Is Easter Pagan?

The celebration of the resurrection of Jesus is not pagan, but many have questioned the name Easter, and the use of bunnies and eggs to celebrate it.

 

Glenn Sunshine, over at the Theology Pugcast, recently brought some historical perspective to this question.  Here are some summary points.

 

1. The name Easter likely came from the German word for dawn, which sounded like the Latin for “in albis.”  (In albis was a reference to the white robes worn on Easter by those baptized.)  This is more likely than the theory that the early church put a pagan goddess’ name from Britain (Eostre) or Babylon (Ishtar) upon the holiday.

 

2.  Eggs were forbidden by the church to eat during holy week, so were plentiful and feasted and painted upon when Easter rolled around.  Bunnies weren’t associated with Easter until the 1600s (only a tiny bit) and the 1800’s (more pervasive).

 

3. Why such a Gnostic and anti-historical tendency to discourage any physical celebration of holidays, and to critically dismiss the development of such practices by our Christian ancestors?  It’s almost the woke cancellation of any history we don’t like.

 

4.  CS Lewis points out that pagan myths were common grace foreshadowings of the true Christian story.  (Did he get this in part reading Carl Jung?)  Even if there was a linguistic connection between Astarte and Easter, it isn’t a huge problem.

 

5. We don’t object to using pagan gods to name our days of the week, so why the big deal about Easter?

 

 

This really got me thinking!  First some general thoughts, and then, practically, how we celebrate Easter.

 

1. I basically agree with the summary above, though they are over-reacting a bit to the gnostic and “no annual Easter celebration” crowd.

 

2.  Why isn’t it a good thing to question our traditions and reshape them when needed, to be more biblical?  This isn’t a woke canceling of our past, but a thoughtful and ongoing reformation.  Fasting from eggs was a questionable practice, and the resulting visibility of eggs at Easter is unnecessary.

 

3. It IS a good point that we shouldn’t eschew using material stuff to celebrate Christmas, Easter, etc.  Giving gifts at Christmas still makes sense to most of us.  But what is the best way to materially celebrate the resurrection of Christ?  The best I’ve come up with is ham dinners and candy, so I’m open to suggestions.

 

4. In the past, I was convinced of the close word connection with Easter to the Canaanite fertility goddess Asherah/Ishtar/Astarte.  Sunshine goes a long way to question this.  But isn’t there something to be said about the old gods fighting back, in medieval Christendom?  Thor is an example.  The pagan impulse to pursue fertility or mother Gaia as a god, is alive and well today, under our secular veneer.  Why use a name like Easter, so close to Ishtar, to name Christ’s Resurrection day?  It seems more to import pagan fertility thought, than it redeems such for Christ by His resurrection.  

I may hold this opinion because I know more than usual about the seductive, sexual worship of Ishtar in Canaan, in Israel’s day.  The sexual copulation of the gods had to be reproduced on earth by their priests, priestesses, and worshipers, for the town to have fertile fields and wombs.  When the prophets rebuked Israel for whoring after other gods, they weren’t using exaggerated analogies.  It was literally true.

 

5.  Maybe this is a “meat-sacrificed-to-idols” thing, where I have a weaker conscience because of that historical understanding.  But on the other side, we ought to have warnings not to adopt silly fluff like Santa and bunnies, which obscure the true meaning of the holidays.  We want neither a dry 2 hour family worship lecture on the meaning of the day, nor a mindless, sentimental tradition.  How to bring joy to the day that is based in its meaning?

 

6. It isn’t a big deal to keep calling every mundane Thursday Thor’s Day.  There’s no meaning to Thursday to be corrupted.  But to take the annual celebration of the resurrection of Christ and name it after (or at least similarly to) a fertility goddess seems abhorrent to me.

 

 

 

Practical

1. In recent years I have refrained from using the word “Easter,” preferring Resurrection Day.  Sunshine’s history of the German word for dawns as Eostorum makes me less averse to using the word “Easter,” but isn’t totally convincing.

 

2. I see no need to continue traditions of Easter bunnies, eggs, or baskets.  We’ve never done these as a family, and it hasn't impoverished us culturally.  But families should give more thought – like we do with Christmas – to how we are going to bless our children/families in our celebration of this day.  A direct call to this at the end of the podcast would have been a blessing.

 

3. The principle is to make the Lord’s Day more special in some tangible ways for your family.  Special foods, activities, games, etc.  And make Resurrection Sunday even more special yet.  It is a “high Sabbath” (John 19:31).

A Critique of modern post-Millennialism

I need your help.  Working alongside post-millennials for years, I’ve read several books, and listened to many resources.  I recently heard again a short lecture by Andrew Sandlin advocating for this school of thought.

 

But I have reservations.  Post-mil Advocates (PMA) today tend to confuse pragmatic and attitudinal postures with the actual exegetical view of post-millennialism.

 

I grew up a-millennial, Dutch Reformed.  So I come to this from a different view than many in the CREC. 

 

 

Let me expand.  It is not sufficient to define the Post-millennial view as:

 

1. Optimism

I hear too often today from PMAs the simplistic case that “Jesus wins.”  So we should be post-mil, of course!  But every a-mil and pre-mil believer would say, “Jesus wins.”  The question is if He wins on earth by His church, before His return.  Revelation 17:14, 17 are fairly clear that the beast will hold sway until the Lamb conquers it and Babylon.  Not the Lamb’s bride, but the Lamb Himself.

 

2. Rejection of the pre-mil rapture

Too many PMA’s seem to think that simply refuting or even mocking the rapture convinces of post-mil thought.  This is a lazy bifurcation, that my a-millennial upbringing can’t accept.  There are several views between the rapture, and post-mil thought.  What if one of THEM might be true instead?

 

3. Long-term thinking

Many PMA arguments I hear today are based on affirming the consequent.  It’s poor logic.  “If we believed pre-mil, we would be short-term in our thinking, and that would be wrong, so pre-mil must be wrong and post-mil must be right, because it is long-term thinking.”  Since when are post-mil thinkers like Greg Bahnsen’s disciples such crass pragmatists?  PMA’s should take heed not to employ this rhetoric.  Scripture portrays a fervent desire for Jesus to come quickly and soon, and we should welcome that.  We should also wisely consider history and work like cathedral builders for long term success.  The latter does not necessitate a post-mil position, exegetically.

 

4. Mere faith in the promises

Some PMA’s say that believing God’s promises alone makes you post-mil.  God promised Abraham seed like the stars, and that they would inherit the world.  Believing it was post-mil.  To not believe it would be apostasy: pre-mil or a-mil!!  This is rhetoric in service of a divisive purpose – again, logical bifurcation.  The question still remains, WHEN will God’s promises be fulfilled: before or after Christ’s return?

 

5. Anti-Gnostic

The PMA’s argument against the a-millennial viewpoint is often the anti-Gnostic one:  the a-mil “spiritualizes” biblical prophecy too much.  “My kingdom is not of this world” doesn’t mean the kingdom of God is ethereal and detached from physical and political results, they object!  I agree.  As an a-mil!  I’m as anti-Gnostic as the next guy.  (PMAs are often unfair to a-mils on this point.)  But many prophecies ARE meant spiritually, or metaphorically, and not literally.  Lots of PMA’s are pre-mil converts who haven’t understood this, yet.  They are still seeing biblical prophecy literally or physically.  Prophecy is often poetic, especially when it describes the consummation of Christ’s kingdom.  Poetic prophecy doesn’t necessitate Gnosticism.  PMA’s simply assume that consummation will take place before the resurrection of the dead, since it speaks of physical realities like the lion and the lamb, or the long life of the believer.  This is a false inference.

 

6. The Church on offense

I love Matthew 16:18: “on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.”  The church should not be engaged primarily in a Dunkirk- or Vietnam-like, defensive, escape tactic.  We should be taking the initiative, discipling the nations.  Not holing up in our bunkers, hoping the far-more-powerful and hostile world doesn’t notice us.  The gates of Hell was a specific location where pagan gods were worshipped – near Caesarea Philippi.  Jesus cried out to their perverse worshipers that they need to deny themselves and follow Him (see Matthew 16:18-26!).  Does this make me post-mil?  To the extent that I want to advance the cause of Christ into the public square, acting as if God will help me win – YES.  Do I always expect victory in that cause?  The book of Revelation insists I answer, no.

 

 

The Exegetical Case

Scripture needs to determine this millennial position, not any tendency from secular minded views to positive thinking or progress.  The definition of post-mil is not simplistically that “Jesus wins,” but that, “The Gospel conquers the globe predominantly, and for a long time, before Jesus returns.” 

 

WHERE DOES THE BIBLE ASSERT THIS DIRECTLY?  As I said before, many OT prophecies that appeared to the former pre-millennial advocate to apply to a literal 1000 years after Jesus returns, now apply in the PMA’s view to the time BEFORE Jesus returns.  But as an a-mil, the case still hasn’t been made clear to me: these passages can also apply poetically to the consummation of the kingdom AT His return.  It remains insufficiently clear to me.  (Hab 2:14; Isa 11:9 is the primary example of this.)

 

PMA is not merely some practical insistence that we be optimistic, or that we be long-term in our thinking.  I’ve been happy to sojourn as an optimistic a-millennial with a bunch of PMAs for a good while, now, and don’t plan on stopping!  But what is the case for post-mil, vs. optimistic a-mil?  Honestly, most of the time this question is put, it is deferred with, “As long as your optimistic, we’re fine.”  Hm.

 

One concern I have here, as an aside, is that this exposes a functional works righteousness dynamic among PMAs.  They call it a self-fulfilling prophecy.  If you believe the church will be defeated in this age, then it WILL be!  If you believe God for victory, He will grant it.  This places far too much weight on our attitude and expectation.  I believe God is immediately responsive to our God-given faith, to justify us; that is very different from saying He will certainly give us cultural progress and advance, if we trust Him for it.  Faith certainly is the victory which overcomes the world (1 John 5:4).  But is that cultural conquest?  True, we should act in faith that God will help us culturally and politically, but the PMA could find themselves very unjustly condemning the Iranian or Pakistani Christian who takes wise precautions in their context.

 

So what happens when the PMA encounters Scripture?  I have been partially convinced by exegetical arguments (Rom 16:20; Josh 1:5-6; Matt 28:18-20), but many remain a question for me.

 

a. Daniel 2 – see verses 35, 44.  The stone that topples kingdoms and becomes the kingdom of God.  The kingdom inexorably grows to fill the world.  In Matthew 13:33 Jesus asserts the same, with the yeast in the bread.  The kingdom is “set up,” begun, in the time of the Roman Empire (Jesus’ work, Dan 2:44).  But PMA’s tend to assume that its growth and overcoming of other kingdoms will ALSO take place, before the return of Christ.  This is not clear in the text.  It is future tense in vs 44 of Daniel 2.  It is just as plausible that the church begins the work of the kingdom spreading, it meets opposition and cannot be completed, but Christ’s return completes it.

 

b. 1 Cor 15.25-26 – “For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.  The last enemy to be destroyed is death.”

The PMA’s logic here is this: “Jesus will rule and not return, until all enemies but death are defeated.”  But this is a logical non sequitur.  Christ can rule while returning and subduing all remaining enemies to Him.  His reign is not just His sitting at the right hand of the Father.  It encompasses His return and subjugation of remaining enemies.  The a-mil view fits just as well into this verse: “Jesus will reign in heaven during the time when earthly powers strive with God’s kingdom.  But at His return He will conquer all His enemies, even death.”

 

c. Revelation – I would argue that the whole thrust of Revelation is NON-post-mil.  The saints will prevail, yes, but they are likely to be killed before the consummation.  Great wickedness rears its head and hurts the helpless people of God, who are called to faithfulness and patience.  It takes supernatural judgments of God to deal with the beasts.  

Our hope is not in the earthly conquest by the church before Christ returns.  Our hope is Christ’s return.  This is my main concern about the post-mil, regarding faith.  In over-reacting to Gnosticsm, the PMA looks to earthly things for his faith and hope.  Our ultimate hope should be Christ’s return, not the church’s success or progress in the culture, short- or long-term.  The end of the Bible emphasizes this with the earnest hope: “Come quickly, Lord Jesus.”

Sermons for the Soul // Podcasts for Wisdom

I listen to about a dozen audio podcasts.

It's a constant sifting process to know what to take in, and what to stop spending time on.

I forget to share much that is good, but here are two STRONG recommendations today.

1.  Christ Church Moscow sermons.

Doug Wilson is best known as a provocative blogger, and he pursues a particular message in his Canon Press videos.  But his best work is in the pulpit.  He knows how to address the soul to restore it to health in godliness.  "Inescapable Fear" is a great example, but any random pick will bless you.  Subscribe to these sermons if you want your soul nourished, without messing with all the controversy that usually surrounds him.

2.  I discovered Brian Sauve today.  He is articulate and inspirational at his "King's Hall" podcast about what the church should be, and in his critique of the current megachurch.  Start with episode two, here, and reconsider what you're trying to get out of church.  I'll probably be substituting this in instead of Ben Shapiro for a while, personally.  I've only listened to the first two.

Wine at Passover? At Communion?

The debate over this rages on.

Was first-century wine really alcoholic?  

Was it only 3-5%?

Did Jesus at Cana really turn water into that much wine, as we know it today?  

Modern-day views opposing the use of alcohol tend to get mixed up in the uncertain history of the usage of wine and alcohol in the first century.
 
Recently I considered again an argument that in the Upper Room, there would have been no leaven at all, according to God's command, and thus no fermented wine, either.  Fermented wine is basically the product of leavening from yeast, just like bread.  This would mean that the church shouldn't be using wine for Communion today, if Jesus didn't.  Here are my thoughts:

 
1. The OT doesn’t apply to wine the requirement to remove leaven.
The speed of Israel leaving Egypt at Passover is the best example.  Exodus 12:34 refers only to bread, not wine.  So when God establishes the feast of unleavened bread (the name is significant), He says 3 times don’t have leaven in your bread, and only once says, “No leaven at all,” without mentioning bread (Ex. 13:3-8).  God wanted Israel to replicate the Passover experience of having to eat bread unleavened each year.  They wouldn’t have had any wine, as slaves, probably.  

Exodus 12:15 is the most specific instruction on this I found, and refers to eating bread, or eating, only.  There is a whole separate group of words for drinking, and terms for fermented and unfermented wine, and none of them are used for this feast, or Passover, anywhere.  It applied to bread because that’s all they had to eat on the way out of Egypt.  It makes sense to apply this to any food in later celebrations, but applying it to wine isn’t warranted by the text, or by common parlance (we don’t speak of wine being leavened).  The point isn’t to avoid consuming any food product with yeast, leavened or fermented, but to remove leaven and use none in your baking/eating of food for 7 days.

 

2. Jews from Exodus to Jesus didn’t consider wine to be leavened, or not kosher, and they still don’t.
https://www.chabad.org/holidays/passover/pesach_cdo/aid/508672/jewish/Why-is-it-permitted-to-drink-wine-on-Passover-when-it-is-fermented-with-yeast.htm

3. I could not find anywhere in the Pentateuch (only a quick search!) a requirement that wine be offered as a sacrifice at Passover, so I was wrong about that this morning.  That there is a call for a drink offering at most other feasts may be a point in your favor.  The use of it at Seders appears to be a later tradition that Jesus used to establish Communion, just as He attended the feast of Hanukkah, an extra-biblical tradition, to teach the people.  Asserting that a practice is a tradition, and thus unwarranted, is a false inference.

 
4. The NT church used fermented wine in communion – 1 Cor. 11:21.
This refutes the argument that we only use the elements we do because of tradition.  Why did the NT church change to wine in Paul’s day (probably at his direction – he was in Corinth establishing the church a long time – Acts 18:11), if Jesus didn’t use it?
 
I see this and Ex 12:15 as the strongest arguments against this assertion.  I don’t think the scientific fact that the fermentation of wine and the leavening of bread are an extremely similar process, should trump the above.

Bible Notes on Zacchaeus

Thoughts on the Zacchaeus story

1. Why a sycamore tree? See Amos 7:14.  This is the only significant reference to sycamores in the Bible, and what was Amos' main concern in his book? Justice for the poor. Who was Zacchaeus? A tax collector, which class of people routinely exploited the poor.

2. Amos says a shepherd does justice and righteousness (charity) - Amos 5:24.  And what does Zacch do? Justice: he restores 4-fold what was stolen - this was required biblical restitution (Exodus 22:1).  Second, righteousness: he gives half his wealth to the poor (Luke 19:8).

3. Jesus responds by saying he came to seek and save the lost. This is a reference to Ezekiel 34:11-12. God rebukes the bad shepherds who don't take care of the sheep, and God says He will come and do it Himself.  Zacchaeus was a lost sheep.  God Himself, Jesus, came to reclaim him, and did it (Luke 19:10).  Jesus asserts in this verse that He is God, the good Shepherd.

Review: Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell

Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell by Susanna Clarke
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Straddling the genres of alternative history, fantasy, and historical novel, “Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell” (SN hereafter) is a slow start, over 800 pages long, with an unsatisfying ending. It seems moralistic at the beginning, and the character you’re waiting for to appear gets one page, 30 pages from the end.

But I still recommend it! That was all the bad stuff – there’s plenty of good.

Good writing
On almost every page, Clarke’s wry sense of humor and wit comes out. It’s enjoyable to read, even when you aren’t sure where the plot is going. This “saves” the book at points where it is weak, and readers may be tempted to give it up. The very craft of writing I believe is a major point of the book, and she does it well.

Clarke also draws on various English mythologies: fairies, the Raven King, etc. It was a bit disconcerting reading this along with Game of Thrones, which uses much of the same: King in the North, 3-eyed raven, etc. They draw on the same legends. This evokes a sense of wonder, of the supernatural – see below.


Critique of academia
I couldn’t find this in any online reviews, but I believe a major theme, especially at the beginning, is a devastating critique of the academic world, probably English literature departments, specifically. Norrell is the establishment, seeking to control the information flow and retain power. Strange is the gifted iconoclast with no respect for accumulated knowledge or tradition. The very format of SN, with its many extensive footnotes, caricatures academic writing. The footnotes veer from the superfluous to the extremely important, just as academia is awash in information but cannot often sift what is important.

The strongest critique is that the craft of magicianship (often a metaphor for the academic pursuit of literature, I think) is focused on reputational rivalry, and arguing about schools of thought, instead of evoking wonder in the reader. I found this very enjoyable, and an apt assessment. Clarke does her best in much of the book to evoke that wonder, hinting at the history of magic and the Raven King throughout. She pulls it off quite well, drawing on folklore like fairies, giving you a sense that there is more out there than you think: other worlds, dimensions, etc.


Realistic friendships
Norrell takes on Strange as a pupil/disciple. The two have an uneasy friendship, as Norrell wants to retain the upper hand, even though Strange is gifted. They have a serious falling out which isn’t resolved until the very end. Friendships sometimes fray, and need time to mend. C.S. Lewis noted once that friends unite around a common hobby or enterprise or interest. Clarke depicts this dazzlingly well at the end. Rivalry subsides with a common mission, which we must keep in view as primary.


Realistic spirituality
This one may surprise you, as SN incorporates all kinds of fantasy magic and mythology that isn’t real: fairies, ancient Raven Kings, etc. But it dawns on you over the course of the book that there are malevolent spiritual powers out there seeking to use and exploit you. We call them demons. This is real. In SN they are presented more benignly at first as fairies. But you shall know them by their fruits, and the unveiling is hideous indeed.

This is true also of various human characters, who find themselves facing poetic justice for their gossip, dissension, exploitation of others, murder, etc. Clarke does a great job describing them in all their despicableness in the first part of the book, and then letting them get away with it for 700 pages until their demise. Justice happens, but only after a long time coming, and only at the arrival/advent of the King.

Strange pursues his magic, sometimes to the detriment of his wife. I found this another realistic tension between marriage and career. I did not like the resolution. The message seemed to be, spouses need to give each other space to do what they feel they must, career-wise, even if they disagree. This puts vocation before marriage, which is a dangerous manifestation of the modern self-fulfillment idea.

One other aspect of realistic spirituality, or Christian worldview, is very similar to the Lord of the Rings. What do fallen people do when they get power? They pursue it for themselves, and use it to advance themselves. But here, at the end, for one brief moment, an unlikely character winds up with way more magical power than the magicians. And he uses it to stop wickedness from continuing. He redeems a hellish realm, Lost-Hope, to be a place of refuge again.


Christian symbolism
That was one of the several Christ figures in the book, whether Clarke meant them as such or not. Jesus has all authority in heaven and on earth, whether magical, miraculous or otherwise. And He uses it to defeat the accuser and redeem us and restore hope. Another character is a scrubby street-sorcerer who most take as a charlatan. But he has the letters of the King written on his body – he is a living book (Word!). He is hanged from a tree by a fairy/demon, aided by a human under his enchantment, and later brought back to life by the King.


So it’s worth the read, but it isn’t for everyone. If you like the mystery of Medieval history, Merlin-esque fantasy, and magical novels, this is for you.
3 stars.


View all my reviews

God's Presence IS the Blessing

Psalm 23:4 - "I will fear no evil; for You are with me."

God made a way at this table to literally bring you His presence.  During communion you encounter God’s grace, He accepts you in spite of your sin.  His holiness, convicting you of the same.  His provision, feeding you.  His power and life encourage and strengthen you.  This is His kingdom.  

When we were dead in a ditch, He revived us, bathed us, clothed us, fed us, reoriented us to love and follow the truth.

To be a priest in God’s kingdom to others, you have to first receive the presence of God through Christ.  Your commission can only come after that.

So live the story now, welcoming God’s kingdom with your faith, gratitude, and obedience to the king.

3/27/21

Only One Approach to God

Isaiah 6:1-5
In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one cried to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; The whole earth is full of His glory!” And the posts of the door were shaken by the voice of him who cried out, and the house was filled with smoke. So I said:
    “Woe is me, for I am undone!
    Because I am a man of unclean lips,
    And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips;
    For my eyes have seen the King,
    The LORD of hosts.”

What does it mean for God to be holy?  He is completely pure, such that we cannot approach Him.  Too often in our minds, we try to pretend that we are pure enough to draw near to God.

But we aren’t.  

Our zealous intentions, our good behavior, do not atone for our sins.

There is only one reason why we can gather before Him, seeking God’s presence and blessing, and that is Jesus Christ.  No one, nothing else can bridge the holiness gap between us and God.

But Jesus has done it, so

 

This reminds us of our need to confess our sins.

The Table Shows the Story

Revelation 19:6-9
“Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns! Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready.” And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints. Then he said to me, “Write: ‘Blessed are those who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb!’ ” 

God shows us at this table all 3 chapters of God's big redemptive story.

1. He made all things and provides for us.

2. When we break bread, it shows the ripping apart of our fellowship from God, in the Fall.

3. The bread and wine show the finished sacrifice of Christ for us - our Redemption.

4. Last chapter – consummation.  The wedding supper of the Lamb is coming – that’s where you’re headed, and this table shows it forth, too. 

So live the story now, welcoming God’s kingdom with your faith, gratitude, and obedience to the king. 

Then come, and welcome…

3/21/22

How the Kingdom Comes

Matthew 6:9-15

"Pray then like this: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."

Two things about this:

One, the kingdom of God comes when we do God’s will.  When we don’t do what God wants, we expand Satan’s kingdom.  We tend to think we have our own kingdom, but that’s a pipe dream.  As Bob Dylan said, you gotta serve somebody.  Do God’s will, and you usher in God’s kingdom another inch at a time.

Second,  JC emphasizes after giving us the Lord’s Prayer, that forgiving others is a huge piece of doing God’s will.  It’s the only line of the prayer He comments on, and it’s the most convicting one, when we really think about it.  When we think of obeying God, we tend to think about self-denial, and Lent-y kinds of things.  Don’t swear, be more reverent, more serious, don’t eat or drink too much.  

But a key piece of self-denial is how we treat others: admitting when we are wrong, and forgiving others for their offenses against us.  That is key to true spiritual self-denial.  It’s like Jonah waiting for God to punish Nineveh.  If you are demanding vindication and justice against your enemies, if you are indulging your anger or grievance, if you are obsessed with how others have offended you, instead of wishing them to change and be blessed by God, you are far from the kingdom of God.

This reminds us of our need to confess our sins.

3/21/22

Cultivating Fruit to Oppose Evil

 Gal 5:22-25

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, ²³ gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. ²⁴ Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires”

 

A wise man once said, the best way to resist the devil, is to cultivate the virtues opposite to what he wants you to do.  Instead of direct opposition or defiance, practice charity, gentleness, self-control, joy.  We do this here at the Lord’s table.  A central practice to the Christian life, is to receive blessing from God with gratitude.  If you see and appreciate God’s grace to you in Christ at the cross, if you look around here, and you appreciate that the Spirit is working to draw us into union with Christ, and with one another, when we are truly thankful for that, it is one of the best bulwarks against the attacks of our adversary.

 

Keep your eyes fixed on Jesus.

3/6/2022

40 Days to Remember His Humbling

1 Kings 19:1-8

Elijah did the right thing on Mount Carmel, and suffered the wrath of Jezebel for it.  God provided for Him, but he had to flee into the wilderness for 40 days.
 
Moses, Elijah, and Jesus all fasted for 40 days in service of God.
 
The church developed the practice of Lent, 40 days before Easter, to focus on the earthly ministry of Jesus, His suffering, denial, and state of humiliation for us.  Over the years it was corrupted into some simplistic and self-righteous practices.  The reformers mostly rejected this season because of those corruptions.  But we do also see some wisdom in focusing on the life of Christ in the calendar year:

 - His Incarnation at Christmas.  
 - His ministry and self-denial during Lent.  
 - His suffering and death at Good Friday.  
 - His resurrection at Easter.  

The key is to stay focused on Jesus Christ, more than on our own works of self-denial in this time.  We look to what He did centrally, and then ask ourselves:
Are we taking up our cross, denying ourselves, and following JC, as He calls us to do?
 
This reminds us of our need to confess our sins...

3/6/22

Invalidating Baptisms?

The Roman Catholic Church made news recently, when a bishop nullified thousands of baptisms done over 20 years by an Arizona priest, because he said "We baptize you," instead of "I baptize you..."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/catholic-priest-andres-arango-baptisms-invalid-phoenix-church/

It's technically correct that it should be I.  The pastor is a stand-in representative of Christ.  He does the baptism, not the church community.  Nor should the pastor use the "royal we" in a baptism.  It's like Communion, where the pastor stands behind the table, but it's the Lord's table - Jesus is feeding us, the pastor is the stand-in.

But no, the church shouldn't invalidate baptisms just because a pastor said "we" instead of I.  That's what happens when you over-do the importance of the visible church and tangible actions of the church.

It's easy to get thinking that the church is doing the baptizing and feeding - after all, we put the water in the bowl, the wine on the table, etc.  And it's easy for the pastor to get thinking that he's making it happen, too.  But I'm just saying words - the Spirit, Son, and Father is the real Doer of the sacraments.

It's kind of like a wedding in that.  The pastor doesn't actually marry people.  He officiates as they themselves marry.  

But it's NOT like a wedding since marriage is not a sacrament.  If it were, as Rome says, then you'd say God is doing the marrying.  But we say the couple themselves are taking vows and wedding.

Baptists tend to see sacraments as things God has given us to do, denying that He is acting in some special way in them.  But Reformed, Lutheran and Catholic all agree that God is acting in the sacraments, as we "do this in remembrance."

Lent

 Today is the beginning of Lent.

Here are some family devotional resources for the season from my denomination, from a few years back.

Uri Brito has a good perspective on the season, here.

I'm not a strong advocate for Lent that I push it hard, and have never done or been to an Ash Wednesday service.  But it's good to shape music and texts in worship to the season to an extent.

People should be free to disregard or incorporate Lenten aspects into their devotional life.

A Letter to a College Going/Gone Woke

I've been very disappointed with the response to Prof S______'s article, suspending him.

 

His rhetoric may have been too strong ("heresy"), but his concerns are valid.  My daughter has confirmed them with her own personal experience as a student at C________ for the last three years.  We will not be sending any of our other three children to you, unless we see significant change.

 

Faithful Christian institutions need to find a way to communicate their support for minorities, while rejecting the woke agenda behind "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" (DIE).  C________ has yet to do this.

 

We are talking past each other, too often. 

 

I realize that supporters of DIE are not all Marxist revolutionaries.  Most simply want to show they support minorities and are not racist.  But the DIE agenda goes far beyond that and needs to be rejected.

 

Opponents of DIE like me are not white supremacists or racists.  We simply want policy based on achievement, not on skin color, which DIE has obviously become.  Preferential treatment of minorities today is not a proper response to disparaging them in the past.  Your suspension of the adjunct criminal justice prof last year demonstrates your stance of preferential treatment for minorities.

 

Please reconsider your stance.  The Board of Regents needs to select a president willing to take a biblical stand on these issues, on C__________'s campus: including the poor and marginalized (Leviticus 19:34), and also not giving preferential treatment to the disadvantaged (Exodus 23:3).

 

Thank you for your consideration.