Looking for the Resurrection of the Dead

by | Aug 9, 2016 | Resurrection, Theology, Video Games

Looking for the Resurrection of the Dead: The Starting Point for Finding the “Lost Boys”

[The following guest post from Ryan Davidson (a former deacon at MCPC) advances the conversation started by Samuel James and Carl Trueman regarding the “Lost Boys.” — Peter Wallace]

 

Looking for the resurrection of the dead may actually be the most important apologetic task set before the church today. Because in that hope is an affirmation of the reality of humans as essentially *embodied*. One’s body is not a cage to be escaped from or a restraint to be discarded. God made us with bodies, and it is only with bodies that true human flourishing is possible, in this life or the next.

I don’t have a linear argument here, just observations about three contemporary cultural phenomena which I believe are tied together in their denial of–or at the very least blindness towards–this fact of human nature. All of them have to do with the internet.

We’ll start with video games, because that’s where the “Lost Boys” article starts. I did not find the James piece compelling, but I must also register some dissatisfaction with some of Trueman’s analysis as well. Video games as an activity have their problems, and I’ll get to that in a minute. But there is definitely a sense in which a lot of the criticisms of video games could apply just as well to activities various authors find laudable. Chess is “only a game,” but it’s long been recognized as a “legitimate” intellectual past time. It produces no more concrete material benefits to its participants than video games do for theirs, but somehow it doesn’t tend to garner the same sort of criticism. To the extent that a person can spend too much time on video games (which one certainly can!), it would seem to me that one would have to say the same thing about chess. Only one doesn’t hear that argument made all that often. It may be that chess just isn’t all that popular, so it doesn’t get the same kind of attention from the commetariat. But I have to think the disparate treatment is also a function of *taste,* and I’m just not willing to credit any serious ethical distinctions which are founded upon taste.

Because there are definitely ways in which video games can be a positive component to healthy human communities, and these generally have to do with bringing people together in shared love of the same activities. For instance, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, a lot of people used video game consoles as party activities. Mario Kart. Goldeneye. The first Halo. Various Wii games even today. And the almost innumerable rhythm/music games, culminating with Rock Band. Up to four people could play these at once, and if you traded controllers almost a dozen people could be involved over the course of an evening. True, there are ways of spending an evening that are more beneficial in the long run, but there are also far worse things to do. The basic fact is that we’re talking about anywhere from two to a dozen people, all in the same room, having a good time together. If it’s a video game facilitating that, what of it?

Unfortunately, contemporary gaming culture has actually moved *away* from the things that made that possible. Multiplayer games are now almost exclusively played over the internet, with no two players ever being in the same room in most circumstances. So any communal camaraderie which might have emerged in the context of four-plus guys on a couch is *gone.* People act as if this is no different from having everyone in the same room, but it *is* different. It’s no longer something that four embodied human beings are doing in the same physical space. It’s something that four brains in jars could do just as well as actual people, and the experience is the worse for it. Only no one really seems to notice that, or if they do no one seems to think it’s a problem.

Related to that is the phenomenon of people describing online interactions as “communities.” I see more and more of this on YouTube, as content creators describe their subscriber bases as “communities,” sometimes extending that to the people that subscribe to a group of channels (e.g., channels devoted to gaming, baking, comedy, cosmetics, whatever). And they’re not limiting their meaning to purely the exchange of ideas about the subject matter. Academicians have long spoken of the “academic community,” but what I understand that to mean is limited to the development and advancing of particular academic conversations. Two scholars trading insights and/or blows on the pages of academic journals over a period of months or years, with others chiming in from time to time as appropriate. There’s certainly something to that, but in the academy anyway, no one seems to think that this is anything but professional. None of the participants view their interactions in that format as being of any personal, relational significance beyond the subject matter under discussion. But YouTubers talk about “being there for each other,” doing “great things” beyond the immediate subject at hand, supporting each other, etc. All the things one would expect to hear occurring, not to put too fine a point on it, in the local church. There is most certainly a place for exchanging ideas on the internet. But people are increasingly starting to view it as the equivalent of–even a *replacement for*–embodied communities.

I find this increasingly disturbing. These interactions necessarily exclude any real involvement with the participants’ bodies and are greatly impoverished for it. It doesn’t matter how emotionally satisfying one finds one’s interactions on an internet forum to be. Unless those relationships exist outside the internet, in “meat space,” as the cool kids say, none of those people are going to bring you a meal, bail you out of jail, stand in your wedding, watch your kids, call you for a ride to the airport, or basically provide any means of tangible, embodied support for you. The internet can act as an extra layer on top of existing relationships, but it cannot be a *substitute* for physical interactions in the real world. And people are treating it that way, often without even knowing they’re doing it.

Only some people *do* know that they’re doing it, which brings us to the third phenomenon: people at war with their own bodies. Now we’re talking some often deadly serious issues, e.g., the ongoing “gender identity” nonsense, body image issues, physical illness, more exotic/fantastical practices that even most internet natives find amusingly wacky. Less seriously, we’re talking about people who are just physically awkward/shy, who for whatever reason haven’t learned how to be comfortable in their own bodies, let alone around other people’s bodies. People like this often deliberately an consciously turn to the internet for the social connections they can’t/won’t/are afraid to make in person. This has a number of vicious effects, not least of which is the creation of echo chambers in which people with similar/related issues can talk to each other without any external, corrective input and, to quote a phrase, “glory in their shame.” I do not think it coincidence that the exponential rate at which LGBTQ issues went from unspoken, to spoken, to mainstream seems to have started right around the same time that the internet became widely available in the home. People identifying as LGBTQ have never represented more than a low single-digit percentage of the population, rendering it almost impossible for more than one or two people to get together in the same physical space outside of the largest cities, where the sheer scale of the population made it abundantly clear just how distinct a minority they were. All of that goes out the window on the internet. One can immediately connect with an arbitrary number of like-minded people, to the exclusion of all others, making it very easy to forget or even outright deny the validity or even existence of other viewpoints.

But my point here is not primarily political, as much as it is to call attention to the fact that a *lot* of people out there have *very* negative relationships with their own bodies, and the format of the internet permits an outlet for that kind of thing. Prior to the mid-1990s, anyone who wanted to talk to more than one person at a time really had to get out of the house and go do it. This necessitated interaction in the flesh, and even attempts to form affinity-based communities could not get around the brute facts of distance (limiting the number of people that could be involved) and the existence of other persons (whose presence cannot be denied when walking around downtown). I think this had two effects that prevented these issues from coming to the attention of both the church and the wider culture. First, because these people were so dispersed throughout the population, it was pretty easy to just ignore them as “that one guy.” Can’t really do that anymore. But second, and more positively, the mere fact that you just had to *go outside* forced a lot of people to deal with their issues, willy-nilly. When it is impossible, as a practical matter, to avoid the reality of one’s body, one either comes to terms with it (and moves on with one’s life) or doesn’t (see Oscar Wilde). Now, there are a ton of people out there who are not only refusing to deal with the fact of their bodies, but even starting to insist that they, as human persons, should not be subject to the physical fact of their bodies. They don’t *feel* like they’re male, they’re going to insist that you treat them as female, biology be damned. Or less militantly, people with body image problems can spend all of their time commiserating with other people with similar issues, allowing themselves to be consumed by that issue instead of basically growing up and moving on to other things.

I think that looking for the resurrection of the body has the potential to be an incredible counter-agent for these related phenomena. It requires us to insist that *humans* *are* *embodied.* We do not look to be “freed” from our bodies, as so many people (understandably!) do. But looking for the resurrection of the body also requires us to acknowledge the *brokenness* of the body. No, we do not seek to be “freed” from our bodies, but inherent in looking for resurrection is, or ought to be, an acknowledgment that it is just as possible to be at war with one’s body as it is within one’s soul. “Who will save me from this body of death?” is not *merely* spiritual, even though it certainly involves that. The church has the capacity, if it puts its mind to it, to directly engage these people’s hurts. We don’t really expect the sick to be healed in dramatic fashion anymore, but we *do* fully expect our bodies to be *restored.*

This is why I find James’s and even Trueman’s pieces to be do disappointing. Neither really seems to wrestle with the fact that so many people feel so disconnected from or even antagonistic towards their bodies. Which is sad, because such seems to be arguably explicit in Genesis 3, or at the very least strongly implied. It’s ironic really: in criticizing cultural phenomena that are fundamentally Gnostic in their denial of the importance or even the reality of the human body, neither author talks about the body seemingly at all!

I would hope the above would resonate fairly strongly with the work of James K.A. Smith out of Calvin. “Desiring the Kingdom” is one of the most important books I’ve read, highlighting how fundamentally *embodied* Christian worship is, most obviously in the sacraments, but even just in the fact of coming together in one room, breathing the same air, singing together, touching, moving, standing, sitting, all of the overlooked but essential elements of Christian liturgy. And of course, we can hardly leave this subject without a mention of the horrifyingly absurd phenomenon of “virtual church services,” up to and including the abomination that is the “remote” administration of the sacraments (BYO bread and wine).

All of which to say that I think that these phenomena revolve around a single issue, the fact of the human body, which the church is uniquely positioned to address. The church can and should counter these ways of ignoring or outright denying of the significance of the human body by not only drawing attention to the body by engaging humans as corporeal beings in its liturgies, but by offering the only thing that goes beyond mere amelioration of the pitfalls of our incarnation: the power of the resurrection. This, I believe, is the message contemporary culture is longing for. To paraphrase Smith, one cannot satisfy a fire in someone’s guts by pouring water on their head. People with adversarial relationships with their bodies do not need information. They need the bread and the wine–the Body and the Blood–as divinely empowered foretastes (in every sense of that word!) of the life of the world to come.

Ryan Davidson, Lancaster, Pennsylvania

Maximus the Confessor and the Trinitarian Debate

by | Jul 1, 2016 | Theology

“Persons Act, Natures Are” – Maximus the Confessor and the Trinitarian Debate

Peter J. Wallace

It was good to see Lewis Ayres comment today. I had some of the same concerns about the blithe use of “Nicene” – and a tendency on the part of many participants to talk as though all of the words we are using here are obvious in meaning.

The debate over the meaning of the Nicene Creed continued for several hundred years. Chalcedon, after all, sought to explicate the meaning of “was made man.” And particularly, much of the discussion of the two wills of Christ took place three hundred years after Nicea!

For myself, I spent a decade wrestling with the Trinitarian and Christological controversies before I finally discovered Maximus the Confessor. (I’d like to say that now everything is perfectly clear to me – but then Maximus would box my ears for denying the mystery of God!).

Maximus the Confessor was a seventh century theologian who helped formulate the doctrine of the two natures of Christ – particularly in the Monothelite controversy. The Monothelites claimed that Christ had only one will and one energy. (He also wrote a glorious exposition of the liturgy – the Mystagogia – you can get a sense for it here).

What we affirm in the Nicene Creed and the Chalcedonian definition is that the second person of the Trinity is the one person of Jesus Christ.

In the 6th and 7th centuries the Monothelites claimed that there was one theandric energy and will (and by “theandric” they meant “pertaining to the God-man”). They said that in Christ the two natures had come together, constituting an indivisible unity, discerned in a single energy and/or will. Their goal was laudable: they wanted to resolve the schism between the Chalcedonians and the Monophysites (though, in fairness, there were a lot more than two parties in the debate).

But Maximus rightly understood the problem: a “theandric” energy and/or will is neither divine nor human. If Jesus’ will is “theandric” – then his will is not very God of very God. Nor is his will truly human. Christ may not lack any natural property of humanity or divinity. “How again, if the Word made flesh does not himself will naturally as a human being and perform things in accordance with nature, how can he willingly undergo hunger and thirst, labour and weariness, sleep and all the rest? For the Word does not simply will and perform these things in accordance with the infinite nature beyond being that he has together with the Father and the Spirit.” (Opuscule 7, 77B)

Much of our discussion of “will” and “energy” have to do with our ordinary human experience of willing (deciding what to do) and doing (putting our decisions into practice). What does it mean that Christ has two wills? Certainly not that Christ is a split personality with his two wills debating over what he will do! Certainly the fact that he has two energies does not mean that he is going two different directions at the same time!

And so Maximus articulated his most central insight of Christology – namely, that persons act; natures are. Christ does not have two centers of deliberation. Rather, Christ has two “natural wills” – in other words, Christ himself (the second person of the Trinity) acts according to the principles of both natures.

As processes, energy and will proceed from one’s nature(s). But as result, energy and will are expressions of the person. If Jesus had no human process of willing, he would never choose to eat, because his divine will would have no need for such a decision. But the Son of God did choose to eat because his person willed to do so on the basis of his fully human property of will and energy. As Andrew Louth summarizes this, “the Incarnate Word possesses as a human being the natural disposition to will, and this is moved and shaped by the divine will” (Louth, p61).

But what does it mean for God to will? After all, we are used to deliberating and deciding (that is what we mean by “will”). But God does not need to “deliberate” (the term Maximus uses is “gnomic”). He does not acquire knowledge the same way that we do – and so God does not “deliberate” about what he will do. His will – like his knowledge – is intuitive and immediate.

[A note to my readers: scripture often speaks of God holding council, asking questions, deliberating, etc. But this is done for our benefit – not his. The God who knows the end from the beginning does not need to deliberate as to what he will do in the middle.]

When we talk about the two “wills” in Christ, we need to distinguish between the idea of “natural will” (namely, the principle of willing) and the idea of “deliberative will” (namely, the process of deliberation by which you and I go about willing). Maximus argues that “When the Fathers say that there are two natural wills in Christ, they mean that there are two natural laws, not two inclinations [gnomai].” (Op 3, 45B)

The natural will is “the natural appetency of the flesh endowed with a rational soul,” while the gnomic will is “the longing of the mind of a particular man moved by an opinion.” “For to be disposed by nature to will and to will are not the same thing.” (Op 3, 48A)

But think about the alternative. What if Christ has only one will? Well, if this will is natural (pertaining to his nature), then his nature is neither related to the Father or Mary. But if this will is gnomic (deliberative), and his one will is the will of the divine nature then the Godhead will be subject to passions – inclinations. Or if this one will is simply human, then he is not God. (Op 3, 56A)

[God is not subject to passions – he is not helplessly acted upon by others. He certainly has affections – emotions – but the “passions” ordinarily refer to the wild uncontrollable urges of the flesh.]

Therefore, Maximus insists that there are two natural wills in Christ. In other words, there are two principles of willing. But there is no deliberative will in Christ. After all, the divine will does not deliberate. God does not “debate and discuss” the question of what is best to do. As Maximus puts it, “this will is not at all deliberative [gnomic], but properly natural, eternally formed and moved by its essential Godhead to the fulfillment of the economy. And it is wholly and thoroughly deified by its agreement and concord with the Father’s will, and can properly be said to have become divine in virtue of the union, but not by nature. For nothing at all changes its nature by being deified.” (Op 7, 81D)

Some had suggested in Maximus’ day that within the Trinity, “there is a will for every person,” and therefore there are three [gnomic] wills in the Trinity. If will attaches to person, then it cannot be “natural” (pertaining to nature), but must be gnomic (deliberative), and therefore there would be deliberation and possibly even disagreement within the Trinity. (Op 3, 52C-D)

I fear that I may have lost some of my readers along the way. If you insist on trying to understand the incomprehensible God, you will find yourself in deep waters. The history of the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the Incarnation demonstrates that no one has come up with exactly the right way to say it. Rather, there are a whole lot of very bad ways to say it, and only a few acceptable ways to say it. There are many ways of speaking that contradict what the scriptures teach about God and Christ. There are very few that do not! Hopefully Maximus helps us to remember that when we use language to describe God, we frequently are required to make distinctions that we don’t normally think about (e.g., the distinction between natural and gnomic wills).

But if you forget everything else, hang on to that central insight of Maximus that persons act, natures are. Natures don’t do things. Persons do things — according to their nature(s).

All quotations from Andrew Louth, Maximus the Confessor (London: Routledge, 1996).

Aronofsky’s “Noah”

by | Apr 12, 2014 | movies

By Peter J. Wallace

[There are spoilers all through this review — so be forewarned!]

“Noah” is one of the finest movies ever made.

First, let me say that Mattson gets it wrong. Aronofsky does not present a Gnostic Noah. I’ve worked through a lot of Gnostic texts, I’ve read Irenaeus several times (I have even taught Irenaeus to seminarians), and “Noah” is not Gnostic. For instance, the snakeskin is what the serpent *left behind* (the good part of creation) — and is no more a symbol of following the serpent than Moses’ Bronze Serpent indicates that Moses was a devotee of Satan! It would be more appropriate to see the snakeskin as a foreshadowing of how the Seed of the Woman will crush the head of the Seed of the Serpent (and further, Mattson errs in saying that *Noah* reclaimed the snakeskin [which he claims resulted in his enlightenment] — it was *Ham* who reclaimed the snakeskin, and Ham remains beclouded by his association with Tubal-Cain and repudiates the snakeskin). Sure, there are lots of Kabbalist imagery and associations — but his Gnostic comments miss the mark. Aronofsky is interacting with the whole history of interpretation when dealing with Noah — which is greatly to his credit!

Aronofsky explores the themes of total depravity, justice, and divine grace — together with the problem of Genesis 8:21 — namely, that human depravity is *not* going to go away after the flood. Even more important, Noah is portrayed as a righteous man from first to last. He *always* does what is right — even when he thinks he is wrong, he does right! The thoughts of his heart are wicked from his youth — but he is a righteous man, blameless in his generation.

Some have objected to the silence of God in the movie (although I can’t say that I’ve ever seen God portrayed well in a movie!). Let me put it this way: Aronofsky tells the story of Noah with more of God’s revelation than is found in the book of Esther. But after all, what exactly does it mean “Then the LORD said to Noah…”? We usually assume that God spoke in an audible voice. But what if he didn’t? What if he used dreams and visions?

In Genesis 6:13, God says, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh.” Think about that! That would sound to me like the utter annihilation of humanity. Sure, in our Bibles we get Genesis 6:18 five verses later. But we get the Flood story as told millennia later from the standpoint of the Exodus.

To put it another way, *almost* everything found in the Bible is there in the story (except Noah’s burnt offerings after the Flood — a serious omission in my view). The wives of the three sons are all on the ark. The ark is the proper size and shape. I, for one, particularly appreciated the clear distinction between the two distinct visions of “dominion” (and it is certainly a respectable position to claim that Noah was a vegetarian).

Maybe “Noah” doesn’t fit the Sunday school stories — but the Sunday school stories don’t particularly fit the Bible either! Let me put it this way: if you can stomach the moralistic drivel of Veggie Tales, you should love “Noah.” (This is not to say that you should let your three-year old watch “Noah”!) This is one of the few movies that upholds both the justice and mercy of God — and makes you wonder “do I really like the justice of God?” — but also makes it painfully clear that whether you like it or not, you are under it!

I think that Thornbury‘s review is definitely the best one that I’ve seen. He gets it exactly right when he says: “Only with the juxtaposition against radical depravity can mercy actually make sense. Failing this understanding, you cannot sustain Christian theism. Otherwise, mercy becomes weak, expected, and even demanded. Seeing Russell Crowe-as-Noah grit his teeth and war against real flesh-and-blood evil makes sin, a notion seemingly incredible to Hollywood, to be real. As a viewer, locked into the gaze of the film, you’re thinking, I’m with God, and this Noah guy.”

But I don’t think that Thornbury’s theological objections hold water. First, Aronofsky’s “Creator” *does* speak very clearly — perhaps not audibly — but when Tubal-Cain demands an answer from God, the rain continues to pour down; when Noah demands an answer, the rain stops. (And God sends miraculous signs and wonders over and over again). If Noah will listen, he will hear. Further, the visions and signs are clear communication from God.

And second, it is clear from Aronofsky’s telling that God does *not* intend Noah any harm. Noah and his family will only come to harm if they follow in the ways of Cain. (Which means, of course, that in the end humanity is doomed — because the corruption of Adam remains). Methuselah says that his father, Enoch, had spoken of a judgment by fire — but Noah says no, it will be water — and the point of water is to purify and cleanse — in order to save the innocent.

In his follow-up comment, Mattson says “A number of people challenged my idea that God wanted to kill Noah and his family too, because Emma Watson’s character explains, “Maybe The Creator wanted you to decide” whether the human race lives or dies. Well, fine. The Creator doesn’t reveal anything about himself or his purposes in this film, so you’re certainly allowed to take her word for it. But it gets you no closer to anything resembling a biblical doctrine of God.”

But Mattson fails to remember why God chose Noah. Noah is the last of the line of Seth. He is the heir of Enoch and Methuselah. He is the one righteous man. Noah has been chosen as the second Adam. God knows that Noah will do what is right. That’s what righteous men do. The difference between the biblical account and Aronofsky’s account is that Aronofsky is trying to figure out, “what would it have felt like to be Noah?” (And admittedly he throws in a bit of an Abrahamic twist into the mix along the way!)

So, I’m left with one substantial objection: there were no burnt offerings after the flood. But even that is assuaged by Aronofsky’s introduction of the theme of Abraham and Isaac into the narrative. Kierkegaard said in Fear and Trembling that you cannot understand the psychology of Abraham — and most attempts wind up turning Abraham into a monster. By putting it into pictures rather than words, Aronofsky comes closer than Kierkegaard could. Noah believes that God has called him to kill his granddaughters. And from the logic of Genesis 6:13 [“I have determined to make an end of all flesh”], this would be the just thing to do. But he cannot. Why? Because he loves them. And yet Noah *knows* that if his offspring does not die, then humanity is doomed to repeat the corruption of the first creation. But of course, that is precisely how the image of God should think. It would be just for humanity to be extinguished. But God loved the world thus, that he sent his only-begotten Son…

At the end of the movie, humanity remains under condemnation. Water could not wash away the corruption of Adam. Only fiery destruction is left. Can anything prevent this? I realize that Aronofsky probably believes that humanity’s only hope is ourselves, but if Aronofsky was *trying* to set us up for the gospel of Christ, he could not have said it better.

Catechetical Preaching

by | Dec 5, 2013 | Catechesis, Preaching, Westminster Shorter Catechism

I am just in the process of finishing a catechetical sermon series, preaching through the topics of the Shorter Catechism. Since I have sometimes been asked how I do this, I figured I should put the whole outline right here!

If you want to hear or read any of these sermons, go over to our sermon page…

  1. SC 1                        Is 60/Ps 45/Rev 21               What Are You Doing Here?                October 7, 2012
  2. SC 2-3                     Jer 31/Ps 40/Heb 10            How Do You Know What to Believe and Do? Oct 14, 2012
  3. SC 4-6                     Dt 6/Ps 2/1 Cor 8                Why Does the Trinity Matter?              November 4, 2012
  4. SC 7-8                     Lam 3/Ps 148/Eph 1           What Are the Decrees of God?            November 11, 2012
  5. SC 9-11                   Gen 1/Ps 104/John 1          How Does God Govern the World?  November 18, 2012
  6. SC 12                      Gen 2/Ps 8/Col 1                 The Covenant of Life                            November 25, 2012
  7. SC 13-15                 Gen 3/Ps 127/1 Jn 3/Lk 1  What Is Sin?                                          December 2, 2012
  8. SC 16-19                 Gen 6/Ps 24/Rom 5/Lk 1   Why Am I Condemned in Adam?      Dec 9, 2012
  9. SC 20                      Jer 31/Ps 131/Heb 8/Lk 1   Covenant and Election                         December 16, 2012
  10. SC 21-22                 Is 7/Ps 80/Heb 2/Lk 1        Why Was He Born of a Virgin?           Dec 23, 2012
  11. SC 23-24                 Is 61/Ps 45/Luke 4               How Is Christ Our Prophet?               December 30, 2012
  12. SC 25                      Gen 14/Ps 110/Heb 7          How Is Christ Our Priest?                    January 6, 2013
  13. SC 26                      Jer 22-23/Ps 72/Lk 17          How Is Christ Our King?                    January 13, 2013
  14. SC 27-28                 Is 53/Ps 113/Phil 2              Humiliation and Exaltation                 January 20, 2013
  15. SC 29-30                 Ezek 36/Ps 19/Rom 6         Union with Christ                                 February 3, 2013
  16. SC 31                      Ezek 37/Ps 84/Jn 3              The Call                                                  February 10, 2013
  17. SC 32-33                 Lev 16/Ps 32/Rom 3            Justified in Christ                                  February 17, 2013
  18. SC 34                      Ex 3-4/Ps 2/Gal 3-4             Adopted in Christ                                 February 24, 2013
  19. SC 35                      Jer 17/Ps 1/1 Cor 10            Sanctified in Christ                                March 3, 2013
  20. SC 36                      2K 19/Ps 102/Rom 5          The Benefits of Christ in This Life      March 17, 2013
  21. SC 37                      Dt 30/Ps 118/1 Th 15          The Benefits of Christ at Death           March 24, 2013
  22. SC 38                      Is 25/Ps 16/1 Cor 15            The Benefits of Christ: Resurrection    March 31, 2013
  23. SC 39-40                 Amos 1, Ps 119, Rom 1-2    The Moral Law                                      April 7, 2013
  24. SC 41-42                 Dt 6, Ps 110, Mt 22               The Summary of the Law                     April 14, 2013
  25. SC 43-44                 Dt 11, Ps 105, Heb 3             Grace before Law: the Preface               April 28, 2013
  26. SC 45-48                 Ez 8, Ps 44, 1 Cor 10             The Lure and Cure of Idolatry             May 5, 2013
  27. SC 49-52                 Dt 4, Ps 96, Col 1                  The Image and the Word                     May 19, 2013
  28. SC 53-56                 Dt 14, Ps 106, 2Cor 6            God’s Holy Name                                 May 26, 2013
  29. SC 57-59                 Ex 31, Ps 84, Heb 4               God’s Holy Day                                    June 2, 2013
  30. SC 60-62                 Neh 13, Ps 92, Mt 12             Our Holy Rest                                       June 9, 2013
  31. SC 63-66                 Prov 1, Ps 128, Eph 5-6        Honor Your Father and Mother          June 16, 2013
  32. SC 67-69                 Gen 4, Ps 10, Lk 11               You Shall Not Kill                                July 7, 2013
  33. SC 70-72                 Prov 5, Ps 45, Matt 5             You Shall Not Commit Adultery        July 14, 2013
  34. SC 73-75                 Dt 23-24, Ps 15, Eph 4         You Shall Not Steal                               July 21, 2013
  35. SC 76-78                 Prov 6, Ps 64, 3 John            You Shall Not Bear False Witness       August 25, 2013
  36. SC 79-81                 1 K 21, Ps 119:33-40, Lk 15 You Shall Not Covet                             September 1, 2013
  37. SC 82-84                 Gen 6, Ps 14, 2 Pet 2-3          What Does Sin Deserve?                      September 8, 2013
  38. SC 85                      Dt 29-30, Ps 40, Acts 2          The Way of Salvation                            September 15, 2013
  39. SC 86                      Numbers 21, Ps 78, Phil 3    What Is Faith?                                       September 22, 2013
  40. SC 87                      Hos 13-14, Ps 51, 1 Jn 1       What Is Repentance?                             September 29, 2013
  41. SC 88-90                 Ez 20, Ps 81, Rom 10           How Does God Use Preaching to Save You? Oct 6, 2013
  42. SC 91-93                 Ex 24, Ps 27, 1 Co 10            How Does God Use the Sacraments to Save You? Oct 13
  43. SC 94                      Gen 6 Ps 42 1 Pet 3               How Does God Use Baptism to Save You?      Oct 27, 2013
  44. SC 95                      Jon 2, Ps 29, Col 3              Why Baptize Babies?                             November 3, 2013
  45. SC 96-97                 Prov 9 Ps 104 Mk 14             How Does God Use the Lord’s Supper to Save You? Nov 10
  46. SC 98-99                 2 Chr 6, Ps 116, Mt 6             How Does God Use Prayer to Save You?           Nov 17, 2013
  47. SC 100                    Ex 4 Ps 103, Jn 1                   The Lord’s Prayer: Our Father              November 24, 2013
  48. SC 101                    Is 6, Ps 99, Lk 1                     Hallowed Be Thy Name                       December 1, 2013
  49. SC 102-103             2 Sam 7, Ps 72, Lk 1              Thy Kingdom Come, Thy Will Be Done           Dec 8, 2013
  50. SC 104                    Is 55, Ps 138, Lk 1                 Give Us Our Daily Bread                      December 15, 2013
  51. SC 105-106             Is 9, Ps 130, Lk 1                   Forgive Us Our Debts                          December 22, 2013
  52. SC 107                    1 Chr 29, Ps 73, Lk 2             Thine Is the Kingdom                         December 29, 2013

 

Unintentional Sins?

by | Oct 17, 2013 | Numbers, Westminster Shorter Catechism

The men’s discipleship study had an interesting conversation this week (prompted by the Didache — a second century pastoral manual) on the topic of “unintentional sins.”

In 1 Corinthians 10:13 Paul says, “No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.”

Properly understood, this states that you will never face a situation where you have to sin. When you are tempted, God promises that he will always provide a way of escape.

Paul is dealing with the question of temptation. It is true — you will never face a temptation where you are “powerless” to do the right thing. Those who are in Christ now share in his Holy Spirit, and so we can never say, “I couldn’t help it — the temptation was too strong!”

But that does not mean that there is no such thing as “unintentional sin.”

Think about our catechism’s definition of sin:
“Sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God.”

The example I used with the men was the case of the stolen book. Sometimes, when you buy a used book, the “used” book was actually stolen from a library. You may have purchased the book innocently enough — but if you have purchased stolen property, then you are unjustly possessing the book of another.

It’s easy enough to remedy this if you know the truth — but if you never realize that it was stolen, then you may remain in possession of the stolen book, and thus you have perpetuated the injustice. You are (unwittingly) out of conformity with the law of God.

Of course, there are lots of situations like this. We frequently find ourselves (unwittingly) participating in injustice. If you are a stockholder in a company/organization that practices injustice, then you are investing in (and making money from) their injustice. If you work for a company/organization that practices injustice, then even if you are striving to conduct yourself justly, you are still participating in the corruption.

This shouldn’t surprise us. After all, if we believe what Genesis 6 says about us — that the inclinations of our hearts are only evil continually — that corruption has reached every part of us — we should not be surprised that there are “unintentional sins” where we are not even aware of what we have done wrong.

In other words, our problem is not just that we sin against God. Our problem is also that all creation and all human institutions have become corrupt. Corruption has spread to everyone and everything.

This is a problem that the Old Testament rituals were designed to correct. The sin and guilt offerings were designed to deal with “unintentional sins” — and then once a year on the Day of Atonement the “scapegoat” (Lev 16) was designed to deal with all these unintentional sins. Hebrews 9:7 says that the high priest went into the Holy of Holies “once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people.”

And Hebrews goes on to say that Jesus deals with this problem more effectively: “how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.” (9:14)

Notice that our problem is not just “guilt” due to our conscious sins. Our problem is also that we have become impure/blemished — we have become corrupt. And the blood of Jesus deals both with the guilt of our sin, and with the corruption of our nature.

Incidentally (pointing forward to our sermon in two weeks), this is why Peter speaks of baptism “for the forgiveness of sins” and the “gift of the Holy Spirit.” In Christ our legal problem is solved (we are forgiven for our sins) and our corruption problem is solved (we are washed/cleansed from our uncleanness).

Numbers 15 (which we will reach in early December) says more about unintentional sins — so stay tuned…

The Sabbath as Creation Ordinance

by | Jun 2, 2013 | Pastoral Notes, Sabbath, Westminster Shorter Catechism

Dear Congregation,
This Sunday we turn to the Fourth Commandment. Since the catechism spends six questions on the  Fourth Commandment, we will spend two weeks working through the biblical teaching on the Sabbath.

This Sunday we will focus on two basic principles:
1) the Sabbath as a creation ordinance — the Sabbath is not merely part of the Mosaic law, but goes all the way back to creation;
2) the Sabbath as a redemption ordinance — and therefore it plays a somewhat different role in the Mosaic economy than it does today in Christ

I grew up in a Baptist church that didn’t pay much attention to the fourth commandment. When I was a senior in high school I worked Sunday afternoon at a local grocery store and never thought twice about it.

It was only during my sophomore year in college that I first encountered a church that took the sabbath principle seriously. At first, I thought it was nuts. Sunday afternoons had always been dominated by football and studying. Taking a whole day for rest and worship would put a serious dent in my academic performance. But I saw the weight of the biblical argument for it: if God blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it, then that means that the sabbath was made for man — not man for the sabbath — and so the sabbath was a good thing (in theory).

When I started observing the sabbath the fall of my junior year of college, I discovered that the practical benefits were tremendous. Knowing that this day was set aside for worship, rest, and fellowship with God’s people meant that I could focus on the delights of this day — rather than worry about what was going to happen on Monday! I suppose some people can become legalistic about sabbath-observance, but I have noticed that when you spend the Lord’s Day doing the things that you should be doing, there is very little time left for wishing that you could do the things that you shouldn’t be doing! (and over time, even the desire to do those things starts to go away as you rejoice that God has given you a day that is set apart from the other six).

Obviously there are lots of good questions about where you draw the line. And there is need for good casuistry in thinking through those questions (I realize that “casuistry” has a bad name these days, but it simply refers to dealing with “cases of conscience” in those grey areas where good Christians may disagree about how to handle a situation). But our catechism provides a good starting point for helping us think through what duty God requires of us in the fourth commandment.

Q. 57. Which is the fourth commandment?
A. The fourth commandment is, Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shall you labor, and do all your work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord your God: in it you shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger that is within your gates: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Q. 58. What is required in the fourth commandment?
A. The fourth commandment requires the keeping holy to God such set times as he has appointed in his word; expressly one whole day in seven, to be a holy sabbath to himself.

Q. 59. Which day of the seven has God appointed to be the weekly sabbath?
A. From the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, God appointed the seventh day of the week to be the weekly sabbath; and the first day of the week ever since, to continue to the end of the world, which is the Christian sabbath.
Why Truth Matters 
While not dealing with the fourth commandment directly, Carl Trueman offers some helpful reminders of the dangers of “going with the flow” of our culture in his article, “The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie.”

With an increasing number of youth activities now taking place on Sundays, Trueman’s article may suggest that Christians may need to take a different path.