The Riches of Christ: the Church

Let us draw near to the fire of martyred Lawrence, that our cold hearts may be warmed thereby. The merciless tyrant, understanding him to be not only a minister of the sacraments, but a distributor also of the Church riches, promised to himself a double prey, by the apprehension of one soul. First, with the rake of avarice to scrape to himself the treasure of poor Christians; then with the fiery fork of tyranny, so to toss and turmoil them, that they should wax weary of their profession. With furious face and cruel countenance, the greedy wolf demanded where this Lawrence had bestowed the substance of the Church: who, craving three days’ respite, promised to declare where the treasure might be had. In the meantime, he caused a good number of poor Christians to be congregated. So, when the day of his answer was come, the persecutor strictly charged him to stand to his promise. Then valiant Lawrence, stretching out his arms over the poor, said: “These are the precious treasure of the Church; these are the treasure indeed, in whom the faith of Christ reigneth, in whom Jesus Christ hath His mansion-place. What more precious jewels can Christ have, than those in whom He hath promised to dwell? For so it is written, ‘I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in.’ And again, ‘Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.’ What greater riches can Christ our Master possess, than the poor people in whom He loveth to be seen?” 

John Fox, Fox’s Book of Martyrs

On the tombs of the early Roman Christians

It has been said that the lives of the early Christians consisted of “persecution above ground and prayer below ground.” Their lives are expressed by the Coliseum and the catacombs. Beneath Rome are the excavations which we call the catacombs, whivch were at once temples and tombs. The early Church of Rome might well be called the Church of the Catacombs. There are some sixty catacombs near Rome, in which some six hundred miles of galleries have been traced, and these are not all. These galleries are about eight feet high and from three to five feet wide, containing on either side several rows of long, low, horizontal recesses, one above another like berths in a ship. In these the dead bodies were placed and the front closed, either by a single marble slab or several great tiles laid in mortar. On these slabs or tiles, epitaphs or symbols are graved or painted. Both pagans and Christians buried their dead in these catacombs. When the Christian graves have been opened the skeletons tell their own terrible tale. Heads are found severed from the body, ribs and shoulder blades are broken, bones are often calcined from fire. But despite the awful story of persecution that we may read here, the inscriptions breathe forth peace and joy and triumph. Here are a few:

“Here lies Marcia, put to rest in a dream of peace.”

“Lawrence to his sweetest son, borne away of angels.”

“Victorious in peace and in Christ.”

“Being called away, he went in peace.”

Remember when reading these inscriptions the story the skeletons tell of persecution, of torture, and of fire.

But the full force of these epitaphs is seen when we contrast them with the pagan epitaphs, such as:

“Live for the present hour, since we are sure of nothing else.”

“I lift my hands against the gods who took me away at the age of twenty though I had done no harm.”

“Once I was not. Now I am not. I know nothing about it, and it is no concern of mine.”

“Traveler, curse me not as you pass, for I am in darkness and cannot answer.”

The most frequent Christian symbols on the walls of the catacombs, are, the good shepherd with the lamb on his shoulder, a ship under full sail, harps, anchors, crowns, vines, and above all the fish.

John Fox, Fox’s Book of Martyrs

The Martyrdom of Polycarp, circa a.d. 162

Polycarp, the venerable bishop of Smyrna, hearing that persons were seeking for him, escaped, but was discovered by a child. After feasting the guards who apprehended him, he desired an hour in prayer, which being allowed, he prayed with such fervency, that his guards repented that they had been instrumental in taking him. He was, however, carried before the proconsul, condemned, and burnt in the market place.

The proconsul then urged him, saying, “Swear, and I will release thee;–reproach Christ.”

Polycarp answered, “Eighty and six years have I served him, and he never once wronged me; how then shall I blaspheme my King, Who hath saved me?” At the stake to which he was only tied, but not nailed as usual, as he assured them he should stand immovable, the flames, on their kindling the fagots, encircled his body, like an arch, without touching him; and the executioner, on seeing this, was ordered to pierce him with a sword, when so great a quantity of blood flowed out as extinguished the fire. But his body, at the instigation of the enemies of the Gospel, especially Jews, was ordered to be consumed in the pile, and the request of his friends, who wished to give it Christian burial, rejected. They nevertheless collected his bones and as much of his remains as possible, and caused them to be decently interred.

John Fox, Fox’s Book of Martyrs, ch. 2

Francis Schaeffer on Ethics and Christianity

Christianity gives a moral solution on the basis of the fact that God exists and has a character which is the law of the universe. There is therefore an absolute in regard to morals. It is not that there is a moral law in the back of God that binds both God and man, but that God himself has a character and this character is reflected in the moral law of the universe. Thus when a person realizes his inadequacy before God and feels guilty, he has a basis not simply for the feeling but for the reality of guilt. Man’s dilemma is not just that he is finite and God is infinite, but that he is a sinner and guilty before a holy God. But then he recognizes that God has given him a solution to this in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Man is fallen and flawed, but he is redeemable on the basis of Christ’s work. This is beautiful. This is optimism. And this optimism has a sufficient basis.

Francis Schaeffer, from his essay “Some Perspectives on Art” found in Art and the Bible

Question: Christians, Same-Sex Marriage, and Active Faith

I received this question from a friend,

Why are so many Christians focused on marriage equality and if people are quoting the Bible correctly, rather than actually helping people–feeding the hungry, taking care of the sick and wounded, clothing the naked, etc.? I mean, I as an atheist do more for people than all my Christian friends – and I’m sure I could say the same about a large majority of the people online who denounce same-sex marriages. It’s worrisome.

The following is my response:

That is worrisome, and it is a fair criticism to the American church. The thing is, though, that many in the American church are only nominally christian. Christianity, for them, is a cultural or familial experience–not a reality in their lives. It is nothing more than something to do on Sunday mornings–and Wednesday nights if you’re hardcore. So, it’s an unfair criticism to charge American believers with a wholesale forsaking of the second half of Christ’s command, namely obedience, when the majority of professing Christians are not actually Christian, as evidenced by the fruit of their lives.

Nevertheless, a group mentality arises even in nominal Christianity, which in turns grows in the Church at-large. From where this fight against gay marriage first arose, I have no answer. But within the past decade it has come up as a cultural question, an issue on which politicians have jumped and pastors have capitalized. A strange sort of community within both the nominal and actual Church has arisen, one wherein a greater passion to fight against gay marriage than to uphold the totality of God’s commands exists. Unfortunately, this community is among the loudest–this of course can be due to the fact that the mainstream media loves controversy.

This community has made gay marriage the hill to die on, overemphasizing it from the mound that it is and deemphasizing the mountain that the gospel is. (Now, don’t misread me here:  homosexuality, as the authors intended it, is sinful in the same manner as any other sin. However, it does not deserve its place as the defining topic-of-choice for a Christian in contemporary America, supplanting even the gospel of Jesus Christ, which Paul makes note to the Corinthian church that it, i.e. the gospel, is worth delivering of first importance. [1 Corinthians 15:3])

With that in mind, there are a thousand other cultural questions that deserve attention, things such as abortion, unnecessary war, and pervasive poverty, not to mention divorce and sexual immorality that resides within the church. Because all sin is held equally in the eyes of God, and therefore ought to be held so in the eyes of the Church, it does not make sense for the American church to devote so much time and energy to fighting this one issue, not when there are others that 1) are directly harming people as we speak and 2) we overlook in the Church that are of the same manner. As far as the rallying cry, “We are only upholding the sanctity of marriage”? Please. The church doesn’t even hold its own accountable–not when divorce rates are as high or higher within the church as without.

Instead of being lights in the world pointing to and upholding Christ, many in the American church have picked a popular issue, which they may certainly feel strongly about, as the most important issue to tackle, which is absurd, and the absurdity lies in the forsaking of the rest of God’s commands:  such commands as keeping personal holiness, upholding communal holiness, and pursuing at all costs the advancement of the kingdom of God. Again, it simply does not make sense to devote the energy to fighting gay marriage’s existence outside of the Church when we do not have in mind the totality of God’s command. Disregarding the gospel, instead of proactively implementing and enacting social justice, many in the American church have been content to fight a secondary issue, i.e. one that does not lead to death, does not lead to loss of property, and concerns those outside the church; legislating these sorts of things, such as the standard of marriage as being a picture of Christ and his Church, as the standard for the secular world is nonsense.

Nominal or otherwise, those in the American church have been misled and taught wrongly that God is pleased in his Church legislating morality–upholding a moralistic therapeautic deism that does not see a relationship with God as necessary, instead trying to live morally well, i.e. within the law–rather than actively teaching and living the gospel to the poor and the rich, the clothed and the naked, the saint and the sinner. (Again, do not misread me; it is important to live in a morally upright and proper way. Nevertheless, no amount of good deeds merit salvation; instead, the life that we live instead is for the glory of God, which life now serves as a testament to the believers and non-believers alike of God’s faithfulness.)

Gay marriage is an important issue, within the church. Outside of it, the church should be interested in three things: proclaiming the glory of God (and within that there is the facet of preaching both the Law and the Gospel, wherein the Law convicts sinners and the Gospel restores the sinner to righteousness, permanently declared so by God), upholding justice or equity, and practicing compassion. We must not miss this fact: we were saved to do something, and doing something constitutes far more than crying out against gay marriage.

Question: Literal or Metaphoric Interpretations of the Bible?

I received this question,

When you read the Bible, do you take it metaphorically or literally?

The following is my response:

It should be read as metaphorical where the author intended it to be metaphorical and literal where the author intended it to be literal.

There are two extremes when reading the Bible, and both should be avoided. The first extreme is to read the Bible as literal throughout. This is a fallacious way to read the Bible. I need only point you to a couple of verses to show you this.

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

(Mat 16:18)

Now, is Peter a rock? No. Peter is a human being. Clearly, Jesus was using a figure of speech. That is one metaphoric part of Scripture:  literal metaphors.

“I have said these things to you in figures of speech. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures of speech but will tell you plainly about the Father. In that day you will ask in my name, and I do not say to you that I will ask the Father on your behalf; for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.”

(John 16:25-28)

These are Jesus’ words. Jesus specifically said that at times he spoke in figures of speech, whether that be in the parables (are we actually sheep; are we actually limbs? No, we’re people) or symbolic language. However, he follows this statement by pointing to the clear and literal statements: he is going to the Father, he came from the Father, and he had come into the world. And the disciples understood that he was “now speaking plainly” here. See John 16:29, 30.

Moreover, there are times in the Old Testament where it is important to understand that metaphor is being used, e.g., in the Proverbs (is an adulteress actually a city?) and in the Psalms (are we actually sheep, again?).

Nevertheless, if we begin to say that Scripture is all metaphorical, well, then we’re in trouble. Let’s examine something Paul says and relate the principle to the conversation at hand.

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

(1 Corinthians 15:12-19)

If Christians say that Christ has been raised from the dead, but when in reality he hasn’t, then we have a few issues. 1) “Then our preaching is in vain, our faith is in vain and futile, and we are still in our sins.” and 2) “We are even found to be misrepresenting God.”

So, clearly, if Christ has not been literally raised from the dead, then we are without hope, “If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.” In other words, if following Christ helps you get your best life now, why bother? There are other ways to make this life easier without assuming the resurrection of a dead prophet or good man. If Christ has not died and been raised, I will have nothing to do with Christianity. But if he has been actually resurrected from the grave, that changes everything.

“If in Christ we hope in this life only” succinctly sums up the “liberal Christian” position. Christ has not actually died and actually atoned for our sins on the cross and has not actually been raised from the dead. It is only a good story, a moral compass, and helpful to live a good life. The death of Christ has no practical or spiritual importance other than to show us an example to live by, with no metaphysical or life-altering and nature-shaking changes being made.

No matter what they tell you, Christ’s commands and example are of least importance unless the Kingdom of Heaven actually is advancing and Christ’s death actually accomplished something. I point you to this post for more details.

Unrestrained liberal, i.e. metaphorical, interpretations of Scripture lead to those described in 2 Timothy 3,

But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.
(2 Timothy 3:1-5)

Liberal interpretations of Scripture lead to a form of godliness; they may look very much Christians, but they deny the power of the gospel. The gospel message itself has done no work in their lives and they see no benefit from it. In Spurgeon’s words, “He who does not hate the false does not love the true; and he to whom it is all the same whether it be God’s word or man’s, is himself unrenewed at heart.” The liberal interpretations give the same credence to other religions as it does to Christianity, valuing each for its moral importance rather than for being an inspired Word of God.

Gill describes them in this way in his commentary,

Having a form of godliness,…. Either a mere external show of religion, pretending great piety and holiness, being outwardly righteous before men, having the mask and visor of godliness; or else a plan of doctrine, a form of sound words, a scheme of truths, which men may have without partaking of the grace of God; and which, with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, the church of Rome has; or else the Scriptures of truth, which the members of that church have, and profess to hold to, maintain and preserve; and which contains doctrines according to godliness, and tend to a godly life and godly edification:

but denying the power thereof; though in words they profess religion and godliness, the fear of God, and the pure worship of him, yet in works they deny all; and though they may have a set of notions in their heads, yet they feel nothing of the power of them on their hearts; and are strangers to experimental religion, and powerful godliness: or though they profess the Scriptures to be the word of God, yet they deny the use, the power, and efficacy of them; they deny the use of them to the laity, and affirm that they are not a sufficient rule of faith and practice, without their unwritten traditions; and that they are not able to make men wise, or give them a true knowledge of what is to be believed and done, without them; and that the sense of them is not to be understood by private men, but depends upon the infallible judgment of the church or pope:

from such turn away; have no fellowship with them, depart from their communion, withdraw from them, and come out from among them: this passage sufficiently justifies the reformed churches in their separation from the church of Rome.

They deny the principle in John 17:17, wherein Christ prays to the Father concerning the disciples–and by extension for us, “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.” We are set apart from this world by the Bible–and not by the vain and fleeting philosophies and theologies constructed by man.

In addition, wholly literal interpretations of Scripture lead to a Phariseeical mis-handling of the Word of God, imposing undue burden on believers, as well as ignoring the times in Scripture that call for leniency of interpretation–such as when the adulteress in Proverbs is referred to as a city.

I believe that adequately addresses the two extremes. A wholly literal interpretation is foolish; if the author did not intend a literal interpretation, why would we interpret it that way? In the same way, a wholly metaphoric interpretation is dangerous, for it denies the power of Christ and the metaphysical veracity of the Scriptures.

A maxim:  Understand the passage of Scripture as the author intended it. Know that the Holy Spirit has inspired Scripture in one way, and there is one correct interpretation.

Ignore the extremes and allow the Spirit, proper teaching, and contextual study to lead you into a true understanding of the Word.

Jesus and Ethical Considerations

If the Kingdom of Heaven were not advancing, then Christ’s commands would be of the most wicked variety.

I laugh when I see people call Jesus a great moral teacher but no Messiah. If he weren’t a Messiah reconciling the world to God, his teachings should be thrown out, for they call us to forsake our lives for his and to give up everything we hold dear and to love others with a wholly self-sacrificial and self-denying love that would have no place in a YOLO (Oh, somebody shoot me for using that) universe.

He would have no authority, and no ethical justification, for calling us to sell all that we have and give to the poor, to deny ourselves, and to die for his sake, if the Kingdom of Heaven were not rapidly and truly advancing. It’s not even if he sincerely believed that it were but it actually wasn’t—unless the Kingdom is actually advancing, Christ’s obligating commands are meaningless and dangerous.

I leave you with this quotation by the deceased Christopher Hitchens,

When C.S. Lewis, for example, says–now, I don’t particularly admire the writer but he did have some moral courage–says, ‘If this man [Jesus] was not the Son of God, then his teachings were evil. Because, if you don’t believe that the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand and that you can’t get to it by the Way, the Truth, and the Life offered by the Gospel, then there’s no excuse for telling people, “Take no thought for tomorrow,” for example if he did. There’s no excuse for telling people that they don’t have to practice thrift, care about their children; they must leave everything and follow him. That would be a wicked thing to say–it would be like Jim Jones–if he didn’t sincerely believe that the story–the preaching–was true. It would be an evil nonsense.’

I extend his argument:  even if Christ sincerely believed it, unless it were existentially and ontologically true that the Kingdom of Heaven is advancing, Christ’s commands are worthless. The Kingdom of Heaven must be advancing and Christ must be the Son of God for these commands to have merit.

The Beauty of Theology

Written by Susanna Cotter:

The important of context in interpreting the Bible

Location, location, location. The same principle that echoes throughout the real estate agent profession must be echoed in the halls of churches today. Location, location, location; or, in other words, context, context, context. Without context, the Scriptures mean whatever you want them to mean. I can take a verse out of any part of Scripture to justify nearly any action. Wanton, unrepentant sin? “Free in Christ” (Galatians 5:1). Moralistic living? “God gave those commandments for a positive reason!” (Exodus 20). And so on.

Context determines what a verse means, how a verse is limited in scope, to whom the verse is intended, etc. All the time, I see people who say that 2 Peter 3:9 applies to every single person, “…not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” As beautiful as a statement that this would be, it does not align with the rest of the Scriptures when it is ripped out of its context. And it’s immediate context is this:  ”Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ…” When we see the verse in context, we clearly see that this letter was written to believers. But these misinterpretations happen throughout the Scripture; I’m sure most people have a coffee cup with Jeremiah 29:11 on it, although that was a passage of Scripture directed towards the Israelites who had been enslaved by the Babylonians.

Now, what sort of context is important? Here’s a list:

• Immediate surrounding verses. Many verses of Scripture, especially in the New Testament letters, are only parts of a sentence. Paul would go for (what are now) verses at a time to finish a sentence. It is important to see the whole sentence, break it down, examine it, and then determine what it is saying as a whole before ripping one section out of it.
• The audience and purpose of the book. To whom was the letter or prophecy written? Is this a historical piece? Is it poetry? The audience limits who are the beneficiaries of the contents.
• The author. How does the author in his works use the terms in the verses you are examining? How does he define them elsewhere?
• The covenant. The New Testament is written under a different covenant than is the old, namely the Covenant of Grace. So the commands found through Leviticus and Deuteronomy do not have the same positive weight as they did for the Israelites. Grace reigns for the believers now; not works.
• Relatedly, historical position. When was the book written? At what point in time? This determines the unique cultural things found in Scripture. Although our cultural norms should never elevate beyond Scripture’s commands, there are some gray areas that seem strange to our American culture, e.g. sheep-herding.
• The whole counsel of God. This is the end-all of context. How does this verse mesh with the rest of Scripture. Scripture cannot contradict, so how do the various verses interact? How is atonement defined throughout Scripture? How is holiness defined? How is chosenness defined? “God is love” is true, but that does not mean that God is only love, for the rest of Scripture declares him to be a Consuming Fire, a hater of evildoers, and a merciful God to his people. All of Scripture defines itself.

I do not believe this is complete, but it is a starting point.

A maxim:  Do not use one verse to support your theology.

A video:  Never Read a Bible Verse

Seven Miles! Matt Chandler (Happy Resurrection Day)

Reblogged from Chief of the least:

Happy Resurrection Day beloved! I hope the reality of His resurrection shocks, engulfs, and spurns you into deeper wells of worship this Lord’s Day. Let’s take our eyes off the colored eggs filled with heart stopping sugars, and fix the eyes of our heart on the wonder and beauty of the risen King.

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you— unless you believed in vain.

Read more… 45 more words

Oh, Matt Chandler. Thank you.