Category: Theological Thoughts

Posted on

Domestic Abuse and the “God Hates Divorce” Slogan

The NFL of all places has begun an important conversation. James Brown here offers some powerful words on the topic:

 

Still, there is a remarkable lack of education on this topic.

RBC poll conducted during a webinar by Chris Moles and Leslie Vernick concluded that:

35% of Christian domestic abuse survivors said that when they sought help from their church they were told, “You must stay because God hates divorce.”  God does not hate all divorce. He only hates treacherous divorce.

This text has been misinterpreted for too long and used as threats to women who have suffered in the hands of wicked men. Barbara Roberts has offered some of the best work on this text I have seen. It is remarkable how the Bible–a book of life–has been misinterpreted to advocate the continual abuse of men towards women in the Christian community. Her book, Not Under Bondage: Biblical Divorce for Abuse, Adultery and Desertion offers a very thorough analysis of this text. She has recently blogged a summary of that section. I will copy it in its entirety here, rather than attempting a further summary:

In Malachi 2:16, many Bibles have the words “I hate divorce, says the Lord God of Israel.” These words have been paraphrased and turned into the well known saying “God hates divorce.”

This saying is really problematic for victims of domestic abuse. It is bandied around like a proverb, dropped casually into sermons and magazine articles, propounded in marriage manuals, amplified in Bible studies, and thrust accusingly over cyberspace and kitchen tables. It appears to condemn all acts of divorcing, with no thought for who is the innocent party. Christian victims of domestic abuse have it carved in stone in their minds and feel trapped between two terrible alternatives: stay in the marriage (and suffer the destruction of ongoing abuse), or reap condemnation for divorcing their abusive partners.

A third alternative presented to the victim is almost as bad: separate from the abuser but never divorce — a limbo which still brings tongue wagging from the church and leaves the victim vulnerable to a dangerous reconciliation if an unreformed abuser makes an outward show of reformation.

Mistranslation

Significantly, most people do not realise that Malachi 2:16, the text which has given rise to this saying, has been mistranslated. The incorrect translation came about as follows. The word “hates” in Malachi 2:16 is he hates. The Hebrew denotes third person masculine singular = he. The King James version had For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away.Many subsequent translations switched the third person “he” to a first person “I” without any grammatical warrant. For example, the 1984 NIV was “I hate divorce,” says the Lord God of Israel. Possibly translators thought the switch was okay because it retained the sense of the KJV — that God feels the hatred [for divorce]. They did not seem to worry that “I hate divorce” was grammatically inaccurate to the original Hebrew.

But modern translations are starting to correctly this mistake. The construction in Hebrew (“he hates… he covers”) shows that the one who feels the hatred is not God, but the divorcing husband. To be faithful to the Hebrew, the verse could be rendered, “If he hates and divorces,” says the Lord God of Israel, “he covers his garment with violence.” It is talking about a husband who hates his wife and divorces her because of his aversion for her. Therefore, Malachi 2:16 is only referring to a specific type of divorce: divorce for aversion, which could be dubbed “hatred divorce”. Divorce for hatred is treacherous divorce: if a man hates his wife and dismisses, he “covers his garment with violence” — his conduct is reprehensible, he has blood on his hands.

To date, three Bible versions have translated Malachi 2:16 correctly: the ESV, the Holman Christian Standard and the 2011 NIV. But these aren’t the only worthy translations. Since 1868, sixteen individual Hebrew scholars have translated the hatred as being what the divorcing husband feels, rather than what God feels. In my book Not Under Bondage: Biblical Divorce for Abuse, Adultery and Desertion, I list all these translations.

The conclusion is simple. And liberating.

  • God did NOT say “I hate divorce.”
  • God doesn’t dislike all kinds of divorce; he only condemns the divorce which unjustly dismisses a spouse without valid grounds.

Examples of divorce without valid grounds might be when a man discards his wife for a younger woman; or a woman throws off her husband because he doesn’t earn enough to keep her in the luxury she believes she deserves; or a mate who says “We’re incompatible: my spouse hasn’t done anything really wrong, we just don’t have anything in common.”

Malachi 2:16 does not condemn all divorce. It certainly does not condemn the divorce which a person might take out because of the persistent misbehavior of their spouse. It doesn’t condemn divorces undertaken because of adultery, abuse or desertion.

Does it make much difference?

The correct translation of Malachi 2:16 makes a vast difference to victims of abuse who are devoted to the scriptures.

If they know that God does not condemn all divorce but only treacherous divorce, they will be much better positioned to make biblically informed decisions about their marriages.

The mistranslation of Malachi 2:16 has generated a load of malarkey (exaggerated or foolish talk usually intended to obscure, mislead, deceive or impress; nonsense; bunkum; empty rhetoric).Malachi-malarkey. Okay, I know that’s not the greatest pun, but humor me. 🙂

We need to stop saying “God hates divorce.”

The saying “God hates divorce” is unbiblical and unjust. It stigmatizes people who have divorced on valid grounds.

If you have never been divorced, you probably will not grasp how deep this stigma can be. It can cause profound and long-lasting guilt and self-condemnation. It besmirches anyone who divorces on valid biblical grounds: victims of domestic abuse; victims of unjust abandonment;  the innocent party in adultery, and those who have chosen to divorce porn addicts, child abusers, thieves and murderers.

Victims of domestic abuse or other violations of the marriage covenant can be trapped in horrible marriages for a whole range of reasons. Let’s remove one of those reasons by banning the unscriptural slogan “God hates divorce”.

* * * * *

Here are the three modern Bible translations of Malachi 2:16 that accurately convey that the verb ‘hates’ is third person, not first person:

Holman Christian Standard

“If he hates and divorces [his wife],” says the Lord God of Israel, “he covers his garment with injustice,” says the Lord of Hosts.

NIV (2011)

“The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,” says the LORD Almighty.

English Standard (ESV)

“For the man who does not love his wife but divorces* her,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “covers his garment with violence,” says the Lord of hosts.
* Hebrew: who hates and divorces 

Posted on

Should Reformed People Read N.T. Wright?

It doesn’t happen quite often, but once in a while when I recommend a book or a quote by N.T. Wright on facebook, I will receive a question that goes something like this:

“Do you approve of N.T. Wright? Do you think it’s fruitful to endorse N.T. Wright? Or don’t you know that N.T. denies Justification by faith alone?”

I addressed the first question on facebook and I thought I’d make it available here. My response goes like this:

I think the question ought to be more nuanced. In other words, humans and their ideas, especially new humans recreated by God, ought to be analyzed more carefully and charitably. As a pastor I recommend Wright to my parishioners with the same enthusiasm I would recommend C.S. Lewis, Schmemann, and Martin Luther. I have disagreements with all of them, but charity allows me to communicate with these great thinkers and gain from what they offer, while expressing sometimes strong disagreements on some of their contributions.

Yes, Reformed people, in fact, Christians of all stripes should read Professor Wright. His profound insights, his vision for a renewed humanity in Christ, his invaluable defense of the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and his commitment to the historical, Biblical Jesus make him one of the most gifted teachers and scholars of our time and The Jesus Seminar’s worst nightmare.

But what about justification? Shouldn’t we stand for the principal article of the Church? And by standing shouldn’t we reject anyone who denies it?

First, N.T. Wright has written and clarified many of his statements. He stated again and again that he does not deny justification by faith alone. I take him at his word. “But hasn’t he been unclear?” To those who think so, he will always be. “I and many others find Wright’s overall project to be fruitful, despite having disagreements with him at points.” I find Kevin J. Vanhoozer’s humorous, but yet serious points on the Wright vs. Piper debate to be very helpful, and from what I hear from reliable sources, Wright agrees and finds Vanhoozer’s attempt to bridge the two paradigms extremely beneficial.

Secondly, the Reformation did not settle every issue. There are contemporary issues that still must be handled within our context. The Reformers did not exhaust the fullness of justification. There is indeed a robustly corporate view of justification that the Reformers–rightly preoccupied with Romish theological abuse–simply did not address explicitly in the 16th century. In this sense, Wright needs to be read and listened to attentively.

Thirdly, when one poses the question of whether we should eliminate such an author from our library because he is wrong on an issue, no matter how important the issue may be, he is betraying the charitable nature of the Christian vision and our personal libraries. Of course, he may choose to avoid Wright, and other authors who also had some questionable theological presuppositions (like C.S. Lewis), his theological vision will be narrow, and his ability to articulate a vision of the world will stop at the wardrobe (to borrow from Lewis). Those of us who appreciate Wright prefer to open the wardrobe and see Narnia in all its beauty.”

Finally, the West’s over-emphasis on the individual is tragic. The individual matters, but Adam himself knew that the individual is not alone. Just as the Trinity is not alone, so too man needs to be a part of something greater. “Community” is not just a buzzword no matter how often hipster Christian groups use it. In its biblical sense, community is the essence of the Christian experience. Paul’s vision was highly ecclesiastical. The individual who divorces from the community loses his ability to be truly human. He breathes and eats as a human, but his breathing and eating desecrates God’s intention to incorporate him into  a multitude. N.T. Wright offers immeasurable contributions on this subject.

Naturally, there is the possibility of over-emphasizing community, but that hardly seems to be the problem in our day. The reality is if you stress the community you get the individual, if you stress the individual you don’t get the community.

Should we read N.T. Wright? Yes. Read him often with the eyes of discernment. But again, discernment is the Christian’s best friend in any human activity.

Posted on

How To Talk About Death With Your Little Children

I have been asked this question a few times in my pastoral ministry. Here are a few thoughts for how to approach the subject of a death of a loved one with your little children:

First, make this a family affair. Gather the children as soon as possible to explain that a loved one has died. Conversations of such magnitude need to take place in a safe environment. If a child hears about the death from someone else it might lead to confusion and even anger.

Second, death is a horrible human reality. One of the consequences of the Adamic sin is death (Rom 5:12). We will all die, and likely we will see and witness many friends and family members die before we do. It is helpful to explain that death is an ugly thing and that as Christians we hate death. Taking our little ones to that familiar story of death in the Garden is a healthy way to contextualize the news to them. Death is first and foremost a theological issue, even if explained in the language of a three or four year old.

Third, do not be afraid to use the word death. If you say that such a person has “passed away” or “gone to sleep forever” this may cause confusion or fear in the child. A child might go to sleep at night fearful that he will never wake up. Clarity is fundamental. Tell the child that death means we will never see grandpa or grandma again in this life.

Fourth, do not be afraid to weep with them. Sometimes children do not understand mom or dad’s feelings after the death of someone. Feel free to explain your feelings to your children. “I am crying because grandma died. I am going to miss her.” If they begin to cry, join them in their tears and comfort them.

Fifth, when children discover that a loved one has died, they may assume that you will die also. They may ask questions like: “Are you going to die too, mommy?” At this point, it is important to let the child know that most people die when they are really old or very sick. And then let them know–if it is the case–that mommy or daddy are not sick and are still full of youth. If someone close died of a very young age, let them know that it is not very common, and then point out the young people around him that are alive.

Finally–and I am aware that much more could be said–inevitably, little children will ask questions about what will happen to grandpa or grandma, or mom and dad after they die. As Christians, we need to stress that Jesus overcame death at the cross and resurrection. He died and was raised so that we might live forever. This is a wonderful time to remind them of the promises of Jesus. “Grandma is now in heaven with Jesus. She is at peace. One day when we die we will join her in heaven. Jesus says than when we go to heaven we will never die again; we will live forever.”

Our children do not need a fairy-tale narrative about death. They need a compassionate, biblical approach that is sensitive to their thinking as little ones and faithful to the narrative of the Bible.

Posted on

10 Years of Blogging!

Ten years ago I started this little known project called blogging. Before that I used Geocities. Not many of you have heard of Geocities. It was the 90’s webpage builder. Yahoo shut down Geocities’ U.S. service back in 2009. Now, it is just a distant memory. Back in 2004, as I was starting my time at RTS/Orlando, I deleted my Geocities page and started a blog using blogspot. In 2006,  I transferred all my data to a free wordpress account. In 2013, I bought my own domain, uribrito.com.

Today marks my ten year blogging anniversary!  No cake. No party. Just a reminder that I have been writing for a long time. When I started in 2004 few people knew about blogging. A small social networking service launched in February 2004 known as Facebook had only recently made its debut. And from what I remember, it was meant only for Harvard students at the time. Now, as of the 3rd of October 2013, there were 500 million people with a Facebook account. Much of today’s blogging has been replaced by Facebook status updates and links to other websites. I even heard someone recently tell me that they get all their major links to news reports from Facebook. Still, my perspective has been that blogging provides a valuable resource to express fuller thoughts and also the opportunity to be more precise in your argument and thought. a

I have posted almost 4,000 posts in these last ten years. Here are five lessons I have learned:

First, writing is hard. Sitting down to write something that is more than the mere fluff you get in most places can be rather challenging. This is one reason thousands and thousands of people have blog pages that have been untouched in years. Blogging demands perseverance.

Second, blogging can get you in trouble. In the height of my zealous years as a seminarian, I thrived in writing about controversial topics. Sometimes they were so controversial that it attracted the attention of well-known scholars who would chastise me for such foolishness. I took their critiques as validation of what I was saying. I should have listened to them, but instead I was more concerned with the number of hits my post had.

Third, the best writing I’ve done has been peer-reviewed. I do not consider myself a great writer, but I have lots of ideas. I am well-read and have two degrees in theology. All that is proof that I should have a few things to say that are at least appealing to some. But, though one may have good ideas to discuss, he needs to express those ideas is readable and grammatically accurate way. Nothing is more distressing to readers than sloppy writing. It hinders good ideas from being communicated powerfully and effectively. As a result, I have developed a two-step process for publishing pieces over 1,000 words. First, I edit and re-edit my work. Secondly, I send it to two friends who have some gifts in the art of writing. After they send me back their thoughts, only then do I publish my material. This has proven to be highly successful. As as result I have edited a book, written another, and have published articles in well-known Christian websites. In summary, writing is communal. b

Fourth, writing is public. One of the main reasons I write is for the sake of others. Everything I write is so that others may find interest or help in something I am engaged in. I find the idea of reading or writing for self-pleasure difficult to understand. Of course, like anything, most initial forays into writing need to be kept away from the reading public until they reach a level of maturation. But there is also great pleasure in allowing others to enter into my reading and writing journey. Blogging has allowed me to invite others into my life.

Finally, blogging can lead to humility. I know certain bloggers use their writing as platform for their arrogant rants and vitriol. In my case, even with all the help I have received, I still make remarkable mistakes in my writing. And I am quite aware of that. In my mind, my ideas come out harmoniously, but when others read them, they lack the coherence I thought they had. c Those who have left comments over the years have encouraged me greatly to improve my communication in writing. Instead of reacting as  if they have no sense of what they are talking about, I am always seeking to first consider my intentions for writing, how to better communicate my writing, and how to honor those who have taken the time to read my blog when there are millions more they could have been reading. So, thanks to all my readers. You are not many, but you have humbled me in many ways.

Here’s to another ten years!

  1. and it has that little feature called a “footnote”  (back)
  2. I have also applied this method to all my sermon writing  (back)
  3. see #4  (back)
Posted on

How Helpful Are Analogies of the Trinity?

All analogies fall short. They can be enormously helpful at times, but sometimes we need to simply acknowledge that analogies are always limited. They help communicate profound truths in simple terms, but they may at times take us a bit too far and actually undo the intention of the analogy itself. a This is what happens when evangelicals use a variety of analogies to explain the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Trinity, Michael Bird, explains, “is not an esoteric doctrine forged in an unholy marriage of Greek metaphysical speculation and dodgy biblical interpretation.” b Our experience of God is not unitarian or tritheistic, but can only be true if it is Trinitarian. So, a biblical expression of the Trinity is essential.

We live in a day where Trinitarian religion in all its historical beauty has been lost in a sea of trivial statements about God. God, Three and One and One and Three, has become merely a side note in theological pursuit. As one pastor recently told me, “We do not need to talk about the Trinity to our people. It is too complex for them.” The Trinity is arguably the central doctrine that differentiates the Christian faith from other religious traditions like Islam and Judaism. Modern attempts to reconcile these traditions to the Christian faith is ultimately impossible. God is Three and One. He is Oneness and Community. Ancient heresies like Modalism, which teach that each person of the Trinity is merely a “mode of God’s activity as opposed to a distinct and independent person” is by and large the position of Oneness Pentecostals. Yet, most evangelicals view them as just another branch of the orthodox Church.

The nature of the Father, Son, and Spirit have never been more detached from the work of doing theology in our day. As a result of this neglect, modern Christians have attempted to re-energize the idea of the “forgotten Trinity” by providing analogies. These analogies are meant as simple illustrations. They attempt to do with simplicity what the Early Church sought to do with tremendous care and heavy qualifications.

Though the popular illustrations add a little more clarity, they end up confusing the Trinity with other heresies.  S. Michael Houdmann offers a few examples:

The egg (or apple) fails in that the shell, white, and yolk are parts of the egg, not the egg in themselves, just as the skin, flesh, and seeds of the apple are parts of it, not the apple itself. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not parts of God; each of them is God. The water illustration is somewhat better, but it still fails to adequately describe the Trinity. Liquid, vapor, and ice are forms of water. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not forms of God, each of them is God.

Some have attributed these analogies to St. Patrick of Ireland. c The supposed bad analogies of Patrick was put into a comical conversation between St. Patrick and two simple men inquiring about the Trinity:

To put it simply, “The problem with using analogies to explain the Holy Trinity is that you always end up confessing some ancient heresy.”

I have found that analogies of the Trinity are a normal reaction from Christians who find themselves defensive about a complicated doctrine. But Christians ought not be defensive about such a lovely description of our God. God is not meant to be intricately analyzed like an ancient fossil, but to be adored. Any explanation of His Nature ought to be done carefully and with the qualifications the Bible provides. d God is. And that is where we must start. In the words of Fred Sanders:

Trinitarianism is the encompassing framework within which all Christian thought takes place and within which Christian confession finds its grounding presuppositions. e

The Trinity is the necessary paradigm for all thinking. It is the beginning and the end of human thought.  The Trinity is mysterious, because God is infinitely powerful and beyond human reasoning. In the end, we ought to catechize, biblicize those under our care with great care when we speak of who God is. In a nutshell, we can affirm the following essential elements concerning our Triune God:

First, the unity of one God in three persons.

Second, the eternity of the three persons.

Third, the shared and equal deity of the three persons.

Fourth, the shared and equal essence of the three persons.

Fifth, the Trinity includes distinction in roles and relationships within the Godhead.

Finally, the Trinity will always be an ineffable mystery.

In the end, the Trinity ought to lead us to worship as Isaiah did in Isaiah 6. And in that worship, we ought to imitate the seraphim who continually sing, “Holy, Holy, Holy.”

  1. For a history of “analogy,” see this  (back)
  2. Bird, Michael. Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction, pg. 92  (back)
  3. This claim is debated: http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17724/did-saint-patrick-actually-explain-the-trinity-using-a-shamrock  (back)
  4. Analogies like Marriage and community are actually helpful ways to begin to understand the divine Trinity  (back)
  5. Quoted in Bird’s Evangelical Theology, pg. 124  (back)
Posted on

Worship is Hard

As we have been saying for years and some of you testify to it now, worship is hard! Whereas some traditions see only the music as worship or only the sermon as worship, we see all of Covenant Renewal as worship. This means it’s harder, more demanding, and more tiring. And after 70 minutes, you have stretched almost every part of your body.

Worship is the exact opposite of what we would expect. Wouldn’t it be easier to be a spectator while the guys up front do all the work? Wouldn’t it be easier to be a passive member? The answer is that we are not called to do the easier. Worship is practice for resurrection life in the world to come. Life in the here and now is demanding. Even the resurrected life in the re-created world will not allow you to remain passive in worship. Worship will always demand your body and soul.

So, let’s use this holy worship as another preparation for resurrection worship in eternity.

Posted on

Reflections on Stanley Hauerwas’ Interview

Having finished the 40 minute interview with Stanley Hauerwas, I have a few observations:

First, Hauerwas is a kind of modern day prophet. His demeanor and quiet confidence manifests a type of prophetic character that is rare in our day.

Second, Hauerwas treats the cult of individualism as a form of modern day blasphemy that needs to be dealt with. The Bible, he argues, needs to be read with other people. We need a mediated faith; a faith that does not end with me and my Bible, but with me, my Bible, and the community; a faith that finds its culmination in the worship of God’s people.

Third, evangelicals at large do not understand what it means to live in this liturgical vision that Professor Hauerwas spoke about. They are frightened by the mere thought of repetition. Hauerwas argues that repetition, liturgical repetition, is the biblical antidote to the type of innovative Christian culture that tries to re-invent itself weekly to draw the masses. Repetition, through liturgical expression–morning prayer, etc.–is the type of repetition that builds a community capable of dealing with the ever-changing culture and fads of the evangelical mass.

Fourth, Hauerwas is not a postmillennialist. He argues in his monumental work Aliens that the Church is perpetually in bondage, and that persecution is its inevitable end. But in the end, that is a good thing, he says, because it teaches members of the body to depend on others. This vision, in my estimation, does not have to contradict the postmillennial vision. Hauerwas is arguing against an eschatology that is self-made; a form of utopian vision that takes the ecclesia out of the picture and that is built around charistmatic leaders. But, I argue, a healthy postmillennial vision is both ecclesiastical and built around the communion of saints. And, it ought to be shaped by the faith of the saints gone before us. By their example, we are building a future reality that honors our past story and is looking forward to the constant formation of a new humanity in Christ Jesus.

Finally, Hauerwas does not see the gospel merely in terms of born-againness. The Gospel cannot be merely summarized or associated with Billy Graham’s crusades. It is much greater than that:

That through Jesus Christ, very God and very man, we Gentiles have been made part of the promise to Israel that we will be witnesses to God’s good care of God’s creation through the creation of a people who once were no people that the world can see there is an alternative to our violence. There is an alternative to our deceptions. There is an alternative to our unfaithfulness to one another though the creation of something called church. That’s salvation.

The evangelical church and the evangelical eschatology needs Hauerwas. Without him we are trapped in our tribal pursuits. With him, we learn to be Christians in the right way.

Posted on

It’s a Selfie World

“A selfie is a type of self-portrait photograph, typically taken with a hand-held digital camera or camera phone.” a

It’s a selfie world out there. Instagram has enriched itself with millions self-portraits. Justin Bieber may have popularized it, but it’s now a world-wide phenomenon. Amateur photographers hold in their hand the perfect camera. Change the camera to self with a simple touch, smile, and post!

I am not interested in going on an anti-selfie campaign. People are creative. They are made after a creative God. Sometimes selfies incorporate a level of art that is truly remarkable. God likes to showcase his creation. And so at times showcasing a picture of ourselves to the world is not harmful. Sometimes it is humorous. Sometimes it is pathetic. Sometimes I don’t know what to think of it.

When mom takes a picture of her pregnant belly, I see life. When a young lady takes a picture of herself with her new engagement ring, I see joy. When a guy takes a picture showcasing his new pair of athletic shoes he worked hard to earn, I say, “kudos.” Now, when young ladies begin to display their body parts that are meant to be displayed only to their future or current husbands, I say, “what in the world are you thinking!” When a young boy takes 15 pictures a day of himself in every imaginable pose, I say, “where’s your father?”

So, yes. Selfies can be great. And they can also be remarkable testaments to a pathetically self-serving and self-glorifying culture.

And then there are people who take selfies to a whole new level.

Well, for most people, that compulsion is relatively harmless, but for 19-year-old Danny Bowman, it reportedly led to an attempted suicide.

The British teen spent up to 10 hours each day taking photos of himself on his iPhone, the Daily Mirror reports. The addiction became so debilitating that he dropped out of school and retreated into his home for six months.

“I was constantly in search of taking the perfect selfie and when I realized I couldn’t I wanted to die,” Bowman told the Daily Mirror. “I lost my friends, my education, my health and almost my life.” b

It’s a selfie world. It’s a world where self-promotion and an unquenchable desire to find meaning finds a little bit of satisfaction in a selfie. But then that temporary satisfaction cannot be quenched and the search for more satisfaction ensues until one realizes that meaning is simply not possible.

So, a few thoughts to the selfie culture–especially those in the church.

First, always examine the purpose of your selfie. What am I trying to represent to the world about the God I worship? Owning things is not sinful. But the central issue has to do with the role you place on these things in your life.

What is this selfie communicating to the possibly hundreds or thousands of people who will come across this picture? Why do I think that a certain part of my body needs to be seen by others; some that I never met personally, and others that I will see tomorrow in class?

Second, by all means don’t read this as a crusade against selfies. Take them. But take them to show the world how beautiful we become when we are in Christ. “Look at me. You see my joy in my new tie? If you know me you know that I treasure deeply the God who gave me this tie.”

Third, take fewer selfies. Period.

Fourth, when in doubt about the potential consequences about a selfie in a certain a pose or wearing a certain outfit, don’t post it. Keep it as private reminder of your self-restraint.

Finally, let’s turn a little of our attention from self-portraits to familial portraits. You know what the world knows little about: familial happiness. The abortion rate and the growing trend of unbiblical divorces continue to rise. Talk about an ugly selfie! We have in our society a pitiful view of what joyful family life is like. Use your camera–a great gift from God, by the way–to honor others. Put pictures of your brother or sister accomplishing something. Show the world that your life is not just centered around yourself, but on others also.

So, don’t give up your selfies. I will add a little Instagram heart to them when I see them. But for every selfie you take, make sure to take three non-selfies. And then show the world that the world of me is also about you.

  1. Wikipedia definition  (back)
  2. See full article: http://time.com/35701/selfie-addict-attempts-suicide/  (back)
Posted on

Counseling and the Work of the Spirit

Theology is deeply intimate. Michael Bird excellently summarizes theology as “speaking about God while in the very presence of God. We are intimately engaged with the subject of our study.” a This theological intimacy builds a certain type of worshiper. This worshiper, then, is aware of the nature of his relationships and his relationality with the Triune God. The theological enterprise, which has largely become a rarely pursued journey by the common parishioner, has fallen into the hands of arm-chair theologians. Instead of finding theology an intimate quest, they see it as an academic exercise to be exercised at a fair distance from the subject of their study. They have academized theology.

But theology, properly understood, is a project of the people of God for the sake of the world. Undoubtedly there is room for academic expertise, but this expertise will not  bear fruit unapplied. And part of this distaste for theology has come from the official divorce between theology and counseling. Simply put, we have abandoned the Holy Spirit while pursuing theology. In doing so, we have broken the Trinitarian commitment to knowledge and life. The Spirit is the divine matchmaker. He puts together man and God. He does this by providing in man a need for the divine. The Spirit’s work in us is to make us into needy beings who can only find fulfillment in a giving God. Jesus’ works on earth were all practically aimed at restoring flesh-beings to a more fulfilling humanity, even to the point of restoring a man to life (Jn. 11).

Counseling is necessary in theology. It is the Spirit-side of theology in the Triniarian diagram. The Spirit is the comforter, and our advocate. When others abuse us, the Spirit is the One who reminds us that our sanity comes from the Father, and though we have been painfully beaten to the point of mental breakdowns, the Spirit says that our sanity is from above and no one can take it away.

John Frame was right when he asserted that Christians understand the distinctness of the Father and the Son, but they view the Spirit “as a kind of impersonal force or power associated with God.” b This un-trinitarian tendency c has infected the theological enterprise. Though most evangelicals are careful to avoid sounding like Mormons, they still practically approach theology as a Spirit-less process. Of course, orthodoxy has always affirmed that there is no conflict in the Trinity. There is mutual glorification among the persons of the Trinity. d But practically, our orthopraxis contradicts our orthodoxy. Though Jesus is promised to be a “wonderful counselor” (Isa. 7), the Spirit is promised to be an abiding counselor; the one sent by the Son to abide in every Christian ( Jn. 14:26).

In large measure due to the misunderstanding of the trinitarian nature, the Spirit has been left out of the counseling room. He is not called nor petitioned to. But the Third Person of the Trinity is the key to the theological intimacy we must all seek. Paul writes:

And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

This transformation/transfiguration comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. Counseling stresses the Spirit dependency counselees must have in order to be transformed from glory into glory. The work of theology, Frame stresses, “is not simply to repeat the language of Scripture, but to apply the language of Scripture to our thought and life.” e The Spirit applies theology that changes for He is the source of change.

The type of intimacy I am advocating in counseling is the intimacy that communicates the need of the Spirit and the application of truth to all of life. If only truth is stressed f you lose the relationality of the Spirit of God, but when truth is joined with a conspicuous dependence on the Spirit, then true change from glory to glory begins to take place. Theology must be an intimate pursuit, for in it we discover the Spirit of God who provides true fellowship with the Father and the Son. g

  1. An Evangelical Theology, Bird.  (back)
  2. Systematic Theology, An Introduction to Christian Belief, 477  (back)
  3. cult-like  (back)
  4. see Frame, 480  (back)
  5. Frame, 482  (back)
  6. certain counseling paradigms operate strictly from this premise  (back)
  7. II Corinthians 13:14  (back)
Posted on

Systematic Versus Biblical Theology

The late, Robert Raymond, in his massive A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith argues that Systematic Theology views “the Holy Scriptures as a completed revelation, in distinction from the disciplines of...biblical theology, which approach the Scriptures as an unfolding revelation…the systematic theologian views Scriptures as completed revelation.” a

I am not certain about his distinction and/or whether he is taking a cheap shot at biblical theology, but I find the distinction unhelpful. The assumption is that biblical theology does not see the Bible as complete since it is dealing with an unfolding narrative. But the best of biblical theology sees the Bible as an unfolding complete drama. There is nothing more to be added, but there is plenty to consume again and again. In other words, BT sees narratives within narratives, which provide the theologian a richer engagement with the text. While ST are content with arranging the furniture pieces of the Bible in proper order. BT sees the supposed chaos of the furniture pieces as purposeful arrangements to be appreciated and re-arranged through the expectation and arrival of Messiah.

  1. Raymond, xxv  (back)