Translation of II John 9-13

Verse 9: Everyone who goes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of Christ does not have God. Whoever remains in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.

Verse 10: If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greetings (or: “rejoicing” chairen).

Verse 11: For whoever greets him (shares in; fellowships with; associates in mission) fellowships in his evil works.

Verse 12: Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to come to you and talk face to face so that our joy may be complete.

Verse 13: The children of your elect sister greet you.

Notes: There is a liturgical exchange taking place in the church. They greet one another, which is a way of building orthodoxy among them. Those who do not greet do not understand the life of the Church and are to be chastised. Hospitality is greater than simply providing food.

Ten Propositions on Feasting

This has been a weekend of abundance among friends. I have savored so much of it, from homemade pizza to superb soups, meats, flavorful desserts, and a treasury of drinks and the ever-restful pipe tobacco. Add to these assortments the smiles and stories and we have the definition of feasting in its highest expression. Yet many don’t see or cherish this life or even may desire it but fail to see the need to absorb it as a highlight of the Christian experience. They try not; therefore, they feast not.

In what follows, I wish to lay out ten propositions on feasting to guide us through this intense season of expectation and celebration coming in the weeks ahead:

First, we eat without thanksgiving. Gluttony exists because thanksgiving does not. Eating is not a neutral exercise. Christians eat as acts of triumph over the world. God eats us in his love, and we eat the body and blood of our risen Savior by faith and love.

Second, the ritual of eating is undervalued in America. In this country, food is consumption. We eat because we want to or because it is entertainment; therefore, we eat without intentionality. When rites become trite, our experiences become trivial, and the doors for abuse open wider.

Third, corporate eating is devalued because we allow the immature to rule over the table. Parents must re-assert their authority over the table and keep food at the table and not on laps in front of laptops. This should be done at least in one meal a day.

Fourth, feasting suffers when worship looks like a funeral. If every head is bowed and eyes are closed, we cannot see the feast or hear the feasters. Feasting is diminished when worship is feast-less in character. Feasting must be jubilant in worship and overflowing with worshipful acts.

Fifth, feasting is best formalized and appointed. When it is that way, it can be adorned with fancy napkins and plates and silverware and glasses. It allows family members to long for something better. We are gnostics to think that immediacy is best. Christians understand that better feasts mean preparing more to enjoy better.

Sixth, feasts are more meaningful when we incorporate singing. Feasts in the Bible are celebrations of our freedom from bondage. Singing to Yahweh a new song is declaring Pharaoh will never rule over our appetites again.

Seventh, there is no friendship without Christ. There are shared experiences and stories, but friendship is rooted in a shared Christ. Feasts are accentuated when brothers dwell together.

Eighth, relationships change and are re-directed. Someone who was a friend in eighth grade may not be a friend now. God gives us a rotation of friends through life because He knows that our changes will require new people to speak into our particular phases of life. Feasts restore friendships and renew friendships and are the genesis of new friendships.

Ninth, many of us are worse friends than we think, but we have better friends than we deserve. Feasts create the environment for friendship rituals to be exercised in service and communion.

Tenth, all rituals require meaning. All good things require work. Therefore, all feasting is meaningful work. It provides true health for the Christian.

Real health is grounded in a proper relationship with God, and since this relationship is in part sacramental, it involves physical things. The purpose of these physical aspects is not, however, to provide mechanical health to the “human biological machine.” Instead, the goal of these physical aspects is to communicate to us, in a mystery, the grace of God.

Have Babies Because It’s Dangerous

It’s a common observation by younger couples pursuing marriage or recently married. It happens often enough in the evangelical landscape to be addressed broadly. The general thesis is that this is a dangerous era to have children. The world is a crazy place with hipsters, Kamala Harris, and Harry Styles. I get the fear. I get the cultural grossness. I even get the skepticism of young parents. But let me tell you a thing or two.

Nothing is more joyful than populating the earth with children (Gen. 1:26-28). Nothing is more valuable than seeing these little arrows grow up to irritate leftists with their “Bible this” and “Bible that,” with their intrinsic sense of image-bearing dignity and intense distaste for worldliness.

Now, children can bring grief to their father and mother (Prov. 17:25), but when they seek the things of heaven, they make life a living hell to hell-bound elite parliamentarians.

This is not the most dangerous era of history to have children; this is actually the most productive age to have children. Nay, it is the most adventurous and God-honoring stage of history to have children. And to be really consistent, this is the kind of thing I would say if I were alive 100 years from now.

I would tell every newly married couple to plan wisely to have children and have them at a rate where the 1.9-average-a-year-climate-crisis-expert finds you repulsive. Greta Thunberg will probably not have kids because she thinks the world is in a crisis. She and her legacy will pass away like vapor (Eccl. 1:4), but your kids will take it from her and prove that the world’s crisis is only that which is divorced from Messiah Jesus.

This is the best season in history to have children. It is the most prominent with possibilities for the good to flourish. It is the most fruitful to build true worshipers.

Have babies. Sanctify them. And send them out to roar.

A Brief Theology of Bread

The Bible has a thoroughly developed theology of bread. Bread appears as a gift, such as Melchizedek’s gift to Abram; it shows up when Jacob deceives Esau and gives him some bread with the lentil stew. Bread is also a protagonist in the Passover Feast; it’s what fed the Israelites in the wilderness. in fact, sharing bread in the Psalms expresses close friendships. In the Book of Ruth, dipping bread in vinegar is given as a ritual that brings Boaz and Ruth together. It is a marital bonding ritual. And these are only morsels of examples.

If you were to put all that data together, you would see that the purpose of bread—whether literal or figurative– is central to the relational life of the church. In I Corinthians, Paul says that we are one loaf, which is to say we are bound together as one. And finally, in John 6, Jesus is called the true bread from heaven.

At the Lord’s Supper, we eat from one bread to fulfill this beautiful typology. God uses this theme to invite us to his Son, the bread of life. We come together today as one loaf offered to God. May God hear us and accept our bodies as living loaves in his sight.

The Fearful Mother

'I Cannot! It Would Be a Sin! A Fearful Sin!'

Dear Sister,

Your question was, and I hope I am doing justice to its insightfulness: “What actions can a Christian take when she is living in fear for the country’s future?” It seems you are frightened by what you perceive to be an attack on a country you love. You are politically active online and constantly update yourself with the news cycle. And from what you told me, you are in several private groups discussing various political topics. If the picture I paint is correct, here are two ways to move forward:

First, allow me to be reasonably direct with you since you posed the question with the anticipation of an objective answer. I want to see you diminish 10% of your time on the news cycle this week. I trust I am being reasonable here. If I told you to cut off all your time, it would be too aggressive a strategy at this stage. 10% would look like keeping your cell phone charged in another room when you come to bed at night. That little ritual shift can be enormously fruitful in diminishing fear in your life. The end goal is not to forsake the political world–as if you had a choice–but the ultimate goal is to think rightly about the political world. You will find that very often the politics of God and the politics of this world are diametrically different.

I can assure you that your fascination with politics and your pessimism about the future stems from something much deeper. In other words, there are more intrinsic fears you have that are overflowing into your perspective about the world and you need to see the overarching context of your fears.

You need to contemplate these small changes because I have watched couples–and specifically, mothers–offer more of their body and soul to these external causes than the internal causes of their households. Remember what I have told you: the anxious person controls the home. You do not want your anxieties to control the lives of your children and spouse.

Therefore, I think you need less screen time at night as a starter. I think you need less bombardment from paid media gurus who literally increase their wealth by spreading more panic. More panic among viewers, more sponsors, and more wealth. You have not been given a spirit of fear, and part of that gift is that you are to steward your courage well so that it doesn’t lose its fervor. When courage and hopefulness are running low, fear happily takes its place.

Secondly, I urge you to worship well. And by that, I mean practicing rituals of worship regularly. If your schedule is filled with worshipping practices, your orientation towards political zealotry will diminish. I have seen moms get so identified with political parties–in my world, the GOP–that they would gladly take an invitation to a GOP convention than the invitation God offers to worship. This is problematic. It’s not just your heart that is in danger, but those around you. If you cannot think rightly about the world, you will not think rightly about God and his call to worship.

Stay close to friends who cherish your heart and well-being, and do not give in to zealots who tempt you to be a revolutionary. Your role is to revolutionize your home with beauty and to strengthen your soul with laughter.

Sincerely,

Pastor Uriesou Brito

#letters

Brotherhood, Community, and Doxology

brown wooden church bench near white painted wall

Communities are composed of people trying awkwardly to understand the extent of our responsibility for those around us. It does not flow as neatly as we often expect. Communities are filled with sinful people whose aim is often between glorifying God and themselves. Pride and doxology are conflicting visions within, but the true community works through these conflicting visions, seeking the Triune God’s glory above all.

Community life is the life lived out throughout the week; the response of God’s people to one another. It’s not our response to self, but to one another pursuing one another in the ordinary life of the Church.

This theme was abundantly illustrated in the temple in the Old Testament, which was considered a place of feasting. In I Kings 9, when Solomon’s temple was completed, the people rejoiced. They dedicated the temple to God by feasting for several days.

After Sabbath worship, the people went out and gave thanks to God together as a body. They celebrated with one another with feasts, hospitality, and charity. Then, they went home, joyful and glad in heart for all the good things Yahweh had done for Israel (I Kings 8:66).

The life of community was summarized by feasting. They worked together and then they rejoiced together. It was all covered under the virtue of love expressed in Leviticus 19 and we may even argue that the dominion mandate was a mandate of love as well. The laws of love in the community are not a New Testament invention; they were established long ago.

The language Paul uses to describe community in I Corinthians refers to the Church as a community of brothers and sisters. He uses “adelphos” which appears 28 times; a term used for blood relatives in the first century. Paul puts us in one house together.

He goes on to command us to “edify” one another. To edify is an architectural term. It comes from “edifice.” Everything goes back to God’s building work on earth. God is building his temple/house, so you build/edify one another.

Communities are formed in the working and loving, and living together. It is often fractured amid the work, but faithfulness pursues the glory of God above earthly disputes and differences. It sees brotherhood as more central in the building of the edifice than the differences in the building strategies of the edifice.

Why Paedocommunion?

Unlike some traditions, Providence Church practices paedocommunion—which means that every baptized child in this congregation is welcomed to the table of Jesus Christ. We do this because the Bible says that discerning the body is the prerequisite to coming to this table. And we do not mean that by such an imperative, the requirement is a dissertation on the various atonement theories or the capability of understanding everything that happened on Good Friday, but rather to “discern the body” is to act in such a way that unites the body. If you are a divider of the body, you are not discerning the body, and I beg you to stay away, but children—as in the days of Jesus—are welcomed to the table because their presence is unifying. They—many times unlike many grown-ups—have little to no problem wanting the good and unity of the assembly. Today, we welcomed all baptized, especially the little children for unto such belongs the kingdom of heaven.

John Frame on Theological Definitions

One of the greatest joys of my life was spending four years under Prof. John Frame at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, FL. Those four years also included an independent study with him on Abraham Kuyper. It was that one semester that cemented my affection for the Dutch theologian. Since then, I have not looked back. I started a website named Kuyperian Commentary, wrote articles on Kuyper, lectured on Kuyper, and most recently wrote a new introduction to a reprint of his classic work, “Lectures on Calvinism.”

The impetus for such pursuits always goes back to my old mentor, John Frame. He taught me what it meant to pursue biblical fidelity. As he states in his Systematic Theology, he taught me that theological definitions must measure up to Scripture, not the other way around.” ((Systematic Theology, 4)” Frame sealed my love for the Bible as more than one revelation, or one authority among many, but as the ultimate authority over other legitimate authorities. Further, he instilled the sense that biblical definitions are given as the grammar of heaven. It is not merely sufficient to see the Scripture as a place for safety from heresies but to look to it as the source of safety itself for the Christian.

Frame adds that while some may differ in their definitions from us, it does not necessarily mean that we are at odds but may be approaching things from a different perspective. We may even share distinct ideas on the application, but we may be in harmony regarding the nature of the task. Therefore, we have to seek points of commonality first and foremost before engaging in the task of polemics.

Overview of Stephen Wolfe’s “The Case for Christian Nationalism,” Introduction

flag of the usa on a pole

Stephen Wolfe’s work attempts to place God in his rightful, public place in a nation. The question is not whether we should contemplate such a proposition but in what way such a proposition needs to be installed. The absence of God in the public square is the de facto law of the land (2). Wolfe argues in his introduction that the leaders of our Christian society function as passive participants in the public square giving room for Rousseau’s disciples to rule over us while we bask in our pietism.

The book’s purpose is to “enliven in the hearts of Christians a sense of home and hearth and a love of people and country out of which springs action for their good” (5). This rekindling of the oikos receives even more precision when he defines a particular kind of nationalism. He sets the stage for what will be developed through the leviathan of 476 pages:

Christian nationalism is a totality of national action, consisting of civil laws and social customs, conducted by a Christian nation as a Christian nation to procure for itself both earthly and heavenly good in Christ (9).

He delves even deeper in his precision by arguing for a particular brand of Christian nationalism. He makes it clear in a footnote that he is “advancing a more Presbyterian form of Christian nationalism” (9). Nevertheless, he is at ease with a pan-Protestant vision where other traditions can incorporate their distinct contributions to the overall project. Such nationalism seeks to obtain the heavenly good, namely in Christ (11). This distinctly Christian platform provides the impetus for a totality of national action, which ranges from acts of sacrifice to mundane affairs (12). Christian nationalism functions consciously of its Christian status, working to define itself based on that fundamental identity.

The nation, then, serves to protect the administration of Word and Sacrament and to encourage society to partake of these things and “be saved unto eternal life” (15). The complete good of the nation is at the forefront of such endeavor and the only good is that which derives its meaning in Christ.

Evangelical and Reformed readers may become somewhat skeptical of Wolfe’s work when they note that he makes “little effort to exegete the text” (16) since he is not a theologian or biblical scholar. Nevertheless, he assumes a Reformed theological tradition and believes that such conclusions are drawn from the text. Further, he grounded his labors in 16th-17th centuries Thomistic premises, which he affirms comes from catholic Reformed tradition (18). This is made even more apparent when he concludes that “revealed theology serves to complete politics, but it is not the foundation of politics.” (19). In Wolfe’s apologetic, natural law takes a preeminent role in forming a Christianized nation.

While there are many different versions of Christian nationalism, Wolfe offers a stirring introduction and argues for a nationalism framed around scholastic theology rooted in Reformational history. The heavily footnoted introduction sets the stage for his case. We will consider in chapter one whether his anthropology provides the foundation for such a noble pursuit.

Doug Wilson and Clerical Vestments

Doug Wilson’s episode discussing clergy attire is quite good, and we, high-church Presbyterians, should take a listen and consider a few of his thoughts. Here are some general responses to the interview: To Vest or Sweater Vest? https://www.gottesdienst.org/podcast/2022/11/9/tgc-234-to-vest-or-sweater-vest

The discussion with a Missouri-Synod Lutheran minister was also an interesting look into the wild diversity of worship practices among Lutherans and a special interest in the Gottesdienst Crowd who wish to return to the high-liturgical Lutheran model of the 16th century.

It is fascinating just how far the influence of @_Theopolis goes. I’ve heard of Lutheran, Anglican, Orthodox, & other high church traditions that have been deeply affected by the work of Peter Leithart and, as a result, become aware of our labors in the CREC and man like Wilson.

Wilson’s concern with clerical vestments stems from a fundamental question: “What is the direction of this act?” He directs his concerns toward low-church evangelicals who want to play dress-up. Such “liturgical” trends come with a side of postmodernism.

He argues that context is crucial in such discussions. He does not oppose traditional Lutherans wearing albs and stoles, but he finds it distressing that low-church evangelicals are dressing up in “ecclesiastical bling” as a way of calling attention and often end with effeminacy.

He is not opposed to ecclesiastical vestments, but he ponders the question, “what is the motive?” “what is it saying” and “what is the vestment highlighting?” It should highlight the office and not the man. We should avoid “showboating.”

“Clothing is rhetoric,” and it is crucial to understand the connotation of this rhetoric wherever you are ministering. Doug’s concern is that people may trip over robes if they attend one of our churches, especially in the South, where the Southern Baptist world is dominant.

Wilson’s concern is that the pastor conveys a masculine voice. He says that a white robe is a robe of a bride, not a groom. I’d note that the Transfigured glory of Jesus (Mat. 17) clothed him in white, and the pastors sitting around the throne were also robed in white (Rev. 4).

I also disagree with the perception of folks here in SBC land. In all my 14 years in Pensacola, wearing a white robe, only 2-3 times have someone inquired about the robe. They have asked more about using the word “catholic” in the Nicene Creed than anything else.

These are questions that can easily be overcome with a few conversations. And, indeed, any concerns that they may have is usually dealt with right after the service in brief exchanges.

This leads to my general observation that the culture of any congregation leaves a more powerful impression at first than the liturgical interests. Establish the culture, and the white robes are an easy sell.

Wilson’s general argument is quite moderate and straightforward. He even refers to it as “adiaphora.” He intends to do away with the tendency towards an egalitarian spirit, and the vestments can lead and have led to such abuses. This is a fair critique.

On the other hand, the suit/tie combo has provided its fair share of egalitarianism. Clothing matters and I could probably find the “business model” of attire equally troubling in mainstream evangelicalism. Postmodernism impacts the robe and the suit.

Wilson’s regulative principle argument is quite good, and he even notes that robes may be more suitable for certain environments and that there ought to be a deliberation in what direction you should go. The entire argument is very pastoral. There needs to be a goal in mind.

But Lutheran history is also a fine example. In the 70s, the high-church Lutherans were the liberals, but today the Gottesdienst Crowd (high-church Lutherans) are the ones seeking to restore 16th-century Lutheran conservative ideals.

Wilson’s general concern is that the liturgy/vestment does not stand on its own but that it is accompanied by instruction. There is an agreement between our two sides of the liturgical aisle & if there was any concern about where the liturgical side stands in the CREC, COVID demonstrated that our robes are symbols of the transfigured Christ who asserted his authority over earthly powers.