Jesus is the Word of God
From a random internet sermon I listened to this evening:
God does not react. He cannot react. God is pure initiation. He only leads.
Where has this assumption come from? Not trinitarian reflection.
Where does it lead? Philosophical determinism.
What would it look like to begin with the living God Who initiates and responds, Who leads and follows?
.
While I'm talking about masculinity etc (here and here)...
1. Who am I head of? Not my church. That post is filled. And not women in general - I trust married men react with protective outrage at the suggestion I possess some measure of headship over their wives. I am head of my wife. Full stop.
2. Therefore the expression of my God-given headship is not a general leadership quality but a particular loving movement towards my woman. My masculinity is most tested by my ability to move into my wife's world with gentleness (Col 3:19), understanding (1 Pet 3:7) and sacrifice (Eph 5:25). (In fact GUS is the acronym I use to pray for my marriage.) Whatever definition of a 'real man' that the culture or the church comes up with, if this 'man' is unwilling or unable deeply to touch a woman - his woman - he is not yet the man he ought to be.
3. I've never heard it advocated but I wonder whether 'headship' has a great deal to do with prayer. The argument goes something like this: OT headship has deep military significance. e.g. "The LORD thunders at the head of His army." (Joel 2:11) Our battles are with spiritual powers through prayer. (Eph 6:10-20). Therefore headship is being prayer warrior for your wife. To see a 'head' at their most manly is to see him on his knees.
.
It's an age-old question, but it's taken the Flight of the Conchords to pose it again with aching poignancy:
What man? Which man? Who's the man?
When's a man a man?
What makes a man a man?
Am I a man?
Yes... technically I am.
.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLEK0UZH4cs]
.
On reflection there were two models of masculinity on show at the London Men's Convention on Saturday.
The first was communicated in mainly non-verbal ways. As John has put it, there was, at times, a 'Top Gear' spirituality (Top Gear is a popular British TV programme where middle aged men salivate over an array of sports cars). You can guess the kinds of things - jokes about sports teams, jokes about baldness (lots of them!), jokes about scrotums. All the usual stuff. There was an uncomfortable insistence on making fun of the main speaker (Tim Keller) in a laddish kind of, 'Hey, you big bald son of a gun. Not much hair on you is there? Baldy. You big bald son of a bald man. Ha!' That kind of thing. Graciously Keller did not call down bear attacks as was his right as prophet of the LORD. Now that really would have sorted out the men from the boys.
(Just as an aside - British men, the cruelty that passes for 'banter' among men is quite shocking for foreigners to cope with. On one hand I speak as someone who's lived here half his life and, for better and for worse, speaks the lingo. I also speak as an Australian male. But I confess that even we hard-headed convicts gape in wonder at the incessant jibes about 'Fatty' and 'Who ate all the pies?' when the man in question is only slightly overweight. Or 'baldy', when we're really dealing with a high forehead. Or - and I dare not even name what red-heads are called in this country. I would try to dissuade anyone with auburn hair or lighter from stepping foot in the British Isles. The word "Ginger" could be followed by any number of appellations, most of them four-letter. And this kind of culture is rife in the church too. Last night in the pub I heard two Christian men speak about another Christian friend in shockingly unChristian ways. But it was completely in keeping with this lads culture.)
Under this first model of masculinity we're told that we have a God given masculinity to be lived out. Which is true. We're told what a huge problem it is when men aren't real men. Which is true. But then it's basically assumed that everyone knows what a real man is.
So Mark Driscoll bemoans the prevalence of 'chickified' men in church.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSrZVF3FEUQ]
Apparently the real men are those "watching a ball game, making money, climbing a mountain, shooting a gun, or working on their truck." And these are the men that are getting it done in the world. So Driscoll wants these kind of men in the church.
Well. Alright. It'd be great to have them in church. And yes, in some limited sense they'd make a welcome change from the other kind of false masculinity that abounds. But let's be clear - all natural masculinity is wicked. Masculinity as it occurs in its natural state is horribly and dangerously perverted. Whether the perversion occurs in the cowardly retreat direction or the aggressive domination direction, it's a perversion.
The other model of masculinity came in Keller's talk on the cross. He took us to Gethsemane where Jesus was at His wits end, craving the support of friends, crying, sweating blood contemplating the cross. The furnace of God's wrath lay ahead of Him. He begged His Father for another way. But there was no other way to save us. The prospect was simple: It was Him or us. And so Jesus said 'Father, Let it be me.'
That's a man.
Laying down His life for others, bearing shame in their place, accepting weakness to strengthen them. None of these things looked impressive. He looked like a total failure, naked and choking to death on a cross. He did not look manly. And men from all sides told Him so. They had all sorts of opinions about what Jesus needed to do to be a real man. They were all wrong. He reigned from that tree. Here was the manliest thing ever done.
And it has nothing to do with back-slapping dudesmanship. It's not about being mechanical or sports-loving. And it's not threatened by aesthetic sensitivity or quiet thoughtfulness. It's defined by heart-felt, loving, sacrificial service. It's stepping into the roles Christ has for us and saying 'My life for yours. My weakness for your strength. Father, Let it be me.'
Oh for real men! Oh to be a real man. But not like those 'real men' we're told to be.
More posts on masculinity:
Is the fruit of the Spirit too sissy for real men?
.
Having thought about the vicarious worship of Jesus, I've been reflecting on examples of vicarious hope in our marriage.
There have been a few times in our marriage where one of us has turned to the other and said something like this:
-- I really can't imagine a way forward here.
-- Oh but there is.
-- I don't see it.
-- I do. I promise I do.
-- ...Ok.
The feeling of hope is not there. But it's enough to rest in the hope of another.
Sometimes Christian hope is like this. "Jesus, I don't see a bright future. But I know that you do. And that's enough for me right now."
.
Apparently the Sandemanians followed Robert Sandeman in asserting that saving faith involved mere assent to doctrinal facts. Apparently they were soundly refuted by Andrew Fuller. Apparently we needed to know this at a gathering of thousands of Christians today in London. Three sentences on the subject were dropped into a short talk on how we should view the Scriptures. These apparently important names then disappeared from the scene as quickly as they had appeared. Only to be replaced by other names and theologies most people had never heard of. And these were similarly disposed of with an assured riposte that must have sounded satisfyingly stinging if only anyone had known what the issues were.
Was this an accurate account of the Sandemanian controversy? I have no idea. Neither, I hazard to guess did the four thousand other Christians present there. What makes me dubious of the speaker's sweeping assessments is the fact that one of the many names he dropped and then dismissed was Barth. His three sentences on Barthian approaches to Scripture were so unrecognizable I wondered whether he had mis-typed the name into Wikipedia.
But really, dear reader, I don't care to defend Barthians and I certainly don't care to defend Sandemanians. I don't care to raise their names at all. Unless of course the conference was on historical or systematic theology. But it wasn't. It was a men's convention. For men. Dudes. Guys. The great majority were Christian but the thing's supposed to be open to non-Christians, seekers, etc. So here's the question. Why on earth drop names like this?
Think about the tone! What kind of dismissive, know-it-all spirit do we convey when we raise and then dismiss whole movements in a paragraph.
What does it convey about where we think the real issues in the spiritual life lie. Apparently they lie in debates which ordinary folk know nothing of but which clever clogs (who've been to seminary don't you know) can convey to you.
Why do we want people to know that we know these names and controversies?
In the same letter where Paul berates the Corinthian spirit of saying 'we know...' (1 Cor 8) he tells us what he knows. He was determined to know nothing except Christ and Him crucified. (1 Cor 2:1-5)
If we're wanting to convey other kinds of knowledge the question must always be raised - why?
.
Following on from my last post - Psalms are about Christ. They tell of the interaction between the LORD, the King through Whom He rules, the righteous who hide in Him and the wicked who rebel.
These interactions are pictured from many angles. But one key perspective is for the King Himself to speak. This most often happens in the Psalms 'Of David'.
Of course all the kings reigned under the knowledge that they were simply throne-warmers for the King to Whom universal tribute was due. (Gen 49:10) But David was the most idealized of these kings. The Messiah is often spoken of simply as David. (e.g. Ezekiel 34:23f; 37:25). And David himself is aware of his idealized role. Just before his death he said: "The Spirit of the LORD spoke through me; His word was on my tongue." (2 Sam 23:2) He didn't speak better than he knew, but he certainly spoke better than he lived. In the Psalms the king most often spoke as The King. The anointed one spoke most often as The Anointed One.
Peter confirms this for us in Acts 2. Even when David spoke in the first person he was speaking the words of Christ (see Acts 2:25). Quoting Psalm 16, Peter makes it clear that David was not describing his own experience. (Paul underlines this in Acts 13:36-37). Rather, David "was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ" (Acts 2:30-31).
Does this mean that such Psalms have no application to David? No of course they do - but such application runs from Christ to David rather than David to Christ. This is the nature of the whole of David's life - from shepherd boy to rejected ruler, to reigning king to his death, he is a shadow of the Coming King.
This is my understanding anyway. Whether you take the Psalms from David to Christ or Christ to David, I hope we can all agree that the emotions and experiences of 'The King' are ultimately taken up and owned by Christ.
All of this is just a precursor to what I really want to discuss... What do we do with the Psalmist's intense desire for the LORD?
On one level that's simple - copy it. Be challenged by it. Be inspired by it. Seek it for yourself.
Well, yes, ok. But here's the question - what do I do when I don't earnestly desire the LORD? Because maybe once or twice in your life your white hot devotion to God has dipped below the zeal of the Psalmist. What do you do then?
Here's the first level of my response: When I don't desire God, first I need to see that Christ does. And He does so for me.
What do I mean?
Well take a favourite Psalm of mine: Psalm 63
Here the Psalmist says:
1 O God, you are my God,
earnestly I seek you;
my soul thirsts for you,
my body longs for you,
in a dry and weary land
where there is no water.2 I have seen you in the sanctuary
and beheld your power and your glory.3 Because your love is better than life,
my lips will glorify you.4 I will praise you as long as I live,
and in your name I will lift up my hands.
Now be honest, doesn't some part of you go "Really? Have I really beheld His power and glory? Really? Have I in the past and will I in the future praise Him so wholeheartedly? Really? As long as I live? Am I perjuring myself here??"
But friend, read on to the final verse...
11 But the king will rejoice in God
These are the words of the king - the king on whose lips are the words of The King. And He has beheld the power and glory of the LORD in the ultimate sanctuary. He is the ultimate, white-hot Worshipper of God. These words are not a guide to human worship so much as a window onto divine worship.
So what should be our response?
Sit back and be awed by The King's desire for the LORD. You don't yet feel such intense passion. Well alright. In the deepest sense you never can match His devotion. But let the King's worship be enough for you. Don't despise his devotion like Michal (2 Sam 6:16). Simply allow your King to offer what you cannot summon up yourself. Know that He offers in your place a worship you could never initiate. And if the Praise-Worthy does not elicit your praise, let the Praise-Giver show the way. In ourselves we could never work up the right response. In Christ we see what reckless and joyful abandon to God looks like.
He is like the first Dancer onto the floor, moved by the Music, laughing and clapping and dancing as we never could. The more you watch Him dance, the more your foot starts to tap, then you start clapping. Pretty soon you'll link arms and join in. The Music itself should get you on the dance floor. But in fact the Music never does - not really. It's the Dancer who inspires, who links arms and who leads.
Read Psalm 63 again. And add your own Amen. For now that is enough. If these words were simply the prayer diary of an ancient near eastern ruler, your Amen would mean nothing. If these were just passionate words from an inspired and inspiring devotee they could only judge your apathy. But they're not. This is the worship of The King. Your King. This is Christ your Substitute, your Priest, your Vicarious Worshipper. He bears your name on His heart as He comes before the LORD in joyful abandon. For now just allow Him to offer the praise you cannot find in yourself. In time you'll join the dance.
For more on Christ offering worship on our behalf, here's a half hour talk I gave recently.
.
Following on from my last post - Psalms are about Christ. They tell of the interaction between the LORD, the King through Whom He rules, the righteous who hide in Him and the wicked who rebel.
These interactions are pictured from many angles. But one key perspective is for the King Himself to speak. This most often happens in the Psalms 'Of David'.
Of course all the kings reigned under the knowledge that they were simply throne-warmers for the King to Whom universal tribute was due. (Gen 49:10) But David was the most idealized of these kings. The Messiah is often spoken of simply as David. (e.g. Ezekiel 34:23f; 37:25). And David himself is aware of his idealized role. Just before his death he said: "The Spirit of the LORD spoke through me; His word was on my tongue." (2 Sam 23:2) He didn't speak better than he knew, but he certainly spoke better than he lived. In the Psalms the king most often spoke as The King. The anointed one spoke most often as The Anointed One.
Peter confirms this for us in Acts 2. Even when David spoke in the first person he was speaking the words of Christ (see Acts 2:25). Quoting Psalm 16, Peter makes it clear that David was not describing his own experience. (Paul underlines this in Acts 13:36-37). Rather, David "was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ" (Acts 2:30-31).
Does this mean that such Psalms have no application to David? No of course they do - but such application runs from Christ to David rather than David to Christ. This is the nature of the whole of David's life - from shepherd boy to rejected ruler, to reigning king to his death, he is a shadow of the Coming King.
This is my understanding anyway. Whether you take the Psalms from David to Christ or Christ to David, I hope we can all agree that the emotions and experiences of 'The King' are ultimately taken up and owned by Christ.
All of this is just a precursor to what I really want to discuss... What do we do with the Psalmist's intense desire for the LORD?
On one level that's simple - copy it. Be challenged by it. Be inspired by it. Seek it for yourself.
Well, yes, ok. But here's the question - what do I do when I don't earnestly desire the LORD? Because maybe once or twice in your life your white hot devotion to God has dipped below the zeal of the Psalmist. What do you do then?
Here's the first level of my response: When I don't desire God, first I need to see that Christ does. And He does so for me.
What do I mean?
Well take a favourite Psalm of mine: Psalm 63
Here the Psalmist says:
1 O God, you are my God,
earnestly I seek you;
my soul thirsts for you,
my body longs for you,
in a dry and weary land
where there is no water.2 I have seen you in the sanctuary
and beheld your power and your glory.3 Because your love is better than life,
my lips will glorify you.4 I will praise you as long as I live,
and in your name I will lift up my hands.
Now be honest, doesn't some part of you go "Really? Have I really beheld His power and glory? Really? Have I in the past and will I in the future praise Him so wholeheartedly? Really? As long as I live? Am I perjuring myself here??"
But friend, read on to the final verse...
11 But the king will rejoice in God
These are the words of the king - the king on whose lips are the words of The King. And He has beheld the power and glory of the LORD in the ultimate sanctuary. He is the ultimate, white-hot Worshipper of God. These words are not a guide to human worship so much as a window onto divine worship.
So what should be our response?
Sit back and be awed by The King's desire for the LORD. You don't yet feel such intense passion. Well alright. In the deepest sense you never can match His devotion. But let the King's worship be enough for you. Don't despise his devotion like Michal (2 Sam 6:16). Simply allow your King to offer what you cannot summon up yourself. Know that He offers in your place a worship you could never initiate. And if the Praise-Worthy does not elicit your praise, let the Praise-Giver show the way. In ourselves we could never work up the right response. In Christ we see what reckless and joyful abandon to God looks like.
He is like the first Dancer onto the floor, moved by the Music, laughing and clapping and dancing as we never could. The more you watch Him dance, the more your foot starts to tap, then you start clapping. Pretty soon you'll link arms and join in. The Music itself should get you on the dance floor. But in fact the Music never does - not really. It's the Dancer who inspires, who links arms and who leads.
Read Psalm 63 again. And add your own Amen. For now that is enough. If these words were simply the prayer diary of an ancient near eastern ruler, your Amen would mean nothing. If these were just passionate words from an inspired and inspiring devotee they could only judge your apathy. But they're not. This is the worship of The King. Your King. This is Christ your Substitute, your Priest, your Vicarious Worshipper. He bears your name on His heart as He comes before the LORD in joyful abandon. For now just allow Him to offer the praise you cannot find in yourself. In time you'll join the dance.
For more on Christ offering worship on our behalf, here's a half hour talk I gave recently.
.
From an old sermon on Psalms 1 and 2. These Psalms, as a gateway to the Psalter, introduce us to the four main players:
(1) the LORD;
(2) the Christ, the Blessed Man;
(3) The Righteous who take refuge in Him; and
(4) The Wicked who oppose Him.
The subsequent Psalms reveal the interaction of these four groups.
In some, like Psalm 1, the Blessed Man is shown before the LORD and then the righteous and the wicked are contrasted.
In some, like Psalm 2, the righteous complain to the LORD about the wicked and then He reminds them about the Blessed Man, Christ.
In some we have simply the words of Christ.
In others we have the words of the LORD to Christ.
In some we simply have the words of sinners like us taking refuge in Him.
But all of the Psalms are about the inter-relation of these four groups. And they all work together to speak to us of Christ.
.
Lest you think I've taken a disastrous turn towards the self, here's Bonhoeffer on the only basis for Christian community - the alien righteousness of Christ. There is here a whole theology of salvation, of church, of pastoral care and of preaching:
The death and the life of the Christian is not determined by his own resources; rather he finds both only in the Word that comes to him from the outside, in God's Word to him. The Reformers expressed it this way: Our righteousness is an 'alien righteousness' a righteousness that comes outside of us (extra nos). They were saying that the Christian is dependent on the Word of God spoken to him. He is pointed outward, to the Word that comes to him. The Christian lives wholly by the truth of God's Word in Jesus Christ. If someone asks him, Where is your salvation, your righteousness? he can never point to himself. He points to the Word of God in Jesus Christ, which assures him salvation and righteousness. He is as alert as possible to this Word. Because he daily hungers and thirsts for righteousness, he daily desires the redeeming Word. And it can come only from the outside. In himself he is destitute and dead. Help must come from the outside, and it has come and comes daily and anew in the Word of Jesus Christ, bringing redemption, righteousness, innocence and blessedness.
But God has put this Word in the mouth of men in order that it may be communicated to other men. When one person is struck by the Word, he speaks it to others. God has willed that we should seek and find His living Word in the witness of a brother, in the mouth of man. Therefore, the Christian needs another Christian who speaks God’s Word to him. He needs him again and again when he becomes uncertain and discouraged, for by himself he cannot help himself without belying the truth. He needs his brother man as a bearer and proclaimer of the divine word of salvation. He needs his brother solely because of Jesus Christ. The Christ in his own heart is weaker than the Christ in the word of his brother, his own heart is uncertain, his brother’s is sure
And that also clarifies the goal of all Christian community: they meet one another as bringers of the message of salvation. As such, God permits them to meet together and gives them community. Their fellowship is founded solely upon Jesus Christ and this 'alien righteousness'. All we can say therefore is: the community of Christians springs solely from the biblical and Reformation message of the justification of man through grace alone; this alone is the basis of the longing of Christians for one another. (Life Together, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, SCM Press, 1954, p11-12)
Ron Frost fans (this blog has quite a few), meet Mike Reeves.
Mike Reeves fans (this blog has many), meet Ron Frost.
Here two of my favourite living theologians discuss one of my favourite dead ones - Richard Sibbes.
Joy!!
.