Living in a Foreign City

"You know that you who are the servants of God dwell in a strange land; for your city is far away from this one…. Have a care, therefore: as one living in a foreign land…. Have a care, then, ye who serve the Lord, and have Him in your heart, that ye work the works of God, remembering His commands and promises which He promised, and believe that He will bring them to pass if His commandments be observed. Instead of lands, therefore, buy afflicted souls, according as each one is able, and visit widows and orphans, and do not overlook them; and spend your wealth and all your preparations, which ye received from the Lord, upon such lands and houses. For to this end did the Master make you rich, that you might perform these services unto Him; and it is much better to purchase such lands, and possessions, and houses, as you will find in your own city, when you come to reside in it." 

–The Shepherd of Hermas 50.1, 6-10 (mid-2^nd century)

I have traveled to foreign countries for missions work twice, once to Eastern Europe and once to Central America. There was never a moment during either trip when I forgot that I was not at home. The entire time I knew I was a stranger in a strange land. The language, customs, and culture that surrounded me were very different than my own. This does not mean they were wrong or bad. I enjoyed eating the local food, meeting the people, and, in the case of the first trip, studying the language. But it was still foreign to me. I was an outsider, and I knew I would soon be leaving and returning to my own people and land.

The NT uses similar ideas to describe our place in this world. Peter refers to Christians as “elect exiles” and implores them “as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh” (1Pet. 1:1; 2:11). Paul reminds his readers they ought to “deal with this world as though they had no dealings with it” because it is passing away (1Cor. 7:31).

We can and should enjoy the wholesome things of this world as gifts of a good and loving God (Ecc. 3:11-13). We are not to separate from the world; we are to be salt and light within it (Matt. 5:13-16). But we must bear in mind “This world is not my home; I’m just a passin’ through. My treasures are laid up, somewhere beyond the blue.” This world is not our home, and we must beware becoming too comfortable in it. Enjoy life, and use what God provides for His glory. But know who you are, where you belong, and where you are going. –JME

Antithesis amid Commonality

For Christians are not distinguished from the rest of mankind either in locality or in speech or in customs. For they dwell not somewhere in cities of their own, neither do they use some different language, nor practise an extraordinary kind of life. Nor again do they possess any invention discovered by any intelligence or study of ingenious men, nor are they masters of any human dogma as some are. But while they dwell in cities of Greeks and barbarians as the lot of each is cast, and follow the native customs in dress and food and the other arrangements of life, yet the constitution of their own citizenship, which they set forth, is marvellous, and confessedly contradicts expectation. They dwell in their own countries, but only as sojourners; they bear their share in all things as citizens, and they endure all hardships as strangers. Every foreign country is a fatherland to them, and every fatherland is foreign. They marry like all other men and they beget children; but they do not cast away their offspring. They have their meals in common, but not their wives. They find themselves in the flesh, and yet they live not after the flesh. Their existence is on earth, but their citizenship is in heaven.

-Epistle to Diognetus 5.1-9 (mid-2^nd century)

Antithesis and commonality are two words that describe a lot about our relationship as Christians to the world in which we live. We are in the world, but not of the world, at least, not in the truest sense. “Our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Php. 3:20). We are citizens of an earthly nation (Acts 22:26-28), but this is only temporary since one day the kingdom of this world will become the kingdom of Christ (Rev. 11:15-19). One day “the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed” and judged by God (2Pet. 3:10).

We stand in contrast to the world in which we live, yet we share much in common with it. What distinguishes us as Christians is our relation to God by grace through faith. Outwardly we appear ordinary. We marry and raise children. We go to school and have jobs. We buy houses, plant gardens, go on vacations, buy new clothes, attend movies, socialize with friends, watch sports, vote in elections, and live like most others in our society. But fundamentally there is a radical difference, because none of these things define us; Christ does. We are more than the sum of our activities. Our significance is the result of God’s love. –JME

Has God Said?

When the serpent spoke to Eve in the Garden, he called into question the content, context, and consequences of God’s revealed word. “Did God actually say…?” the Devil asked. In doing so, he sought to insert doubt into the woman’s mind. Was God’s word really as settled as her husband, Adam, seemed to think? Was God protecting Adam and Eve from something dangerous, or was he actually holding out on something good? Was God’s word really an absolute law, or was it only a guideline or rule that could be disregarded with little or no ill-effects? It did not take long for Eve to decide God’s command about the tree could be disobeyed, and humanity has suffered the consequences ever since.

What worked for the serpent in the Garden continues to work in his devilish mission today. The Devil calls into question the integrity, beauty, and authority of the divine word, and fallen humanity is more willing to embrace the Devil’s lies than the Divine Lord’s law. The Bible is full of controversial, politically incorrect statements and decrees, to which men and women ask, “Did God actually say this?” By the time enlightened man finishes deconstructing the Word of God, Paul was a misogynist, Jesus was prone to make mistakes, and Adam was a fictional character.

Has God actually said? You and I have to make a decision about that. Will we trust what God has said in His word? Will we trust what the Church has confessed to believe from the mouth of God for the last two thousand years? Or will we decide we know better? Will we abandon our former confidence in the goodness of God’s revelation, discarding what we now deem as a simple, unenlightened faith for a more exciting adventure outside the borders of the Garden? Does it matter what Scripture says, or are we willing to re-interpret, revise, or otherwise ravage it?

There was really no question that day in the Garden what God had said, but Adam and Eve decided that was not enough for them. They were no longer sure God’s Word to them was for their good. They wanted something else, something more. They certainly got something else, but not anything more. Indeed, humanity has enjoyed less ever since we decided that it doesn’t really matter whether God said it or not. –JME

Ephesians 2:1-10: A Review of the Gospel

Halloween... You Mean, Reformation Day?

Halloween has become a rather controversial holiday among North American Christians in the last few decades. There are obvious questions about the moral and spiritual propriety of some things associated with and glorified by modern Halloween customs. Unfortunately, fundamentalist critiques of the holiday often include historical revisionism and extreme rhetoric suggesting any participation is a compromise with the Devil. This is inaccurate and unhelpful.

It is regrettable that so many Christians who oppose Halloween have no awareness of the Protestant significance of October 31: Reformation Day. This was the day Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the church in Wittenberg. No one could have anticipated, not even Luther himself, how significant this action would be. Luther’s 95 Theses called the Roman Church to repent in light of Scripture and launched what would be known as the Protestant Reformation.

Luther’s actions on October 31^st were so significant that Reformation Day eventually became a formal festival in Lutheran and some Reformed churches and a national holiday in Germany, Slovenia, and Chile. Whether the church should appoint a formal celebration of this anniversary as a “holy day” is debatable. (It certainly seems inconsistent with the Reformed emphasis on the Regulative Principle of Worship.) However, it is part of our history and heritage as believers. It is an event of tremendous importance that profoundly shaped both the western world and the church as we know it today. The Lord used Luther’s 95 Theses and the teaching and piety of other Reformers to bring about great awakening and revival and renewal within His Church.

We will not be having any formal celebration of Reformation Day in our services on October 25th, though we will sing A Mighty Fortress is Our God (written by Luther and traditionally sung on Reformation Day) in the morning service and Faith of Our Fathers in the evening service. But we should, at least, be aware of the historical significance of it. There is more to be said about this time of year than candy, costumes, or Christian debates about Halloween. There is history to remember, God’s providence to praise and give thanks for, and heroes to admire. Soli Deo Gloria! –JME

When Does God Rescue His People?

When the Lord led Israel out of Egypt, He put them between a rock and a hard place. Actually, it was a sea and the Egyptian army. This was a deliberate decision by the Lord (Ex. 13:17-18). There were other ways they could have gone, but God ordered their departure so that the Egyptians would be drawn out of their territory and destroyed at the sea (14:1-4). The Lord ordained this crisis to manifest His glory and power in the deliverance of His people (14:13-18, 30-31), but He literally snatched them from the jaws of death and defeat.

This story came to mind as I ruminated on a ministerial concern last night, and it occurred to me this is a recurring and consistent pattern in Scripture. Water only came from the rock when the people had run out of it. Manna fell from heaven only when there were no other options for food. The Lord raised up judges only after Israel’s enemies came in to pillage and plunder. Israel’s kings won victories only after being attacked by great armies. The Messiah came only after the covenant nation was sent into exile and returned limping, without her former glory, and in bondage to the Roman authorities.

The Lord delivers His people from danger and destruction, in the midst of crisis. He may spare us from many potential dangers (Matt. 6:13), but we rarely if ever know about any of those. He does not promise to keep us from danger. He never promises evil will not overtake us. He does promise evil will not overcome us and that He will never abandon us in the midst of it (Rom. 8:28-39; 1Cor. 10:13; Heb. 13:5-6).

When does God rescue His people? In His own time, and usually just in the nick of time. He orders our lives for His glory, not for our comfort, peace, or enjoyment. God is most visibly a great Savior when He accomplishes a great salvation. His power to deliver His people from evil and danger is most evident when the danger is greatest, when the crisis is at its climax. We should not be surprised to find ourselves teetering on the brink of total destruction. Be assured God has a purpose and plan. His power is great. His promises are sure. His purpose will not fail. Stand still, and see the salvation of the Lord. –JME

Baptism and Historical Novelty

One of the more persuasive arguments against the Reformed doctrine of paedobaptism is the charge of historical novelty. Before I became convinced the Reformed were correct to baptize the infants and children of believers as members of the visible covenant community, I would often comment that Reformed infant baptism was a beautiful idea but altogether unattested prior to the fifteenth century. The same argument is often made by Baptists in debates with paedobaptists. The indictment is this: the Reformers retained the Roman practice of infant baptism but were forced to create a new justification for it in view of their Reformed doctrine of salvation. No longer could the baptismal regeneration of infants be affirmed—as Rome and the early church, including Augustine, taught. Therefore, Calvin formulated a novel defense of baptism based on OT covenant models. This justification is unattested prior to the Reformation and misreads the NT by failing to recognize the newness of the New Covenant, or so the Baptists say.

The earliest history of the church in terms of the practice of baptism is obviously in dispute. Both Baptists and paedobaptists are convinced the historical record is on their side, but due to the occasional nature of the earliest Christian literature outside of the NT, it is unsettled whether the baptism of infants was the universal practice of the church in the first three or four centuries. What is clear is that by the fourth or fifth century infant baptism was the universal practice of both the eastern and western church and continued to be so until 1522 when the Anabaptists rejected infant baptism and launched a theological tradition that continues to this day.

So who is the historical novelist? The charge of innovation by Calvin is worthy of serious consideration. I am satisfied Calvin’s rationale is not novel and was, indeed, a reform of infant baptism along biblical, historical, and theological lines. But even if we grant that Calvin’s justification was innovative or previously unattested, how can we avoid making the same charge to the modern Baptist objection to infant baptism? No one in the early or medieval church made the argument for credobaptism that Baptists do today. In fact, the earliest critic of paedobaptism, Tertullian writing at the beginning of the third century, raises his objection on the basis of theological assumptions no modern Baptist would affirm, that post-baptism sins cannot be forgiven.[1] Moreover, Tertullian was evidently arguing against the typical (universal?) practice of the church in his day. If infant baptism was so thoroughly entrenched in the church’s practice by the beginning of the third century, a strong argument can be made for its presence in apostolic times.

The historical data must be confronted fairly, and Reformed paedobaptists must beware of reading the church fathers anachronistically in light of the Reformation. But Baptists do not have the historical high ground. Indeed, they are arriving late to the party. For the theological descendants of Hubmaier and the Anabaptists to charge Reformed paedobaptists with affirming a novel view of baptism is rather hypocritical. If anything, both the Reformed paedobaptist and the credobaptist would seem vulnerable to the same charge from Lutheran, Anglican, and even Roman Catholic theologians. Both Reformed paedobaptists and Baptists (reformed or not) believe their view of baptism is biblical and historical. The issue ultimately must be settled by exegesis, not by charges of historical novelty or anachronism, which could be argued by both sides. –JME

---

[1] Cf. Aaron Denlinger, “The First Baptist Theologian: Tertullian of Carthage (c.160 – c.225)” Reformation 21 http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2014/10/the-first-baptist-theologian-t.php (accessed March 3, 2015).