to "return evil for evil" (Rom. 12:17, 1 Pet. 3:9), we also know that there are times when the threat requires a tonality and lucidity that other moments don't (as with Jesus in Matt. 23 and Paul in Galatians). 

Therefore, many of us have lost friends or at least experienced a widening gap with some friends over such stark differences in outlook regarding cultural issues. For example, I have challenged many of my Christian friends who seem have an ax to grind against conservative Christians for behaving in ways that turn non-Christians off. I don't think that such a criticism from my Christian friends is ever unwarranted--sometimes it's very warranted--but I think that their anger toward conservative Christians is often misguided. While some in the world reject a warped faith that needs challenged, others in the world, that is, most worldly people, would reject Jesus if he showed up in the flesh right in front of them, with his eyes and hands of love. 

So, many of us have been so blessed by the type of spirit that Keller employs in ministry, because it was important in bringing us to faith. But we've come to see that we've shifted into a different cultural moment that requires a different type of engagement; in particular, a moment that requires clarity, lucidity, and insistence on the truth. Wood, in his essay, helpfully clarifies why we have shifted, and he does so in a way that is respectful toward those worthy of respect. 

Finally, let me encourage you if you have time to watch or listen to Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones' interviews on British and Welsh radio/TV in the late 1960s and 70s. MLJ saw a similar cultural shift happening in England in his post-parish ministry years, and he was willing and ready to engage and be engaged on matters of faith and their place in public life. But he was insistent, clear, and convicted. Here is one interview that is done in black and white, and in which the Doctor explains more of his testimony toward the beginning (for those unfamiliar). In this one, he is interviewed by Dame Joan Bakewell, and I think that this interview was broadcast more widely. Note in both cases how the Doctor is clear and convicted while also being gracious and kind. I think we can learn a lot from the Doctor.

I'm also thankful for all I've learned from Keller. 

Politics and Church

I highly recommend all Christians read this article from Tim Alberta of The Atlantic. My recommendation shouldn't be read as an endorsement of everything that the news outlet is known to support (and neither is it a full endorsement of the writer himself). But Alberta breaks down an exceedingly difficult issue in a way that I think is instructive for church-attending Christians (there is no other kind). 

All of that said, let me give my response using the format of an academic analysis. This might sort of double as a guide in reading the article, for those interested: 

Pros: 

1. The writer notes the extremism present on both the right and left. 

It is very clear that in the current day, many people on the right and on the left have moved further to their sides on social issues than they were 15 years ago. There is a growing right-wing extremism and there is a growing left-wing extremism. Further, these sides do this in response to what they perceive to only be extremism on the other side. In other words, such moves are reactionary. A type of what Coldplay called "a battle from beginning to end, a cycle of recycled revenge." 

2. The writer rightly criticizes the news and media over-consumption present on both sides. 

As a conservative Christian pastor (in a denomination that used to have "conservative" in its name), I find myself constantly warning my people that they need to guard their hearts better regarding their Fox News consumption. This past Sunday from the pulpit, I said that the news stations keep you watching by keeping you, first, scared (that is, scared that the opposite side is winning), and secondly, flowing the first, angry (that is, that no one is doing anything about it). And while I preach (hopefully) helpful messages that serve to disciple my people well, they're listening to me talking for 40 minutes on a Sunday morning (or 100 minutes if they come to adult Sunday school and evening service), while they're consuming maybe dozens of hours of media a week, filled with takes, narratives, etc. based on ungodly worldview. No wonder we're so taken in with political concerns.  

3. The writer emphasizes that healthy churches treat the gospel as superior to world issues. 

Christians should be gospel people first and foremost, viewing themselves as ministers of reconciliation, imploring the world to "be reconciled to God" (2 Cor. 5:20), themselves concerned with living lives that reflect the beauty and humility of their Master (1 Pet. 1:15; on humility and quietness, 1 Tim. 2:1-2). That is, they labor for people to find the risen Jesus and to follow Him. If He rules and reigns even in the present, then that means that he is not surprised by current events, nor can those events not serve His eternal purpose in the end. If this is the case, why are Christians--right and left--SO concerned with the cultural moment? This is a passing moment, and nothing is new under the sun, 

4. Finally, the article does a good job of explaining the tension a lot of pastors are facing.

While my congregation has been very supportive of a gospel-oriented and God-focused ministry in an age of political tension, I know many pastors who have either left ministry or been close to it because they face a palpable tension within their congregations regarding political and social issues. This aspect alone, whether construed pastorally as I have, or just noticing the tension present in so many churches and among so many believers, makes the article worth reading. 

Weaknesses: 

1. In warning against both right and left extremism, the writer conflates the right and the left as being equally dangerous (TRIGGER WARNING).

The writer seems to make right and left more similar than different, such that both need equally avoided. I cannot say that this is accurate. As a conservative Christian, my view is that the right and the left are not the same. Both have issues, and neither can save America or the free world. But regenerate Christians can not support the legalization of infanticide (read: abortion), which the left is closely identified with. I am not saying that every Democrat is a supporter of infanticide - many are not; I have several in my congregation who despise the practice. It is clear that America has many pro-life Democrats, for which I am thankful. But the Democratic Party has positioned itself (to many pro-life Democrats' chagrin) as the party of abortion. This alone, among other reasons (such as the courting of LGBTQ and CRT ideologies, as well as, more broadly, the all-out assault on the traditional family), is reason I can't conflate right and left. 

Instead, there is a type of cautious conservatism that I'm convinced Christians should pursue, one that votes for healthy policies that support peace, the traditional family unit, and free speech, without automatically writing off other Christians who have questions or differences in definitions. The problem is not, as the article suggests, that today we are told that we must "pick a side." The problem is that so many Christians are so afraid to do so that they refuse to think through how to. And other Christians are so sure of themselves that they never stop and question themselves, so they don't think either. The problem is that we're too busy to think. 

2. The writer bolsters weak theology, which is the church's biggest problem, in my estimation. 

While the writer himself didn't make this claim, he did mention endearingly a center-leaning pastor's argument to his congregation that believers should know that Jesus came to save everyone, even, as the pastor said to his congregation, Ilhan Omar. I have no clue Mrs. Omar's eternal destiny, only that if she doesn't bow the knee to Jesus (as far as I know, she is not a Christian), she will enter eternal judgment alongside of every other conservative or liberal who didn't embrace King Jesus (Mt. 25:46). It is weak theology to assume that Jesus "came" for everyone. There are two things that the Bible says are true, regarding this topic: First, sovereign election is true (ie, Lk. 10:20, 18:7); that is, in the divine purposes of God, He has a particular regenerate people whom He freely and graciously drew to his Son (Jn. 6:44, 65) who truly bore the penalty for their sins at the cross. Second, I don't know who all of these elect are. But I know I should pray that the Lord works on Mrs. Omar's heart to draw her the same way that he drew me. I just don't think it's productive to say "Jesus died for you," to her or any lost person; the Apostles never preached the gospel that way. Instead, it is much more theologically healthy to put it like this: "Mrs. Omar needs Jesus the same as I do, and Jesus is just as willing to receive her if she were to ask" (cf. Jn. 6:35). 

As it is, "Jesus died for you" theology is just as weak in my view as Left Behind/Rapture theology. Both are built on faulty exegesis, and neither are life-giving: To tell people who are rebels against God that Jesus died for them is to confirm them in their pride (ie, "look at how valuable you are"); and to hold to Left Behind theology is to all but confirm that you will soon be sitting in judgment on the world outside. 

Overall: 

The article is extremely helpful in parsing out the various issues that people are doubtlessly struggling with in local churches today. Thus, I highly recommend you read it and give it some thought. 

If I had any advice for pastors and church leaders, it would be this: Cultivate Kingdom-mindedness in the churches. Do this, first, by focusing the peoples' attention on missions, in particular, how the gospel is more global than it ever has been. Do this, secondly, by preaching and teaching the Trinity. Get them focused on God's glory in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 4:4). Finally, be Kingdom-minded by preaching idolatry and sin. Calvin said that idolatry is proof of our need for God: We are made to worship and enjoy him, but until he finds us, we give our attention to other "gods." Therefore, in order to keep their eyes on the God who is "slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love," (Ex. 34:6), show them the reality of sin within all of us and our need for God's grace in His Son. Confront their news and media addictions, their guilt-driven leftist ideologies, and their past-driven America-first mentalities. Show them that a healthy diet of media is helpful, compassion for the poor is Biblical, and a desire for a country that practices righteousness before God is a good desire (just as being thankful for such a wonderfully blessed country is good, too). But these things will only be experienced in a healthy and balanced way by being Kingdom-minded first. In showing your people this, you are taking every thought captive to obey Christ; and in time, they will, too.

Ideologies and Revolution

What follows is an unrolled Twitter thread from Josh Daws, host of the Great Awokening Podcast, a pod devoted to explaining the various concepts that comprise the tapestry of today’s Western zeitgeist, commonly called Woke Ideology. 

I usually try and write my own material, but this thread was so good and helpful that I wanted to share it across platforms, and I thought it made the most sense as a full blog post. Thanks to Josh for such insightful explanations. 

To start, Josh alludes to a meme with the bus driver from the Simpsons saying “Don’t make me tap the sign,” which sign contains a tweet that says, “It’s not rocket science guys. They’re just evil and want to diddle kids.” This is obviously referring to the current movement to indoctrinate kids in school with radical gender ideology. Doubtless you’re familiar with the fight in Washington and Florida over this, where the lines have been drawn clearly. The funny meme alluding to the battle might make a interesting point worth considering. But, as Josh explains, it is likely shortsighted and oversimplified. 

Here is Josh’s helpful take, unrolled: 

“I’m seeing a lot of people on the right share this meme. While it may be a strong satirical response to those who get lost in nuance, it fundamentally fails to recognize why the left wants to talk to your kids about sexuality. Let’s connect some dots: 

“The left doesn’t want to diddle kids. They want to create little revolutionaries. To do that they need to sever the bond between students and the parents they believe are raising their children to be hateful bigots.

“In order to sever the bond between parents and their children, the left is using a two-pronged approach. Critical Race Theory and radical gender ideology (properly known as Queer Theory) are not two unrelated sets of ideas. They are two parts of the same strategy.

“CRT is usually the first set of ideas to be introduced. This is often enough to radicalize racial minorities, but it’s merely step one for white (or white adjacent) students. 

“CRT instills in these students a negative self-identity as they’re taught to believe they’re recipients of enormous privilege that was stolen from others and that they are complicit in historic and ongoing injustice. In child terms, they’re taught to believe they’re bad.

“Apart from shame and guilt, this also gives them a worldview at odds with the one their parents grew up with and are trying to pass on to their kids. Step one is complete.

“Once CRT is done tearing down these kids and leaving them with a negative self-identity, Queer Theory (QT) is introduce and offers them a wide assortment of positive self-identities to choose from.

“Instead of living with the shame and guilt of being a member of the oppressive dominant culture, these students can be celebrated for coming out as gender nonbinary or pansexual.

“In an instant, these kids can trade their negative self-identity and all the accompanying guilt and shame of being an “oppressor” for a positive self-identity as a much-venerated “oppressed” minority.

“At this point, the left desperately wants this new identity to stay at school so it has time to be cemented before the parents find out. In the guise of helping these students, schools withhold this information about their child’s new identity from mom and dad.

“Once the parents do find out about their child’s new identity it is firmly in place and an adversarial relationship between the child and parents has been manufactured. It takes extraordinarily deft parenting to repair the relationship once it has reached this stage.

“The parents’ tendency will be to overreact and push the child further into the arms of the woke radicals who now have the little revolutionary they wanted from the beginning. The bond between the parents and child has been severed, ending the perpetuation of hate and bigotry.

“The left is determined to replicate this process in as many families as they can, using whatever means at their disposal. It is not about diddling kids. It is about capturing the minds of impressionable children.

“Unfortunately, this creates environments where actual predators can thrive. When young children are isolated from their parents, encouraged to adopt different beliefs, and keep secrets from their parents, they are made easy targets for abusers.” 

(You might say, “But my school has Christian teachers and a Christian principal. They couldn’t possibly have this agenda.”) 

“Hear me loud and clear on this. Most teachers love the kids in their classrooms and want only the best for them. (But) they have had their empathy for these students weaponized against them by leftist activists promoting educational programs that sound nice and caring.

“Highly empathetic teachers are being used to promote this agenda unaware of its insidious purpose. An example: I recently saw a teacher at a Christian school announce that she would no longer be using the words “mom,” “dad”, or “parents in her classroom. Her reason? She had just read a paper on the importance of making kids from non-traditional families feel included. She suggested replacing “Donuts with Dads” with “Bagels with Buds” or something of the such.

“This sounds like a very considerate thing to do for kids who might feel different because they don’t have a dad or they liv with their grandparents, but its purpose is to subtly chip away at the very idea of the normative nuclear family (a stated goal of the BLM organization.) 

“Christians who think that we can embrace the ideas from CRT and reject the radical gender ideology need to realize how the former is used to prepare kids to accept the latter.

“These are your kids we’re talking about. The left wants them. They would love to sever your bond with them. They think your appeals to childhood innocence are an attempt to force heteronormativity on them. Seriously. They write papers on it. It’s not a secret agenda.” (Click here for James Lindsay’s three-part series walking through the whole agenda, looking at primary sources. Click on the channel name, and find the "videos" page to find the other videos in the three-part series; they're all called "Groomer Schools.")

“The meme I opened this thread with” (the “diddling your kids” meme) “is an easy response to the insanity we’re seeing today, but it is not a great explanation. We should take the time to help people see how nice-sounding programs are being used in the classroom to create little activists and put kids in danger.” 

Wow. I’ve written in the past about the troubling examples I’ve seen of adults who represent the uber-liberal ideologies of the day, saying explicitly that they want to come after kids and convert them to their ideologies (similar to Hitler telling German parents that their kids already belong to him.) This whole endeavor, whether we’re talking about racial issues or issues of sexual freedom, is not about justice or personal identity. It is about cultural revolution against the God of order (1 Corinthians 14:30) and true justice (Psalm 97:2). They do not want to just be heard or listened to, nor do they want fairness. They want power. They want to break off God’s chords from the world that is His, and in which His gospel has penetrated so far, so that they can live autonomously and continue in rebellion against him, while bringing as many along with them as possible. 

Let me be clear: In a fallen world, sexuality struggles will occur, seen in the fact that the New Testament speaks so much about it (see especially Romans 1:18ff.) But Jesus can redeem even from in the midst of such struggles (the point of 1 Cor. 6:9-11). Also, where there is actual injustice being practiced, especially along racial lines, Christians should be the first ones to point it out as wrong. But neither of these things are the aim of the Revolutionaries. They want kids to think that if they have a stray desire (maybe a sexual or gender one), it is legitimate, and only an oppressive religious framework would hinder their exploration; and in order to start this conversation, the Revolutionary has to use CRT to convince the kid that the framework of yesterday, with its traditional gender norms, is wrong and oppressive, so they had better be on the right side of history (hence "progressive" - we have progressed from the Christian past.) It’s a scam; although it is an effective scam. But before anything, it is rebellion against the God before whom we live (Daniel 5:23). 

It has been this way since the beginning: “The rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against his Anointed, saying, ‘Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their chords from us,’” David wrote thousands of years ago (Ps. 2:2-3). But what is God’s response? “He who sits in the heavens laughs” (2:4). He laughs. They’re fools, and He’s laughing at them.

Still, be discerning. These are not innocent ideologies, but the maturation of a cultural rejection of the risen Christ. And if you’re not careful, you might be guilted into believing it as well. 

May the Lord protect His sheep. 

Moses, and the Extra Long Test

This morning reading through the early chapters of Exodus, I was struck by a few factors in Moses’ calling: 

-God’s miraculous protection of the man before he was ever “on the scene.” He was set apart well in advance - anyone else in the story before Moses comes to the foreground might not understand why this one child was protected. But God knew, and that’s what mattered most.

-Moses’ pre-calling (and in-calling) foibles, a la his ancestors: Similar to Jacob’s earlier birthright and blessing thefts, Moses was a murderer. There is no one who God calls to His work who has a squeaky clean past. In fact, it is often the case that they’re messy people, and that’s part of why God can use them: there is an Adam-ness about them that motivates them for the last Adam’s Kingdom. Moses’ foibles also include his famous hesitation to enter into God’s labor, famously ending by saying, “Please Lord, send someone else” (4:13). Note, God isn’t calling a man with an initially strong faith. Like his ancestor Abraham (cf. Rom. 4:20) Moses’ faith was going to have to grow over time. He accepts the call and begins the trek to Egypt. 

-Moses’ first—strange—test: On his way back to Egypt, he again follows his ancestor Jacob’s pattern by getting into a nighttime wrestling match with God who “sought to put him to death” (4:24). Such strong language is doubtless the text’s way of telling us how brutal the fighting was. Since Moses’ son’s foreskin getting cut off deescalates God’s pursuit (4:26), it seems clear that this is God’s way of making sure that Moses knows he’s a part of a grander story that includes his circumcised ancestors. In God’s targeting us, He teaches us. Moses and his wife Zipporah learn the lesson.

-Moses second—and much unexpected—test: When he gets to Egypt and tells Pharaoh to let the people go to the wilderness to worship, the latter doesn’t listen, and he orders heavier work on the Israelites, because how dare this Moses make such a suggestion? The Israelites understandably turn on Moses. At this point Moses cries out to God, “Why have you sent me here? You haven’t delivered the people yet, and now they want to kill me” (5:22-23 my loose paraphrase). It is only at that point that God tells Moses, “Now you’ll see what I’m about to do… Go back to Pharaoh” (Ex. 6:1ff.) What immediately follows is Moses and Aaron’s genealogy, which is the text’s way of telling us that God is about to begin working powerfully with these men.

But don’t miss what has happened in this last test: Moses the murderer, who has begged God to send someone else because of his own weaknesses, is taken through a night of wrestling with the Lord that most of us can only imagine in horror; when he survives, he obeys God by speaking with Pharaoh, only to then have God let him sit there with egg on his face while Pharaoh, instead of complying, gives the Israelite’s heavier burdens; for a time, everyone is against Moses.

This inexplicable scenario—that is, Why did God delay his fulfilling his promise one more scene, and with such disastrous and terrifying consequences?—is never explained in the text. 

But we know that the testing of our faith is often “necessary” (1 Pet. 1:6), and that it is given to us for our maturation and growth in grace (Jms. 1:3-4). Without such dark nights of the soul we wouldn’t truly depend on God; we only would talk about depending on God (see 2 Corinthians 1:3-8).

The lesson is simple: If you want to follow God’s call, be ready for twists, turns, and extended times of testing that you won’t understand, maybe ever in this life. But trust the hands of the Potter who only fashions beautiful vessels. He knows not only the right temperature, materials, and time needed to make  the vessel, but also the right amount of pressure. And it will be perfect in the end. 

On God's Natural Work and God's Strange Work

*Disclaimer: I started writing this based on my own reflection on some texts, and then when I opened up Dane Ortlund's Gentle and Lowly, I realized that most of my reflection was influenced by reading his book. That is to say that the proceeding thoughts are not born out of my own private Spirit-driven reflection, but out of Dane's. I highly recommend reading everything he writes.

Jeremiah 32:41 and Lamentations 3:33 show a contrast that teaches an insightful lesson ab God's nature and work:

Jer. 32:41 - God delights to bless his people w his whole heart.

Lam. 3:33 - God might afflict (ie, allow/work trial), but it is not "from the heart."

The blessing of God--his goodness expressed in such a way that it produces a tangible effect--comes from his heart, meaning his blessing is an end. But trials are not from heart but are secondary, meaning that they are a means to another end; I say, a means to the previous end. In other words, trials are what he uses, but blessing is his goal. 

This is why we cannot please him unless we believe that he rewards those who seek him (Hebrews 11:6: "Whoever would draw near to God must believe that He is and that he rewards those who seek him."): It is in his nature to bless and reward - it is not in his nature to curse or punish. When he does those things, it is his "strange work" (as theologians say), meaning it is the response of his character to that which offends his holiness. But when he blesses and rewards, it is his "natural work;" that is, what it is in his nature to do. He naturally gives and blesses; His judgments or punishments are his responses. His disciplines (which are reserved for his covenant people) are a separate category that include both sides: He gives discipline for good purposes (thus, natural), but his doing so is indeed a response to a need that he sees in his disciple (thus, somewhat strange).

How would your life change if your view of God begun with seeing him as primarily Giver instead of primarily Judge? Of course, He is the Judge of the whole earth (Gen. 18:25), let's be clear. And only He can be the Judge. But again, judgment is his response. Giving is his natural outgoingness. Thus He "is not served by human hands but he gives to mankind life and breath and everything" (Ac. 17:25).

Never be afraid to seek the Lord - it is in his nature to respond with goodness (Lk. 11:1-13). And even his disciplines, experienced as trials/affliction, serve his ultimate purposes of good. Trust the One who is love.

*For further reading, see Ortlund's Gentle and Lowly, as well as Michael Reeves' Delighting in the Trinity and What Does It Mean to Fear the Lord?

Faith

"Without faith it is impossible to please Him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists (Gk He is) and that he rewards those who draw near to him" - Hebrews 11:6

What is saving faith? I've done a lot of thinking, preaching, teaching, writing etc. on the nature of saving faith over the courses of my pastoral ministry and student life, and I still do not think that I've plunged the depths of the topic. In Scripture, faith is enjoined as the way in which humans connect with God as early as Abraham (Gen. 15:6), and it is so throughout the Old Testament narrative. When the New Testament era comes, consistent with prophetic promises (Is. 28:16, Habak. 2:4), faith is central. All through Jesus' earthly life and ministry, he calls on people to believe in him (Mk. 5:34; Jn. 3:15-16), and the Evangelists are sure to remind their readers that these invitations from the Lord extend to them, too (Jn. 3:36; 20:31). After Jesus leaves and He sends his Spirit, the Apostles go throughout the world preaching eternal life through faith in Christ (10:42-43, 13:34-35, 16:31, cf. 15:9), and Paul emphasizes throughout his letters that the gospel of Jesus can only be appropriated by faith (Rom. 3-5, Gal. 3, Eph. 2:4-9, etc.) The merits of Jesus can only be received by faith as a gift, or else they can't be received. To add anything to His merits is to strip them of their value, and therefore, to not truly believe that He has done enough to redeem us. So faith is central. 

But there are a few central elements that often get passed over, which the Hebrews passage quoted above helps to clarify. 

1. First, faith is oriented to pleasing God. That is, the believer is interested in, before anything else, seeking God's happiness. "Without faith it is impossible to please him," means that the one with faith wants to please Him. To some degree (and the degree varies depending on the degree of spiritual maturity a person has), the believer has learned that reality revolves around and depends on God, not themselves. Therefore, they have learned that they exist for God's glory (Is. 43:7), and, therefore, want to please him.* 

2. Second, faith is relational. That is, the believer wants to "draw near to God," to get close to him and enjoy His presence. They are not afraid of God's closeness. They can't get enough of Him, His presence, and His Word, so they pursue Him for His own sake (ie, Mk. 1:37). They would "rather be a doorkeeper in  the house of God than to dwell in the tents of wickedness" (Ps. 84:10).

3. Third, faith consists of belief in the foundational nature of His existence. In other words, the believer believes that before everything else, and undergirding everything else, God is. The greek of the middle part of the Hebrews passage is more simple than "He exists;" it is more like, "He is," which might remind a Jewish person (the original reader of Hebrews) of God's famous self-identification at the burning bush, telling Moses, "I Am" (Ex. 3:14). When God said, "I Am," he was saying he is pure act, outside of time, not subject to influence, change, or progress.** Before all else, God is; and the rest of existence flows from His being. Faith has some degree of clarity about God's transcendent being; while sound theology might not be as clear as it will be years into the believer's discipleship, every believer must be clear that God is transcendent and other. But God is patient as people continue to grow in their theology.

4. Fourth, and finally, faith means to be sure that He receives seekers. "He rewards those who seek him." Let's be honest: Since Eden, we've been prone to default to snake-talk that convinces us that God has more He could give us, but since He isn't good, and therefore isn't trustworthy, the only way we'll find what we're looking for is if we go and take it ourselves. The notion of waiting on the Lord (Is. 40:31) sounds good for worship songs, but is the opposite of what we assume in real life. Nevertheless, to believe, according to our text, is to believe that God is open to us when we seek him; that He wants to establish fellowship with us; that He is ready to open his heart for us if we draw near to him. "Whoever comes to me I will never cast out," Jesus said (Jn. 6:37). 

Unbelief, then, assumes the worst about God's intentions: He doesn't tell the truth, He is powerless and even exacting when it comes to your own personal sin, and He has limits to what He can do for you. Belief, then, assumes the best about His intentions: He tells the truth, He can not only forgive but heal your fallen propensities, and He has no limits whatsoever.*^ Belief, then, is to assume that, contrary to what is our theological default, God is receptive to us, regardless of what our past or present looks like. How glorious is it that even after all of the disciples' failures and before their most embarrassing failure of leaving Jesus the night he was betrayed, that, nevertheless, "Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end" (Jn. 13:1)? He knew their hearts, and what they'd do moving forward. But He loved them still. And Jesus is the same, yesterday, today, and forever (Heb. 13:8), always receptive and ready to receive us when we return.

So let's remember when we read the Scriptures concerning faith, and when we examine our faith to make sure it is real--because it might be counterfeit (Lk. 6:46)--that we remember that God looks for the type of faith that assumes that He is both good and warm to us. That is his nature. Whereas He must be provoked to wrath, when his holiness is offended, love and kindness is His default (1 Jn. 4:8, cf. Ex. 34:6). How can we be sure? Because the triunity of the Father and the Son consists in eternal love (Jn. 17:24) which overflowed into eternal decrees that include the loving choice of sinners to salvation (Eph. 1:3-4) and into a creation that puts his goodness on display every moment of every day (Ps. 19:1-2, Mt. 5:44ff). And since He never changes, we can be sure that the relational love that comes from all eternity comes, indeed, to us, establishing relationship with Him, and maintaining it by faith. In short, to truly believe in God is to love Him; and this love is the gift of His Spirit as we feast on His Word and goodness (Rom. 5:5).

*Piper's Desiring God was written to make clear that seeking God's happiness is not contradictory to seeking our happiness, if it is understood that our happiness is meant to consist in our enjoyment of God's happiness. See that book, if you haven't. 

**See Matthew Barrett's None Greater: The Undomesticated Attributes of God, if you haven't, especially pp. 41-69, which comprise his chapters on God's limitlessness and aseity. 

*^I'm reminded of an old AW Tozer quote: "How completely satisfying to turn from our limitations to a God who has none" (in Knowledge of the Holy, 47).

Christ the Preeminent Word Who Effectively Saves

(Taken from a recent Wednesday evening study of Colossians 1:15-20. The text is wiidely considered to be one of the most important New Testament texts for understanding Christ’s identity. Many theologians and scholars think the text is a first century hymn that either was penned into the canon or was made into a hymn because it was in the canon. Other NT examples of this phenomenon might be John 1:1-18 and Philippians 2:1-10, both of which also deal with Jesus’ identity and work.)

Christ’s coming into the world altered how the people of God thought about and reflected upon the Word of God. Christ didn’t change the Word of God, nor was his life and ministry a “twist” in the story. Rather, his coming showed how God would fulfill HIs promises and plan which had been witnessed to throughout the Old Testament. Things that were unclear are now clear. This is why Paul refers so often to the “mystery” that was hidden for so long but is now clear (ie, Rom. 16:25; Eph. 3:6,9; and Col. 1:26, 2:2): While God’s Word accomplished all of his purposes throughout time (Is. 55:10-11), there was much that still needed clarified in order to understand it. Christ clarified it, and now the purposes of God are revealed in the fullest way possible within a fallen world. Thus we can’t read the Old Testament any longer without remembering our relationship to Christ. We, to borrow from one theologian, can't help but to “read backwards."*

The Preeminence of Christ’s Person in Col. 1:15-17

How important is Christ, the Son of God? 

-First, He is the “image (Gk icon) of the invisible God” (1:15a), as in 2 Cor. 4:4 and Heb.1:3. For a human to know what God is like, they must look at Jesus, who is his image. 

-Second, Christ is the “firstborn of all creation” (1:15b). An ancient church leader named Arius took the notion of “firstborn of creation” to mean that Christ was the first creation of God. Arius, along with others like him, thought he found support in Prov. 8:22. They say that this verse must mean that Christ is not eternal. For how could he be the firstborn of creation, if he was never “born?” 

-But 1:16-17 entirely rules out the possibility of Christ being created: “By him all things were created…he is before all things,” which means first that he is, in some way, himself the Creator, and second, that he, predating all things, is not a thing himself. So “firstborn of creation” must mean something else. 

Psalm 89 drips with Christ as the promised descendent Seed of David. Verse 27 has God promising “I’ll make David (that is, his promised descendent) the firstborn.” But this promised seed, not having come yet, if he were a created being, would be far from the first person created. It becomes obvious, therefore, that “firstborn” is a term, not of chronology, but of priority. So the Seed promised to David will be the most important in all of creation. 

But what of the phrase “of creation” in “firstborn of creation?” This is where it gets tricky, but not so tricky that we end up confused. The eternal Son of God, the eternal Word (Jn. 1:1-2), in becoming incarnate to be the promised seed of David, put on a created body in order to do so. Make sure you understand that: While the eternal Word is uncreated, the body he took on in the Incarnation is created. This is the doctrine known as the Hypostatic Union (formulated in the Athanasian Creed, 4th c), which means that Christ united in one hypostasis (existence) two natures: Humanity and Divinity. Doing so, he becomes the most important of all that exists, especially of the creation, with which he can identify because his body is created. While the Word is not just a man, but is also divine, in His humanity He is the firstborn of all of creation.

The Efficacy of His Work in 1:18-20

So the next few verses emphasize his work from his time on earth and on, as the Redeemer. Whereas 1:15-17 focus on his eternality, 1:18-20 focuses on his work as the Redeemer who, being divine, identifies with creation in order to save it. The work he did on earth 2000 years ago continues, because his resurrected body included his physical body (Lk. 24:39), and that resurrected body entered into heaven to intercede for sinners such as us as “the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). 

-1:18 - He’s the head of the church, his physical body on earth. He’s the beginning 

(meaning, the beginning of the New Creation, cf. 2 Cor. 5:17). 

-1:19 - In Him God’s fullness dwelt bodily (Jn. 14:10).

-1:20 He alone can reconcile all things to himself.

The point is this: His eternal Person and his work in time establish him as the most important of all that exists. In this way he is “the firstborn of all creation.” 

The Importance of Distinguishing Bw His Person and His Work 

Arius and others like him (in the modern world, Jehovah’s Witnesses) act as though texts like Col. 1:15 teach that it wasn’t until the 1st century that Christ existed. But being pre-creation, He is eternal. Time didn’t exist until creation existed, and now it only exists as the measure of the temporal limit of creation. But Christ is the eternal Word who is himself from eternity. The incarnation reflects something of His eternality as the Word, but is special in that it fulfills God’s promises and reaches the goal of the Old Testament (that is, giving God a faithful covenant partner). In other words, the eternal Word put on humanity in a way that accomplishes God’s purposes without jettisoning the Word’s eternality. God becomes a man in order to draw man to himself.

When we glory in Christ (Phil. 3:3)—that is, when we worship him, reflect on his goodness, and enjoy him—we not only glory in Him because of what He’s done for us, but because of who He is in himself. If you belong to Jesus, you can rest assured that as old as Christ the eternal Word is—and age doesn’t really apply to him, being eternal—that is a reflection of HIs eternal love for you (Eph. 1:3-4). 

________________________________

*Richard Hays, Reading Backwards: Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel Witness (Waco: Baylor Press, 2016).