Genesis 2:18-25: A Wedding Homily on the Occasion of N--- and T---’s Marriage

When the Lord said he would make a helper (helpmeet) suitable for Adam, he used a word the OT also uses to describe Yahweh’s relationship to Israel. Yahweh is the helper of his people, and Eve would be the helper of her husband, Adam. Far from a demeaning word, it is an honorable term designating the wife’s unique covenantal status. There are differences, of course. Yahweh condescends to help his people, while Eve is equal to her husband in value and person. But she would fill a role no other creature could. A man may be well-served by his dog, his horse, and his livestock. He may benefit from the brotherhood and shared labors of other men. But none of them can ever be to and for him what his wife is to be.

The Lord knew Adam’s need could not be met by a beast, but Adam did not know that, so God led Adam on an exercise in observation. He brought all of the beasts and birds before Adam, and the man bestowed names on each of them in an exercise of his kingly rule over Eden. Adam must have seen that most of these animals came in pairs: male and female. But there was no female in the human species to share life with Adam in the garden. Adam must have also noticed that although he could talk with several of the beasts--I’m sure you know that animals could talk before the Fall--none of them were his equal in terms of intellect and moral awareness. What was Adam to do? A king needed a queen, especially one who was given a divine commission to fill and subdue the earth. Adam had been alive less than one day and already his kingdom was troubled. The first problem in the history of the world was the absence of a woman to help man in doing the work God assigned to him.

What did Adam do? He took a nap. (I’ve sometimes found this to be very helpful when facing a vexing problem that you cannot find a solution to.) In this case, God put Adam into a deep sleep, opened his side, removed a rib, and fashioned a woman from man’s own body. When Adam awoke and saw her, he was overwhelmed. This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. Where there had once been one man there were now two people, a man and a woman, destined to be reunited in covenantal and spiritual communion as husband and wife. Eve would be for Adam what no beast or bird ever could be. She would meet his needs in a way that not even another brother could. She would be more than a partner. She would be a covenant companion, co-worker, lover, and Adam’s glory (1Cor. 11:7).

Man is well-served by the lower animals in creation, but there are two things a husband and wife share that man can never enjoy with a beast or a brother. The first is rather obvious: procreation. Adam and Eve were commanded to be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it. That command cannot be obeyed except with a woman, the perversity of our present society notwithstanding. Nor can this command be fulfilled by fornication which may produce offspring but can never lead to godly fruitfulness and dominion. Only in partnership with a lawfully wedded wife can man obey God’s word to multiply, subdue, and rule over the world.

The second responsibility that man shares in a unique way with his wife may be less obvious, and that is the responsibility of prayer. All creation worships the Maker; even the demons believe and tremble. Sinful man is the lone exception. But man was made as the image of God for the purpose of worshipping and glorifying God. The beasts may worship God, but they do not join man in prayer in doing so. It is true that two men may pray together. In fact, churches are formed when groups of men gather in one place to worship the Lord. But a church is not a family, even though it is a visible gathering of the family of God, and men in the same congregation or even living under the same roof cannot give to God the worship that is fundamental to human society: family worship. Only in and through marriage can man offer a life of fruitful, multi-generational prayer to God. A monastic may devote his life to prayer, but when he dies, the fire on the altar goes out. But Adam and Noah and Abraham and Moses and David worshipped God with their wives, and their offspring continue to offer prayer to God every hour around the world to this day. There are churches in cities because there is first prayer in Christian households. See the progression in the Book of Acts. Cornelius and his household believe in Christ, and a church is established. The Philippian jailer and his household believe in Christ, and the church in Philippi grows. A lone individual may offer prayer and worship to God. But only Christian households, led in prayer by a father and mother, can bring multi-generational communities of faith into existence. The Church’s worship is supported and fueled by the worship of families during the week. Husbands and wives are joined in marriage for more than just procreation. They are joined because God wants godly offspring, children who learn to pray at home.

N--- and T---, the Lord is joining you together not merely for companionship, but for spiritual service in his kingdom. He unites you by covenant because it is not good for man to be alone. The task he has given you is much larger than either of you could ever accomplish on your own. That work is more than building a career, or a house to live in, or a retirement account so that one day you can afford to visit your grandchildren. He has called you to a life of prayer, a life of worship, a life of shared service in his kingdom, living with joy under the rule of our Lord.

Your marriage is a precious thing, something the world you live in cannot understand and, sadly, something many churches you may attend will not really understand either. This relationship is not based on mutual attraction, as pleasant as that may be. It is not based on mutual interests, as helpful as those may be. It is based on a gracious covenant, an understanding that you have been sent by God to the wilderness so that wilderness may become a garden and then a city. You cannot accomplish this by what you do. Like Adam, the first step in facing this insurmountable problem is to rest, to rest in Christ, and to know that God will do what you cannot in your own strength or resourcefulness.

Jesus fell asleep on the cross and his side was torn open so that by means of water and blood the Church, his Bride, might come into being. Christ is the Last Adam, the one who succeeded where our father failed. His victory ensures your victory. Because he has been glorified, you also will be glorified. This is the story that supports your marriage. You have no greater obligation, no greater task, and no greater joy than to live a life of prayer and service together in the presence of God and for his glory. May he always bless you in doing so. Amen. --JME

A Brief Overview of Monasticism

Chapel Talk -- October 13, 2021: Introduction to Monasticism

(Mark 8:34-38)

This was written for a weekly chapel service at a local Christian school. The target audience includes students from Kindergarten to 12th grade, the faculty, and a few parents and grandparents that sometimes attend. It is obviously not a scholarly analysis but is meant to be devotional and practical for school aged children.

Introduction

This week we are thinking about monasticism. I want to give you a broad overview of when, where, and how monasticism developed, talk about some of its main features, critique some of its negative aspects, and suggest a few lessons we can learn from the monastic tradition that may be helpful in our Christian life. There are still monastics today, but I will focus on the movement historically.

Overview of Monasticism

First, what is monasticism? Monasticism refers to the devotion practiced by monks and nuns. It is the complete dedication of oneself to God, historically by renouncing an ordinary life and personal possessions and living a life of prayer and contemplation either in solitude or with other monastics. The term comes from the Greek word μοναχός which means single or solitary. Monasticism first appeared in the early AD 300s. Some people will suggest some characters in Scripture who were a type of monks whose example the monastic tradition follows, but this is reading the Bible anachronistically, i.e. reading later traditions back into the Bible where they do not actually appear. In fact, there have been monastic traditions in many world religions, including Hinduism and Buddhism, so it is not surprising that some of these practices were adopted by some Christians. But the practice did not originate with the Bible but came from other, external factors.

The Church experienced intermittent and sometimes very severe persecution in the first 300 years of its existence, but after Constantine declared an end to the persecution, Christianity became very popular in the Roman world. Many people became Christians who were not really devoted to following Christ. It was convenient to be a Christian, even if it was not really a matter of faith for some of those converts. As the visible Church became more and more worldly, there began to be more and more Christians who wished to devote themselves fully to God in a life of holiness.

The earliest monastics first appeared in Egypt. These were the Desert Fathers. Anthony, whose biography we mentioned last month since it was written by Athanasius, was the most famous, though he wanted to live in solitude and not be widely or well-known. Anthony had once been a fairly wealthy man, but after hearing the story of the rich young ruler, he decided to sell all his possessions, give the money to the poor, and live in solitary devotion to God in the wilderness. This isn’t exactly how we are supposed to apply the lessons of that story, but we can appreciate Anthony’s sincerity. There were already some Christians living in solitude in the desert, but many more followed after Anthony’s example.

There are two basic types of monasticism practiced by Christians. (These could be divided into several more kinds, but two will suffice for our purposes today.) Anchorites were monks who lived in solitude or mostly in solitude. Cenobites were monks who lived in communities dedicated to the practice of monastic devotion.

There are different features to the devotion practiced by different monastic groups, and later orders of monastics would be established with each group having its own emphases. But we can broadly summarize the main features under six headings, at least five of which were shared by all the different groups. First, celibacy: monastics were committed to living in singleness and sexual purity. Some of them even left their wives in order to become monks. Second, poverty: monastics were committed to renouncing earthly goods. Some of the communities might have possessions, but the individual monks would have nothing except a garment and, perhaps, a Bible. Sometimes they would not even have those. Third, asceticism: monastics believed that extreme self denial, refusing bodily comforts and pleasures, and even mistreatment of their bodies would make them more holy. Fourth, separation: monastics were committed to separating from human society and ordinary life. Some of them would interact with people in towns, others would not, but all of them shared a commitment to being aloof from the rest of the world. Fifth, prayer: monastics devoted most of their time throughout the day and night to prayer and contemplation. This would include memorizing large portions of Scripture, frequently the entire Book of Psalms and the NT. Sixth, in the case of cenobites living in a commune, obedience: monastics would vow complete obedience to their superior, usually the chief monk in the community.

Monasticism has a number of negative features, but there were also many positive results. Monks copied the Scriptures carefully and preserved not only the Bible but many ancient works of literature and Christian writings that we continue to benefit from today. Monasticism preserved and advanced learning and culture during times when upheaval in the world threatened it. Some monks also became great teachers and reformers within the Church, including Martin Luther who was a monk when he became a Protestant.

Critique of Monasticism

There are a number of positive things we could say about monasticism, but there are also some negative things we must say. First, monasticism depends on a twofold concept of morality. This means that there are varying levels of devotion that might be acceptable to God, and that some are better than others. So an ordinary Christian might be able to be married and have a house and a job, but the monk is much holier because he has none of those things. It is true that God calls Christians to different types of service, but this is not because of a difference in the moral value of those choices, only because the Lord does not give everyone the same job in the kingdom.

Second, monasticism depends on the idea of asceticism. Remember that asceticism is the belief that self denial and mistreating the body will make you holy. There is a type of asceticism that is good and commanded by God. We see that in Mark 8:34. But you are not more holy because you never eat Oreos or because you stay up all night or because you sleep on the ground. It is good to practice self discipline. But these kinds of manmade rules do not make a person more pleasing to God.

Third, monasticism denies the moral and spiritual value of enjoying the good things God has given to us. It is certainly possible for us to indulge too much in the pleasures of this world. But pleasure itself is not the problem; it is our sinful desires and idolatrous misuse of God’s good gifts that are wrong. God meant for marriage, food, rest, and friendship to be enjoyed. Monasticism views these as lesser goods, but God made the world very good, and even though it is marred and cursed by sin, we glorify him by enjoying his good gifts with thanksgiving.

Application

What can we learn positively from monasticism? I think the answer is a lot! Even though there is a lot to criticize in the monastic tradition, there are also a lot of good lessons we can learn. First, we can learn a more rigorous commitment to holiness. It is easy to make excuses about our sin and to think lightly about the demands of discipleship. Monasticism reminds us that being a Christian means following Christ in every aspect of our life, every day, and all day and all night.

Second, we can learn to pursue a simpler and less worldly life. You do not have to sell everything that you own and actually live in the desert, but most of us would probably benefit from having less stuff and caring a lot less about our stuff. Getting rid of some of our worldly possessions can free up our minds and our time for the things of God.

Third, we can learn to spend more time in prayer and spiritual contemplation. Most monastics would pray the entire Book of Psalms once a week or every two weeks. They would pray at fixed hours every day, including in the middle of the night. They would organize their entire day around prayer and direct their thoughts to God throughout the day no matter what else they were doing. You may not follow the same rules for prayer that they did, but their example reminds us that we should seek to live a life of prayer and not merely to have a prayer life. Amen. --JME

2021 Reading: Q3 Review

It is almost two weeks late, but I am finally posting a review of my reading in the third quarter of 2021. As in the first quarter and second quarter reviews, I will not be listing everything I read but only providing a snapshot and mentioning a few highlights. I previously explained my plan for reading in 2021 and the way in which I log books.

The third quarter was my largest volume of reading so far this year measured simply by the number of books read. This is not the best way to measure the quality and quantity of one’s reading, but it is the metric we are using here. In the third quarter I read thirty-three books: ten in July, fourteen in August, and nine in September. I have read eight so far in the first eleven days of October, so the numbers in the fourth quarter could go even higher, but I plan to shift my reading in the last two months of the year to longer and denser works which will bring the total number down somewhat.

My third quarter reading included nine works of theology, one volume of philosophy, three works of history, five classics, two on current events, four biographies, two on personal development related themes, and two others from the list of books I reread each year. These last were the last two volumes of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. I cannot describe how bittersweet it is to finish this series each year. It is simultaneously thrilling and deeply satisfying while also frustrating my evening reading for sometime after. Three weeks later I still have not settled comfortably into my next evening reader.

My reading plan for the year has been fairly successful overall. There will be several changes to it for 2022, but the distribution and categorization this year has been helpful. I have already read almost twice as many volumes of theology, biography, and classic literature as I originally planned. Other categories have not been as useful as I thought, so I will modify my goals there in the future. But the general strategy has proven sound and useful in directing my reading. Those who wish to read more or read more profitably would be well-advised to adopt a similar strategy. Plan the types of books you want to read, set specific and manageable goals for each category, and then track your reading through the year.

Here are three highlights from the third quarter that merit special mention.

First, Voddie Baucham’s Fault Lines is a must-read for those wishing to understand the current controversy in conservative, evangelical, and Reformed churches over Critical Race Theory and social justice. It is not the only book that ought to be read on these issues, but it may be the most useful for the majority of Christians. Dr. Baucham has done the church a great service in analyzing, summarizing, and documenting the movement in its proponents’ own words. I highly recommend it and would encourage elders and deacons especially to read it.

Second, Ned Stonehouse’s biography of J. Gresham Machen is a classic within the OPC, but I had never read it until this summer. It was interesting, informative, and surprising in a number of ways. I never realized how firmly rooted in the southern Presbyterian tradition Machen was, and though I had some sense previously, Stonehouse’s biography demonstrated even more convincingly that the man who was the catalyst in the formation of the OPC would likely be criticized as a “culture warrior” by some members of the denomination today.

Third, on a much lighter note, Mark Eddy Smith’s Tolkien’s Ordinary Virtues is a brief primer on theological and philosophical virtues found in the best-known tales of Middle Earth. Written like a devotional, the chapters are brief but useful in recognizing themes in Tolkien’s rich trilogy. The chapter on Atonement is sadly confused, though there are still valuable insights to be gleaned even there. I have already given two copies away to friends and likely will again. It is a short and easy read but an edifying one.

The three volumes listed above were not necessarily the most enjoyable or profitable from my third quarter reading, but there are ones I think most of the readers of this blog would probably find useful. Before closing this review, I should also mention Diane Langberg’s Redeeming Power which I also read in the third quarter. I do not include it as an honorable mention but because Dr. Langberg’s work has lately been promoted within OPC circles, something that in light of this book’s content I find both alarming and appalling. Redeeming Power is largely shaped and informed by the framework of Critical Theory. It contains a number of theological errors--a reminder that many people writing theological works today are ill-equipped and unqualified to do so. The perspective on Theology Proper found within the book is explicitly contrary to the Westminster Confession, which raises the question why Dr. Langberg is being sought out and given a platform by leaders in a confessional denomination. I will not attempt a thorough review here, but the content is a mixture of unremarkable statements on egregious abuse, conflation and confusion of kinds and categories of abuse, sweeping and systemic denunciation of religious institutions, and a caustic and condescending tone. It is unhelpful, problematic, errant, and divisive. --JME