In sacramental traditions, the concept of preaching, and even the corporate reading of Scripture, is different than in revivalist traditions. It is about God literally acting through the spoken word.

I know pastors who don’t think, for example, that the lectionary readings should even be printed in the bulletin. The words presented in worship are not given to be read by individual worshipers, but to be heard together by the congregation. The word spoken is the living word of God, and there is something special and sacred about the act of listening to God speak. There is also something special about being gathered with God’s family to be addressed by God and to be together as a people under his word.

Of course, holding this theology doesn’t mean it always translates into practice. But understanding the preaching moment as being of the same piece as the rest of the liturgy, in my opinion, has advantages over other views which see preaching in its essence as rhetoric, apologetics, persuasion, or teaching. Such conceptions highlight the skills of the person in the pulpit and the techniques employed, whereas a more sacramental view highlights God’s action through human speech (no matter how weak or flawed the human speaker).

John Frye, in his weekly “Shepherd’s Nook” post at Jesus Creed, has summarized this sacramental theology of preaching nicely:

 

John Frye on Sacramental Preaching

Preaching, in some traditions, is a sacrament or comparable to a sacrament. Low church evangelicalism will have to ponder this. What it means is: preaching is more about what God does, than what the preacher and congregation do. Preaching is a holy event when the preacher and the preached to encounter the living God together. The aim of preaching is community-encounter with the living, eyes-blazing Christ Who walks in the community’s ordinary, particular midst. Revelation chapters 2-3 are not just about the living Christ showing up a long time ago to seven churches in Asia Minor. The glorified Jesus, as Lord of his church, still walks around in the midst of local gatherings.

In preaching as sacrament, the aim is the application. Encounter God. Preaching as biblical information-giving with premeditated applications is too weak for such a cogent and holy aim. To be informed by the Bible about God is not the same as to be encountered by the God of the Bible. We preach to encounter God together, not to create a set of preferred human behaviors. Encounter with God in Christ carries its own energies to shape and direct human lives. We preach for corporate encounter with God, believing that encounter will provoke numerous discussions about how we together can live missionally in light of the encounter. Paul suggested even unbelievers and unconvinced will confess an encounter with God (1 Corinthians 14:25) when the church gathers. I do not think I have to unpack Peter’s paradigmatic sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2) to support what I am writing here. Peter, so perceptive of his particular context, announced an act of God in Christ and the announcement was so profound the congregation asked him, “What must we do?!”  Authentic kingdom of God gospel announcement (preaching) evokes startling and diverse questions about how we go about adjusting our lives to Jesus as Lord.



-Martin Luther

The opening ten minutes highlight the essential problem of the Prime Directive. An old friend of mine said that any honest Trek fan has to consider that many of the best stories in the Trek franchise happened when people ignored the prime directive. Maybe it’s like the Geneva Convention of Star Trek. People know what it says and they say the follow it but it doesn’t mean they really do.

I have a fear that I will not be good enough for the things God has given me. Getting vulnerable right off the bat. But, that is a fear I have lived with my whole life. A fear that drives my motives, that consumes my thoughts, and keeps me from joy.

Also, before we go on. Just so people don't think I'm teaching false theology. I realize we are not good enough for anything. We're not "good". So, true. I am not good enough for anything God gives me. But, that don't matter cause Jesus died for my sins. So whether I am good enough is beyond the point. It's all about Jesus. K.

Growing up I feared I wasn't good enough for my family. I fear I'm not good enough to be a theatre major. I fear I won't be good enough to get married. I am constantly wondering: Am I good enough? How can I be good enough? How can I be what people want? What do I need to do?

Because of this fear I hold really tightly to the things God gives me. I'll give you an example. When I became a lifegroup leader, almost exactly at the same time one of the leaders in my section was asked to step down from leadership because of some issues he was having and things that had happened. I was new to leading and all the sudden I was thrown into this hard situation. I don't know if that was a cause, but most of the year I felt like at any minute I could also be asked to step down. Which, that's always a possibility. But, it was like literally a huge fear of mine. I gripped really tightly to my role as a leader. I didn't want to see it go. I was convinced that my co leaders believed they made a mistake in raising me up. I had all these insecurities and fears rise up. And I constantly was checking myself making sure I was doing everything that needed to be done. Not out of a sense of obedience, but more to be in control of my "safety." And you know what? I believe I missed out on a lot of things God was doing in our lifegroup and in my community in general. I didn't get the full joy from walking with people and most of my year in that regards kinda fell short of what most people experienced.

That is just one example of almost every area of my life. I realized I think majorly this year that I have this fear or problem or whatever it is. That my joy was stolen from everything I did and everyone I knew because in the back of my mind I was so scared of it being gone. So I did everything in my strength to keep my fingers pried to whatever it was I wanted to keep. My roommates, my major, leading, etc.

And then, just like every revelation I get, God simply spoke to me in a soft voice. I wasn't on the floor crying and so overwhelmed by his presence. I was in a room with many people talking about something completely different. But, my insecurities were brought up in my mind. And God reminded me and showed me that he gives me good gifts. And that's what they are. They are gifts. I did nothing to deserve them and really can't do much to deserve to keep them. But, God gave them to me. Because he loves me and he is a good father. And because he has a plan. So I am free to let go of them. I am free to not hold on tightly. And when I let go I am filled with joy because I know it's not mine to keep so I simply just enjoy his gifts. I enjoy jobs, positions I've been given, and the people in my life. There are things that God will choose to take from me. But, when I remember and reflect on his goodness, I know that he will always be just that to me- good. So, even if tomorrow I am no longer a lifegroup leader. That's okay. God is good. He has a plan. If something happened where I lost my family or my dear friends (not necessarily they die... but that could be it too)... that's okay. God is good. And I am thankful. Remaining thankful is so powerful. It's simple but really powerful. Because nothing is mine. So I thank God that I had this day. Thank you for all the cherries you give me on top of my already delicious icecream. But, again, I don't have to worry or fear or even necessarily expect these things to be taken from me. Because God gave them to me. God gave me an absolute amazing, wonderful, beautiful family. I am SO beyond blessed and consider myself lucky to be in the family I am in. I didn't deserve this family or earn it. God gave them to me. And he's not gonna just take it away if I mess up. So I am free to live life open-handed and with joy. When I am not so concerned with holding on to everything I want, but stay thankful for the gifts I have: I am joyful. I enjoy life more. I have better memories and more fun experiences. When I am stingy and fearful and control my life: I am not joyful. And life gets a little rougher.

God has been good to me in leaps and bounds. Because he can. Because he loves me. He gives me things and says they are mine. And because of that I am free to live under the grace of God and I am able to have a more complete joy and peace from the Lord.

My son said this reminded him of “Vlad the Impaler” – but it’s really a sculpture from the Chihuly exhibit at Meijer Garden a couple of years ago.

“You must get into the habit of looking intensely at words, and assuring yourself of their meaning, syllable by syllable–nay, letter by letter… you might read all the books in the British Museum (if you could live long enough) and remain an utterly illiterate, uneducated person; but if you read ten pages of a good book, letter by letter, — that is to say, with real accuracy– you are forevermore in some measure an educated person.” ~John Ruskin

Welcome to the Saturday Review of Books at Semicolon. Here’s how it usually works. Find a book review on your blog posted sometime during the previous week. The review doesn’t have to be a formal sort of thing. You can link to your thoughts on a particular book, a few ideas inspired by reading the book, your evaluation, quotations, whatever.

Then on Friday night/Saturday, you post a link here at Semicolon in Mr. Linky to the specific post where you’ve written your book review. Don’t link to your main blog page because this kind of link makes it hard to find the book review, especially when people drop in later after you’ve added new content to your blog. In parentheses after your name, add the title of the book you’re reviewing. This addition will help people to find the reviews they’re most interested in reading.

After linking to your own reviews, you can spend as long as you want reading the reviews of other bloggers for the week and adding to your wishlist of books to read. That’s how my own TBR list has become completely unmanageable and the reason I can’t join any reading challenges. I have my own personal challenge that never ends.

There are those who are fairly new to this site, and thus may have some questions about this weekly iMonk abbey chapter we call Saturday Ramblings. So allow me to explain it in just a few words. First of all, the stories and comments shared here are all very serious. We don’t joke at the iMonastery; we don’t even allow ourselves to smile except on Opening Day for Major League baseball. Next, when I end a rambling with the word “discuss,” I expect you all to discuss what I just said. Drop everything else and discuss what you just read. It’s an order. And we are watching you. Finally, assembling Ramblings each week is back-breaking work. I spend at least 23 hours out of every day searching high and low for stories for you. I expect you to read every single one of them at least twice, watch the bonus video five times before midnight, and send handwritten birthday cards to everyone on our celebrity birthday list. Don’t disappoint me. Now, with that explanation out of the way, shall we ramble?

Tax day has come and gone for 2013, but that doesn’t mean the IRS isn’t still up to some hilarious mischief. It seems they might, just might, have spent a wee bit too much time scrutinizing certain conservative groups who sought non-profit status. Of course it had nothing to do with politics, did it? Franklin Graham says the IRS came with guns a-blazin’ for his Samaritan’s Purse charity. And of course he didn’t use that for personal gain or advantage, did he? (Do you ever get the idea Franklin would push aside little old ladies to get a few seconds in front of a TV camera?)

It is a bit disturbing to learn that the IRS asked at least one conservative group to detail the contents of their prayers. Am I the only one who thinks that is just a bit creepy?

Meanwhile, Pope Francis has decried our culture of money. I think he really does mean for the Catholic Church to take care of the poor. Did I mention I really, really like what this pope is saying? Good thing the IRS doesn’t have a branch office at the Vatican. When was the last time you heard a sermon about how the love of money is the root of all evil? Discuss. Right now.

Jonathan Merritt suggests that Mark Driscoll just might be the new Pat Robertson. Oh goodie. As if we really need another Pat Robertson. What is wrong with the one we have now? Well, other than the fact that he just okayed adultery for men. Sigh. Did I mention that I really, really, really like Pope Francis? No? Well, I do.

Finally, in celebration of George Lucas’s birthday this last week, I thought it might be interesting to look at this article comparing Star Trek with Star Wars. Which one are you? Or is it possible to be a Trekkie as well as a Wookie? Which is a greater power, The Force or Mr. Spock’s mind-melding abilities?

Others who celebrated the anniversary of their birth this last week include Irving Berlin; Salvador Dali; Foster Brooks; Phil Silvers; Eric Burden; Butch Trucks; Katherine Hepburn; Steve Winwood; Kix Brooks; George Karl; Joe Louis; Mary Wells; Stevie Wonder; Jack Bruce; David Byrne; Brian Eno; Henry Fonda; George Brett; Dennis Hopper; and Taj Mahal.

Remember David Bowie’s Space Oddity, the story of an astronaut named Major Tom? Here is a killer version sung by … a real live astronaut. While orbiting the earth in the International Space Station. Which is better, Bowie’s or Chris Hadfield’s? Enjoy. That’s an order.



One of the best ways for a man
to love a woman is to love her
children.

-Douglas Wilson

Apparently, this is real.

(HT: Justin Lee over at the blue social media site)

 

I reviewed Ms. Fusco’s book, The Wonder of Charlie Anne, a couple of years ago, and I enjoyed reading it. This novel, Beholding Bee, set during World War II in the northeastern U.S.(Ohio, Illinois), tells a good story, too. Bee is a feisty girl who learns over the course of the novel to stand up for herself and persevere—lessons we could all afford to learn and re-learn.

“When you have a diamond shining on your face, you have rules about things.

First you keep it hidden. There is a hose outside every place where we hook up because we need water to run our traveling show. Pauline and I keep a bucket and a sponge in the back of our hauling truck. Water from a hose is cold as cherry Popsicles, but if you let the bucket sit in the sun all day it heats up, and at night Pauline pours out her apple shampoo and we take turns washing our hair.

Pauline has a big towel and she wraps my hair and then combs it out and I don’t yell out much because she is mostly gentle. Then she braids my hair, and when it dries she lets it loose and it falls all soft in twists and curls and hides the diamond on my cheek. Because when you have a jewel on your face, some days you might not want to show everyone who feels like looking.”

Bee, an orphan, is forced to learn to depend on her own strength and imagination when the adults in her life, Pauline and Bobby, desert her. She has “two aunts”, Mrs. Swift and Mrs. Potter, wwho take her into their house and take care of her, but they’re very old. And no one else other than Bee can see them.

The idea of the two old ladies from the past that no one else can see is a little odd and even disconcerting. But it made the story more interesting and in a way more believable than it would have been if Bee was living just alone in an abandoned house.

I liked the lesson Bee learns about how unsatisfying revenge can be, and I liked the fact that Bee and her friends pray together for a friend’s father who is away in the war. None of the story is preachy or overtly Christian, but it felt good and grounded in Biblical principles. Bee learns the things she needs to learn from each of the adults in her life. From Pauline, she learns to read and do math, and about the stars and nature and all sorts of practical life lessons. Bobby teaches her to run and to spit. Her friend Ruth Ellen teaches her empathy, and Ruth Ellen’s mother serves as a surrogate mother and counselor to Bee. Her teacher, Miss Healy, teaches her that school can be a good, safe place, and other students teach Bee to recognize her won strengths and draw on her own inner resources.

Beholding Bee is just a good solid story, mostly realistic with a bit of fantasy thrown in for spice.

Assemblies of God writer Frank Luke reviews Troll Valley.

The following video shows one of the ways in which I (and a multitude of evangelicals) were taught to “share the Gospel” with non-believers.

The other day I was thinking that it would make a good discussion topic here at Internet Monk if we examined a “soterian” Gospel presentation (the link will take you to Scot McKnight’s post defining and critiquing this kind of Gospel) and then threw out a few questions, such as:

• Does the N.T. ever show anyone “sharing the Gospel” in a way that is comparable to this?

• Does the N.T. ever encourage Christians to “share the Gospel” in a manner that is comparable to this?

• What, if anything, is missing from this “Gospel” presentation?

• Is there anything misleading about this “Gospel” presentation?

• What do you affirm about this “Gospel” presentation?

Whenever I have a discussion like this, I recall something D.L. Moody once said when someone criticized him for the way he engaged in personal evangelism. He said, “Well, I like the way I share the Gospel better than the way you don’t.”

In other words, if you have problems with this way of “sharing the Gospel,” what would you suggest that we who are called to proclaim the Gospel should say in its place?



Beware the barrenness of a busy life.

-Socrates

Norwegian children in exile, celebrating Syttende Mai in London in 1942. Photo: Ole Friele Backer (1907-1947)

I should probably warn you that I won't be posting tomorrow, as my Sons of Norway lodge is hosting a Constitution Day (Syttende Mai) celebration tomorrow (6:30 to 9:30 p.m. at the Danish American Center in Minneapolis, if you're in the area) and I have to be there to lend a hand. I'll be delivering a lecture on the holiday, which I'll spare you just now.

Because I enjoyed Throne of Bones, Vox Day was kind enough to send me a copy of his new release, The Wardog's Coin, which consists of two shorter stories set in the same universe.

I enjoyed them both, in different ways. The title story is more immediately accessible, being (so far as I can tell - I may have missed some subtext) a pretty straight war story about human mercenaries fighting an army of goblins and orcs for an elven king. It's a rousing and tragic tale of men and war.

The second story, "Qalabi Dawn," is more challenging but interesting on a couple of levels. It's the story of a desert race of rational creatures who seem to be a cross between humans and big cats. A ruthless ruler conquers all the prides in order to defend his race as a whole from human aggression. Aside from offering a kind of metaphor for the place of Islam in the world, this story deals very successfully with a challenge I've tried to tackle myself in the past, with (I fear) debatable success - the conception and communication of a wholly alien ethos, imagining what creatures who really thought differently from us might be like.

Well done. Recommended.

Video intros to the first slate of study guides in Crossway’s new Knowing the Bible series have been added to their website. I was honored to have contributed the installment on Paul’s letter to the Romans. Below is some of my rambling about the roaring ocean waves of grace in that great epistle.

I mentioned it on Facebook, but the new Star Trek is arguably the best Trek film of all of them. I spoiled nothing about the film for myself. I saw only the trailer and avoided reviews or any other discussion, so I will avoid any spoilers whatsoever.

First of all, the movie is better than the previous one. I enjoyed ST very much, but it did indeed get heavy with the deus ex machina plot devices and “this makes no sense if you stop noticing the explosions” plot holes. This was actually a signature move of the Next Generation (unsolvable problem is solved in the last five minutes of the episode by Laforge saying “techity tech tech technobabble,” but it’s also why TNG could fall really flat now and then. This script is way better, and they took more than ten minutes thinking about whether it would all make sense the next day (I saw it last night; it still mostly makes sense).

A lot of praise for the previous film still holds. What I really love about this series is that the actors are playing the classic characters, not playing the classic actors playing the classic characters. In other words, Chris Pine is a great James Kirk without doing a William Shatner impersonation. To me, this makes the characters larger than their original portrayals in the classic series and opens up Star Trek to a lot more creativity and new directions.

The exception is Karl Urban as Dr McCoy. That’s not a criticism—the McCoy character as we know it was practically invented by DeForest Kelley and suffused with his background in Western films. A good McCoy necessarily needs to borrow quite a bit from Kelley.

There is quite a bit of fanservice in the movies. For example, the admiral uniforms are inspired by the first movie. You may view this as annoying or not, depending on your disposition. Personally, I liked it. What I think Abrams was trying to do was establish his take on Star Trek as indeed being the same characters and the same universe as the classic show and films without being chained to the cyclopediae and “bibles” the series had been encumbered by. This is indeed a re-imagining, not totally dumping everything in the garbage and making “Generic Action Movie #8435″ with a Star Trek skin. But Abrams also managed to do this without making the movie incomprehensible to newbies of the series. With the exception of a reference to the Prime Directive, my wife had no trouble following what was going on. She simply didn’t know that this or that was a nod to a classic episode or movie.

A lot of Trekkies hate the new films because they aren’t classic Trek. Well, I was a kid who had plastic Spock ears and various incarnations of the Enterprise hanging from my ceiling, so I don’t think my credentials are in question. My take on the whole thing is that it’s all pretend. I don’t get worked up about someone pretending different things about a pretend universe. The reality is that the Star Trek IP had been completely run into the ground, its fictional universe turned into a tangled mess of garbage that no one could work with. And, by the way, most of the Star Trek movies sucked, not just the odd-numbered ones. With Abrams at the helm, we’ve got a producer who is concentrating on making good movies and actors who are concentrating on playing good characters, with little care given toward constructing a geeky fictional universe for nerds to nerd out over, and that’s precisely what Star Trek needs. To me, that has more in common with the spirit of the original series than anything we’ve seen in a long, long time.

Who else is planning to catch the new Trek?

Saw it last Friday. Is good fun. Could do without the utterly pointless underwear shot of Alice Eve (who is easy enough on the eye already without the director having to resort to such tedious high jinks), the deliberate nods to the Canon got a little wearing, and it lacks the narrative ingenuity of the last film, but go in with the right expectations and you’ll have an enjoyable evening.

¹² When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned. ¹³ Yes, people sinned even before the law was given. But it was not counted as sin because there was not yet any law to break. ¹⁴ Still, everyone died—from the time of Adam to the time of Moses—even those who did not disobey an explicit commandment of God, as Adam did. Now Adam is a symbol, a representation of Christ, who was yet to come. ¹⁵ But there is a great difference between Adam’s sin and God’s gracious gift. For the sin of this one man, Adam, brought death to many. But even greater is God’s wonderful grace and his gift of forgiveness to many through this other man, Jesus Christ. ¹⁶ And the result of God’s gracious gift is very different from the result of that one man’s sin. For Adam’s sin led to condemnation, but God’s free gift leads to our being made right with God, even though we are guilty of many sins. ¹⁷ For the sin of this one man, Adam, caused death to rule over many. But even greater is God’s wonderful grace and his gift of righteousness, for all who receive it will live in triumph over sin and death through this one man, Jesus Christ. (Romans 5:12-17, NLT)

For someone who lived 3,000,000 years ago, or 6,000 years ago, or never, Adam sure is stirring up a lot of dust. Of course, that’s what he was made of, if he was made at all.

Scott Lencke, faithful iMonk and pastor in Brussels, Belgium, brought to my attention a recent article dealing with the importance of a “real” Adam. J.R. Daniel Kirk, a professor at Fuller Theologial Seminary, recently wrote with this thesis in mind: To what extent do we need to affirm a historical Adam in order also to affirm the saving dynamics of Paul’s Adam Christology?  It is well worth reading the whole thing here. Kirk writes,

One of the first questions worth confronting is whether this passage allows for various understandings of how Adam might represent humanity. Thus, for example, might there be room here, not for a physical, natural progenitor of all subsequent human beings, but for a person who was chosen by God from a developing or, at any rate, numerically numerous, human race to play the role of representative in obedience and disobedience?

But the question that will clamor for the attention of many is whether such a moment in which sin’s guilt and power are unleashed as the lords of humanity is required at all. There seems to have been death in this world millions of years before human beings came on the scene. Is it possible to affirm the point Paul wishes to make—that God’s grace, righteousness, and life abound to the many because of Christ—without simultaneously affirming the assumptions with which he illustrated these things to be true?

Lencke wrote his own follow-up to Kirk on his blog, and I encourage you to read that as well. Lencke points us past the argument of a historial Adam to the redemptive work of Christ as the focal point of Paul’s Romans passage above.

The other things [Paul] says, especially about sin, the Law, and eschatology, are reinterpretations that grow from the fundamental reality of the Christ event.Recognizing this relieves the pressure that sometimes builds up around a historical Adam……we can now recognize that Adam is not the foundation on which the system of Christian faith and life is built, such that removing him means that the whole edifice comes crashing down. Instead, the Adam of the past is one spire in a large edifice whose foundation is Christ. The gospel need not be compromised if we find ourselves having to part ways with Paul’s assumption that there is a historical Adam, because we share Paul’s fundamental conviction that the crucified Messiah is the resurrected Lord over all.

Yet Steven Wedgeworth at The Calvinist International says belief in a real, historical Adam is essential for our faith.

We return to our main question, and we offer this unreserved thesis: The historicity of Adam determines the public nature of our religion. If Adam was a historical individual, then the Bible makes authoritative claims about all of humanity and indeed all of the cosmos. It can, at least in theory, be falsified, and it is thus a legitimate topic of dialectical discourse. It is rational and not a retreat to commitment. If Adam was not a historical individual, and if instead the Genesis account is a sort of mythical story which was employed in order to make a uniquely religious point, then Christianity is necessarily rendered merely metaphorical, expressing truths of the human condition through symbols. The Bible in this case is no longer an authoritative account of human origins, history, and final destiny. It no longer addresses all men in all places and times, but rather expresses one faith-narrative that seeks to convey a meaningful but wholly internal truth.

Put more simply: if Adam is mythical, then so is redemption. While it does not follow that if Adam is mythical, then the historicity of Jesus must also be denied, it doesfollow that if Adam is mythical, then the historicity of Jesus as Second Adam must be denied. And Christianity is founded on Jesus as Second Adam.

So, we have Paul writing that Adam is a symbol of Christ who was yet to come. Does this symbol have to have been real? Does our faith hang in the balance as to whether or not we believe in a historical Adam?

I normally don’t answer my own Difficult Scriptures question, but today I will, and then stand aside to hear your thoughts. To give my answer, I will have to lean heavily on what I learned from Michael Spencer about reading the Bible.

The Scriptures were given us for one reason, and one reason alone: To point us to Jesus. When we try to use the Scriptures to prove other points, we are going outside of the scope of its purpose. The story and symbol of Adam show us “little Adams” to be sinners in need of redemption. Redemption comes in Christ’s death and resurrection. If I focus on whether or not Adam is/was real, I take my eyes away from what God intends me to look at: Jesus. So I guess I’m saying it does not matter to me whether or not Adam was really real. The story of Adam points me to a very real Jesus.

Now, your thoughts?



The computer brings out the
worst in some people.

-Brian Eno

He impressed me, negatively, decades ago with Charismatic Chaos.  Just go with the Benny Hinns and kinda skim over Gordon Fee’s work in textual scholarship why don’t you?  Where I grew up Pentecostal it was okay to read Solzhenitsyn, Fee, Schaeffer, and even bits of Kierkegaard.  You could admit you sometimes listened to Dave Brubeck.   The kind of Pentecostalism I experienced growing up didn’t fit MacArthur’s straw-man variation.  I’m not Pentecostal now but MacArthur seems like he’s pissy about some stuff where he paved the way for some of it.  As I see things MacArthur’s cranky broadsides at everyone was a beta version of Driscoll.  We don’t really get to decide what elements of our work or persona or activity really becomes our legacy.  we can do our best but time and chance happen to us all.

I would say, even as a Calvinist, that a bunch of the new Calvinist types may discover in some terrible ways that they’ve bet on the wrong horses.  Every movement has some kind of crisis like that at some point but the crisis we could be looking at could be real ugly.  I don’t take neo-Calvinists seriously at any point in which they say Catholics have a Pope and cover up sex abuse, I’ll put it that way.  Or on the subject of courtship but I’m guessing J.S. wouldn’t want me to rehash all that already.

Looks like a new nephew could be arriving here soon.  :)

Who else is planning to catch the new Trek?

I was chronically underemployed for the years when the book first came out so I haven’t read any of it. Just begun catching up to things in the last seven months on books and culture stuff. I’ll admit that picking up a box set of the complete Haydn piano sonatas has trumped books.

Though those two door-stoppers by N. T. Wright on Paul look mighty intriguing … .

But Michael’s book is part of a to-get-to list.

Lee would have to be mad to send his divisions across that field. And Hunt was sure he would do it.

When I finished reading Ralph Peters' Civil War novel Cain at Gettysburg, I almost checked my clothing for blood spatter.

Up until now Michael Shaara's epic novel The Killer Angels has been considered not only the best Gettysburg novel ever written, but the best possible Gettysburg novel.

It's been a long time since I read Shaara's book, but I'm fairly certain that, for all its virtues, it didn't have anything like the impact on me that Cain at Gettysburg did.

Cain at Gettysburg is a tactile book. It's written at eye level - sometimes ground level - and leaves a powerful - occasionally sickening - impression of the actual experience of the men involved, generals and common soldiers alike. We are never far from the smells of gunpowder and dysentery and decomposing bodies. We feel the itch of the uniforms, the burning heat of the July sun, and the thirst and hunger of men who can never get sufficient clean water or food.

The characters, most of them real historical characters, come vividly and cantankerously alive. If the book has a villain, it's probably Gen. Daniel Sickles, the New York politician soldier who nearly loses the battle singlehanded on the second day through blatant disregard of orders. But another villain - in the sense of being responsible for thousands of unnecessary deaths, is Gen. Robert E. Lee, out of sorts and short on sleep, and suffering from loose bowels. For all his genius and virtue, which are never denied, the man does not see the world as it is. Southrons must always defeat northerners, he is certain, because they're simply superior, and Virginians are the pinnacle of all. That naïve faith leads him into disastrous decisions.

The hero must be Gen. George Gordon Meade, the dour, detail-oriented northern commander, an engineer who'd rather be building lighthouses. Meade sees everything in terms of numbers and angles of elevation, which allows him to choose his fighting ground effectively and make the most of his superior resources. The denial of his genius on the part of subordinates and historians is, in Peters' estimation, "the worst injustice ever done to an American general."

But we also spend plenty of time with common soldiers - a German brigade from Milwaukee saddled with an unjust reputation for cowardice. A platoon from North Carolina led by a sergeant embittered by betrayed love, whose story is raised to the level of metaphor through the persistent existential pestering of a cynical, syphilitic comrade. A company of Irishmen from Pennsylvania led by a sergeant who is nothing less than a sociopath, and all the more valuable for it.

All in all, Ralph Peters' assessment of the battle is not greatly different from Michael Shaara's. But the approach is far more visceral.

Cain at Gettysburg is not light reading, and it's not for the weak of stomach. But if you're a Civil War buff, eager to re-live the experience of the war from your armchair, you could hardly do better than this.

Cautions for all sorts of stuff.

"After dark vapors have oppress'd our plains
For a long dreary season, comes a day
Born of the gentle South, and clears away
From the sick heavens all unseemly stains.
The anxious month, relieved of its pains,
Takes as a long-lost right the feel of May;
The eyelids with the passing coolness play
Like rose leaves with the drip of Summer rains.
The calmest thoughts came round us; as of leaves
Budding-fruit ripening in stillness-Autumn suns
Smiling at eve upon the quiet sheaves-
Sweet Sappho's cheek-a smiling infant's breath-
The gradual sand that through an hour-glass runs-
A woodland rivulet-a Poet's death." - Keats

I can’t imagine living out faith with the thought “am I getting too Arminian?” popping up everywhere I turn.

What is, “Something I never worry about”, Alex?

I’m still cleaning the Diet Coke off my keyboard from when I heard Calvinism referred to as “air tight.” That and I’m trying to wrap my head around the opinion that John Piper and Rick Warren are polar opposites. Wouldn’t Piper’s polar opposite be, y’know, an atheist telling you to live for today because no one knows what tomorrow will bring?

Matthew is right that he has some good points (a church where the pastor’s primary role seems to be perfecting his weekly killer sermon to be beamed out to satellite churches? No thanks!) — but I can’t imagine living out faith with the thought “am I getting too Arminian?” popping up everywhere I turn.

Did BHT ever do a group read-through of Michael’s book?

Belated congrats to Shea, and Jason – keep pushing for the next few weeks!

Via The Lookout:

On March 11 2005, Kevin Berthia wanted to take his life. He had climbed over the railing of the Golden Gate Bridge and was prepared to take a fatal jump into the San Francisco Bay when he heard a voice calling out to him from above.

It wasn’t the voice of a spiritual presence, but rather that of California Highway Patrol (CHP) Officer Kevin Briggs. The two talked for 60 life-changing minutes before Berthia decided to climb back up the bridge and give life another chance.

Eight years later, the pair reunited as part of an emotional ceremony honoring Briggs and other members of the CHP whose job is to verbally persuade suicidal men and women from jumping off that bridge.

“It was phenomenal,” Berthia, 30, told Yahoo News about his reunion with Briggs at the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention public service ceremony.

May I be vulnerable with you for a moment? I anticipate some pushback if only because of those names you see up there in the title, but this is part of my story, part of my gospel wakefulness, and it is a part I will never deny or disavow.

I have met John Piper just once, a couple of years ago, when I was in Minneapolis to record some material with Desiring God Ministries in promotion of my book Gospel Wakefulness. On the way to what would be a brief visit to his home, I clutched in my hand a copy of my book to give him. I was told I ought to sign it, because he’d like that. I don’t remember what exactly I wrote inside that front cover but I know it included this line: “God used you to save my life.”

That is not an exaggeration. I don’t mean that Piper’s work was instrumental in my conversion. I professed saving faith in Christ as a child, before I’d ever heard of the man. I mean he saved my life. In my twenties, mired in the rotten fruit of my sin — the wreckage of my marriage, the dead-endings of my aspirations, and the bottoming out of my spirit — I spent a lot of hours feeling nothing and contemplating taking my own life. I dare not describe all of that to you, but I was in a bad way. We had a church but the teaching we received there was in the order of “seizing the day” based on inner potential. I had none of the latter so I could not manage the former. What kept me alive?

I was clinging to the hem of Christ’s garment then, sleeping in our guest bedroom, by which I mean living in the guest bedroom and spending plenty of nights face down on the carpet groaning. I was picking up the crumbs where I could find them. Two sources of bread. The podcasts of the aforementioned Pastors Mark and John. I was getting a vision of a very big Jesus with a very big grace for sinners from them. And the Spirit used their preaching in those days to work a gospel renaissance in my life, a miracle really. My wife can attest to that.

I read the story of this fellow talked off the bridge by a friend he didn’t know he had, recently reuniting to thank him, and I think of the strange places we find ourselves in life. I think of sitting down with Pastor John for those few minutes, his thumbing through my book and looking up the Wikipedia entry for Middletown Springs, Vermont on his Macbook. I know I’m not supposed to be a respecter of persons but I can be an admirer of them, and I can certainly be a “thanksgiver” of and for them.

Providence does make strange friendships. A black man in despair and a white cop. Two animated preachers (one a bit on the scream-o side) and a neurotic, depressed, “stuttering wimp” (to quote a girl’s appraisal of me in the 4th grade — still remember that, don’t you know). The God of the Universe and sinners.

Don’t stop preaching the gospel. And if you don’t preach the gospel, start. Then don’t stop. You don’t know whose life you are saving. Not you, really, but God.
God is in his gospel faithfully proclaimed doing his thing, talking people off bridges. Me? I’ll never forget. So I’ll never stop.



If you would preserve the wilderness,
teach a child to love it.

-Joseph Thomas Howard

Welcome to Midweek Monkery, Lutheran edition. I hope you will enjoy a few of the things that have made me laugh as I have started to learn more about the Lutheran community, especially the immigrant Lutheran community in the U.S.

If you are a laughing Lutheran, I’d love to have you chime in today with a few knee-slappers of your own.

* * * 

Top Ten Ole and Lena Jokes
from Trinity Lutheran Church, Frankfort, MI

Ole and Lena are stock characters in folklore of the upper Midwest of the U.S., the outgrowth of the Scandinavian immigrant experience. You can find Ole and Lena jokes all over the internet. Here’s a good list I found on the website of a Lutheran church in Michigan.

1. Ole: Lars, I heard that you saved a man’s life in a restaurant last week.
Lars: Ya, I sure did. I advised him not to eat the Lutefisk.

2. Ole was on an airplane trip. His seat partner was a gorgeous young woman who made Ole’s heart skip a beat. “Where are you going,” asked the young woman. “Minneapolis,” answered Ole. “Same here,” said the gal. I’m going to Minneaplois to meet the man of my dreams… because I read in a magazine that the sexiest, most romantic men in the world are NORWEIGIANS and AMERICAN INDIANS. By the way, what is your name?” Said Ole shyly, “Ole Red Feather.”

3. Ole said that the way to identify a funeral procession in North Dakota is to notice if the combines have their lights on.

4. Ole says Americans are funny: First they put sugar in a glass to make it sveet, a tvist of lemon to make it sour, gin to make it varm dem up, and ice to cool it off. Den dey say, “Here’s to you,” and den dey drink it demselves.”

5. Ole and Lars were visiting France. They went to an Oyster bar where the waitresses were topless. Said Lars to the waitress, “Ve vould like a dozen oysters… and can you bring dem vun at a time?”

6. When Ole and Lena got married and went on their honeymoon. Lena was a bit bashful. As they walked up to the hotel, Lena said, Vhat can ve do so dey von’t know ve’re newlyveds? Answered Ole: YOU carry the luggage.”

7. Lena was visiting with her friend Freda Tofteskov, who explained how her husband Hjalmar had courted her with a rather unusual marriage proposal. Hjalmar told Freda that if she married him, he would either churn 10 pounds of butter, or write her a poem. “I see,” said Lena, “So it looks like you married him for butter or verse.”

8. When Lena tried to give the phone operator her phone number on a long distance call, the operator inquired, “Do you have an area code?” – “”No,” said Lena. “Yust a little sinus trouble.”

9. Ole was filling out a questionnaire. To the question regarding church preference, Ole put down: “Red brick with white trim.”

10. Ole calls up his doctor and says: “Every morning at 5 I have a BM. Fine says the doctor, that’s very healthy… so what seems to be your problem? – “Vell,” said Ole. “I don’t vake up until six.”

“The Herdsmen”
from Life among the Lutherans, by Garrison Keillor

Many of us were introduced to upper Midwest and Lutheran culture through the radio show Prairie Home Companion and the writings of its gifted host, Garrison Keillor. Here is a hilarious excerpt from his book about them.

The Herdsmen were winners in the Church Ushers Competition Thursday night in Houston, Texas. They beat out a Baptist usher team, a Methodist, and were first runners-up to a Jewish team called Parkyercarcass. The Herdsmen came home Friday with the first-runner-up trophy, and it was nothing to people. Nothing. A national award. That’s how Lake Wobegon can be in February. Dark and discouraging. The Herdsmen used to have that great front four of Don, John, Louie, and Boomer back in the seventies. And Boomer, he was an usher’s usher. The man worked a sanctuary on Sunday morning like you wouldn’t believe. With Boomer you didn’t have people filling up the back rows first — he moved ‘em right down front. Boomer was a big man, and he got his nickname from his voice, which would strip wallpaper. He’d been a basketball coach and did some auctioneering and raised six kids, and no matter where they were, they could hear Boomer when he called them for supper.

…[Boomer] was founder of the Herdsmen, and they still work from that 4-3-2 formation, even as other ushers have gone to a zone, and their secret still is quickness and anticipation. You can’t push when you usher — that’s called interference — and you can’t close your hand over someone’s arm — that’s called holding — but those guys could move people. The National Church Acolytes & Assistants Association, the NC-Triple A, sponsored the National Ushers Competition, which was held at the Grand Opera House, which is a tough room to work — big balcony, three aisles, boxes, but that’s where the Herdsmen went for the competition.

They raised money for the trip with a series of fish fries, and when you put on fish fries, you’re going to gain weight, so they had to have their pants let out. They wear blue polyester suits with an H and a sheep embroidered on the pocket. They sat in nine adjoining seats in rows twenty-five, twenty-six, and twenty-seven, wedged in like marshmallows, and it was a turbulent flight down to Houston, especially on the descent; the plane was shaking hard, and steam or something was coming out of the vents, the wings were flapping, and they could hear the flight attendants in back singing, “I Walk in the Garden Alone,” which was not reassuring. But they landed in Houston, and then they got on a little bus, one of those buses that is a box set on a truck chassis, so the ride is much the same as what animals get en route to the stockyards, and the bus driver rode around lost, and when the Herdsmen arrived they were nauseated and dizzy. It was 1:30 and they were up to compete at two o’clock, so they barely had time to throw on their clothes, and it was a motley crowd. A thousand people and there were a lot of Episcopalians in there, and they always take more time, and a group of blind nuns, the Sisters of Helen Keller, and that slowed things up — old ladies waving white canes and whacking people with them, and some guide dogs growling and barking — and there were 140 members of Lutheran Weightwatchers, and the kids from St. Vitus’s School for children with ADD, kids who come with a fast-forward button — it was like herding fruit bats and water buffalo. And there were only twenty stalls at the Communion rail and six servers, two of them elderly, but the Herdsmen go the job done by dividing people up and putting the elderly into another line, the sippers (who insist on drinking from the cup) in one line, and then three express lanes for dippers — and they set a new national record, one thousand people taking Communion in fifteen minutes, about 1.1 second per communicant. They might’ve won first place, but two judges marked them low on style, which may have been due to indigestion from that bus ride. Both Elmer and Danny cut some cheese during the competition, loud ones, and the smell hung around, and you lose points for that.

* * *

The Herdsmen Should Have Booked with This Airline
“All fares are by free-will offering, and the plane will not land until the budget is met.”

 

 

We are a modest people
And we never make a fuss
And it sure would be a better world
If they were all as modest as us.
We do not go for whooping it up
Or a lot of yikkety-yak
When we say hello, we avert our eyes
And we always sit in the back.
We sit in the pew where we always sit,
And we do not shout “Amen!”
And if anyone yells or waves their hands,
They’re not invited back again.

I’m a Lutheran, a Lutheran — it is my belief;
I am a Lutheran guy.
We may have merged with another church
But I’m a Lutheran till I die.

- Garrison Keillor, “Lutheran Song”

I'm in a kind of a mood today.

In the last couple days the Minnesota House and the Senate, both with Democrat majorities, have passed a bill legalizing homosexual marriage, and about an hour and a half ago the governor signed it. August 1 it becomes law.

The prospect of being hanged in a fortnight, as Dr. Johnson noted, concentrates the mind wonderfully. And the prospect of my own eventual imprisonment for a hate crime also has the effect of focusing my own thoughts. A Christian ought to be dead to the world, prepared at all times to suffer for his faith. And it looks very much (at least to me) that such a time is coming.

If I'm being paranoid, I'm not the only one. My friend Mitch Berg of Shot In the Dark blog, a libertarian and no Bible thumper, addresses (among other points) the abysmal record of "freedom to marry" advocates in terms of spreading the freedom around in this post.

Chanting "The First Amendment protects religious expression!" is about like saying "the Second Amendment protects your right to keep and bear arms!" or "the Fourth Amendment protects you from unreasonable searches and seizures!" or "The Tenth Amendment reserves unenumerated rights to the States and People!". All are true - provided you take them seriously enough to beat back ill-advised legal attacks on them.

So I'm contemplating how to prepare for persecution to come - not the metaphorical kind where we complain about people talking to us mean, but the kind where we actually get sent to prison for expressing our beliefs. Do I compose my soul to accept arrest and incarceration? Do I squirrel away portable wealth for a quick run for the border (I understand diamonds aren't as useful as they once were)?

Or should I take the Lord literally when He says "Cast no thought upon the morrow?"

Must ponder.

“[I]f a king be reigning somewhere,but stays in his own house and does not let himself be seen, it often happens that some insubordinate fellows, taking advantage of his retirement, will have themselves proclaimed in his stead; and each of them, being invested with the semblance of kingship, misleads the simple who, because they cannot enter the palace and see the real king, are led astray by just hearing a king named. When the real king emerges, however, and appears to view, things stand differently. The insubordinate impostors are shown up by his presence, and men, seeing the real king, forsake those who previously misled them. In the same way the demons used formerly to impose on men, investing themselves with the honor due to God. But since the Word of God has been manifested in a body, and has made known to us His own Father, the fraud of the demons is stopped and made to disappear; and men, turning their eyes to the true God, Word of the Father, forsake the idols and come to know the true God.

“Now this is proof that Christ is God, the Word and Power of God. For whereas human things cease and the fact of Christ remains, it is clear to all that the things which cease are temporary, but that He Who remains is God and very Son of God, the sole-begotten Word.”

– Athanasius, On the Incarnation

W. H. Auden explains:

Every poet, consciously or unconsciously, holds the following absolute presuppositions, as the dogmas of his art:

(1) A historical world exists, a world of unique events and unique persons, related by analogy, not identity. The number of events and analogical relations is potentially infinite. The existence of such a world is a good, and every addition to the number of events, persons and relations is an additional good.

(2) The historical world is a fallen world, i.e. though it is good that it exists, the way in which it exists is evil, being full of unfreedom and disorder.

(3) The historical world is a redeemable world. The unfreedom and disorder of the past can be reconciled in the future.

It follows from the first presupposition that the poet's activity in creating a poem is analogous to God's activity in creating man after his own image. It is not an imitation, for were it so, the poet would be able to create like God ex nihilo; instead, he requires pre-existing occasions of feeling and a pre-existing language out of which to create. It is analogous in that the poet creates not necessarily according to a law of nature but voluntarily according to provocation.

(stolen from Alan Jacobs)

I have zero, zip, nada, no talent or ability in the areas of painting, sketching, sculpturing or creating visual artwork in any form. Nevertheless, I love this chapter of Hidden Art.

“Ideas carried out stimulate more ideas.” So true. My most recent obsession, other than watching K-dramas, is opening a small library for homeschoolers in my area who could use the books and curricula that I have collected over the years, much of which my own children have outgrown. I have a LOT of books and curriculum materials. I would like to gather these resources into one room in my house, and allow homeschool families to pay a small yearly fee to become “members” of my library. (This idea has almost nothing to do with the chapter we’re reading, but everything to do with where God is leading me in the area of hidden art. My giftedness, such as it is, has to do with reading and recommending “living books” and other educational resources.) Anyway, my idea of opening a full-fledged library is thwarted right now by the season my family is in and by the logistics of devoting an entire room to the purpose of a library. Still, I need to figure out a way to start small, and to carry out my idea in some limited way until I can get to the complete vision of a private homeschoolers’ library.

“A sermon can be ‘illustrated’ and thereby ‘translated’ at the same time, to a child sitting beside you, provided the child has any interest at all in understanding.” I used to do this , despite my lack of artistic ability, with my older children when they were preschoolers. I also sometimes had them draw a picture of what the pastor was talking about in his sermon. In fact, as they got older I had a page long form for their “sermon notes” that had a space for the date, the pastor’s name, the Biblical text, a sentence or two about the sermon, and a picture illustrating the sermon. Sometimes on the back of the sheet I drew stick figures, or Engineer Husband drew more detailed illustrations, helping the children to understand the sermon.

How the Semicolon family is expressing “hidden art” this week:
Engineer Husband is designing the program for the upcoming production of Singin’ in the Rain that two of the urchins are starring in. One of my adult children, Dancer Daughter (23) has done much of the choreography for the production.

Karate Kid (16) is in the living room playing the guitar for his sisters to sing along, as they record a a birthday gift song for a friend whose birthday is tomorrow. They’re singing this song by the group He Is We.

Betsy Bee (14) has been decorating and straightening up her bedroom, ironing the pillow cases (?!) and generally making her space beautiful.

My 80 year old mom, who lives in an apartment behind our house, makes beautifully designed cards for birthdays and anniversaries, using her computer and the artwork that she finds or purchases on the internet.

I continue to write my little blog and to try to figure out how to start a library without a designated space.

I’m looking forward to reading the posts that others write about how they incorporate the visual arts into their lives and homes.



Information is not knowledge.

-Albert Einstein

Neanderthal Man

Things Learned While Looking for Something Else Dept.:

If you belong to one of those increasingly rare churches that still sings hymns occasionally, you've probably sung the hymn, "Praise to the Lord, the Almighty."

If you look at the bottom of the page, you'll note that it was written by Joachim Neander (1650-1680), and translated by Catherine Winkworth.

Neander, though born in Germany, somehow managed to be neither Lutheran nor Catholic, but Reformed. He experienced a Christian conversion while studying theology, and became a Latin teacher in Dusseldorf. A lover of nature, he used to preach to large open air meetings in the Dussel river valley. He also wrote more than 60 hymns.

Long after his death, in the early 19th Century, the valley where he used to preach was renamed the Neander Valley in his honor. Or, in German, Neanderthal.

And it was in the Neander Valley, of course, that scientists found the bones of the prehistoric humanoid who became known as Neanderthal Man.

So even when they look back at their evolutionary family tree, biologists must pay tribute to a Christian hymn writer.

Mwa-ha-ha-ha! You cannot escape us! We're everywhere!

I just realized something. Thinking about reading Michael’s book no longer makes me feel like I wanna barf. I guess that means it’s time to find a copy and read it.

Well, there’s that, too.

For all the gods of the peoples are worthless idols, but the Lord made the heavens.
– 1 Chronicles 16:6

“For I know that the Lord is great,
and that our Lord is above all gods.
Whatever the Lord pleases, he does,
in heaven and on earth,
in the seas and all deeps.
He it is who makes the clouds rise at the end of the earth,
who makes lightnings for the rain
and brings forth the wind from his storehouses.”
– Psalm 135:5-7



Why do they call it rush hour
when nothing moves?

-Robin Williams

It's the end of the (school) year and with the end of the year comes reflection on the past 9 months or whatever it is and what I've learned and what I've gone through. I honestly don't really know what I've learned. I don't really know "what I've gone through." It was a good year. It was a challenging year. It was not fun at times. It was super fun at other times. I made so many new friends. I lost touch with others. I had crazy late night adventures, I explored the city of Waco more, I took fun classes, I became an aunt. So many exciting things this year. At this point, that's as insightful as I am into this year. I'm still a mess I feel at most times. But, God has been faithful. God has been good. He's seen me through a lot of things. Thank you God for sticking with me through all the stupid things I do. Thank you for sticking with me when I just want to wallow in self-pity. Thank you for sticking with me when I don't want to let go of so many things. You're a good God.

The point of this blog though is to talk about some little insight I will try to have for you. Something I've discovered even more deeply this year is that everyone is on a journey. Everyone is a human being created by God unique and specific. Everyone is trying to discern, discover, and figure who God really is and who we are. (Well, Christians at least). We're gonna get things wrong. We're gonna get things right. Like, most people have the "do not murder" thing down. They see that as wrong. They stray from doing it. Good job. But, there are some things that are harder to understand. For instance: God does not give much insight to how we should live in a democratic society. He doesn't mention in the Bible about electoral college and candidates and platforms. So, sometimes that's a tricky thing to decipher. And I have learned that... people are gonna think different things. We're all probably gonna be wrong in some way. But, I want to be someone that is okay with being wrong. I want to be someone who is always learning. I want to be able to let go of some idea I feel is truth and go deeper into the heart of God for people and for this world. The way I do christianity is not the end all, be all. Before I go on, there is a wrong way. God has boundary lines and he has a narrow road. We have to follow Jesus to get to God. So I'm not saying do what you want, believe what you want. I'm just saying for the grey areas, the hard areas, the areas that affect so many people... I want to be sensitive, I want to love and I want to hear from them. But, also. I want to be apart of the conversation. I don't want to just sit back and accept what everyone says as truth. I want to seek truth for myself and share what I find. I want to learn from discussions. From conversations where we come to truth in some way. And I want to have peace about what I believe God has called me to.

Above all, I want to always go back to the Bible. I never want to question it or claim it doesn't have the value in my life that it does. I want to always give it the authority it deserves. I want to process all my thoughts about life with God and filter them through the Bible. I want to learn from Jesus and not just people. People will be wrong sometimes. I will be wrong a lot of the times. Jesus will never be wrong. I want people to see me as someone who is trying to understand how to follow Jesus more and more and so even if I do things that they don't necessarily do or don't do things they do, they know that I respect them. I love them. And that they respect and love me too. I want them to see me as someone willing to listen to them. Willing to understand where they come from. And not just saying my views at them. But, talking with them. Walking with them.

I want to keep things simple. Love God with all my heart and soul and mind. Love my neighbor as myself. And love those who don't know Jesus by showing them Jesus' love.

Also, I am so excited for this summer. And Happy Mother's Day.



God has saved us not by
the removal of justice,
but by the satisfaction of it.

-Kevin Deyoung

Lars shared this article on Facebook, and I was moved--moved I tell you--to share it here, because you can't get good writing like this often: "The voice at the other end of the line gave a sigh, like a mighty oak toppling into a great river, or something else that didn't sound like a sigh if you gave it a moment's thought. 'Who cares what the stupid critics say?' advised the literary agent. 'They're just snobs. You have millions of fans.'"

Michael Deacon writes in response to the Dan Brown's upcoming novel, Inferno, which if you are going to buy it, you must use this link. Must! Support starving artists!

The novel is another unique take on art history and world conspiracy. From the book: "Against [the backdrop of Dante's Inferno], Langdon battles a chilling adversary and grapples with an ingenious riddle that pulls him into a landscape of classic art, secret passageways, and futuristic science. Drawing from Dante's dark epic poem, Langdon races to find answers and decide whom to trust . . . before the world is irrevocably altered."

Dude! That is one unique thriller! I'll go on record now by predicting this will tell of a Manx plot to manipulate world currency. Dante has been rumored to be Manx sympathizer among all the scholars who have studied him. Sorry, I should have given you a spoiler alert.



We can't help everyone, but
everyone can help someone.

-Ronald Reagan

“I never desire to converse with a man who has written more than he has read.” ~Samuel Johnson
“Can I be blunt on this subject? If you don’t have time to read, you don’t have the time (or the tools) to write. Simple as that.” ~Stephen King

Welcome to the Saturday Review of Books at Semicolon. Here’s how it usually works. Find a book review on your blog posted sometime during the previous week. The review doesn’t have to be a formal sort of thing. You can link to your thoughts on a particular book, a few ideas inspired by reading the book, your evaluation, quotations, whatever.

Then on Friday night/Saturday, you post a link here at Semicolon in Mr. Linky to the specific post where you’ve written your book review. Don’t link to your main blog page because this kind of link makes it hard to find the book review, especially when people drop in later after you’ve added new content to your blog. In parentheses after your name, add the title of the book you’re reviewing. This addition will help people to find the reviews they’re most interested in reading.

After linking to your own reviews, you can spend as long as you want reading the reviews of other bloggers for the week and adding to your wishlist of books to read. That’s how my own TBR list has become completely unmanageable and the reason I can’t join any reading challenges. I have my own personal challenge that never ends.

Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert: An English Professor’s Journey into Christian Faith by Rosaria Champagne Butterfield.

“In the pages that follow, I share what happened in my private world through what Christians politely call conversion. This word–conversion–is simply too tame and too refined to capture the train wreck that I experienced incoming face-to-face with the living God.”

This conversion story, written by former lesbian professor Rosaria Champagne Butterfield, contains wisdom on a lot of different subjects. Here are a few quotes that illuminate some things that God taught Mrs. Butterfield.

Fear-based parenting:
“I believe that there is no greater enemy to vital life-breathing faith than insisting on cultural sameness. When fear rules your theology, God is nowhere to be found in your paradigm, no matter how many Bible verses you tack on to it. . . . We in the church tend to be more fearful of the (perceived) sin in the world than of the sin in our own heart. Why is that?”

Sermons:
“I came to believe that my job was not to critique and ‘receive’ a sermon, but to dig into it, to seize its power, to participate with its message, and to steal its fruit.”

Conversion:
“I didn’t choose Christ. Nobody chooses Christ. Christ chooses you or you’re dead. After Christ chooses you, you respond because you must. Period. It’s not a pretty story.”

Betrayal:
“Betrayal deepens our love for Jesus (who will never betray us). Betrayal deepens our knowledge of Jesus and his sacrifice, obedience, and love.(Jesus was betrayed by his chosen disciples and by all who call upon him asSavior and Lord by our sin). Finally, betrayal deepens our Christian vision: The Cross is a rugged place, not a place for the squeamish or self-righteous.”

Church community:
“I think that churches would be places of greater intimacy and growth in Christ if people stopped lying about what we need, what we fear, where we fail, and how we sin. I think that many of us have a hard time believing the God we believe in, when the going gets tough. And I suspect that instead of seeking counsel and direction from those stronger in the Lord, we retreat into our isolation and shame and let the sin wash over us, defeating us again. Or maybe we muscle through on our pride.”

Sexual sin:
“Sexual sin is not recreational sex gone overboard. Sexual sin is predatory. It won’t be ‘healed’ by redeeming the context or the genders. Sexual sin must simply be killed. What is left of your sexuality after this annihilation is up to God. . . . Christians act as though marriage redeems sin. Marriage does not redeem sin. Only Jesus himself can do that.”

Adoption:
“Because we are Christ’s, we know that children are not grafted into a family to resolve our fertility problems or to boost our egos or to complete our family pictures or because we match color or race or nation-status. We know, because we are Christ’s, that adoption is a miracle. In a spiritual sense, it is the miracle at the center of the Christian life. We who are adopted by God are those given a new heart, a ‘rebirth.’”

I have been thinking a lot lately about the recent controversy over “missionary adoption” and the idea that adoptive parents must have the “right motives” before they adopt. While I understand the cautions and caveats that Ms. Headmistress of the Common Room and Ms. Butterfield both repeat and the issues involved with foreign adoptions in particular, I hate to see us as a culture discouraging adoption and the ministry of orphan care.

I believe Ms. Butterfield and the Headmistress when they say that adults who adopt out of selfishness tend to reap trouble and disappointment, just as those who have selfish motives when they give birth to children tend to have parenting and family issues. However, our motives in anything we do are difficult to discern and usually mixed at best. Why did I give birth to eight children? Because I enjoy having children and parenting them and homeschooling them (most of the time). Because I believe children are a gift from the Lord. Because it makes me happy to see my children serving the Lord and glorifying Him. Are these selfish motives or unselfish? Am I less likely to deal well with the disappointments of having some children who are not serving the Lord right now because I expected them to all follow Him? Do I love them less (or should I not have had them in the first place, God forbid) when they are not making me happy? These are all good questions to ask yourself in regard to your children, whether they’re adopted or not. The answers can give Christian parents insight into the growth that the Holy Spirit wants to bring about in their lives so that they can better serve Him as parents.

Being a parent is complicated, whether you birth the children or adopt them. Adoption has its own joys and pitfalls. Yes, I am going off on a tangent here. Rosaria Butterfield has written a great story with insight about homosexuality, Christian conversion, the gospel, and adoption. I recommend the book—and I recommend having children, too, however you go about it.

My brother posted this link on Facebook today. It's from a recent news story on a Twin Cities TV station about the sheriff of my home town, where goodness abounds and the writ of Original Sin runs not.

You are interested in this story because it'll give you some idea of the site of one of your favorite novels, Troll Valley. Which appears to be enjoying a better sales rank than Hailstone Mountain right now, for reasons that pass my comprehension.

Have a good weekend!



Liberal Christianity can supply only an
ineffectual echo to the massive chorus of
agreed and admitted unbelief.

-C. S. Lewis

The word "dwarves," was (more or less) invented by J. R. R. Tolkien. The "proper" spelling is "dwarfs," but the Professor had his own secret purposes.

Someone posted the following video on Facebook, and it interested me enough to share it here. Armorer Tony Swatton creates a replica of Gimli's axe from the "Lord of the Rings" movies, but does it in a traditional Damascus style. The results are impressive.



This particular axe (John Rhys-Davies actually carries three) is a stylized version of a Viking bearded axe ("bearded" refers to the extended lower horn of the cutting edge). The technique used here, however, is not the sort of damascening the Norse did. Viking pattern welding involved twisting together bundles of rods with differing carbon content, so that strength and flexibility would be maximized (or so they hoped).

I inserted a dwarf into Hailstone Mountain, in a scene I like quite a lot. My dwarves (dwarfs?) are a little different from Tolkien's, though.

What follows is the manuscript for a talk titled “The Gospel and Marital Sexuality” that I presented at the Men and Women of Wisdom Conference last weekend in Hingham, Massachusetts. The audio of the talk will be released shortly, I am told. I want to stress that this is my preaching manuscript, not a transcript of all I said, so there will be some differences. There is of course a bit more fleshing out in the preaching audio than in what I pre-composed for my reference’s sake. But since I’ve received some requests for the manuscript, I present it below — after the jump, as they say — for anyone’s interest and, I hope, their blessing.

THE GOSPEL AND MARITAL SEXUALITY
1 Corinthians 7:1-5

My aim in this talk is to explicate how the wisdom of the gospel differs from “ordinary knowledge,” and how that distinction is important to a complementarian vision of sexuality.

By “complementarian” I mean the view that God created men and women as equals in personhood but as distinct in roles that reveal complementary truths about Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 7:1-5

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

2 weeks ago as Belgian Catholic Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard was speaking to a university group in Brussels on the topic of freedom of expression and blasphemy, a group of topless feminist protestors invaded the space, with slogans scrawled across their torsos, and began taunting the man and dousing him with water. They had the water in little bottles shaped like the Virgin Mary. They meant ostensibly to protest the Catholic Church’s stances on homosexuality, and they targeted Archbishop Leonard in particular b/c he has been fairly outspoken about the issue, most recently confirming for a Belgian newspaper that a Christian praxis for homosexuals should involve celibacy.

The scene was a very stark and disturbing one, and very powerful. Several newspapers ran photos, obscuring the protestors’ breasts of course. But what you see is four very obviously angry women in various states of screaming, dousing this man, who is seated, with water, while the man himself sat quietly, hands folded, eyes closed, praying. I don’t know anything else beyond this incident about Archbishop Leonard, but the image reminded me of the mental image of our Lord enduring, absorbing the taunts of his tormentors without saying a word.

Now, what were these nice ladies protesting? The Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality, yes, but something else, more fundamental. I think we see in this scene an isolated at this point extreme but an everyday occurrence for most of the post-Christendom west, and in the spiritual sense, a battle you and I wage every day of our lives. We see the fundamental protest in the slogans “Get the government out of the bedroom” and “My body; my choice” and – as I see from many on Twitter and Facebook on almost daily basis now – “Don’t judge.”

It is, I believe, a rejection of authority. We all want, in our flesh, life without restraint. “You’re not the boss of me.”

I was reminded of this last week as our adult Bible study class was taking in the latest installment in the DVD curriculum for Tim Keller’s “The Reason for God.” In each episode Keller sits down with a small group of skeptics and doubters of the Christian faith, a good representation of both religious and secular pluralists in America, and has a conversation about their objections to and challenges for Christian truth claims. In our session last week the subject of rules came up. Who makes these rules? Some God I’ve never seen? Some old book that has no relevance today? And something interesting happened. Eventually most of the participants in the conversation admitted, quite freely – not begrudgingly – that rules were good! Rules were good for society and for families and so on. And so they liked and appreciated and valued intrinsic rules, rules that were mutually agreed upon by people in society, arising from shared interest and the need to survive as a species and flourish as a culture. What they didn’t like was the idea of some external source, like a God for instance, telling them what to do. A rejection of authority.

We can’t help but see external authority as stifling, discouraging, disempowering. And I think largely, even in church cultures, we have trouble with authority not simply because often people in authority are authoritarian or simply poor leaders but because we have no vision of the gospel that helps us see authority as a blessing. And I think that in the area of complementarianism and egalitarianism, one glaring weakness of much of egalitarian arguments is the failure to grapple with biblical authority. Which is why you see so much egalitarianism in the progressive Christian world coming alongside affirmation of gay marriage, the rejection of the inerrancy of Scripture, the muddling of male and female in home and church leadership, etc. At root, it is a resentment of authority that might keep us from doing what we want.
But seeing authority through the eyes of the gospel – now, that would be wisdom.

Proverbs 29:18
Where there is no prophetic vision the people cast off restraint, but blessed is he who keeps the law.

A verse much misused. Some pastors use it to beholden others to their big ideas for ministry strategy.
The reality is not so flexible: Without a word from God, people will do what is right in their own eyes. But it is a blessing – a balm to life – to live God’s way.

Turning to 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 now, I think we see 4 levels of authority that the wisdom of the gospel helps us see as blessings in the area of marriage in general and sex in particular. Briefly, the four levels of authority are these:

1. The Church, and more specifically our elders
2. The institution of marriage itself (and by extension, the family unit)
3. Our spouse
4. The Lord God

These are obviously not in order of importance, but they are the order I see them reflected in the passage at hand.

4 layers of authority – the church, marriage institution (and the family unit), our spouse, and God – that don’t just give us rules for sex but provide safety, nourishment, encouragement, and the flourishing of families.

1 Corinthians 7:1-5
Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”

Quoting their question. A Gnostic overreaction to the avoidance of fornication and sexual defilement.
The question Paul appears to be addressing demonstrates their interest in an imbalanced approach to authority that stifles the spirit of the laws against sex outside of the marriage covenant. They are in danger of “falling off the horse on the other side.” And we have seen this over-reach of authority — authority that stifles — throughout church history’s treatment of even sex within marriage:

Clement of Alexandria was said to have said you could only have sex at night, and you can’t enjoy it. Origen considered sex so sinful he castrated himself.
In the middle ages, the Church forbade sex between married couples up to 252 days of the year, leaving just 83 when it was permitted, assuming the woman was not menstruating, pregnant, or had just given birth. But you could still couldn’t enjoy it.

Is that God’s design? Is that the design behind Genesis 2:25 – “The man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed”?

That’s not where Paul goes at all.
But the Corinthians have, surprisingly, done a good thing here BECAUSE THEY ASKED HIM.

Here is that first tier of God-given authority that is helpful for marital sexuality. They recognized Paul’s apostleship, his authority, the inspiration of the Spirit in his writing, and so they put the question before him.

We live in a day when even the evangelical church is suffering the erosion of the influence of church authority. As more and more communities of faith cease serving as communities and have become little more than spiritual entertainment complexes for religious consumers, the idea of an elder exercising authority is completely foreign. “Authority is for your grandfather’s church. We just want you to rock out and get some life coaching.”

I recall when a church in our past made the necessary but tragic choice of dismissing the lead pastor. The elders stood before the congregation and one of them shared with heavy heart the reasons for the pastor’s firing. On a fairly grand scale, the reaction was quite telling. It sounded like this: “We have elders?” And “Who are these elders?” “Can they do this?” The church had made it a point to push the authority of elders into the background of church life, so it should have been no surprise that many reared up at this decisive moment to say in essence, “You’re not the boss of me.”

But the Lord has designed the church to work a certain way. There are perhaps several valid expressions of that design church to church and denomination to denomination, but each will express under the conviction and guidance of the Spirit-breathed Word of God the idea of authority and submission in the church. And this is a GOOD thing!

Biblical authority in a church is so much helpful than the free-for-all that passes for religious experience. It can be refuge for Christians in distress, actually.

As an example: When a Christian woman is suffering from verbal abuse from her husband to the point of feeling weary and withered, on the verge of despair and depression – she feels she cannot take it to the law b/c there is no law against it – and she doesn’t want to pull the nuclear option of separation and divorce b/c she feels that is wrong. She wants another recourse, a *help* for her that will be a challenge to her husband. She needs help and her husband needs correction and discipline, where does she go? In a biblically functioning church, to the elders. And in a biblically functioning church, the elders will handle the situation with grace and respect but also authority.

But even in the larger sense, the church community itself – centered on the gospel – provides implicit authority – safeguards – for not just marital sexuality but all expressions of sexuality. How many young people struggling with lust and pornography, temptations to premarital sex, same-sex attraction, and the like might feel free to confront their struggles honestly and humbly if they could only feel connected to a gracious, non-shaming, but solid and helpful community in their church? But we do not provide these parameters, these safe spaces, and instead simply become a scheduled space for all the independents to be alone together once in a while. It is no wonder the core doctrines of the orthodox faith are in decline even among today’s professing evangelicals.

And I don’t think it’s a coincidence that as more and more self-professing Christians have become consumeristic about church, they’ve become consumeristic about their marriages. There is a worship of self going on there.

And the gospel delivers us from that. Converting us from self to other, community

So the Corinthians say, “Paul, we’ve heard b/c of immorality it’s good just to not have sex at all. Help us out. What do you say?” with the willingness of heart to say “Whatever you say.”

Paul responds:

2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

Gives us the framework for sexual intimacy, the boundaries
Previous chapter, he says “flee sexual immorality” – connotes an abundance of things

Marriage is the context for sinless sex.
2nd tier of authority: The Marriage Institution itself.

Gen. 2:24 – “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”

“one flesh” – this is covenant talk

Establishing covenant of marriage from the get-go, as the enduring picture of God’s love for his people, and Christ’s union with the church.
The Laws then give us parameters: Laws against adultery but also divorce. Instructions about sexual behavior but also lustful thoughts.

Why? Because God is a cosmic killjoy?
No, because first of all marriage is meant to be a picture of the gospel, and b/c the gospel is glorious and eternal, marriage is meant to be weighty and permanent.

We make marriage about us, God says it’s primarily about Christ.

We see this in the way we’ve turned marriage into a sentimental, romantic relationship rather than a covenantal union that provides space for sentiment and romance. The way we treat each other as fulfillers of US, using each other to achieve our own marital dreams and aspirations.
Even in the way we have come to distinguish family from marriage.
In the area of same-sex parents and unmarried parents: “Anybody makes a family.”
In the area of divorce: “The kids will be all right. Kids are resilient.”
In the area of marital aspirations: “Kids? Who wants kids?”

It’s a touchy subject, but can there be much doubt that when we divorced sex even philosophically from the prospect of procreation – and more generally, the flourishing of a family – we implicitly acknowledged that our sex is self-worship?

I’m not a quiver-full advocate – we have 2 children, not 10 – and I am not against the use of all methods of family planning – and you’ll notice that Paul says nothing here about procreation, which he well likely should have if sex is primarily for having children (and neither does the Song of Solomon emphasize procreation). But marital sex is inextricably tied to the flourishing of whole families, which of course includes the creation mandate of being fruitful and multiplying.

The marriage institution and its covenant and the family unit and its flourishing are good, helpful guides – coverings — for marital sexuality. When married couples have a sex life WITH EACH OTHER (certainly not with another person, but also not with their own minds, as in with a computer in the darkness of the study, and not with romance novels or soap operas or tabloid magazines), in other words, they are honoring their one-fleshed-ness AND investing in the radiant joy of their families. Ever seen married couples who have lived like platonic roommates over a length of time? Look at their kids. Do they often look happy? They may not know their parents aren’t enjoying romance, of course, but they do. There is something about moms and dads being in love with each other that makes kids feel safe, secure, happy, loved themselves.

And the shift now is from the marriage covenant in general to YOUR marriage covenant in particular:

3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

Here is explicit authority talk. As it pertains to our bodies, the third tier of authority over us is our spouse.

Notice 2 things in those 2 verses:

1. The burden of responsibility is on the giver of rights, not the assumer of them. In other words, Paul is telling married persons to make it their responsibility to give to their spouses their conjugal rights, not make sure their spouses are giving them theirs.

It’s a subtle point but an important one. What happens in a marriage when two people are always concerned about what they each “deserve”?

Paul says, “you each serve the other,” as if each has authority over the other. What a beautiful romantic picture of Romans 12:10 – “Outdo one another showing honor.” – And 10,000 foot view of Paul’s words elsewhere about wives submitting and husbands serving. Distinct roles but complementary roles and mutuality of sacrifice. It is no wonder that he prefaces his important words on marriage in Ephesians 5 about submission and authority with the phrase, “submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.”

Gary Thomas in Sacred Marriage says that marriage exists not primarily to make us happy but to make us holy. Of course the happiness comes with the holiness, but we have to aim for the right one first. And if joy comes through Christlikeness, as the Scriptures promise, there can be nothing more joyful than giving my wife authority over my body as an act of sacrifice and service to her.

The key of course is mutuality here. If I have authority over her body but she does not have authority over mine, we don’t have the beautiful stalemate of Romans 12:10 and a picture of the complementary truths in the multifaceted person of the glorious Christ but instead a legalistic relationship, a harmful one – for her and eventually even for me.

2. The second thing we notice in these verses is the plural – “rights.” The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband

“Rights” implies a variety of desires – AND NON-DESIRES. This means I am giving my wife the right to have sex with me. But I also give her the right to say “Not tonight, honey. It’s been a long day and I’m really tired. I want to love you that way, but let’s try for tomorrow night.”

It means I am giving my wife the right to be sick or otherwise distressed or just flat-out disinterested without pressure from me to “give me MY rights.”

This view of authority and conjugal rights is vitally important for a Christ-like marriage, especially in marriages when a spouse may be dealing with trauma from abuse, recovery from illnesses, or just completely unable to enjoy intercourse (perhaps even ever) due to a disability or other preventative condition. We all know that sex is not marriage; so let’s all remember that marriage isn’t sex.

Giving our spouse the conjugal right to not have sex with us is a picture of authority that embodies the wisdom of the gospel because it seeks the good of the other not chiefly the pleasure of itself. Because that’s not love, is it?

So the grace-driven way to look at this passage is not that we have authority over our spouse’s body but that they have authority over ours. Without the grace of God motivating us and empowering us, in fact, this sort of stalemate of rights and desires becomes the recipe for disaster.

Why would God make us so different? Why, when it comes to sex, did he make women slow cookers and men microwaves?
So that only his grace could be trusted to help us overcome our selfishness and tend to the design of the other.

Only freedom in Christ creates the freedom to give up seeking my rights and set about seeking justice for yours. If I am hidden with Christ in God, I have nothing left to hide and if I’m secured in Christ, I have nothing left to protect. I consider myself dead, in fact, and live only in Christ, so I can pursue my wife’s good and her pleasure and her flourishing – and she mine – only because God has set us free in Christ from sin and shame. “I AM my beloved’s, and she is mine.”

And this of course is true for a holistic view of marital sexuality, not just what’s going on between the sheets. Why do I work out? When I work out, why do I work out? Not b/c I want to look great. I gave up on that a long time ago. But mostly b/c I know it honors my wife’s desire that I steward my body and be around a while for her and our children. She has authority over my body and so I go to the gym b/c my body is not mine to waste. It’s hers. And I want her to see I’m honoring her with it.

But before my body is hers – and before hers is mine – before mine is mine and hers is hers, we are, in the words of the Heidelberg Catechism,

“Not our own, but belong–body and soul, in life and in death, to our faithful Savior Jesus Christ. He has fully paid for all our sins with his precious blood, and has set us free from the tyranny of the devil. He also watches over us in such a way that not a hair can fall from our heads without the will of my Father in heaven; in fact, all things must work together for our salvation. Because we belong to him, Christ, by His Holy Spirit, assures us of eternal life and makes us whole-heartedly willing and ready from now on to live for him.”

Who has given us these authorities. Who has gifted to us the helpful coverings of the church, the covenant of marriage, and our marriage partners? The covenantal creator, God.
God is the primary and final authority over marital sexuality.

This is how Paul reflects the authority of God over marital sexuality:

5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

He has put marital sex right on the spiritual plane. He has given it a spiritual import. This is weighty business. This is spiritual warfare!

I don’t remember reading this in the Peretti novels!

This may make a great new come-on for your spouse, btw. You can say with a wink, “Baby, you feel like thwarting the devil tonight?”

This is of paramount importance to the complementarian view, as well, that God has placed sex within the sphere of spiritual defense – filled in its abstinence by prayer (not by taking up kickboxing or pottery) and used in its presence as an escape from temptation – as a way of placing himself right there in the bedroom with us. Sex was God’s idea. The multi-functional body parts were God’s idea. The nerve endings were God’s idea. The reason this is important for the complementarian viewpoint is b/c it reminds us that there is authority and submission in the bedroom as a reflection of our submission together to the authority of God.

Complementarians screw this up when they assume that marital sex ought to be tuned to the sexual appetites of the husband b/c he is the leader of the home and his wife is supposed to submit to him. But egalitarians screw this up when they assume that if both parties consent to something, that is the end of the matter.

1 Thessalonians 4:3-5 “For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, 5 not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God”

This means that it is possible to have consensual sex in marriage that dishonors God and each other. Even married couples can have sex in an ungodly manner. The marriage covenant does not sanctify every appetite. And not even does consent baptize every sexual act.

Mutual consent is a minimum, of course. But there is a God and neither husband nor wife is him.
And so just because a husband and wife may agree to use pornography in their sexual foreplay or agree to add bondage to their sexual repertoire or assume that any orifice constitutes a sexual opportunity does not mean these acts are consistent with sex that honors God, let alone that honors each other.

It would be just like Satan to tarnish even the great freedom of expression we have in the marital bedroom. Think of the ways many read Song of Solomon for instance as if it was a sex manual. As if sex was just about body parts. Like it’s supposed to be read like Ikea furniture instructions.

No, it’s POETRY. Romantic, sexually sensual poetry, yes, but poetry. When Adam first saw Eve he did not blurt out some blunt sexual blather, he sang a song.

That’s an instinct, really, not an “obedience.” It was a “praise” response to the beheld beauty.

In Proverbs 5:19, the young man is told to always rejoice in the wife of his youth, to let her breasts fill him with delight at all times. This means that the “easy” joy of the newlywed disposition is to be pursued, cultivated, felt throughout married life. But delight gets harder to come by through years of familiarity and conflict. As delight gets scarcer, the wisdom of the gospel must fill the space.

How does the gospel give us this wisdom? How does the gospel help me to delight in my wife 17 years into our marriage in the way I delighted in her 17 minutes into it? How does the gospel help me to cultivate the instinctual response of enjoying her breasts now (and into the future) as I did then? It happens this way:

When I see myself in the light of God’s holiness, I see how unworthy and unattractive I really am. And then I see that God despite his perfect perfection and my rebellious imperfection loves me totally and eternally, to the point of giving himself up for me in the sending of his Son to die for me. That now, though I am an undeserving sinner, I am an eternally justified saint. That in fact, God rejoices over me. That I, who deserve the condemnation of death and hell, am the apple of his eye.

Knowing all of that and more, then, with what right do I have to look at my wife with anything but approval and delight? It would be an affront to the gospel, a fist shaken at God to not delight in my wife at all times. And the beauty is that this instinct becomes more natural because it is supernatural, something that the Spirit develops in us the more we pursue marveling at the gospel of Jesus Christ. The more we stare with care at the glory of Christ, the more like him we will become.

And so in all the fun that sex is – or rather, can be – let us remember that it is making love, not simply making orgasms. Marital sex is expression of love for and service to each other in a reflection of the care and forethought and patience and joy Christ has given his bride.

I think one reason marriage is given as a covering for sex is so that we will remember that marriage is more important than sex. We often forget that. The culture has completely forgotten that. Let’s remember it in the church.

We see the rotten fruit of casting off authority in our culture. We are seeing more and more a reflection of the ruthless degradation rampant in the book of Judges, where we are told more than once that this is the result of “Every man doing what is right in his own eyes.” That sort of living is foolishness. The declaration that “Only God can judge me” is foolishness, especially since so many who say that go on living as if God won’t.

But wisdom means embracing the authority of God, and all that that authority means.

Our sex is so awkward, really. It is a great grace that God has given it to us but a great grace that we can be so bad at something that is still so helpful for the building up of our marriages, the health of our families, the endurance and stability of the marital institution in society, the joy even of our churches, and the glory of Christ Jesus. IF we will put a stake in the heart of our self-sovereignty and embrace the gracious yoke of God’s sovereign authority.

Today is Ascension Day, traditionally marked on the 40th day after Easter Sunday. The doctrine of Christ’s ascension has many implications. Here are just five.

1. Jesus is really alive.

The reality of Christ’s ascension, inextricable from the resurrection event, tells us that he did not raise from the dead only later to die again like Lazarus, Jairus’ daughter, the widow of Nain’s son, Eutychus, or Tabitha. Jesus’ body will not be found because he took its glorified tangibility to heaven.

2. Heaven is thicker than earth.

We tend to think of heaven as the ethereal place of disembodied spirits. And in a way it is. But Elijah is there. And Enoch. And so is the risen, glorified, incarnate Christ. Jesus is there, taking up material space. He is touchable, present. Clearly, heaven is not less real than earth but more. It is a thicker reality than our four-dimensional space, more vibrant, more colorful, more real.

3. God’s plan for human dominion of earth is being realized.

The first Adam and his helper Eve were charged with filling the earth and subduing it. They screwed it up. But God’s plans cannot be thwarted. Man will reflect God’s glory in dominion over creation. In the Incarnation, then, God sends his only Son to right the course, reverse the curse, and begin the restoration of all things. The second Adam does the job, and even in his glorification, the incarnational “miracle of addition” (see below) persists, fulfilling God’s plan for man to reflect divine glory in dominion over creation. The God-Man, who is the radiance of the glory of God, rules over the earth and is even now subduing his enemies. “The ascension means that a human being rules the universe” (Tim Keller). Just as God planned.

4. The Incarnation is an enduring miracle.

The Incarnation was a humbling of God’s Son, but not a lessening of him. As I’ve argued in Gospel Deeps, the Son maintained his omnipresence even in his Incarnation. (Historical theologians have traditionally called this perspective the extra calvinisticum.) But what the ascension means is that Jesus Christ forever remains the Christ who is Jesus. He did not revert back to intangibility. But his ascended incarnational state then is not an eternal limitation but a part of his ongoing efforts to fill all things. He takes up more space in the heavens and the earth now, not less. The Incarnation is a miracle with no expiration date.

5. The ascension is gospel for sinners!

Why? Because if, among the many things the gospel means, it means we are united with Christ through faith, it also means that where he is we will be also. It means we will go to heaven in spirit, and heaven will come to us in body. The ascension is the full fruition of the promise of Christ’s resurrection being the firstfruits of our own. The ascension means the gospel is better news than we even thought, gooder than good! Because it holds out the promise, the blessed hope, not just of life after death, but as N.T. Wright says, life after life after death. What a gracious God we have!