On Personal Relationship

Recently, some friends and I were discussing faith and "personal relationship" over Facebook when I was reminded of a similar conversation in which I was a participant some months ago. I've included portions of the earlier correspondence below to help clarify some of my thoughts (obviously drawn from others) on faith and our right relationship with the Creator. More on this topic to follow...

...When the Westminster Shorter Catechism asks "What is the chief end of man?" - the answer (drawn from Scripture), "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him for ever." alludes to a personal relationship with God through the exhortation to "enjoy Him forever". Such a relationship is both corporate and personal with the object of focus being extraspective or outward (on Christ) instead of introspective or self-examining. I submit that every person - atheist and Christian alike - is in relationship with God (Rm 1:21). If you accept this proposition, the nature of that relationship must be questioned; is God near in wrath or forgiveness? Because of Christ's work on the cross, Christians alone are able to proclaim that God comes near to them in forgiveness - having been declared righteous by their Savior. Such is the good news of the Gospel! Our right relationship with God is reinforced every Sunday when God draws near to us in forgiveness through His Word and Sacraments; ink, wine, and bread. This is where our certainty, our belongingness is strengthened and confirmed. If we are truly His sheep, God draws near to us in forgiveness whilst reserving His judgment for the unbeliever. Speaking of God's relational nearness to the unbeliever, R.C. Sproul dismisses the popular notion of hell as the place where sinners are cast away from the presence of God. Instead, Sproul argues that God is very much present in hell and directly in relationship with its citizens...in judgment. Hell, according to Sproul, is where God's wrath is manifested through His drawing near in judgment.

Which leads me to my next thought; our relationship with God is more a matter of justification (God drawing near in forgiveness) and faith than of sanctification. Princeton theologian, John Gresham Machen, makes a similar case in his book "Christianity and Liberalism" in which he contends that relationships are functions of trust. Trust, in turn, requires - depends upon - knowledge of the person at the other end of the relationship.

"It is vain, then, to speak of reposing trust in the Person without believing the message. For trust involves a personal relationship between the one who trusts and him in whom the trust is reposed. And in this case the personal relation is set by the blessed theology of the cross...The truth is that when men speak of trust in Jesus’ person, as being possible without acceptance of the message of his death and resurrection, they do not really mean trust at all. What they designate as trust is really admiration and reverence."

Put another way, "You can't rely on someone about whom you've determined to know nothing" (Kim Riddlebarger). Our right relationship with God necessitates our knowledge of and assent to, the doctrinal truths of the Bible - in addition to our trusting in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Without such an understanding, Christ is easily demoted to the "embodiment of the good man, the one who lives for others, the one who is ultimately to be admired and, if possible, emulated" (Carl Trueman, Christianity, Liberalism and the New Evangelicalism). A right understanding of faith necessarily links knowledge with trust - instead of pitting them against each other as is so often the case in American evangelicalism ("not head knowledge, but heart knowledge", or as D.L Moody famously quipped: "My theology! I didn't know I had any"). In his article, "Check the Credentials!", Michael Horton comments upon the ignorant state of American evangelicalism:

"Because we do not have the resevoir [sic] of knowledge from which to draw concerning God's attributes, Christ's person and work, the events of saving history--in other words, the objective, cognitive content of the Scriptures--we lack confidence in God. And so, lacking that knowledge and confidence, we simply will ourselves to believe, in spite of our ignorance. This is why foreign observers have remarked that "faith in faith is a characteristically American heresy...."

He closes with the provocative line: "Your faith will grow only in proportion to your growth in knowledge." (Phil 1:9) Knowledge as used here should not be confused with the empty pursuit of scholarly minutiae obtained to better one's standing amongst peers - but rather to mean knowledge of God obtained through meditating on (out loud - to hagah!), chewing on His Word (Prov. 1:7, 1:29, 15:4, etc..., Hos 4:6, Rom 1:28, 10:2). Scripture reading (listening), memorization and the fruits of that labor. It is from His Word that we are able to know more of His attributes and on the person and work of Jesus Christ. Because we did not meet Jesus, shaking hands with him as did the apostles; our relational experience with God must - must - come from Scripture alone. Calvin puts it thus:

"Many foolishly invent for themselves a faith confused and without any understanding of the Gospel. No word is more commonplace among the Papists than 'believe,' but it is said without the knowledge of Christ gained from hearing and understanding the Gospel."

In sum, I concur with the original question; it is "possible that a person knows all of the rules and hides behind them (knowingly or unknowingly)". However, I would add that a right relationship with God is impossible without knowledge of Him.

----- Original Message -----

...Is it possible that a person knows all of the rules and hides behind them (knowingly or unknowingly)? Is it possible that a person has been in church every Sunday for 20 years and has yet to be known by the One who loves them most and best? Is it possible that there is no relationship at all?

Passover Season

There is so much depth to the Passover season! I hope to post a bit more than usual during this time in a (feeble) attempt at unpacking some of its riches. I thought it best to start first with the ordination of (Pesach) Passover as a feast to be remembered forever. I plan to build on this text in later posts...

The LORD said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, "This month shall be for you the beginning of months. It shall be the first month of the year for you. Tell all the congregation of Israel that on the tenth day of this month every man shall take a lamb according to their fathers’ houses, a lamb for a household. And if the household is too small for a lamb, then he and his nearest neighbor shall take according to the number of persons; according to what each can eat you shall make your count for the lamb. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats, and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, when the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lambs at twilight. "Then they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat it. They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted on the fire; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it. Do not eat any of it raw or boiled in water, but roasted, its head with its legs and its inner parts. And you shall let none of it remain until the morning; anything that remains until the morning you shall burn. In this manner you shall eat it: with your belt fastened, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand. And you shall eat it in haste. It is the LORD’s Passover. For I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and I will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the LORD. The blood shall be a sign for you, on the houses where you are. And when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you, when I strike the land of Egypt. "This day shall be for you a memorial day, and you shall keep it as a feast to the LORD; throughout your generations, as a statute forever, you shall keep it as a feast. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall remove leaven out of your houses, for if anyone eats what is leavened, from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel. On the first day you shall hold a holy assembly, and on the seventh day a holy assembly. No work shall be done on those days. But what everyone needs to eat, that alone may be prepared by you. And you shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread, for on this very day I brought your hosts out of the land of Egypt. Therefore you shall observe this day, throughout your generations, as a statute forever. In the first month, from the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread until the twenty-first day of the month at evening. For seven days no leaven is to be found in your houses. If anyone eats what is leavened, that person will be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he is a sojourner or a native of the land. You shall eat nothing leavened; in all your dwelling places you shall eat unleavened bread."
-- Exodus 12:1-20

Email Archives: Christocentric Theology

Occasionally I run across emails that I've written or which have been sent to me which make for good blog material. As I find and post these, I'll add the "Email Archives" label to them. Google Desktop helped me find this one - sent in early 2008 to a group of believers who used to meet each week to discuss theology:

---

I've been reading (and listening) a lot lately to several theologians who are unpacking "Christocentric theology". For me, this is simply an outgrowth of covenant theology - but it also bears strong Lutheran (and others) influence. In short, Christocentric theology teaches that Christ is at the center of the entire Bible - Genesis to maps. All Scripture points - either forward or backward - to Jesus as Messiah. As an example - beginning immediately after the fall in (Genesis 3:14,15) God promises Eve an offspring (Messiah) who will crush the head of the serpent:

"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

From this account onward, Scripture is filled with prophesies, types, and shadows - all pointing to Christ. The most complex and amazing plotline ever developed. Moses served as a "type" of Christ; as did Joshua, David, Elijah, etc... Thus, I tend to react negatively when a Biblical figure such as Joshua is taught as an example of leadership - or when we’re charged to emulate star qualities ("dare to be a Daniel") of a particular character in redemptive history. Yes, Joshua was a leader, and yes, Daniel was courageous - but more importantly - they foreshadowed Christ - serving as role players in the story of Jesus. An understanding of Christ’s roles as prophet, priest, and king are of vital import. Thus, when I read Scripture I don’t see a character study - but rather a series of Messianic prophesies and their fulfillment. Building on the theme, Christ’s exemplary life is of secondary importance to the work that He performed on the cross for our sins. Christ’s substitutionary atonement is the "good news" that we are to proclaim. The Gospel message (theology of the cross) should never be confused with "you too can become a better person" (theology of glory). Muslims who respect Jesus as a prophet would do well to try to emulate His life (even lifestyle) - and they would probably admit as much. Ghandi did when he quipped:

"I like your Christ, but not your Christians"

Who doesn't find the popular characterization of Christ as appealing across culture boundaries? Everyone would do well to emulate Christ (where possible; His most important acts cannot be followed!). The snag comes with the "offense" (scandal) of the cross. This is where the Muslims draw the line; they don’t want any part of Christ as Messiah. His character traits - sure. His redemptive role as prophet, priest, and king? No way. This sacrifice and its implications are distinctly Christian. The atonement is at the front and center of Christianity; all else pales in comparison. Which is why I insist on hearing Christ and His atoning work preached *every* Sunday. This is not to say that the story of the cross is weekly repeated - but rather, the week’s passages interpreted as they point to Christ and His work on the cross. Christocentric preaching. Whether we’re studying Lamentations or Revelations - the focus of the service should be on Christ and his atoning work. Towards this point, I'm reminded of the scorn with which one of my Lutheran friends views sermon titles; in his words, every sermon should be titled "Christ and His Atoning Work" - as if anything else warrants mention. Christocentric theology in action!

God With Us

C.S. Lewis’ book, The Horse and His Boy, provides the reader numerous parallels with Moses and the Exodus story. Of these, several are easily identifiable (for example, Lewis’ protagonist was found as a baby floating alone in a boat) – while others remain somewhat “suppositional”. Because I’ve been working with my dad on his current study of the Exodus, I wanted to highlight one of the more suppositional parallels corresponding to his most recent post on the Desert as God’s Teacher. My dad’s allegorical focus on the desert as representative of life’s difficult times fits neatly with Lewis’ chapter “The Unwelcome Fellow Traveller”. In this chapter, Shasta, the book’s main character, is in the midst of an urgent cross-country journey to warn Archenland and Narnia of an impending attack by the Calormenes. The journey is lonely, arduous and perilous; food is scarce, the pace swift, and on numerous occasions, Shasta (and his companions) is attacked by lions. One night, alone and hungry, Shasta begins to feel sorry for himself:

"I do think," said Shasta, "that I must be the most unfortunate boy that ever lived in the whole world. Everything goes right for everyone except me…”

And being very tired and having nothing inside him, he felt so sorry for himself that the tears rolled down his cheeks.

Suddenly, Shasta is frightened by the awareness that something - or someone - was walking beside him; someone who “seemed to breathe on a very large scale”. Unable to see who or what is near him, Shasta begins a frightened, whispered dialogue with the Presence.

“Who are you?”

“Are you a giant?”

“You’re not – not something dead are you?”

Assuring Shasta that he is not a ghost, the Thing breathes on Shasta’s hand and face:

“…that was not the breath of a ghost. Tell me your sorrows."

"Shasta was a little reassured by the breath: so he told how he had never known his real father or mother and had been brought up sternly by the fisherman. And then he told the story of his escape and how they were chased by lions and forced to swim for their lives; and of all their dangers in Tashbaan and about his night among the tombs and how the beasts howled at him out of the desert. And he told about the heat and thirst of their desert journey and how they were almost at their goal when another lion chased them and wounded Aravis. And also, how very long it was since he had had anything to eat."

"I do not call you unfortunate," said the Large Voice.

"Don’t you think it was bad luck to meet so many lions?" said Shasta.

"There was only one lion," said the Voice.

"What on earth do you mean? I’ve just told you there were at least two the first night, and---"

"There was only one: but he was swift of foot."

"How do you know?"

"I was the lion"--

"I was the lion who forced you to join with Aravis. I was the cat who comforted you among the houses of the dead. I was the lion who drove the jackals from you while you slept. I was the lion who gave the Horses the new strength of far for the last mile so that you should reach King Lune in time. And I was the lion you do not remember who pushed the boat in which you lay, a child near death, so that it came to shore where a man sat, wakeful at midnight, to receive you." †

In recounting his travails through the desert, Shasta remembers only those times where he was imperiled; inwardly focused in a way only confessed sinners understand. In stark contrast, the lion Aslan, focuses on the myriad instances in which Shasta was unknowingly comforted, prodded, or saved. It was Aslan that brought Shasta through the desert – despite Shasta’s ignorance and bumbling. Faced with this realization, Shasta reacts in the only way he knows how:

“…after one glance at the Lion’s face he slipped out of the saddle and fell at its feet. He couldn’t say anything, and he knew he needn’t say anything.”

Like the Israelites in the Wilderness of Sin, at Rephidim, Meribah, and elsewhere, Shasta complains about his circumstances; longing for the comforts of “home” (Egypt). In every instance, Aslan (YHWH) provided. As if begging his readers to connect the dots with the Exodus story, Lewis employs a final “supposition”, reminiscent of His providing water from the rock at Horeb. In closing the chapter, Lewis pens Shasta as quenching his agonizing thirst by drinking from the water collected in the giant footprint of a lion…

The story of the Exodus, as echoed in The Horse and His Boy, reminds us that God intercedes on our behalf – even (especially) in the difficult times. In our sinful ignorance of this fact, we are no better than the Israelites of the Exodus - headstrong and complaining. Christians are called “to glory through a journey of suffering”. Bless God for His constant intercession in your life!

Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.
-- James 1:2-4. (See also: 1 Peter 1:6-7, 2 Corinthians 4:17, 2 Timothy 2:12)

†Reminiscent of the historical prologue of the Sinaitic covenant “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery” – Ex 20:2

The "Golden Rule"

Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Mattityahu 7:9-12

Anywhere from 2-8 centuries before Jesus, the Apocryphal book of Tobit posited wisdom similar to Jesus' quote in Mt. 7: "What you hate, do to no one" (Tobit 4:15). This from a book written about the time that Romans were first experimenting with concrete and when the Hasmoneans were restoring autonomy to Judea. Similarly, in drawing a comparison between Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi Shammai, the Jewish Talmud provides this illustration:

On another occasion it happened that a certain heathen came before Shammai and said to him, 'Make me a proselyte, on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot.' Thereupon he repulsed him with the builder's cubit which was in his hand. When he went before Hillel, he said to him, 'What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbour: that is the whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary thereof; go and learn it.' Shabbat 31a

Which lends an interesting historical narrative to Jesus' words in Mattityahu 22:34-39 (also Mark 12:28-34):

Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

The greatest commandment comes from the Shema - Deut 6:5; the second directly quotes Leviticus 19:18 (while paraphrasing Tobit, and summarizing Hillel's position as illustrated in the Talmud). As evidenced throughout the New Testament, Jesus masterfully uses the Text to interpret the Text. "Hillel or Shammai?" the man was asking; Jesus answers with the Text.

Sola Scriptura.

The Antichrist Revealed!

At least once a week I receive an email from a fellow Christian urging me to reject Obama as a presidential candidate on the grounds that he has been identified by the "Book of Revelations" as the antichrist. About once a week I mutter aloud in shock horror at the possibility or electing the antichrist president! A few samplings:

>> According to The Book of Revelations the anti-christ is: The
>> anti-christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who
>> will Deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a
>> MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people
>> will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world
>> peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything. Is it
>> OBAMA??

> > According to The Book of Revelations:
> >
> > The Anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40's, of MUSLIM descent,
> > who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have
> > a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people
> > will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace,
> > and when he is in power, he will destroy everything.
> >
> > And Now:
> > For the award winning Act of Stupidity Of all times the People
> > of America want to elect, to the most Powerful position on the
> > face of the Planet -- The Presidency of the United states of
> > America .. A Male of Muslim descent who is the most
> > extremely liberal Senator in Congress (in other words an
> > extremist) and in his 40's.

A few brief items of note before delving deeper into the subject:

• The Bible does not contain a book of Revelations. It is Revelation. Singular.
• The book of Revelation (singular) does not explicitly mention "antichrist". Go ahead and search; it's not there. Apocalyptic foreshadowing (the beast, the dragon, etc..) to be sure; the word "antichrist" - not to be found.
• While you're at it, search for "Muslim" and "Obama" in the text. Cogitate at length on the results.
• Not to be a nitpicker (haha), but seriously - if you're going to forward an email - remove the ">>>>" signs before so doing. Seriously!

Moving right along, is Obama really *the* Antichrist (capital A)? Are there more than one? Should we be spending time trying to determine AC's identity by matching the events of the Revelation with current events? The answer to the last question at least is a resounding "No"! In my reading for this posting, I came across several excellent articles from Monergism.com worth sharing. In a piece (oddly) titled "Prophecy makes strange bedfellows: On the history of identifying the antichrist", Stephen J. Nicholas writes this concerning the word "antichrist":

"Only John in his epistles employs the term, four times in the singular (1 John 2:18; 2:22; 4:3; and 2 John 7) and once in the plural (1 John 2:18)"

From this, Nicholas outlines the importance of the word's plurality; "antichrists" - in addition to making the case that John was referring to "a spirit of antichrist already present in the world"

"Further, John identifies antichrist for the reader as the ones who denies the deity of Christ. Thus [1 John] 2:22 reads, "Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist the one who denies the father and the son." In 4:3 John adds that every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God: "this is the spirit of antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming; and now it is already in the world." 2 John 7 states the matter directly: "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist." John provides a singular criterion for identifying antichrists: a heretical Christology." [emphasis added]

Even the "leaky dispensationalist", John MacArthur cedes this point:

"But even though the concept is, in the Bible, that this is one man, still the word "Antichrist" is much broader than any one man. Antichrist is not so much a person, a man, as it is a principle. And it is the principle of evil which is hostile to and actually opposed to God. It is the principle of anti-God, of anti-Christ. And it can be incarnated in men. And there have been such men in every generation who have been open and blatant and wicked opponents of God and Christ, or they have been subtly trying to replace the truth of God, trying to replace the Christ of God with their own deceit."

Nichols article continues with an interesting survey of the antichrist in history; various popes (indeed all of Romanism), King George, "Mussolini, Hitler, Ronald Wilson Reagan (whose name contains three words of six letters each and who almost moved to a 666 street address), Elvis, JFK, FDR, Henry Kissinger, Gorbachev (who has an uncanny birthmark on his forehead), Moshe Dayan, Anwar el-Sadat, the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, and Saddam Hussein" have all been identified as the antichrist.

Plurality indeed!

Nichols concludes with this telling line:

"Naming the antichrist probably reveals more about the person naming than anything. In some instances naming reveals a person's interpretation of texts or theology. In others, the naming has more to do with one's sociological or political views. Was Gorbachev, for instance, an enemy of orthodox Christology as much as he was a threat to Americanism? One might rightly query as to the theological motivations behind naming Henry Kissinger, JFK, and FDR. Robert Fuller observes the tendency to demonize one's enemy and, as his study reveals, the label of antichrist becomes quite a convenient tool."

In the frenzy leading to the elections, American Christians would do well to heed Polycarp's (John's disciple) words:

"For whoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist"; and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, is of the devil; and whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts, and says that there is neither a resurrection nor a judgment, he is the first-born of Satan. Wherefore forsaking the vanity of many, and their false doctrines, let us return to the word that has been handed down to us from the beginning; "watching unto prayer," and persevering in fasting; beseeching in our supplications the all-seeing God "not to lead us into temptation."

Amen.

All Dogs Go to Heaven

Signs from two churches which face each other across a street...