Invest into climate funds

with Eurobitz coins

 from Archbishop Dr. Uwe AE.Rosenkranz


There are several ways to invest on money market.

  1. stock trading
  2. Las Vegas gambling
  3. pay Your social medicare for rental pension
  4. real estate
  5. closed funds
  6. open funds 

But here comes a new kind of investment:

Pls watch the entire video by Archbishop Dr. Uwe AE.Rosenkranz


For more information , pls visit our site:


Thank You.




Published: April 5, 2017, 14:33 | Comments Off on A short history of mine- Archbishop Dr. Uwe AE.Rosenkranz
Category: Uncategorized

Archbishop Dr. Uwe AE.Rosenkranz

presents his March Message 2017

for Elite Xtreme Status updates

Coat of ARMS



Jede Sache hat seine Zeit.

Früher waren mit Titel, Abzeichen, Ränge und Orden nicht wichtig.

GOTT sprach damals durch den Leiter der charismatischen Christen in Europa:

Was Dir der Widersacher geraubt hat, muß er vielfach zurückgeben.

Diese Verheissung wurde öfter wiederholt und von

anderen Leitern und Propheten bestätigt und spezifiziert.

Deshalb habe ich jetzt, als ich in die Rolle,

das Amt und die Bezeichnung Papst Simon Petrus II

und als Haupt des Schengen-Imperiums gelobt und eingesetzt wurde,

nicht etwa protestiert, sondern habe diese Gnade mit Dank und Demut angenommen.

Sicher- wenn auch die äusseren Umstände

anders aussehen- im Glauben ergreifen wir das, was wir nicht sehen,

aber auf das wir hoffen, daß es bald eintrifft, 

mit froher Erwartung und guter Zuversicht.


In diesem Sinne empfehle ich Ihnen meine

März-Botschaft 2017.

Für weitere Infos bitte eintragen

in den Verteilen für elektronische




Published: March 9, 2017, 15:42 | Comments Off on In eigener Sache , ROSARY News (german) by Archbishop Dr. Uwe AE.Rosenkranz
Category: Uncategorized

Published: March 6, 2017, 14:39 | Comments Off on MarchMessage 2017 by Archbishop Dr. Uwe AE.Rosenkranz, PSPS II
Category: Uncategorized

“The End of the Earth” (Acts 1:8)



To Uwe Rosenkranz have been granted the above mentioned titles.

Time to remember the commandement, JESUS gave to his disciples in Acts 1:8:


As has long been recognized, the book of Acts was organized to depict, among other things, the geographical progress of the Christian message from Jerusalem through Judea and Samaria to the lands of Syria, Asia Minor, Greece and Rome. In this respect it presents the expansion of the Christian witness from the center of Judaism to the center of the Roman Empire, from the mission to Palestinian Jews to the mission to Jews and Gentiles of the diaspora. Luke, the author of Acts and sometime companion and co-worker of Paul, devotes almost all of the latter part of his work to the Pauline mission. But he pictures Paul’s ministry as arising from his teachings in the synagogue and, consequently, as directed to Jews as well as to Gentiles. Even in the last chapter of Acts Luke represents the Apostle’s initial preaching at Rome as primarily devoted to his appeal to the Jews, some of whom “were persuaded … and some disbelieved.” The book of Acts, then, does not describe a transition of the Christian mission from the Jews to the Gentiles since Jews are recipients of the message throughout the book. If Acts, like Paul’s letter to the Romans, underscores the rejection of the gospel message by the majority of the Jewish religious leaders and by the nation, it does not omit the continuing positive response of many individual Jews. This fact is important for a proper interpretation of Acts 1:8: You shall be my witnesses In Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria And to the end of the earth (ἐχάτου τῆς γῆς). The Isaian wording of the concluding phrase may reflect a summary of the risen Jesus’ commission to his disciples in terms of the Servant of the Lord in Isa 49:6 or it may be Luke’s interpretive rendering. In either case it is a conscious allusion by Luke to the verse in Isaiah where the phrase has a geographical connotation: I will give you as a light to the Gentiles That my salvation may reach To the end of the earth (ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς). The prophecy in Isaiah is not merely that the Servant’s mission of salvation will include Gentiles but, much more, that in the course of including Gentiles the mission will extend “to the end of the earth.” As it is taken up in Acts 13:47, the prophecy retains the same double motif, Gentile inclusion and earth-wide extension. In Acts 1:8 the abbreviated form, “to the end of the earth,” has only geographical connotations even if there are secondary implications for the inclusion of Gentiles. Therefore, it cannot be equated with the risen Jesus’ commission in Matt 28:19 to “go and make disciples of all nations,” that is, to go to the Gentiles. If the structure of Acts and the force of the idiom, ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς are geographical, what is the location that is in Luke’s mind? Since Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria are specific places, probably the “end of the earth” is also. For two reasons the reference is understood by some scholars to be Rome.10 (1) It fits the plan of Acts which ends at Rome, and (2) it accords with the (assumed) meaning of the phrase in Pss Sol 8:15 (16) LXX: [God] brought someone from the end of the earth … He decreed war against Jerusalem. “The end of the earth” is thought by some writers to refer to Pompey’s coming from Rome to overrun Jerusalem in 63 B.C. But for at least three reasons this suggestion is unacceptable. First, in the context the phrase is probably an allusion to Jer 6:22 where “end of the earth” is used with reference to the Babylonian conquest. The Psalms of Solomon, like the Qumran Commentary on Habakkuk, identifies Babylon, as a type, with Rome or with the Romans and does so fully a century before the Apostle Peter and John the prophet make this equation.12 Second, in its application to Pompey the phrase could refer to Spain since Pompey came to the East in 67 B.C. after a command in Spain (77–71 B.C.). Third, the phrase “end(s) of the earth” had a common and apparently fixed meaning that was used of Spain but could by no means apply to the capital city of the Roman Empire. II In classical antiquity the inhabited earth was pictured as a disc surrounded by the “Outer Sea” (ὠκεανός). “The ends of the earth” (τὰ ἔσχατα τῆς γῆς) referred, as W. C. van Unnik has shown, to the most distant points on the rim of the disc, for example, the Arctic on the North, India on the East, Ethiopia on the South and Spain on the West.15 A computer search that I made of the phrase in Thesaurus Linguae Grecae fully confirms van Unnik’s findings. The expression has that significance in the Septuagint and in the Patristic writers (often quoting the Septuagint), where the phrase most often appears in Greek literature. It was used in the same way in the classical writers and apparently retained this geographical meaning from the fifth century B.C. to the sixth century A.D. Thus, Herodotus († c. 420 B.C.) speaks of an army going down through Ethiopia to “the ends of the earth” (τὰ ἔσχατα γῆς), and a millennium later Procopius († c. A.D. 560) speaks of Roman soldiers on the eastern frontier of Persia and India as being “at the ends of the inhabited world” (ταῖς τῆς οἰκουμε̄νης ἐσχαταῖς). Writing near the turn of the first century, the geographer Strabo († c. A.D. 21) makes this understanding of the phrase very clear: [The] inhabited world is an island. For wherever it has been possible for man to reach the ends of the earth (τὰ ἔσχατα τῆς γῆς), sea has been found. And this sea we call “Oceanus.” Citing Homer, he writes thus of the southern bounds of the earth: [The] Ethiopians live at the ends of the earth on the banks of Oceanus (ἐπὶ τῷ ὠκεανῲ ἔσχατοι). Concerning the “end of the earth” westward Strabo is even more specific: Gades is “situated at the end of the earth” (ἐσχάτη τῆς γῆς). Gades was a prestigious city and the commercial hub of the western reaches of the Roman Empire. It was located west of Gibraltar near the modern Cadiz, Spain, in the area that Strabo had earlier identified with equivalent terminology: [The] promontory of Iberia which they call the Sacred Cape is the most westerly point of the inhabited world (δυσμικώτατον τῆς οἰκουμένης). Diodorus Siculus († c. 20 B.C.) described Gades in similar terms: The city of Gadeira [Gades] is situated at the end of the inhabited world (τά ἔσχατα τῆς οἰκουμένης). Pausanius († c. A.D. 180) makes a more general allusion to the exile of the Messenians, who returned to Greece after “fate scattered them to the ends of the earth” (γῆς τὰ ἔσχατα), that is, to Italy, Sicily and western lands (εὐεσπερίτας). The “western lands” also probably refer to Spain. In conclusion, the use of the phrase, “end(s) of the earth,” in Greek literature confirms the initial exegetical impression stated above that the phrase in Acts 1:8 must have a geographical significance. In its westward extent “the end of the earth” refers generally to Spain and specifically to the region around Gades, west of Gibraltar. This usage rules out the view that the phrase in Acts alludes to Rome. A reference to Rome at Acts 1:8 is also excluded by two further considerations. First, Rome does not mark the extent or the completion of the Christian mission in Acts, but only a new base from which the gospel will be continued further “without hindrance” (Acts 28:31, ἀκωλύτως). Second, if Rome might possibly have been termed the “end of the earth” by a parochial Psalmist in Jerusalem, it could never have been called that by Luke, who had been in the capital and who wrote in the diaspora to Theophilus (Acts 1:1), a cosmopolitan patron who may have resided at Rome and who, in any case, would have thought it absurd to give such a designation to the ruling center of the Empire. III If “the end of the earth” in Acts 1:8 refers to a specific place on the rim of the world, only two locations come into serious consideration, Ethiopia on the South and Spain on the West. The former place has been suggested on the basis of the episode of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:26–40. It is supported by Luke’s explicit statement that the eunuch was “returning” (8:28) to his land, and that after his conversion and baptism he “was going on his way” (8:39, ἐπορεύετο τὴν ὁδόν). However, against identifying Ethiopia as the place in mind at Acts 1:8 are the following considerations: (1) At most, Luke portrays only a prospective evangelization of Ethiopia by an otherwise insignificant representative figure. (2) He places the episode in the midst of the Christian missionary enterprise “in Judea and Samaria” and (3) gives no further attention to the movement of Christianity southward. (4) On the whole he structures the latter half of his work around the mission of Paul and that means, geographically, the movement of Christianity westward. Is there evidence that may support the view that in Acts 1:8 Luke has in mind the western “end of the earth,” that is, Spain? It is the Apostle himself who first refers to Spain as the western goal of his mission. Writing to the Christians in Rome, he says: When I go to Spain I hope to see you in passing. Clement of Rome, a younger contemporary of Paul, who wrote a letter to Paul’s church at Corinth a few years (c. A.D. 70) or a few decades (c. A.D. 95) after the Apostle’s martyrdom in Rome (c. A.D. 67), is the earliest and best evidence that Paul did in fact fulfil his intention to undertake a mission to Spain. He summarizes the Apostle’s achievements in part as follows: Having become a preacher in the East and in the West (τῇ δύσει) [Paul] received the noble (γενναῖον) renown of his faith Having taught righteousness in the whole world Having reached the limits of the West (τὸ τέρμα τῆς δῡσεως) And having witnessed before the governing authorities Thus he departed from the world And was received up into the holy place.… In writings of the classical period the phrase, τὸ τέρμα τῆς γῆς, was an idiom equivalent to ἔσχατα τῆς γῆς. Like the latter phrase such terminology referred in its westward reference most often to Spain (and sometimes to Gaul or Britain) but, for the reasons mentioned above, never to Rome.32 The following examples may suffice to illustrate this usage: [Ephorus] imagined that the Iberians, who dwell in such a large part of the western world (ἐσπερίου τῆς), were a single city. The distance from East to West (δύσιν) [is] greater … From India to Iberia is less than 200,000 stadia … The first part of Europe is the Western (ἐσπέριον), namely, Iberia [The Greeks] say that the Western section [of the world] is from the Gulf of Issus [east of Tarsus] to the capes of Iberia, which are the most westerly parts (δυσμικώτατα). The regions to the West (δύσιν) of Europe as far as Gades … The temple of Hercules in Gades [is said to be] … the end of both earth and sea (γῆς καὶ θαλάττης τὸ πέρας). The city of Gades is located at the limits of Europe (τὸ τῆς Ευρώπης τέρμα). You have come from the Pillars of Hercules [= the straits of Gibraltar] From the Ocean and From the uttermost limits of the earth (terminisque ultimis terrarum). The last four examples show, I believe, that in its specific reference τὸ τέρμα τῆς δῡσεως; in I Clem 5:7, like the westward reference of ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς in Acts 1:8, refers to the region around Gades, west of Gibraltar. IV In view of the meaning of “end of the earth” in the Greco-Roman literature, the phrase in Acts 1:8 almost certainly alludes to the extension of the Gospel to Spain and, more specifically, to the city of Gades. The command is, of course, addressed to the apostles as a whole and not to Paul, and one might argue that it refers to “the ends of the earth,” that is, to the extent of their missions generally, with the singular ἐσχάτου employed as an allusion to Isa 49:6. However, in Acts 13:47 Luke explicitly applies to the Pauline mission the commission to the “end of the earth” and thereby specifies the apostle who will be the one to fulfil the command in his contribution to the church’s expanding mission. Furthermore, he does not hesitate to alter the Old Testament text elsewhere, for example in Acts 2:17–21, to highlight his interpretation or application of it. If he had wished to indicate the spread of the gospel to the bounds of the earth universally, he could easily have utilized the plural ἐσχάτων or ἐχάτους without foreclosing the allusion to Isaiah, especially at Acts 13:47. In the light of these factors, of the total plan of Acts and of the equivalent idiom in I Clem 5:7, Luke very probably used the singular intentionally and with contemporary geographical usage in mind, that is, “the end of the earth” as it was applied to Gades and to the adjacent region at the extreme limits of the West. If the author of Acts is Luke, he doubtless knew of Paul’s plans for a Spanish mission. If he wrote before the mission was undertaken, say A.D. 62–63, or when it was in progress, the open-ended conclusion of Acts would, to some extent, be clarified. In that case Luke did not mention the mission to Gades because, as he finished his volume, it was still outstanding. If he wrote after Paul’s mission to Spain but during the Neronian persecution (A.D. 65–68), he may well have had other reasons for ending his book without explicitly mentioning either Paul’s release or a subsequent Spanish mission. If he wrote after A.D. 68, however, it is more difficult to perceive why he would create or record a preview of the gospel going to Gades and then say nothing more about it. As both J. B. Lightfoot and Adolf Harnack46 recognized, Paul’s release from his first Roman imprisonment is a basic historical fact from which critical reconstructions of early Christian history should proceed. That his release was followed by a journey to Spain is well attested in I Clem 5:7 and is entirely in accord with Paul’s earlier mission strategy known from the book of Acts and from his letters. Paul established churches in hub-cities that were centers of trade and transport or were on well-traveled arteries of the Roman road system—Philippi, Thessalonica, Corinth, Ephesus. Thereby, he was able to evangelize not only the local populace but also merchants, travelers and visitors passing through. In his concern to evangelize Spain he would, following his earlier practice, have considered Gades the prime location for his purposes. Settled by Phoenicians, Gades in Paul’s day was an allied Roman municipium that Strabo rated in the density of its populace, in wealth and in prestige as the second city of the Roman world. It was a major commercial center connected to other Spanish cities by “a splendid road system” (Albertini) and with fishing and merchant ships plying their trade along the western coasts of Europe and Africa and as far north as Britain.49 It maintained a flourishing seatraffic with Rome, which in good weather was only a seven-day voyage, and it may have exported fish as far east as Palestine.51 There is little evidence for Jewish settlements in Spain in the first century. Josephus states in one place that Antipas was exiled there in A.D. 39, and a later rabbinic tradition says that a temple-weaver migrated there after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The best evidence for a Jewish presence in Spain is Paul’s stated intention in Rom 15:24, 28 to go there since he customarily preached first to Jews and God-fearers in the synagogue. This is also sufficient answer to the objection that Paul would not have been fluent in the language(s) used at Gades. With the phrase, “the end of the earth,” in Acts 1:8 Luke signals his knowledge of a (prospective) Pauline mission to Spain and his intention to make it a part of his narrative. For reasons that are not altogether clear, he concludes his book without mentioning the Spanish mission. If he wrote before A.D. 68, the omission can be explained. It is less easy to do so if he wrote after that date. To the various reasons advanced by numerous scholars for an early date for Acts, Acts 1:8 now adds one more. All of the arguments together lead me, after some consideration, to revise my dating of Luke-Acts from an earlier judgment of “about A.D. 70” to a date in the mid-sixties. Ellis, E. E. (1991). “The End of the Earth” (Acts 1:8). Bulletin for Biblical Research, Vol. 1, 123–132.img_1601

Published: January 31, 2017, 10:15 | Comments Off on End of the earth- Acts 1:8, Uwe Rosenkranz
Category: Uncategorized

Ezra and Nehemiah in the Light of the Texts from Persepolis


Between the years of 1931 and 1939 a major excavation of Persepolis, one of the capitals of the Achaemenid empire, was undertaken by the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. During the course of these excavations, many discoveries of texts were made, of which three are of particular concern to us here. The first and largest group to be unearthed was found initially by accident during the third season (1933), when E. E. Herzfeld was still leader of the excavation. “When leveling debris for the construction of a road, Herzfeld discovered great numbers of cuneiform tablets in the northeastern remnants of the Terrace fortification.” These “remnants” proved to have been a bastion on the northern edge of the terrace, the tablets being located in its southeastern portion. In 1935, when E. F. Schmidt had succeeded Herzfeld as director, work was begun on the Treasury, and here in 1936 a further, though much smaller, group of tablets was found in Room 33. Finally, principally in Hall 38 of the Treasury, a number of (probably) ritual objects, such as pestles, mortars and plates, were discovered. Made of a hard green stone known as (impure) chert, and usually highly polished, many of these objects were found to have Aramaic inscriptions written on them. Although the three groups of texts, and especially the fortification and treasury tablets, share a number of points in common, it is important to distinguish carefully their individual characteristics. Most obviously distinctive is the small group of about 200 texts in Aramaic (not all legible). Cameron was the first to study these texts, and he came to the conclusion that they referred to the delivery of the objects on which they were written at Persepolis. Bowman, however, to whom was entrusted the publication of the material, rejected this conclusion in favor of the view that they described the objects’ use in the religious haoma ceremony. Subsequent study has vindicated Cameron’s basic approach, so that although several differences of opinion, to say nothing of a number of obscurities, remain in the realm of detail, the general approach that should be taken to these texts is now agreed. For instance, instead of Bowman’s translation of text no. 18: בסרך בירתא ליד מתרך סגנא 1) In the ritual of the fortress, beside Mithraka the segan, בגפשת / עבד סחר זנה רב/ 2) I Bago-paušta used this plate, a large one, [ליד ב] גפת גנזברא קדם מזדדת 3) [beside Ba]ga-pāta the treasurer (and) before Mazda-data אפגנזברא אשכר שנתי /// /// /// 4) the sub-treasurer. ’škr of year 19 we should probably translate along the lines: 1) In the fortress of Sāruka, (which is) under the authority of Mithraka the prefect, 2) I Bago-paušta handed over this plate, a large one, 3) under the authority of/to (or ‘made for’) Baga-pāta the treasurer in the presence of Mazda-dāta 4) the sub-treasurer (as) tribute/a gift of year 19. The texts are dated to the years 479/78–436/35 B.C. or perhaps a little later, during the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes I, so that they overlap with the work of Ezra and Nehemiah on a traditional dating. By far the largest group of texts, of which over two thousand have been published to date, are the so-called fortification tablets, which date from the earlier period of 509–494 B.C. Being written in Elamite, they are by no means perfectly understood, but the number of them, together with the degree of overlap between one text and another, means that there is no doubt about the general situation. For the most part they record receipts or payments in kind for a variety of purposes. Their discovery in the ‘fortifications’ of Persepolis is an explicable accident of history which has no bearing on the fact that they give us a direct insight into various aspects of administration at one of the Achaemenid capital cities. The situation with regard to the treasury tablets is not dissimilar. Published in a variety of works by G. G. Cameron, they date from 492–458 B.C. The chief difference from the fortification tablets is that payments are now made in cash rather than in kind. So far as I can tell, this wealth of material has largely been ignored by biblical scholars, and even occasional references that may be found in commentaries hardly do justice to their potential. In what follows I cannot, of course, attempt fully to remedy this situation. The most I can set out to achieve is to draw attention to the relevance and scope of this material, in the hope that others with the necessary linguistic skills may be able later to refine what will, I fear, be seen in retrospect as a very crude comparison. Towards the conclusion of my 1987 Tyndale Biblical Archaeology Lecture, I made a start on this comparison by suggesting six ways in which the Persepolis material could help forward our understanding of Neh 5:14–19. I shall not repeat that discussion here, but will provide rather an introduction to three more general topics—language, religion, and travel—while emphasizing once more that this is far from an exhaustive survey. 1) Language We may begin by noting, then, that despite the geographical distance which separates Arachosia from Judah, there are several points of contact between the language of the Aramaic texts from Persepolis and that of Ezra and Nehemiah. This is due, of course, to the fact that both reflect the current language of Persian administration, and to that extent little is added to what was already known or strongly surmised from other sources. Thus, for instance, we have the regular opening of the texts with b + place name + byrt’, “in the fortress of X,” to set alongside be’aẖmeta’ bîrta’ of Ezra 6:22 and the Hebrew bešûšan habbîra of Neh 1:1; the official title gnzbr’, “the treasurer,” to compare with Hebrew haggizbār at Ezra 1:8 and the Aramaic plural gizzabrayyā’ at Ezra 7:21; the use of the anarthrous kl in the summary of a list, which may help explain the unusual Hebrew kol-kēlîm at Ezra 1:11; and the use of PN + šmh (literally, “his name”) to mean “a man named PN,” exactly like šēšbas̱s̱ar šemēh at Ezra 5:14. Although we should not, therefore, expect any major new advance of understanding in this area, there are nevertheless a few matters, of which we will here consider three examples, concerning which our texts can add clarification. To take first the idiom just referred to, Clines has observed that it “is found regularly in contemporary papyri in reference to slaves,” from which he concludes that “the possibility must be considered that he (Sheshbazzar) was a high-ranking Babylonian official of slave status.”26 Hinz, however, has made out a strong case for the suggestion that those so designated in the Persepolis texts were wealthy nobles in the area of the three named fortresses who regarded it as a privilege to supply the vessels needed for the periodic festival at Persepolis. If he is right, then, of course, no deductions can be drawn from the use of this idiom about the social status of the individuals concerned.28 We might surmise that it was used rather in cases where the individual was unknown personally to the recipient of the document, for in our texts it is striking that it is only used in connection with the donors of the vessels, whose names are hardly ever repeated, but never in connection with the various officials, whose names recur frequently and who would have been known to others in the state bureaucracy. This would also, of course, readily explain its use with slaves—and with Sheshbazzar in the context presupposed by Ezra 5:14. Second, light can be shed from these texts on the troublesome ’eben gelāl referred to in connection with the building of the temple at Ezra 5:8 and 6:4, and which has generally been translated into English by “large stones” or the like. A number of other translations have been proposed, however, among which we may notice most recently the suggestion that the reference is to cobble or rubble fill in connection with what is known as pier-and-rubble construction.31 In something like a quarter of the Aramaic texts from Persepolis, the objects described are said to be zy gll, which Bowman translates “of stone.” In some cases, a further modifier is added, varying from one text to another. Sometimes an adjective is used, and on other occasions another noun joined by zy. The meaning of these words is uncertain, but the suggestion that the first group refers to something like coloring or patterning and the second to the type of stone seems reasonable. On the basis of this material, together with the evidence collected concerning Akkadian galālu for the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, Bowman wrote an article in 1965 arguing, inter alia, that (i) a distinction should be drawn between galālu (and some later Aramaic uses of gll) meaning “pebble,” “cobble,” and the many passages in Akkadian of the Persian period where such a meaning is inappropriate; he reckoned Ezra 5:8 and 6:4 among the latter; (ii) because of the variety of objects described by gll (including stelae, pillars, window frames and dishes), gll cannot refer to either the shape or type of stone: it “should be translated simply as ‘stone,’ without further specification” (67); (iii) the use of ’bn should be regarded as a determinative; whether or not gll once had a more specific meaning, by the time of Ezra, with or without the determinative ’bn, it simply meant “stone.” Although Bowman’s article is a helpful collection of material and is certainly moving in the right direction, its conclusion nevertheless raises two particular difficulties. First, Aramaic is not Akkadian, and to speak of ’eben as “a determinative” is inappropriate. It is simply not a usage that would have been recognized by Aramaic speaking Jews in Judah. Whatever its history, the phrase must have meant something more to them than just “stone,” for which ’eben alone would have sufficed. Secondly, Delaunay has argued that “stone” is also inappropriate for gll in the Persepolis texts on the ground that it would be superfluous, and even absurd, so to qualify certain vessels when in fact they are all made of stone in any case. (It should be remembered, however, that the Persians were obsessed with bureaucratic pedantry, so that Delaunay’s objection may not be so strong as at first appears.) Delaunay thus returns to a proposal of Herzfeld that, in accordance with the root meaning of gll, the reference is to turning or polishing, and so work that might attract extra remuneration. This suggestion seems to fit the varied uses of both gll and galālu, and one may well imagine how it could come to be used without the pedantically correct use of ’eben, “stone,” with it; compare, for instance, how we regularly speak of “hardback” and “paperback” without thereby implying that either is the exact equivalent of “book.” Bowman seems to have fallen into the trap of asserting that “all gll is ’bn, therefore all ’bn is gll.” Thus “dressed/hewn/polished stone” seems appropriate for the Biblical occurrences. A final line of support for this understanding may come from an Aramaic gloss on one of the fortification tablets. PFT 1587 is translated by Hallock, “185 (BAR of) grain, supplied by Hatarbanus, Ramakka received. It was taken (to) Persepolis (for) rations of makers of stone (sculptures). Second month, … th year.” The Aramaic gloss reads rmk ybl prs ptp lnqry gll, and is translated (apparently by Bowman; cf. PFT p. 82) “Ramakka brought (it to) Persepolis, (for) rations of diggers of stone.” The Elamite text, however, as Hallock’s bracketed explanation suggests, implies something more than just quarrymen, for which other terms are used (cf. PTT 9); the word in question translated “makers” is elsewhere used with such other finished products as wine and oil. The Aramaic translation nqr can reasonably fit with this, for although in all the cognate languages the root can have the meaning “to quarry, bore,” it is also used, both in Aramaic and Akkadian, for carving stone or the like. Indeed, when it is thought by Bowman to occur in a very damaged text on one of his mortars (no. 160), he translates “chiseled(?),” and comments, “The word nqwr may be from the root nqr meaning ‘to chisel,’ ‘to shape stones by chiseling,’ ‘to whet a millstone.’ ” It may be suggested that here again the evidence is best explained if gll means not just “stone,” but stone that has been worked in some particular manner. A final area where our texts may help towards a better understanding of the vocabulary of Ezra and Nehemiah derives, strangely enough, not from the Aramaic texts at all, but the Elamite. Not infrequently in the records of payments in kind to some individual, there is reference also to what Hallock translates as his “boys” (puhu); for instance, we are told concerning Parnaka, a well-known senior official, that “Daily (by) Parnaka together with his boys 48 BAR is received. (By) Parnaka himself 18 BAR is received. (By) his 300 boys 1 QA each is received.” There is a good deal of evidence, however, that “boy” is a reference to status rather than age. For instance, though rations vary, theirs are often as much as an adult male, they receive rations of wine, they do “men’s” work, and occasionally are even referred to in the same text as “men” (ruh). It thus looks as though puhu has a similar semantic range as Hebrew na’ar in Nehemiah 4 and 5 (and 13:19; perhaps also at 6:5), where the ne‘ārîm are clearly a group who owe particular and personal loyalty to Nehemiah (or whoever). And since it is clear from the Persepolis texts that their rations or salary were a designated fraction of their master’s, we may perhaps understand better why, after complaining about the heavy burdens that his predecessors as governor had laid upon the people in terms of both cash and kind, Nehemiah adds, “Even their ne‘ārîm lorded it over the people” (Neh 5:15). 2) Support of local cults At Ezra 6:9–10 and 7:17–20 we are told that Darius I, and later Artaxerxes I, gave instructions that material support should be given by the empire for the regular sacrifices in the Jerusalem temple. Earlier skepticism about the likelihood of such support was countered most effectively by de Vaux, who was able to adduce several examples of Achaemenid concern for the continuation of local cults, no doubt partly in order that they might be able effectively to pray for “the life of the king and his sons” (Ezra 6:10; cf. Jer 29:7; AP 30:25–26; and the Cyrus Cylinder, ANET 316), and today most commentators accept that there is little difficulty in principle with the biblical statement. The Persepolis fortification tablets lend strong support to this conclusion and illuminate some of the practicalities involved. PFT 303, 336–77 and 2029–30 record delivery of various goods for use in the service of a number of different named and unnamed gods; for example, “7 (BAR of) grain, supplied by Bakamira, Anbaduš received, and utilized (it) for (the god) Humban. 22nd year” (PFT 340). Within the region covered by these texts, the following are some of the gods mentioned: Ahuramazda, Humban, Mišduši, Mithra, Šimut, Pirdakamiya, Turma, Mariraš, Narišanka and Adad. Here we have Persian, Elamite and Babylonian gods all being honored by their separate devotees within a circumscribed area, and all being supported equally by funds from the imperial treasury.46 Viewed in this light, the addition of another god to whatever list may have been supported by the treasury of “Beyond the River,” specifying the quantities to be supplied, need have surprised nobody. The commodities listed as being supplied for the gods are grain, wine, flour, beer and tarmu grain, which at first sight overlaps only very partially with the biblical lists. Quite apart from the fact that naturally the needs of the individual cults concerned will have had to be considered, there are other reasons why this dissimilarity need not worry us unduly; to appreciate this, however, each piece of evidence needs to be considered in its chronological and religious context. First in time comes Darius’s order that “whatever is needed—young bulls, rams, or sheep for burnt offerings to the God of heaven, wheat, salt, wine or oil, as the priests at Jerusalem require—let that be given to them …” (Ezra 6:9). As noted, there is no direct parallel for this, because it is so much earlier than our other sources, but in principle it is not unreasonable in the light of what we have already seen. Second come the fortification tablets, and here it is of interest to observe that the grain rations could quite openly be used for the purchase of sheep for sacrifice. For instance: 80 (BAR of) grain, supplied by Mamannuwiš, Ururu the priest received and delivered, and in its stead he received 8 sheep, and utilized (them) for the gods. 2 sheep for (the god) Adad, 2 sheep for the shrine (?), 2 sheep for (the place) Tikrakkaš, 2 sheep for (the place) Hapidanuš, total 8 yearling sheep, were issued (at) the granary (?) (PFT 352; cf. 362–64 and 2030). A possible reason for this cumbersome procedure is suggested by Hinz, who sees in it a somewhat artificial means whereby a Zoroastrian, who of course could not accept animal sacrifice in any shape,48 was nevertheless able to support a cult in which such sacrifice was normal. The date at which, if at all, or to what extent, the Achaemenids embraced Zoroastrianism, is a highly contentious issue, but a move in that direction between the early years of Darius I and the period of the fortification tablets is not unreasonable, and could explain the difference between them and Ezra 6. Alternatively, grain may simply have been used as the basic unit of currency in the treasury, with the system of reckoning up for animals in terms of grain in place from the start, in which case there is no real development to be detected between the two periods. Next in order come the treasury tablets which, while not dealing directly with support for local cults, are relevant here because of their testimony that for a number of years up until the time of Ezra payment in kind was being supplemented, if not replaced, by payment in silver in the imperial treasuries. And this, then, leads straight back, fourthly, to the text of Ezra 7:15–20, where Ezra is given cash to enable him to buy both animals and other materials for the sacrificial cult. The different manner in which these grants were paid to the Jews by Darius and Artaxerxes is thus neatly explained by factors which we could only have learned about from the two collections of Elamite texts from Persepolis which come in between. Four other smaller matters also deserve mention here. First, several of these texts specify a particular ceremony for which the supply is made; for instance, “3 marriš (of) wine, supplied by Parsauka, Mardonius the priest received, and (utilized it for) the divine tamšiyam (ceremony) of (the god) Humban. (At) Uratukaš. 23rd year” (PFT 348). The meaning of tamšiyam is uncertain, but Hallock himself favors the suggestion of I. Gershevitch, which he reports as follows: “it is to be connected with Av. zaoša-, ‘pleasure.’ Thus it would represent OP *daušiyam, a neuter adjective used as a substantive, meaning ‘what serves for satisfaction, propitiatory offering’ ” (19). If this is so, then one may more readily understand how so very “Jewish” a word as nyẖwẖyn, “pleasing sacrifices, soothing offerings,” could be included in Darius’s decree at Ezra 6:10. It is generally believed that Jewish scribes would have had a hand in drafting such a document.52 It was a happy coincidence for them that they could pass off one of their most technical items of cultic vocabulary as though it were the Aramaic equivalent of a ceremony better known in Achaemenid circles. Second, PFT 741–74 record rations paid to individuals who exercised religious functions, for instance: “12 (marriš of) wine, supplied by Miššabadda, Harima received (for) performing (?) the lan (ceremony at) Harbus. It was given to him as rations by the king, (for) a whole year. 23rd year” (PFT 753).53 This may be set alongside Ezra 7:24, where Artaxerxes orders the treasurers in Beyond the River: “Be it further known to you that you have no authority to impose tribute, tax, or dues upon any of the priests and Levites, the musicians, gatekeepers, temple servants, or (other) servants of this house of God.” The specific mention of support for officially recognized cultic officials is thus common to both contexts, and this further undermines Weinberg’s attempt to argue that the community as a whole was exempt from tax. Third, most of these rations to individuals engaged in religious functions are given for a specified period, as in the text just cited, and as in this further typical example: “12 marriš (of) wine, supplied by Parnizza, Kurka the Magus, the lan performer (?) (at) Marsaškaš, received (for) the libation of the lan (ceremony). From the sixth month through the fifth month, total 12 months, (starting in?) the 17th year” (PFT 757). The time involved in the grants recorded in Ezra is not specified, but on the basis of the quantities involved the suggestion has been advanced that the allowance at Ezra 7:22 was intended to last for two years. Some such limitation certainly seems plausible in the light of our texts. Finally, alongside Ezra 6:9, in which it is stated that the necessary supplies are to be given them “day by day,” a phrase often attributed to the Chronicler, it is worth setting a text such as PFT 748, where concerning the allocation of a ration of beer for the lan ceremony we are told, “(For) a period of 12 months he received (for) 1 month 3 marriš. Daily he receives 1 QA” (lines 7–11). It was clearly not unusual for an allowance to be made for an extended period but for it to be released on a day-by-day basis. 3) Travel and Transportation There are several accounts in Ezra and Nehemiah of journeys between Babylon and Jerusalem, included in which there is reference to the transportation of specified items for the temple or city. Ezra 1:7–11 includes an inventory of the temple vessels, and concludes, “all these did Sheshbazzar bring up, when they of the captivity were brought up from Babylon to Jerusalem.” Ezra 8 comprises a fuller account of Ezra’s journey, again with a list of valuable items transported, but this time with the details of the accounting procedures at both the start and the conclusion of the journey. Finally, in Nehemiah 2 we are told how Nehemiah traveled with a smaller party from Susa to Jerusalem carrying letters to various officials requesting both a safe conduct on the journey and materials for rebuilding after his arrival. Although a number of other such journeys are mentioned or presupposed by the narrative, these three provide the most detail for comparative purposes. The texts from Persepolis contain a great deal of information which can be treated as background against which to read these various accounts. Because they are not narrative documents, it is necessary to combine information from different groups of texts in order to build up a composite whole. There is admittedly a danger of misrepresentation in this procedure, but this is partly offset by the number of texts at our disposal which helps to develop a reasonably rounded picture. The first point to be made is the simple observation that without question the Achaemenid bureaucracy went to enormous lengths to record carefully all manner of payments and receipts at the central treasuries. Hallock’s A texts (PFT 1–57), for instance, record details of the transport of commodities in the sense of how they were taken away from a given center; they are thus comparable to a receipt by the bearer; for example, “22 (BAR of) barley loaves (?), supplied by Bakabada, was taken to Persepolis for the (royal) stores. 24th year” (PFT 3). The B texts (PFT 58–137), on the other hand, record how commodities were delivered to a given center; they are thus comparable to a receipt by the recipient to the bearer. As a brief example, “22 (BAR of) tarmu (grain) Sunkišip took, and delivered (it at) Tandari. Hapikra received (it). 24th year” (PFT 114). Other collections of texts deal with tax receipts and other deposits, payments of salaries and making provision for special officials and for royal occasions, payments of allowances to mothers who have just had babies, travel rations and the like. These texts were not just receipts, however, but were clearly used as part of a broader accounting procedure. One group of texts (PFT 233–58) is accounting balances, noting the total amount that was being “carried forward as balance,” and sometimes a note of the date on which the calculation was made; for instance, “9,502 (BAR of) grain has been carried forward (as) balance, entrusted to Bakasušta, (at) Liduma. In the 22nd year, twelfth month, the accounting was done” (PFT 240). Finally, in PFT 1961–2014 there are longer and more elaborate accounting texts itemizing payments and receipts and balances brought or carried forward. The treasury texts too, though somewhat different in nature, demonstrate not dissimilar concerns, while the Aramaic texts remind us that sometimes special items which had been supplied (under whatever circumstances and for whatever purpose) could be individually marked with all necessary detail.57 In this context, it should come as no surprise to find the detailed care attested in the biblical texts enumerated above regarding procedures of payments and receipt. To Sheshbazzar an itemized list was brought out and counted over by the treasurer (Ezra 1:8), while in Ezra’s case the items were first weighed out by Ezra to specified individuals (8:25–27) who then in turn weighed them out to other officials on their arrival in Jerusalem; “everything was checked by number and by weight and the total weight was recorded in writing” (Ezra 8:34). Indeed, by now we should have learned from Persepolis to expect nothing less. The formula used when noting such payments, attested at Ezra 1:8, has already been compared with AP 61, but a further point of comparison comes now from the Aramaic texts at Persepolis. As was seen above, there are at least two levels of authority involved with the manufacture or delivery of the items in question, one introduced by lyd, the other by qdm. The latter is used only with the sub-treasurer (’pgnzbr’), and is probably to be understood as indicating that he was personally present when the vessel was made/made over. The other indicates only more generally under whose authority the work was done. In Ezra 1:8, when we are told that Cyrus brought out the temple vessels by the hand of Mithredath the treasurer who then counted them out to Sheshbazzar, we should probably see a similar procedure, Cyrus himself, of course, not being personally responsible for bringing out the vessels. Despite all the care that went into these recording and accounting procedures, mistakes were sometimes made. These usually involve a mistake in the numbers concerned, the causes being anything from a simple slip to more serious miscalculations in accountancy. For example, at PFT 661 we seem to have a simple error of 6 for 8; at 855 a slip in the list (23 for 32) has led to an error in the final total; at 864 the total (228) is out by one in the tens unit, but in 1023 the total (88) is out by one in the ones unit; in 1011 a figure in the body of the list is out by a factor of one, but in 1028 by a factor of ten. Sometimes, it is possible to trace how an error has arisen. At PFT 865 the scribe put only one month’s ration total instead of the three months that the account was for; at 932 a line has been left out accidentally as the scribe’s eye jumped from one figure of 15 to the next (parablepsis); at 860 Hallock tells us that an erasure left some signs undeleted even though the scribe wrote his new text over the top—it is not difficult to imagine that a later copyist, when drawing up a combined account, might have been led into error as a consequence; PFT 259–66 involve large quantities of wine together with some kind of fractional charge or deduction. In his discussion Hallock (15) sets out the somewhat complicated procedure by which this deduction is calculated, but even then, when applying his results to the related account text 2006 two errors of figures have additionally to be conjectured. Finally, an occasional glimpse allows us to see why such miscalculations might have occurred. PFT 77 reads: 12 “cowhides” of camels, 7 “cowhides” of yearling camels, 2 “cowhides” of camel calves (?), total 21 “cowhides,” supplied by Takmašbada, Šandupirzana received. Included among these “cowhides” (were) 2 aššana. They were received (in) the ninth month, on the first day, 24th year. It is not difficult to see how the two “included” items could be misunderstood as additional by a careless scribe. It has long bothered commentators that we are faced with errors of similar kinds in some of the lists in Ezra and Nehemiah. For example, there are differences between some of the figures in what purports to be the same list in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7, and neither there nor in Ezra 1:11 do the totals equal the sum of the parts. Not a few of these discrepancies can be accounted for on the basis of the system of numeral notation probably used at some stage in the transmission of the text, but that does not account for every case. It is thus reassuring to find that the sources which may lie behind the biblical text are no worse off than the products of the royal scribes and accountants at Persepolis. A substantial group of over 300 of our texts (PFT 1285–1579; 2049–57; cf. 1780–87; 1942: 19–22; 1953: 34–35) deal with the provision of rations for travelers, and contain several matters of interest for us. We learn of journeys by both small and large groups of workers and others over shorter and longer distances. Kandahar, India, Arachosia, Babylon, Sardis and Egypt, for instance, are all mentioned as starting points or destinations. The rations referred to, however, are generally only sufficient for a single day (1 or 1 1/2 QA of flour per person), from which it has been not unreasonably deduced that there must have been supply stations at single day’s journey intervals along the major routes of the empire.61 The authorizing and accounting system appears to have operated as follows: the leader of each group of travelers was given some kind of document (of which more below) by the king or other senior official, authorizing him to draw so much each day in the way of rations from the supply stations. Each time he did this, a document such as those that we have was drawn up by an official at the supply station and sent to Persepolis. There, the commodities issued will have been credited to the account of the supply station by debiting the account of the official who had issued the authorizing document. There are two words for this kind of authorizing document: halmi is usually translated “sealed document,” and Cameron suggested that it might be a loan-word from Aramaic ẖtm. The other is miyatukkam, which is thought to derive from Old Persian with some such meaning as “authorisation,” so that semantically the two words are not far removed from each other. They seem to be used more or less interchangeably. Sadly, no example of such an authorizing document has survived at Persepolis, partly, no doubt, because they would often have been written in Aramaic on papyrus or parchment. It has been suggested by Benveniste, however, that AD 6 is just such a document, for in it Arsames, the satrap of Egypt who is temporarily on leave back home in Babylon, writes to various of his subordinates along the way to Egypt, commanding them to provide daily rations for Neẖtiẖur, his officer. In Driver’s translation, the first five lines read: From. Aram to Marduk the officer who is at …, Nabû-dalâni the officer who is at La‘ir, Zātōhi the officer who is [at] ’Arzūhin, ’Upastabar the officer who is at Arbel, H̱alšu (?) and Māt-âl-Ubaš (?), Bagafarna the officer who is at Sa‘lan, Frādafarna and Gavazāna (?) the officers who are at Damascus. And now:—behold! one named Neẖtiẖur, [my] officer, is going to Egypt. Do you give [him] (as) provisions from my estate in your provinces every day two measures of white meal, three measures of inferior meal, two measures of wine or beer, and one sheep, and for his servants, 10 men, one measure of meal daily for each, (and) hay according to (the number of) his horses; and give provisions for two Cilicians (and) one craftsman, all three my servants who are going with him to Egypt, for each and every man daily one measure of meal; give them these provisions, each officer of you in turn, in accordance with (the stages of) his journey from province to province until he reaches Egypt.… Clearly, some distinction needs to be drawn between this text and the halmi of the Persepolis tablets on account of the fact that Arsames refers only to his personal estates, not the more official supply stations, but in general the comparison drawn by Benveniste seems apposite. Turning with these introductory remarks on the travel ration texts to a comparison with the biblical data, several points stand out: (1) Both Ezra (Ezra 8:36) and Nehemiah (Neh 2:8–9) took with them letters from the king authorizing the payment of certain grants for their work. While these cannot be equated with the documents carried by the travelers in the Persepolis tablets, since they do not refer to supplies for the journey, they would doubtless have functioned in exactly the same way. Indeed, it may be wondered whether the unusual use of an Old Persian loan-word at Ezra 8:36 (dātê hammelek; in Hebrew elsewhere only in Esther) may not be intended precisely as the equivalent of miyatukkam. (2) In addition, Nehemiah requested that he be given letters “addressed to the governors of Beyond the River so that they may grant me a safe conduct until I reach Judah” (Neh 2:7). These too are likely to have been recognizably in the same class as the halmi. (3) Ezra’s letters are addressed “to all the treasurers of Beyond the River” (Ezra 7:21). In the light of the administrative structures probably to be deduced from the Aramaic texts considered above, we may say that these are likely, strictly speaking, to have been “subtreasurers” (’pgnzbr’), who were actually responsible for making the payments, and who operated under the authority of the treasurer of the satrapy. The plural ’ahašdarpenê hammelek, “the royal satraps,” at Ezra 8:36, remains a puzzle, however. (4) According to the figures supplied in the biblical text, Ezra’s caravan will have numbered approximately 1,500 men, and we are not told how many women and children accompanied them. Nehemiah’s group, of course, was much smaller, though he had an armed escort with him. It is unlikely, in my opinion, that the list in Ezra 2 is intended to describe a single caravan, but it is rather a summary of all in the land by 520 B.C., including some who had not been in exile. We cannot, therefore, say anything about the size of the first parties which returned. Traveling parties of many sizes are attested in our texts, and since more than 72 percent of the dated texts come from only two years it must be assumed that such traveling companies were by no means an uncommon sight on the empire’s highways. PFT 1532, for instance, speaks of 2,454 gentlemen, and no. 1527 of 1,150 workers,72 though the majority of texts deal with smaller numbers. (5) With regard to Nehemiah’s armed guard (and Ezra’s refusal of such an escort) we may observe that a number of titles of uncertain meaning crop up in these texts which Hallock tentatively associates with those who might have accompanied the caravans. We should note especially the “elite guide” (literally, “safe-keeper”), and his comment that “Persons with this title … are involved particularly with groups of foreigners, for whom special guidance and protection would be required” (42). In addition, as is probably attested by these texts, and as is already known from other sources, there were mounted couriers, who must have been armed, moving rapidly from one station to the next, as well as many other travelers. Whatever risks he took, Ezra is certainly not to be pictured as leading his party through totally deserted and trackless wastes. (6) Part of Ezra’s anxiety was doubtless caused by the fact that he was transporting gold, silver, and valuable vessels for the temple (Ezra 8:25–27). In this connection, it is hard to resist citing PFT 1342, even though it is not fully understood: “8 BAR (of) flour (was) supplied by Karma. Mannuya the treasurer took silver from Susa, and went to Matezziš. 2 gentlemen daily received each 1 1/2 QA. Ninth (Elamite) month, (for) a period of 16 days, 22nd year.” There are several unusual points about this text: we do not normally find references to someone of the rank of treasurer among the travelers; nor to the transportation of silver (but cf. PFT 1357 and PFa 14); nor are the rations ever for so long as 16 days.74 It is clearly tempting to assume that these three factors are somehow related, but it remains strange that Mannuya did not make all haste to deposit his silver safely. Did he have to wait for an escort, or until the road had been made safe? Perhaps there is a hint that Ezra had good cause to pray earnestly for a safe journey and to give thanks after his arrival in Jerusalem. (7) Finally, in view of both Ezra 2:66–67 and Neh 2:9, it is worth pointing out that animals (especially horses) are sometimes included in these texts as receiving rations, and indeed that PFT 1780–87 relate exclusively to rations for animals on journeys (e.g., PFT 1785: “17.4 BAR [i.e., 17 BAR, 4 QA] (of) grain, Miramana received for rations, and gave (it) to horses of Abbalema, (as) rations (for) 2 days. He carried a sealed document of the king. 19 horses, 1 received 3 QA. And 15 mules, 1 received 2 QA. In the second (Elamite) month, 23rd year”). Conclusion In drawing these remarks to a close, it is worth reminding ourselves that the chronologically restricted testimony of the Persepolis tablets is probably an accident of history, and that the type of administration which they reflect will have lasted throughout the years of the Achaemenid empire. There can thus be no objection to comparing them closely with Ezra and Nehemiah, with which we have seen they demonstrate some striking points of contact. Furthermore, as in the case of Neh 5:14–19, dealt with on a previous occasion (see above, n 19), the biblical passages referred to here have tended to be clustered in concentrated sections, despite the more thematic nature of the discussion. Not surprisingly, it will be found that these are passages which deal with points of closest contact between the Persian administration and the Jewish leaders. To that extent, our discussion has not only illuminated some obscurities in our texts, but has also shown how well they fit into their purported setting. On the other hand, it is important to be careful not to try to prove too much from such comparisons. There is still a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the detailed understanding of these texts, some of the points raised above could well be coincidental, and it may be assumed that government practices were as well known to storytellers as to historians. Nevertheless, when due allowance has been made, it remains the case that the more we learn of the system of Persian rule, the more the objections of an earlier generation of scholars to the substantial authenticity of the accounts in Ezra and Nehemiah may be seen to have been unwarranted; and with that we must remain content. Williamson, H. G. M. (1991). Ezra and Nehemiah in the Light of the Texts from Persepolis. Bulletin for Biblical Research, Vol. 1, 41–61.

Published: January 31, 2017, 06:09 | Comments Off on Ezra and Nehemiah in the Light of the Texts from Persepolis- by Uwe Rosenkranz
Category: Uncategorized

We  rebuke  Prince Charles 

 and  false  pope  Francis   

for  giving  appraisal  to 

 ISLAM and Muhammed,
forcing muslim invasion of europe-

By Pope St Peter Simon II

Archbishop Dr. Uwe AE.Rosenkranz

Pope Francis Says ‘Arab Muslm Invasion’ Will Bring UNITY To The World

Prince Charles Urges Brits To Think Of Muhammad This Christmas,

 Speaks Out Against ‘Aggressive Populism’

That´s why we excommunicated Bergnolio and rebuke him,
 because he is a fake pope.
 The Throne of St.Petrus belongs to the HOLY BLOODLINE
 of Jewish Apostels of Messiah Jesus Christ. 
12 tribes Grand Pope decree stands against 
ISLAMIC jihad and muslim invasion of Europe.

Fun Fact:
 Pope Leo IV ordered the Vatican City walls 
rebuilt as protection from Muslim invaders in 848-849
Pope Leo IV – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pope Saint Leo IV (790 – 17 July 855) was Pope from 10 April 847 to his death in 855.[1] He is remembered for repairing Roman churches that had been damaged during Arab raids on Rome, and for organizing a league of Italian cities who fought the sea Battle of Ostia against the Saracens. ·

Published: December 23, 2016, 11:28 | Comments Off on Merry Christmas everybody and a Happy New Year- By Archbishop Uwe AE.Rosenkranz
Category: Uncategorized

How to have fun

Philippians 413 Philippians 413 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)[/caption] PHILIPPIANS HOW TO HAVE JOY ISBN 978-1-62119-307-4 © 2014 Precept Ministries International. All rights reserved. This material is published by and is the sole property of Precept Ministries International of Chattanooga, Tennessee. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Precept, Precept Ministries International, Precept Ministries International The Inductive Bible Study People, the Plumb Bob design, Precept Upon Precept, In & Out, Sweeter than Chocolate!, Cookies on the Lower Shelf, Precepts For Life, Precepts From God’s Word and Transform Student Ministries are trademarks of Precept Ministries International. Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, ©1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by the Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. 1st edition CONTENTS LESSONS LESSON ONE: Overview LESSON TWO: Chapter 1 Observation Worksheet and Historical Background LESSON THREE: Chapter 1 LESSON FOUR: Chapter 2 Observation Worksheet and 2:1–11 LESSON FIVE: Chapter 2:12–30 LESSON SIX: Chapter 3 Observation Worksheet and 3:1–9 LESSON SEVEN: Chapter 3:10–21 LESSON EIGHT: Chapter 4 Observation Worksheet and 4:1–7 LESSON NINE: Chapter 4:8–23 APPENDIX Observation Worksheets How to Do a Chapter Study LESSON ONE Overview THIS LESSON INCORPORATES Observation Worksheets on Philippians, located in the Appendix Philippians—a wellspring of spiritual truths that has brought countless believers new joy and peace in their daily walk. You will find Philippians a beautiful and a profitable book. It contains many principles of life that will literally transform your attitude toward people and circumstances as you become a doer of those things which you are about to learn in the next nine weeks. You need to discipline yourself to study daily rather than cramming all your study into one sitting. To understand God’s truth there must be meditation and prayer. Joshua 1:8 says that we should meditate on God’s Word night and day so that we may be careful to do according to all that is written in it; for then we will make our way prosperous, and then we will have success. You may get right answers in one “cramming” session, but in all probability, you will miss many precious jewels of insight that come only through prayerful meditation. DAY ONE Inductive Bible study begins with the Bible itself. It is finding out what the Bible says. However, all the good study habits and methods in the world will mean very little to the student of God’s Word apart from the revelation of the Holy Spirit. John 14:26; John 16:13; and 1 Corinthians 2:6–16 teach us that it is the work of the indwelling Spirit to reveal and to guide us into all truth. So always begin with prayer, Beloved, asking God to guide you into His truth (John 16:13). 1. If you have never done a Precept course before, it might be helpful to read the chapters entitled “The Rule of Context—Context Rules!” and “Getting the Big Picture” in How to Study Your Bible. The purpose of this first lesson is to discover the context of the book of Philippians. This lesson lays the foundation for all the other lessons. Since context rules interpretation and Scripture must always be interpreted in light of its context, the first step in your study of a letter (epistle) is to begin with the Overview (the view of the entire book) to discover the context. Since Philippians is a letter, the place to begin your study is with the author because he is the first person mentioned in this book. Therefore, the first step in our study will be to identify what the book tells you about the author. Then as you evaluate these facts, you will begin to see the context of Philippians unfold right before your eyes. It’s exciting and you are going to be awed by what you see. 2. Now let’s begin. Read Philippians and mark in blue each mention of the author’s name and the pronouns that refer specifically to him, such as I, me, my. You can use the Observation Worksheets, located in the Appendix, for assignments. These Observation Worksheets are just what they say—worksheets. They contain the text of Philippians from the New American Standard Bible printed double-spaced. We encourage you to use these and then transfer the most important things to your Bible. 3. Now look at the places where you marked Paul in the text, and make a list of what Philippians says about him. Use the chart “The Author and Recipients of Philippians” at the end of this lesson to note what each chapter says about him. List only information about the author, not any instructions or commands. Do this before going on to number 4. 4. Although Philippians 1:1 opens with “Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus, to all the saints …,” did you observe from the rest of the letter that the author was only one of them: Paul? If this is not clear, read Philippians 2:19 and remember that singular pronouns are used throughout the book. 5. On the chart entitled “Philippians at a Glance,” located at the end of the lesson, note anything you observe about the times in which this book is written. This helps you understand the historical setting of the book of Philippians. As you continue to observe Philippians, you will glean more information that will help you complete this At a Glance chart. Have you ever felt like you were in a prison of sorts, dear friend? Remember, not all prisons have bars and locked doors. Or maybe you have actually been in prison. When you look at Paul, who was in a very real prison, what does he exemplify? Do you think Paul’s attitude was unique, or do you think it’s possible for any believer to have this attitude no matter his or her prison? Can God work this attitude in all of us? Do you think Philippians tells us how? Think about it as you study this “freeing” letter. DAY TWO Today we’ll continue to look at Philippians as a whole. Our study will still be focused on the people mentioned in the book because the people are easy to see. 1. Read all of Philippians and mark on your Observation Worksheets every mention of the recipients with orange. The recipients are the people who received this letter. Be sure to mark all of the pronouns for the recipients, such as you, your, yourselves, who, whom, and any synonyms, like brethren and beloved. 2. As you did yesterday for the author, list the facts (not instructions) you observe about the Philippians on the chart “The Author and Recipients of Philippians.” 3. Did you observe anything about the Philippians relating to the historical setting (the times in which this letter was written) that needs to be added to that section of your “Philippians at a Glance” chart? If so, add it. By marking the text and answering some 5 Ws and H (who, what, when, where, why, how) kinds of questions about the author and the recipients, you have been able to discover certain facts about the historical setting of this book. Do you realize what has just happened? So many times people think the only way to understand the historical setting of a book is to read commentaries, but they aren’t aware that careful observation of the text can reveal this to you. What a blessing this is for people who speak other languages who do not have commentaries in their language or easy access to them if they do exist. 4. What did the recipients do that might have prompted Paul to write this letter to them? Write your answer below. How are you doing, dear friend? If this is your first Precept course, you may be panting at the pace and the work, but don’t be discouraged. You are laying such a critical foundation, one that you’ll be proud of in the right sense of the word. If you persevere, you’ll find yourself building a mansion of joy that you can dwell in no matter what your circumstances, and it will be more than worth the discipline you have exercised. So press on, valiant one. DAY THREE AND DAY FOUR As you have probably observed, Christ, rejoice/joy, mind/attitude and their synonyms are used throughout Philippians. (A synonym is a word that has the same meaning as another word within a particular context.) Therefore, these are key words for this book. Discovering key words is vital to your understanding of the meaning of a text. Like keys, key words “unlock” what a passage of Scripture is about. Observing key words and phrases is important because they help identify the author’s repeated emphasis and how he accomplishes his purpose for writing. It will be helpful to make a Key Word Bookmark for Philippians. You might use the one on the back of your Precept book which has suggestions for marking frequently used words such as “Christ.” Write Christ, joy/rejoice, and mind/attitude on the blank side and mark each of these the way you want to mark them on your Observation Worksheets. You’ll add other key words as you continue to study. 1. Read Philippians and mark the key words Christ and rejoice/joy, along with their synonyms and pronouns. 2. Read Philippians again and mark mind/attitude. 3. On the page “Key Words in Philippians” at the end of this lesson, list what Paul says about rejoice/joy and what he says about mind/attitude. As you make your lists, be sure to note what is said regarding these key words in relation to Christ. 4. Record these key words on the “Philippians at a Glance” chart. By the way, have you ever heard someone say, “The joy of the Lord is my strength”? Did you wonder what he or she was talking about? By the end of this study of Philippians you will not only know the answer but we pray you’ll be saying it yourself. 5. Did you notice any other key words (with their synonyms) repeated in all four chapters? If you noticed any key repeated words and their synonyms, record these below. Then read Philippians and mark the other key words you observed. 6. Read through Philippians to see what the author talks about the most. Pay attention to the key words you’ve marked. 7. In Philippians the key words Christ and rejoice are the main subjects or themes of the book. The theme of a book is the main subject(s) or topic(s) in the book. a. Use words from the text to summarize the main themes of Christ and rejoice/joy. You might look at your list on these key words to see any possibilities. Consider the following: 1) The theme should be based on an objective evaluation of what the author emphasizes through repetition, not just a subjective leaning toward what ministered the most to you. 2) You do not have to “come up” with the theme. It should always be based on repetition in the book and its context. b. Record the theme of Philippians in the appropriate location at the top of your “Philippians at a Glance” chart. When you have completed your chart, you will have a wonderful visual tool that will give you the main content of Philippians on one concise chart. DAY FIVE Part of the beauty of inductive Bible study is to look at what you have discovered out of only one source: God’s Word. Later in this study you may read some commentaries to check your work and to see what other people say. It will be exciting to see what you discovered all by yourself with just the Word, the Holy Spirit, and you. 1. For the last four days you have evaluated Philippians as a whole, and we rejoice over you. Our task today will be to look at the four chapters to observe how each chapter relates to the whole letter. So the next step is to identify the chapter theme for each chapter. a. Read only chapter 1, looking for the theme of that chapter. What is the chapter about? Use words from the text. When you have identified the chapter theme, write it in the space for chapter 1 on your “Philippians at a Glance” chart. b. Following the same process, read chapters 2–4 and identify the theme of each chapter. Then write each in the appropriate space on the At a Glance chart. c. Fill in any other information you learned from this week’s study to complete the “Philippians at a Glance” chart. 2. Philippians has so much to teach us about the relationship believers have with the Lord Jesus Christ. As you study it, Beloved, make sure you have this relationship. Did you find your heart touched with a longing for a deeper intimacy that provokes the same words as Paul’s when he said, “For to me, to live is Christ”? Think about what God has taught you this week from your study of His Word. Ponder these things in your heart as you go about your day and turn it into an occasion for prayer. Thank you, dear one, for your diligence in study this week. May our Lord reward you greatly by giving you great wisdom and understanding. THE AUTHOR AND RECIPIENTS OF PHILIPPIANS Author Recipients KEY WORDS IN PHILIPPIANS PHILIPPIANS AT A GLANCE Book Theme: Author: Date: Purpose: Historical Setting: Chapter Theme: 1 2 3 4 LESSON TWO Chapter One THIS LESSON INCORPORATES Observation Worksheet on Philippians 1, located in the Appendix Cross-references Personal observation is the only solid foundation upon which to build a superstructure of correct interpretation and accurate application. Without it, you will never be sure of your doctrine! DAY ONE THROUGH DAY THREE We spent one week looking at Philippians as a whole. We identified the context of this letter and the historical setting. This week we will begin to narrow our focus by looking at chapter 1. 1. Pray and ask God to open your eyes that you might behold wondrous truth out of His Word. 2. These next three days, you will be observing chapter 1. If this is the first time you have ever done a Chapter Study, you may want to read the chapter entitled “Focusing In on the Details” in How to Study Your Bible. If you don’t have this book, see “How to Do a Chapter Study” in the Appendix of this Precept book. 3. In the Overview you marked some words that were key to the whole book of Philippians. As you focus on just one chapter, you’ll observe other words key to this one chapter but not necessarily key to the whole book. Read the Observation Worksheet on Philippians 1, located in the Appendix. Look for additional key words in this chapter and mark each (along with its pronouns and synonyms) in a distinctive way. Add these to your Key Word Bookmark. Remember, a key word or phrase is one that is vital to the understanding of the text. Mark each use of God and the Holy Spirit and their synonyms. If you see any mentions of Jesus Christ that you missed marking during your Overview of the book, mark them now. Be sure to also mark personal pronouns (such as I, You, He, Him, or His). 4. Every key word is the basis for a list. A list is every fact about a particular word or person in a single chapter. Using the key words you marked in chapter 1, record on a separate sheet of paper in list form all the information you learned about each word. You don’t need to redo the lists you made in Lesson 1. 5. Read your Observation Worksheet again. If you see key words that you missed before, mark them and make a list on each word. 6. Read Philippians 1 again and mark the following: Contrasts Comparisons Terms of Conclusion/Result Expressions of Time If you need to review the definitions of these terms, see “How to Do a Chapter Study” in the Appendix of this book or read “Focusing In on the Details” in How to Study Your Bible. 7. Identify the theme of chapter 1. As you do, be sure to review the theme of chapter 1 on your “Philippians at a Glance” chart that you completed last week. Now that you have studied chapter 1 more thoroughly, you may discover that the additional insights you gained cause you to reevaluate your choice of the theme. Record the theme in the space provided on the Observation Worksheet. Please do not permit yourself to be defeated by fear, inadequacy, discouragement, or by comparing yourself with others. None of that is from the Father but is from the enemy of your soul who wants to keep you ignorant of the truth which makes you free (John 8:32) and sanctifies you (John 17:17). DAY FOUR One of the first observations you might have made is that Paul and Timothy are apparently together while writing this letter to the saints living in Philippi. Therefore, as you study, find out how Paul and Timothy became acquainted with the Philippians, where Philippi was located (see the map at the end of this lesson), what the city was like, and how Christianity first came there. Remember, in inductive study examine the Scripture for information first. Read Acts 15:36 through Acts 17:1. Look for the answers to the following questions and write them out in the space provided. As you read, you may want to refer to the map at the end of the lesson. 1. How did Paul and Timothy become acquainted with each other? 2. How did they become acquainted with the Philippians? 3. Why did they go to Philippi? 4. Was there any record of a synagogue in Philippi? Where did the people worship? 5. Record the significant things that you have learned about Philippi and the visit there. Be sure you include how the gospel came to Philippi. 6. Did Paul visit Philippi again? Read Acts 20:1–6 and note what you learn. DAY FIVE 1. We’ve seen that Paul preached the gospel at Philippi. Then he wrote this letter to those who had believed it. Where did he write it from, according to the text of Philippians 1? 2. Read Acts 28:16–17, 23–24, 30–31 and note what you learn. 3. Read 2 Timothy 1:8–18, 4:6–22 and Philippians 1:12–26. Is this the same imprisonment or a different one? Give your answer and reasons. Use Scripture to support your view and record your references. 4. Following is “The Sequence of Events in Paul’s Life after His Conversion.” Reading this chart may prove helpful in understanding the chronological order of Paul’s life. LESSON THREE Chapter One THIS LESSON INCORPORATES Word Studies Cross-references Servants, saints, overseers, deacons—who are they? What are their responsibilities? What are their qualifications? DAY ONE 1. Paul often referred to himself as a servant or bond-servant of our Lord. Doulos is the transliteration of the Greek word translated “bond-servant.” The picture of a bond-servant is seen in Deuteronomy 15:12–18 when a person who had served six years as a slave decided to remain with his master. For a clearer understanding of all that is involved in being a bond-servant, read Deuteronomy 15:12–18. a. Why would someone want to be a bond-servant? b. How long was one to remain a bond-servant? c. Read the following Scriptures and see how they can be cross-referenced with Deuteronomy 15:12–18 and with the term “bond-servant.” Write down the points of similarity. 1) 1 Corinthians 6:19–20 2) Galatians 1:10 2. Saints a. Look up “saint” (Philippians 1:1). Write down the transliteration and its definition. If you have never done a word study, you may want to read the section “It’s All Greek to Me!” in How to Study Your Bible. b. How does Philippians 1 describe saints? c. Read 1 Corinthians 1:1–2 and note what you learn about saints. d. What has the Spirit of God spoken to your heart through your study today? Write out personal applications using the personal pronoun “I.” DAY TWO 1. Overseers a. Look up the transliteration and the definition of the Greek word for “overseer” (Philippians 1:1). b. Read the following verses and note what you learn about an overseer. 1) 1 Timothy 3:1–7 2) Acts 20:17, 28–30 3) 1 Peter 5:1–3 2. Deacons a. Look up the transliteration and the definition of the Greek word for “deacon” (Philippians 1:1). b. Read 1 Timothy 3:8–13 and list the qualifications of a deacon. 3. Based on your study, are there differences between overseers and deacons? If so, note below what they are. DAY THREE 1. Read Philippians 1:3–11. a. List what you observe about Paul’s feelings toward those in Philippi. b. Now list what Paul prays for them. c. Let’s look more closely at what Paul says in verse 10. Do word studies on the following: 1) approve 2) excellent 3) sincere d. Keeping in mind what you learned from the word studies, what is Paul praying for in verse 10 and how does this relate to verse 9? e. In verse 11 Paul speaks of their being “filled with the fruit of righteousness.” What do you think Paul means by this statement? According to his prayer, how would this filling be accomplished? f. Meditate on Paul’s prayer. How does his prayer for the Philippian believers compare with what you pray for your fellow believers? g. Beloved, has God put it on your heart to pray Philippians 1:9–11 for anyone? Why not stop and pray now. 2. Prayerfully read through Philippians 1:12–26 and meditate on this passage. a. What is Paul’s passion in this passage? b. What is his attitude toward the fact that Christ is being preached “in pretense”? Is this the same as preaching wrong doctrine? Why or why not? c. Turn Philippians 1:20 into a personal prayer and write it below. Then make it your prayer. 3. Paul seemed to look forward to death! In Philippians 1:21 he said that to die was gain. According to the text, why did Paul look forward to death? 4. From Philippians 1:21, 23 and 2 Corinthians 5:6–8, where does a Christian’s soul and spirit go when he dies? 5. What about you, do you look forward to being absent from this body and at home with the Lord? Can you say with Paul, “to live is Christ and to die is gain”? DAY FOUR AND DAY FIVE We want you to study what it means to suffer for His sake as Philippians 1:29 teaches. So many of us want to run away from suffering, to avoid it at all costs. We do not realize the awful price we may pay if we are not willing to suffer. Are you wondering what we mean by the statement “the awful price we may pay if we are not willing to suffer”? See if you can find out as you study this subject of “suffering for His sake.” 1. Prayerfully read and meditate on the following passages of Scripture. As you do, record any pertinent insights you gain about suffering. a. Matthew 5:10–12 b. John 15:18–21 c. Romans 5:1–5 d. Romans 8:16–18 e. 2 Corinthians 1:7; 4:8–18 f. Philippians 3:10 g. 1 Thessalonians 3:2–4 h. 2 Timothy 3:10–12 i. Hebrews 10:32–36 j. 1 Peter 1:6–9; 2:18–25; 4:1; 4:12–5:1; 5:8–10—If you’re not sure of the meanings of “perfect” and “confirm” in 1 Peter 5:10, look up the definitions. 2. Summarize, as briefly as you can, the purpose of suffering in a Christian’s life. How are we to respond to suffering? We are living in a time in which there is a prevalent teaching that if one is truly filled with the Spirit and believes God, he could be healed from all illness. There is also a teaching that presumes that if one is not living in prosperity—materially, physically, socially, and emotionally—he could not possibly be filled with the Spirit. The Word of God does not teach that these things are the norm for all children of God. So many times when man comes upon a truth, he overemphasizes it to the neglect of other truths; therefore, through imbalance, he comes up with perversion of truth. Scripture must agree with Scripture. May we never forget this truth! Study the whole counsel of God, and proclaim the whole counsel of God. 3. Spend the rest of your study time reading what your commentaries say about Philippians 1. LESSON FOUR Chapter Two THIS LESSON INCORPORATES Observation Worksheets on Philippians 2, located in the Appendix Cross-references Word Study This week we’ll observe Philippians 2. This is a rich chapter that deserves careful observation and prayerful meditation. If you will read it aloud repeatedly, you will find yourself memorizing much of it; and how rich you will be. Make it yours in mind, in heart, in life. DAY ONE AND DAY TWO 1. Observe Philippians 2. Remember, a true understanding of God’s Word is revealed by His Spirit. Seek Him in prayer. If needed, see “How to Do a Chapter Study” or review “Focusing In on the Details” in How to Study Your Bible to refresh your memory. 2. Begin memorizing Philippians 2:12–15. A good way to memorize Scripture is to write it out on a card that you can carry with you. Read it aloud three times every morning, noon, and night. If you will do this regularly, you will find that you will have it memorized in no time. DAY THREE Many times we find ourselves doctrinally correct, serving in our church, and witnessing to the world; yet, we are divided, striving among ourselves, proud of our staunch stand on and knowledge of the Word of God, and impatient and angry with those who will not see that God’s Word is true and that Christ is the only way! Everything is correct doctrinally, but what about our conduct? 1. Read Philippians 1:27–2:4 and ask God to open your eyes to the truth of His Word. Come with a teachable spirit and be spoken to by your Lord. In the following space, list the commands of this passage with regard to our behavior towards others. 2. Go to Ephesians 4:1–6 and read this passage with the same heart’s attitude and prayer as described in number 1. What does God implore His children to do in this passage? 3. The first two verses of Philippians 2 are very important. Behavior is based on belief! Doctrine is fundamental to duty. These truths are seen in Philippians 2:1–2. Read it carefully and see if you can understand what we are saying. 4. Verses 1–2 of Philippians 2 comprise one sentence. The core of the sentence is “make my joy complete.” Fill out the following chart: IF Core BY BEING Make My Joy Complete 5. According to verse 2, what is your responsibility? 6. Philippians 2:5–11 is one of the greatest passages in the Word of God on the Incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ. The doctrine of the Incarnation teaches that God became man, that Christ was God in the flesh. These seven verses are saturated with doctrine at its richest! What a picture of our Christ: His majesty, His humility, His love, His obedience! He has been given to us as an example, as a pattern, as a way of life so that we might let this mind be in us which was also in Christ Jesus. Prayerfully read Philippians 2:5–11 and answer the following questions: a. What does this passage teach about Christ before He became a man? 1) 2) b. What did He do in order to become (or when He became) man? c. What was His station in life as a man? In other words, what position did He hold as a man when He was on earth according to this passage? d. Compare His position before He became man and after He became man. How do they contrast? e. To what extent was Christ obedient? f. What attitude was necessary for His obedience? g. What was God’s response to Christ’s obedience? 1) 2) h. How will all mankind someday respond to Jesus Christ? 1) 2) i. What will mankind’s response bring the Father? j. Fill out the following chart showing, step by step, the stages in Christ’s humiliation and in His exaltation. The number of lines on this chart is for your convenience in writing; they do not, in any way, indicate the number of steps or stages. EXALTATION Philippians 2:9–11 HUMILIATION Philippians 2:6–8 DAY FOUR Why did Christ have to become man? Why was the Incarnation necessary? 1. Prayerfully read Hebrews 2:9, 14–16. According to this passage, list why Christ became man. 2. Read Hebrews 2:17–18 and record any other reasons for our Lord’s Incarnation. 3. Read Mark 10:45 and state the two reasons you see for His coming. One of these reasons is the same as one of the reasons found in Hebrews 2:9, 14–16. a. b. 4. Christ was born to die. The reason for Christmas was the cross. The cross that cast its shadow across that precious Child in the manger was to be the means of our salvation. The cross was God’s Christmas tree on which He would hang His gift for all mankind, Christ. O Father, thank You for Your unspeakable gift! a. To fully appreciate Christ’s humiliation, His obedience, His laying aside for us the glory that was His, read the Scriptures below. As you read these passages, watch Christ and sense His attitude. 1) Isaiah 52:13–53:12 2) Psalm 22 b. Summarize the ways these two passages show His humiliation. Do not hurry through this study and do not do this study lightly. Let the full impact of this truth hit you. Stand at the foot of the cross and behold the Lamb of God slain for you. c. Now bow before the Father. Beseech Him that you might fully realize what it is to have this mind, this attitude which was also in Christ Jesus. DAY FIVE The path of exaltation is humiliation! This truth is contrary to the mind of the world. Men are anxiously seeking to establish themselves, to build the biggest and the best, to be number one—even in Christian circles. What do the Scriptures teach about all this competition? 1. Read 1 Peter 5:6. Look up the word “humble” and write its definition in the space provided. Then state the command, the result, and the time given in 1 Peter 5:6. a. definition of humble b. command c. result d. time 2. Read the following verses and record what each verse teaches regarding humility and/or pride. a. Proverbs 15:33 b. Proverbs 22:4 c. Proverbs 25:6–7 d. Isaiah 57:15 e. Matthew 11:29 f. Matthew 20:26–27 g. Matthew 23:12 h. James 4:6 3. Now feel free to check your commentaries on Philippians 2:1–11. We thank God upon every remembrance of you. We pray that you will not grow weary of doing good; that you will remain steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord as you know your labor will not be in vain; that you will grow in your knowledge of our God and Savior through your diligent study of His Word; that you will study as unto the Lord and permit each lesson to become an act of worship and obedience; that you will remember the work of Precept Ministries International diligently in your prayers, asking God that we will be totally obedient to the heavenly vision of God for this ministry to Christ and His precious body. LESSON FIVE Chapter Two THIS LESSON INCORPORATES Word Studies Cross-references As you study this week, you will be looking for answers to the following questions. Take these questions to the Lord, meditate upon them, and seek His wisdom, His understanding. 1. What does it mean in Philippians 2:12 when it says “work out your salvation”? 2. What is grumbling? DAY ONE We are going to study Philippians 2:12–13. Verse 12 often becomes a puzzle to people. Is it saying that I am to work for my salvation? What does it mean “with fear and trembling”? Am I to be afraid of God? Understanding and obeying the truth of these verses is absolutely liberating. It brings forth fruitful living. 1. First, let’s look at verses 12 and 13. a. In verse 12, who is to do the work? b. In verse 13, who is doing the work? c. From verse 12, write the word that follows “work.” d. From verse 13, write the two words that follow “at work.” e. So we see that verse 12 shows man’s responsibility in working out what God works in him in verse 13. 2. What is God working in us? a. b. 3. For whom or what is He working these things? 4. What is to be our attitude toward our responsibility? 5. Why would Paul bother to tell them to work out this salvation not only in his presence but also in his absence? 6. Look up the following words in your concordance, expository dictionary, word study books, commentaries, or other tools which are available to you. Record the English transliteration of the Greek words and their definitions. a. work out b. fear c. to will d. to work 7. Read Ephesians 4:30 and 1 Thessalonians 5:19. What is the difference between “grieving” the Spirit and “quenching” the Spirit? Check the context of both passages. a. Look up the Greek words for “grieve” and “quench.” Record the English transliteration and the definition of each word. 1) grieve 2) quench b. Would disobedience to Philippians 2:12 relate to either or both of these verses? How? 8. By way of personal application, write what you have learned from Philippians 2:12–13. Personalize your writing by using the pronoun “I.” DAY TWO 1. From Philippians 2:14–15 answer the following questions: a. What is the difference between “grumbling” and “disputing”? Record the English transliteration of the Greek words and their definitions. 1) grumbling 2) disputing b. When are we allowed to grumble or dispute? 2. How does verse 15 relate to verse 14? 3. Look up the following references to grumbling and record your findings. a. Jude 16 (context 3–4, 14–16) b. Numbers 13:16–14:38. Also, check Hebrews 3:17–19 to see what God says about these grumblers. c. 1 Corinthians 10:1–13—How does this compare with the passage you just read in Numbers? First Corinthians 10:6–11 tells us five things we are not to do. List them. 4. Now, how do you apply what you’ve learned about “grumbling”? Spend time in prayer concerning application of the truths you’ve studied so far this week, Beloved. DAY THREE AND DAY FOUR 1. In Philippians 2:16, Paul tells the Philippians that “holding fast the word of life” will cause him to glory so that he will not have run in vain or toiled in vain. What does Paul mean when he says, “holding fast the word of life”? Look up “holding” and record the definition below. 2. What in Philippians 2 would show you how to “hold fast the word of life”? List your findings; but as you do, do not make the Word say what it does not say! 3. What was the world like in Paul’s day? Does it, in any way, parallel our world today? Would those who were to hold fast the word of life have the same pressures we have today? 4. Paul uses the phrase “the day of Christ” three times in Philippians. It is also used in Paul’s letters to the Corinthians. Look up the following references to “the day of Christ,” and record what you learn about that day. Check the context of the verses as you read them! a. Philippians 1:6 b. Philippians 1:9–10 c. Philippians 2:16 d. 1 Corinthians 1:7–8 e. 2 Corinthians 1:12–14 5. As you just saw, “the day of Christ” is connected with believers and the coming of Christ. Read the following Scriptures and see if they relate to “the day of Christ.” Record your observations. a. 1 Thessalonians 2:19–20 b. 1 Thessalonians 3:12–13 c. 1 Thessalonians 5:23 d. 1 John 3:1–3 6. Paul used the illustration of his being “poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrifice and service of your [the Philippians’] faith.” a. Read the passages below and note what you learn about the drink offering. 1) Exodus 29:38–41 2) Numbers 15:1–10 b. Considering what the Old Testament says about the drink offering and the context of Philippians 2, why do you think Paul used the illustration in Philippians 2:17? 7. Since all Scripture is profitable for our learning and admonition, write what you have learned about your life from Philippians 2:16–17. Be as specific as possible. Do you pour out your life as a sacrificial offering in behalf of the faith of others? How? How much of your time and energies are spent in behalf of the furtherance of the gospel? DAY FIVE Read Philippians 2 once more. It is no accident that Paul turns in his letter to comments and instructions about Timothy and Epaphroditus. As Paul has instructed the Philippians to be Christ-minded and to live above reproach, it is only natural that these two men would come to mind; they have listened to and obeyed his teaching. Once again God is showing us that living like Christ is possible if we will pay the price of humility and obedience, if we will draw upon the power of the Spirit within, and if we will carry out the desires of the One who works in us both to will and to work for His good pleasure. 1. At the end of this lesson is a chart, “Living Demonstrations of the Attitude of Christ.” List on the chart what you learned about the following: a. the attitude of Christ in Philippians 2:5–8, b. Timothy in Philippians 2:19–24, c. Epaphroditus in Philippians 2:25–30, and d. Paul from your study in this book. 2. Meditate on what you have learned. As you have studied these men—Christ, Paul, Timothy, and Epaphroditus—and as you have seen their examples of godly living, how have you measured up? Record your answer on the following chart. Where I Have Failed How I Can Improve The Cost 3. Read what your commentaries have to say about Philippians 2:12–30. Take pertinent notes on another sheet of paper. We pray that this has been a profitable week of study for you and that God has taught you, personally, what He expects from you. Do you know what we need at Precept Ministries International? We need a support team of those who would be an Epaphroditus—people who will do more than just purchase a workbook. God has ordained that Precept Ministries International be dependent to a great degree upon the regular support of those who are taught by this ministry. We need your regular faithful support in ministry, in prayer, and in giving if we are going to continue to reach out and minister to a world that is perishing because of a famine for the Word of God. Working as hard as we do, giving as much as we do, we cannot do it alone. We cannot go forward by ourselves. We need you, Epaphroditus, just as you say you need us. Will you contact us for information regarding our E-Team? As you list the qualities of Paul, Timothy, and Epaphroditus, if possible, list them opposite the same qualities of the attitude of Christ so you can note the parallels. LIVING DEMONSTRATIONS OF THE ATTITUDE OF CHRIST Description of the Attitude of Christ Timothy Epaphroditus Paul LESSON SIX Chapter Three THIS LESSON INCORPORATES Observation Worksheet on Philippians 3, located in the Appendix Cross-references This third chapter of Philippians is absolutely rich with insights into those things which are necessary for life if you are going to be one of those who reaches the goal and receives the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. DAY ONE AND DAY TWO You will be spending two weeks on this chapter. This week we’ll begin with a Chapter Study. It is vital that you lay the solid foundation of correct observations as these will greatly aid you in your assignments. As you study chapter 3, meditate and pray, asking God to give you “a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him” (Ephesians 1:17). You may want to read the directions in the Appendix on “How to Do a Chapter Study” or review “Focusing In on the Details” in How to Study Your Bible in order to refresh your memory about how to do an Observation Worksheet. DAY THREE 1. In Philippians 3:3–4 Paul talks about having confidence in the flesh, trusting in the flesh. a. From your observations of Philippians 3:1–6, what do you think Paul means by having “confidence in the flesh”? b. On the following chart, list in the left-hand column each thing in which Paul says he could have had confidence. c. In the right-hand column list modern-day parallels to each thing in which Paul could have had confidence. In other words, how do the things in which Paul could have had confidence parallel the things in which a churchgoer or religious person might put their confidence today? Paul’s List of Confidences A Religious Man’s Confidences 2. What are the Philippians to beware of? Based on the context of Philippians, what do you think Paul means? 3. In Philippians 3:2–3 Paul makes a play on words. In verse 2 he refers to the “false circumcision,” warning the Philippians to beware of them. Then in verse 3 Paul refers to himself as being part of the “true circumcision.” What was circumcision? What was its purpose? This topic will be our next subject of study. a. If you do not know what circumcision is, look it up. b. Genesis 17 contains the first mention of circumcision. Read this chapter carefully and list everything you learn about circumcision. c. Circumcision was the sign of the covenant that God made with Abraham and his seed or descendants. Read Genesis 15:6 and, comparing that with Romans 4:3–13, answer the following questions: 1) What was Abraham’s relationship with God when circumcision was instituted? 2) What role or part did circumcision have? 4. In Philippians 3:3, Paul said that those who were really of the circumcision, the true circumcision, were those who put no confidence in the flesh. Many Jews had lost sight of the true purpose of circumcision, and they had come to trust in the rite itself rather than the reason for the rite. a. Read Romans 2:25–29. When was circumcision of true benefit? b. Can you think of any church rituals in which people might put their confidence as the Jews did in circumcision and, thereby, miss their true significance? Record your answer along with an appropriate explanation. c. Suppose you were to die and stand before God and God said to you, “Why should I let you into heaven?” What would be your answer? DAY FOUR 1. Prayerfully read through Philippians 3, giving yourself time to reflect on the purpose of this chapter. 2. In Philippians 3:7–8 Paul uses the verb “count” several times. a. The verb tenses are given below. Philippians 3:7—“have counted” (perfect tense—past completed action with a result continuing to the present) Philippians 3:8—“count” (both uses, present tense—continuing action; indicative mood—occurring at the time of writing) b. Note below what Paul said he “counted.” c. What do you think Paul is trying to convey to his reader through these verb tenses and the repetition of this verb? 3. What do you think Paul means in Philippians 3:9 when he talks about a “righteousness … derived from the Law” versus the “righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith”? a. To help answer this question, look at the following verses and note what you learn. 1) Philippians 1:9–11 2) Philippians 3:4–6 b. What kind of righteousness do you have? How do you know? DAY FIVE Spend your study time today finding out what your commentaries have to say about Philippians 3:1–9. Take pertinent notes on a separate sheet of paper for future reference. Next week we will finish our study of Philippians 3, so please do not read beyond verse 9 in your commentaries. LESSON SEVEN Chapter Three THIS LESSON INCORPORATES Observation Worksheet on Philippians 3, located in the Appendix Word Studies Cross-references The pinnacle of a life of joy is the mountaintop of Philippians 3. To climb this mountain, to reach its goal is to conquer that which would keep you in the valley. When you stand on that mountaintop, you can see life in its proper perspective. And as you stand there viewing the valleys below you, you realize that you were not a fool to count all loss for the sake of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus. And with eyes full of tears, you weep for those who will never know the fresh joy, the awesome beauty, the glorious freedom of this mountain life. They know only the valley. DAY ONE AND DAY TWO Please do not consult your commentaries until you are told to do so. 1. Before you begin your study this week, you need to prayerfully read through Philippians 3. As you read, ask God to illuminate your understanding so that you might comprehend the depths of the truth contained in this chapter. Tell God that you want this truth to go beyond your mind to the very heart of your spirit so that you may desire with all your being to “attain to the resurrection from the dead.” 2. Now, let’s focus on verses 10–11. What is Paul saying about knowing Christ? To help answer this, look up the definitions of the following words. a. fellowship b. conformed 3. What do you think Paul means in Philippians 3:12 when he says that he wants to “lay hold of” that for which he was laid hold of by Christ Jesus? Look up the definitions for: a. perfect b. press on 4. As you read through Philippians 3, you observed that Paul was headed toward a goal. What was his goal? As you answer this question, do not simply write the words of the text but, rather, explain this goal in your own words so that even a non-Christian may be able to understand it. 5. According to Philippians 3, what would it take to reach this goal? 6. Honestly, what are your goals in life? State them in concrete terms on the following chart. Then next to each goal, write what it will take to achieve each goal. Be as specific as possible. My Goals Things I Must Do to Achieve These Goals 7. Do any of your goals conflict? If so, how are you going to resolve these conflicts? Which goals have top priority? Go back to your chart and give each goal a numerical evaluation, the most important being number 1. 8. What is the promise in Philippians 3:15? How does this promise relate to what has gone before in the previous verses? To whom is it addressed? Look up the definition of “attitude” and note it. 9. To what standard have you attained? Think about your answer; talk to the Lord about it. Are you mature? Do you want to be? 10. Finally, read Philippians 3:12–16. Ask God to show you how this applies to your life. Note below what He tells you. DAY THREE 1. As you read Philippians 3:17–21, how do you think it relates to Philippians 3:10–16? 2. In Philippians 3:18 Paul refers to a group of people who are “enemies of the cross.” He then gives a brief description of this group. List his description. 3. In light of Paul’s description, what do you think he means when he calls them “enemies of the cross”? Stop and think about what the cross means in a Christian’s life. Read the following passages and record your insights before you answer this question. a. Matthew 10:34–39 b. Luke 14:25–33 c. Romans 6:1–14 d. Galatians 2:19–21 Now, what do you think Paul means by “enemies of the cross”? 4. Was it right for Paul to set himself up as an example for others? Read 1 Corinthians 4:14–17; 11:1; and 1 Thessalonians 1:5–7. Should any Christian be able to tell another Christian to be a follower of him? Why? DAY FOUR Read what your commentaries have to say about Philippians 3:10–21. Take pertinent notes on another sheet of paper. DAY FIVE Let’s end this week with application. 1. Here are some questions for meditation. a. How are you walking? b. Where are you walking? c. Why are you walking there? 2. Can you tell others to follow your example of Christianity? What, if anything, needs to change in your life so that you can tell others to follow your example? Make a list of these things on the following chart: Things I Need to Change I Will or I Will Not When I Will Begin How I Will Begin 3. The remainder of your study today will be creative. Take some truth that God has spoken to you through Philippians 3 and develop it in such a way that you can share it with others. You might write a poem, a song, a devotional, a letter of exhortation, a teaching outline, a short article for your church publication or a magazine, or even draw a picture! LESSON EIGHT Chapter Four THIS LESSON INCORPORATES Observation Worksheet on Philippians 4, located in the Appendix Word Studies Cross-references Philippians 4 is one of the most practical chapters in all of the Word of God. DAY ONE AND DAY TWO Philippians 4 has the answer to some of the common conflicts facing every Christian. Observe this chapter. Give adequate time and meditation to this chapter. Read it over and over again until you find yourself able to quote portions of it. Become doers of the Word. What victory and peace it will bring! DAY THREE Today we will concentrate on verses 4–7. 1. Look up the following words or phrases in your concordance, expository dictionary, or other available tools. Do whatever is necessary to gain a clear understanding of what God is saying. Record your findings. a. gentle spirit b. anxious c. prayer d. supplication e. guard 2. When you observe verses 4–7 carefully, you will find a list of things God tells you to do. List them below. Ask the Lord to show you how each one applies to you. Is there anything you need to work out that He is working in you? DAY FOUR Today you will do some cross-reference work on Philippians 4:4–7. Look up each reference and study the verses. Then explain what the verse teaches you about any facet of anxiety. 1. Psalm 55:22 2. Isaiah 26:3 3. Isaiah 41:10 4. Isaiah 43:1–2 5. Matthew 6:24–34 6. Hebrews 13:5–6 7. 1 Peter 5:6–7 (These verses are one sentence.) DAY FIVE What a blessing you will receive today as you see all the truths you have learned this week illustrated in 2 Chronicles 20:1–30. 1. Read through 2 Chronicles 20:1–30 at least two times before you begin. 2. List the chain of events as they occur in this chapter. Do not be wordy! 3. Analyze Jehoshaphat’s prayer. How did his prayer begin; on what were his petitions based, etc.? 4. How does Philippians 4:6 compare with 2 Chronicles 20:1–30? 5. When did the Lord set ambushes and rout out the enemy? 6. Read 2 Chronicles 20:27, 29–30. What was the result of Jehoshaphat’s obedience? Why? Be specific. 7. In 2 Chronicles 20:15 we find that blessed statement “the battle is not yours but God’s.” Read 1 Samuel 17:31–51 and see how David’s experience compares with Jehoshaphat’s. Then compare Psalm 33:16–22 with 2 Chronicles 20:1–30 and 1 Samuel 17:31–51. Record any pertinent notes to aid you in your Precept discussion. 8. Now see what your commentaries say about Philippians 4:1–7. You have seen the reality of Philippians 4:4–6 in Jehoshaphat’s life and in David’s life. Now let others see the reality of it in your life LESSON NINE Chapter Four THIS LESSON INCORPORATES Word Studies Topical Studies Cross-references This is your final week of study on Philippians. You are to be commended for your perseverance and diligence. These have been weeks of much discipline. Maybe, like Paul, you have labored to the point of exhaustion, but labors such as these pay high dividends. These labors enable you to hold forth the Word of life, handling it accurately and without shame. In this day of great apathy in the church, how we praise the Lord for Christians who are willing to discipline themselves in such a way! DAY ONE The Mind 1. In Philippians 4:8 Paul gives a command that should revolutionize our thinking. Then in verse 9, there follows a wonderful promise. Close observation of these two verses shows that the promise rests on the fulfillment of specific conditions. Read both verses in their context and record on the following chart the promise and the conditions. Be specific. Promise Conditions 2. In verse 8, Paul tells us what our minds are to dwell on. List below what those things are. 3. “Dwell on” in Philippians 4:8 is present tense imperative. a. Look up the definition of this word and note it below. b. Why do you think Paul gives Christians this command in verse 8? To put it another way, of what profit is the command of Philippians 4:8 to the Christian? How does it relate to Philippians 4:6–7? 4. The verb “practice” in Philippians 4:9 is present tense imperative. How does this help you understand Paul’s instruction in this verse? 5. In Scripture the “mind” and the “heart” are often interchangeable. Look up the following verses and read them carefully. Write what these verses are saying. a. Proverbs 4:23 b. Proverbs 23:7 (the first statement) c. Isaiah 26:3 d. Matthew 9:4 e. Matthew 15:18–20 f. 1 Corinthians 2:16 6. Read 2 Corinthians 10:3–5 carefully. Note how these verses relate to your mind and how to handle your thought life. 7. List in a logical order all you have learned about your mind. Record your insights in a personal way. For example, I have learned that … This teaching on the mind is vital to good mental health. Study this truth well; then share it! If you were to obey the teaching of Philippians 4:8, how would it change your life? What you read, watch, listen to, say, think.… DAY TWO AND DAY THREE Contentment in All Circumstances of Life 1. Prayerfully read Philippians 4:10–13 asking the Holy Spirit to reveal the truths of these verses to you in a very real way. As you study, keep in mind Paul’s circumstances and his attitude toward these circumstances as manifested in the letter to the Philippians. Paul lived what he believed, and he practiced what he preached. Do you? 2. It seems that the beginning of contentment in all circumstances of life is the realization of two facts. First, God controls all the circumstances of life. Second, this God, who controls or rules as Sovereign Ruler over the whole universe, loves us and promises that everything will result in good to conform us to the image of His Son (Romans 8:28–29). Read Romans 8:28–29 and write out how these verses relate to contentment in every circumstance of life. 3. Read 1 Corinthians 10:13. How does this verse relate to Philippians 4:10–13 and to what you have learned thus far? 4. Compare Philippians 4:10–13 with Philippians 2:14. How do they fit together? 5. Read Job 1. What verses show the reality of Philippians 4:10–13 in Job’s life? 6. If you want a real blessing and if you have never read Joseph’s life, read Genesis 39–42 and 45 to see the truth of Philippians 4:10–13 illustrated in a man’s life. How would you have responded? How do you respond? Have you learned the secret? Have you learned to do or bear all things through the One who constantly infuses His strength into you? 7. Although this assignment is last, it is vital! Read and meditate upon Hebrews 13:5–6. Remember the truths you have learned. Meditate on them, practice them, and God will greatly use you in ministering to others. If you live in obedience to these verses, others will see and want to know your secret of life! DAY FOUR AND DAY FIVE Giving 1. Read Philippians 4:14–19 carefully, asking God to open the eyes of your understanding. 2. Read 2 Corinthians 8:1–15; 9:6–15. a. In 2 Corinthians 8:7, what is this “gracious work” that Paul is referring to? b. Who is our example in giving as seen in the following verses? 1) 2 Corinthians 8:9 2) 2 Corinthians 9:15 c. Explain the principle of equality in giving referred to in 2 Corinthians 8:13–15. What is Paul referring to in 2 Corinthians 8:15? d. List any other principles of giving taught in 2 Corinthians 8 and 9. 3. Read Deuteronomy 15:7–11. Is this passage applicable today? If so, how? 4. Look up the following verses and record what you learn from them. Do you see any promises or commands? If so, record them. a. Psalm 41:1 b. Proverbs 3:27 c. Proverbs 11:25 d. Proverbs 25:21–22 e. Proverbs 28:27 f. Luke 3:11 g. 1 John 3:17 5. God’s Word teaches that we are to support those who “perform sacred services” or “proclaim the gospel” (1 Corinthians 9:13–14). Study the following verses and record the principle taught in each. a. 1 Corinthians 9:7–14 b. Galatians 6:6–10 6. Do you think the promise of Philippians 4:19 is conditional, being based upon the Philippians’ generosity as seen in Philippians 4:14–18? 7. If you have time, read what your commentaries say about Philippians 4:8–19. May God give us His sensitivity to others, and may we seek the Spirit’s leadership in prayer so that His Spirit may lead us to those who have a need that we are to meet. APPENDIX PHILIPPIANS 1 Observation Worksheet Chapter Theme Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons: 2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 3 I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, 4 always offering prayer with joy in my every prayer for you all, 5 in view of your participation in the gospel from the first day until now. 6 For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus. 7 For it is only right for me to feel this way about you all, because I have you in my heart, since both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, you all are partakers of grace with me. 8 For God is my witness, how I long for you all with the affection of Christ Jesus. 9 And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment, 10 so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ; 11 having been filled with the fruit of righteousness which comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God. 12 Now I want you to know, brethren, that my circumstances have turned out for the greater progress of the gospel, 13 so that my imprisonment in the cause of Christ has become well known throughout the whole praetorian guard and to everyone else, 14 and that most of the brethren, trusting in the Lord because of my imprisonment, have far more courage to speak the word of God without fear. 15 Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will; 16 the latter do it out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel; 17 the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice, 19 for I know that this will turn out for my deliverance through your prayers and the provision of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, 20 according to my earnest expectation and hope, that I will not be put to shame in anything, but that with all boldness, Christ will even now, as always, be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death. 21 For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. 22 But if I am to live on in the flesh, this will mean fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which to choose. 23 But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better; 24 yet to remain on in the flesh is more necessary for your sake. 25 Convinced of this, I know that I will remain and continue with you all for your progress and joy in the faith, 26 so that your proud confidence in me may abound in Christ Jesus through my coming to you again. 27 Only conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or remain absent, I will hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel; 28 in no way alarmed by your opponents—which is a sign of destruction for them, but of salvation for you, and that too, from God. 29 For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake, 30 experiencing the same conflict which you saw in me, and now hear to be in me. PHILIPPIANS 2 Observation Worksheet Chapter Theme Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, 2 make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. 3 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; 4 do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. 12 So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure. 14 Do all things without grumbling or disputing; 15 so that you will prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world, 16 holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I will have reason to glory because I did not run in vain nor toil in vain. 17 But even if I am being poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I rejoice and share my joy with you all. 18 You too, I urge you, rejoice in the same way and share your joy with me. 19 But I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you shortly, so that I also may be encouraged when I learn of your condition. 20 For I have no one else of kindred spirit who will genuinely be concerned for your welfare. 21 For they all seek after their own interests, not those of Christ Jesus. 22 But you know of his proven worth, that he served with me in the furtherance of the gospel like a child serving his father. 23 Therefore I hope to send him immediately, as soon as I see how things go with me; 24 and I trust in the Lord that I myself also will be coming shortly. 25 But I thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger and minister to my need; 26 because he was longing for you all and was distressed because you had heard that he was sick. 27 For indeed he was sick to the point of death, but God had mercy on him, and not on him only but also on me, so that I would not have sorrow upon sorrow. 28 Therefore I have sent him all the more eagerly so that when you see him again you may rejoice and I may be less concerned about you. 29 Receive him then in the Lord with all joy, and hold men like him in high regard; 30 because he came close to death for the work of Christ, risking his life to complete what was deficient in your service to me. PHILIPPIANS 3 Observation Worksheet Chapter Theme Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things again is no trouble to me, and it is a safeguard for you. 2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; 3 for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh, 4 although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless. 7 But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, 9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, 10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; 11 in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. 12 Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. 13 Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude; and if in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you; 16 however, let us keep living by that same standard to which we have attained. 17 Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us. 18 For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ, 19 whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things. 20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; 21 who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself. PHILIPPIANS 4 Observation Worksheet Chapter Theme Therefore, my beloved brethren whom I long to see, my joy and crown, in this way stand firm in the Lord, my beloved. 2 I urge Euodia and I urge Syntyche to live in harmony in the Lord. 3 Indeed, true companion, I ask you also to help these women who have shared my struggle in the cause of the gospel, together with Clement also and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life. 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice! 5 Let your gentle spirit be known to all men. The Lord is near. 6 Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. 7 And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. 8 Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things. 9 The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you. 10 But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at last you have revived your concern for me; indeed, you were concerned before, but you lacked opportunity. 11 Not that I speak from want, for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am. 12 I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need. 13 I can do all things through Him who strengthens me. 14 Nevertheless, you have done well to share with me in my affliction. 15 You yourselves also know, Philippians, that at the first preaching of the gospel, after I left Macedonia, no church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving but you alone; 16 for even in Thessalonica you sent a gift more than once for my needs. 17 Not that I seek the gift itself, but I seek for the profit which increases to your account. 18 But I have received everything in full and have an abundance; I am amply supplied, having received from Epaphroditus what you have sent, a fragrant aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well-pleasing to God. 19 And my God will supply all your needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus. 20 Now to our God and Father be the glory forever and ever. Amen. 21 Greet every saint in Christ Jesus. The brethren who are with me greet you. 22 All the saints greet you, especially those of Caesar’s household. 23 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. HOW TO DO A CHAPTER STUDY~ Let’s Get Started! To learn more about doing a chapter study and other inductive Bible study skills, we encourage you to keep on hand a copy of How to Study Your Bible. If you don’t yet have a copy, you can order one by visiting or calling 800-763-8280. A chapter study helps you to focus in on the details in the chapter to better understand what the author is saying. Each of the skills is used to bring important points to light. • Look for the 5 Ws and H Read the text asking the 5 Ws and H—Who, What, When, Where, Why, How. For example, when studying John 1, read the text asking questions like: Who is this about? When? Where was the Word? Who was the Word? What did the Word do? Don’t expect every verse or chapter to answer all the 5 Ws and H about a particular subject or person, but you should read with a questioning mind-set. Marking key words and phrases and making lists help you to answer the 5 Ws and H. • Mark key words and phrases Key words are repeated words within a text which are vital to its meaning. Mark in a distinctive way each key word or phrase in the chapter along with its pronouns and synonyms. Use colors and/or symbols. Example: “” is a repeated word that is key to understanding John 1. • Lists The next step is to list what the chapter says about each of the key words. Look at each place you marked a key word and list what the text says. A list is a compilation of the facts given about a particular word or person. It gives the 5 Ws and H (who, what, when, where, why, how) about that word or person. Use words from the text. A list about the Word from John 1 begins this way: was in the beginning, v. 1 was with God, v. 1 was God, v. 1 was in the beginning with God, v. 2 • Mark and evaluate: Contrasts—point out differences. To mark a contrast, put a symbol in the margin by the verse(s), such as . John 1:17: “For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.” “But,” “however,” or “nevertheless” might indicate a contrast. John 4:2: “… Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were.…” Comparisons—point out similarities. To mark a comparison, put a symbol in the margin by the verse(s), such as . John 10:9: “I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved.…” Sometimes “like” or “as” indicate a comparison. John 3:14–15: “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.” Terms of Conclusion—show that a conclusion or summary is being made. These help us understand “why.” Look for the words signifying a conclusion or result such as “therefore,” “for this reason,” and “finally.” John 12:50: “I know that His commandment is eternal life; the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told Me.” Expressions of Time—give timing, sequence of events, or progression. Look for words such as “then,” “after,” “when,” “until,” “the day of.…” John 1:2: “He was with God.” • Identify subjects or themes Identify main subjects, events, or points of a chapter by observing it paragraph by paragraph. Paragraphs can be shown with boldface type for the first verse number of a paragraph, by a paragraph symbol, or by an indention at the beginning of a paragraph. Read each paragraph, and in the margin list the event, subject, or main point of the paragraph. John testified about the Light John 1:6–8 6 There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. Precept Ministries International. (2014). Philippians: How to Have Joy (1st edition, S. i–100). Chattanooga, TN: Precept Ministries International.

Published: November 2, 2016, 10:13 | Comments Off on PHILIPPIANS HOW TO HAVE JOY – via Archbishop Rosary
Category: Bible teaching, Bishop Rosenkranz, Christian, contextualization

H1 Bisher und Bald

2 Can Someone Please Volunteer?

4 Problems Facing Your Church Volunteer Team Building Teams That Last………………………………………………………

3 Recruitment: The Ingredients for Growth…………………………………….

4 Training: The Backbone of Your Team……………………………………..

15 Appreciation: The Secret to Making People Feel Valued…………………

.20 Burnout: The Reality Every Team Faces…………………………………..

.28 The Great Invitation…………………………………………………………..

.37 About Proclaim…………………………………………………………………

38 About the Author………………………………………………………………



3 Building Teams That Last Thriving volunteer teams don’t sprout up overnight. They don’t bound up to the stage after the perfect announcement. They don’t line up at your door after reading their bulletins. And whether or not you have one is not an indicator of how clearly your church communicates the gospel. If you want to build a church volunteer team that lasts, there are two things you have to do: you need to get people on your team, and you need to keep them there. You don’t necessarily want just anybody to join your team, and you can’t possibly keep everyone from quitting. But the best volunteer programs are the ones that get more of the right people on your team, and that keep more of the right people for longer. In this ebook we’ve split these two phases of your volunteer program into four pieces—recruitment, training, appreciation, and burnout—so you’ll walk away with the tools you need to build a volunteer team that lasts. 4 Recruitment: The Ingredients for Growth Right now, there are people in your church who want to volunteer, but aren’t involved yet. Some of them are waiting for the right opportunity—the role that perfectly aligns with their gifts. Others are literally just waiting to be asked. The challenge for your staff is finding the right times to ask, the right ways to ask, and the right people to ask. If you’re struggling to develop a solid volunteer program, here are 13 tips to help you recruit more volunteers.

  1. Share opportunities in multiple ways

Announcements, newsletters, and church bulletins are a great way to tell your congregation what’s going on in your church. They let you cast a wide net and communicate with everyone at once, and you’re sure to get some of the people you need. But that shouldn’t be the only way people hear how to get involved. Sometimes it’s better to use a fishing pole than a net. An announcement to everyone doesn’t have the same impact on someone as a personal invitation. People want to know they’re in the right place, that they belong, and that you really are talking to them specifically. A personal invitation leaves no doubt that this opportunity is for them. Every two weeks I lead a Bible study with high school students. When I send a group message to all of them at once, I get crickets. At best, a couple of the most actively involved kids respond. It’s only when I personally call, message, text, or talk to each 5 kid individually that they realize I’m really inviting them and I really want them to respond to the invitation. The big announcements are an important piece of the puzzle, but you can’t rely on those to connect with every person. Even the people who want to get involved can miss, forget about, or dismiss an announcement. Each piece of your volunteer recruitment plan should direct people to a personal conversation with a real person.

  1. Define who you’re looking for

If people don’t know what kind of person you need to fill a role, they’re less likely to believe they’re the right person for the job. If you’re desperate for volunteers, you might be tempted to let this slide, but if your goal is to develop a healthy program and get the right people in the right roles, be upfront about what it takes to succeed in a particular role. If you need friendly extroverts who like to meet new people, ask for them specifically. If you need someone who can focus on one task for a long time, say so. If you need someone with experience, or if a particular skill would make someone better suited for the job, let people know. Defining the personalities, skills, or knowledge people need to succeed will undoubtedly shrink the pool of eligible volunteers—but that’s not something to be afraid of if it means putting together a volunteer program that lasts. The more specific you are about the type of person you need, the more likely someone in your congregation will realize, “Hey, that’s me!”

  1. Explain the purpose before the task

6 There are lots of reasons why people volunteer. Most of them aren’t “I really like to say ‘Hi’ to strangers” or “I love the software you use.” Before you ever get to the specific micro-level tasks a particular role entails, make sure people know why you need them to help. “We want people to feel like they belong here before they set foot inside our doors.” “We want every detail of our service to look thoughtfully prepared—because it’s true.” Whether this happens from the stage, in personal conversations, or in volunteer-interest meetings, don’t miss your opportunity to cast the vision for your volunteers. If they don’t understand why they’re perfectly arranging several hundred pens or folding bulletins or shaking hands, they might quit before they even start. Share why you need volunteers, what the job is, and how to do it—in that order.

  1. Make it simple to get involved

The more hurdles you put between potential volunteers and the finish line (volunteering in your program), the less volunteers you’re going to have. A strong volunteer program should be easy to get involved in. If someone checks a box in your bulletin saying they want to volunteer, someone should contact them within a couple of days to find out how they’d like to volunteer and what their schedule looks like. Don’t place a huge burden on new volunteers—start them out with a limited schedule so the initial burden is as small as possible. This isn’t to say you shouldn’t be thorough or that you shouldn’t have a vetting process for particular roles (like children’s ministry volunteers). It just means that whatever your process is, it should happen quickly, and most of the actual work should happen on your end. 7 If the position requires a higher level of responsibility or higher expectations for knowledge, skill, etc., that should be very clear before someone ever starts the process of trying to be a volunteer.

  1. Let people try it before committing

Even if you clearly communicate what it’s like to be a volunteer, some people are still going to feel like they had no idea what they were getting into. Maybe they’ve never been in a room full of third graders before. Maybe they didn’t realize how it would actually affect their schedule. If you let people try something out before they commit to doing it regularly, it’s a lot less stressful to say, “Yes.” It also makes it easier for one of you to say, “No,” if you have to. You might want people try several different roles before they decide which one they want to do (if you need certain roles more than others, let people know). This helps you and the volunteer to know that they are in the best possible role—which hopefully means they’ll stay longer, and provide a greater benefit to your ministry. You need volunteers you can count on regularly. Providing a volunteer “test-drive” is a great way to make sure nobody gets stuck in a role they aren’t cut out for—and it helps keep your church from getting left out to dry. It’s also an important part of preventing volunteer burnout before it happens.

  1. Follow up with potential volunteers

Sometimes getting to know a potential volunteer might reveal that someone isn’t the right fit for your ministry. Sometimes, they might just not be the right fit right now. School, weddings, moving, job-hunting, and other major transitions can make it hard to commit to volunteering—but those things don’t last forever. 8 After getting to know a potential volunteer, you may also find that you don’t feel like they’re ready. Maybe there’s a maturity issue, or you see or hear something else that makes it clear this isn’t the right time. Maybe you know about a better opportunity for this person down the road. Whether the decision is made on your end or theirs, take note of the people who might make good volunteers in the future. Put a date in your calendar to follow up with them. Building relationships with the people in your congregation should never feel like a waste of time, and if you personally invest in potential volunteers, more of them will become actual volunteers. Know the difference between “not now” and “never.”

  1. Create clear expectations

The more defined a role is, the easier it is to get involved. Your volunteer program should have a solid volunteer training strategy, and every volunteer should know these three things:

  1. Where they need to be
  2. What they’re doing
  3. Why they’re doing it

When you “just wing it” through training new volunteers, it can make people feel like their role isn’t as important to you, your church, or your ministry. You’re also bound to miss something important. Meet with your staff and prepare everything you want your volunteers to know. This is your chance to cast the vision for what volunteering looks like in your church. You should also make it clear what not to do. Volunteers are not the same as employees, but they absolutely represent your church, and you’re inviting them to be 9 part of your ministry. If someone has a bad experience with one of your volunteers, they’re probably going to associate that experience with your ministry. Put together a “code of conduct” for your volunteers. You don’t need to scare anyone or preemptively wag your finger—focus on the incredible privilege your team has, and use this as an opportunity to share why their role matters to your ministry.

  1. Pray for volunteers

In the six years I’ve been a volunteer leader with Young Life, not one year has gone by where we didn’t take some time to reflect on Matthew 9:37–38 and pray for more volunteers. Invite your existing volunteers to be part of this process. They’re some of your best recruiters, and chances are they know other people who could volunteer too. Our Young Life staff gives every volunteer a card with Matthew 9:37–38 on it for us to write down names of people who could be volunteers too. There are a lot of things you can’t control. But none of those things matter when you ask God for help and remember his sovereignty. Your passionate plea from the pulpit asking for more volunteers can only go so far. Your announcements, bulletins, and flashy videos can’t change someone’s schedule or address every excuse. But long after your words are forgotten, the Holy Spirit continues working on people’s hearts. Prayer is the most valuable piece of your volunteer recruitment program, and the Holy Spirit is your most valuable team member.

  1. Teach your church about the body of Christ

10 1 Corinthians 12:12–31 offers a powerful picture of the diversity of the church. Each member of your congregation is unique, and plays a particular role in the body of Christ. This is a passage the church can always benefit from spending more time in, but if your team is hurting for volunteers, this passage is also a great way to show people that each of us is uniquely gifted to serve a particular purpose, and each of us can benefit the entire body. During or after a sermon on this passage, consider whether it’s appropriate to share about the opportunities available to your church. You may want to talk about some of your partner ministries and highlight some of your greatest needs. This isn’t about guilting people into volunteering. This is about being the church. Whether or not people are capable of volunteering, they should walk away from a teaching on 1 Corinthians 12 feeling affirmed in who they are and confident in what they’re capable of. On the other hand, nobody should walk away from this thinking “volunteering is for hands, and I’m more of an eye, really.” There are plenty of very legitimate reasons for 11 not getting involved in your volunteer program, but that’s not one of them. If you bring volunteering into the conversation, it should be clear that there is a role for everyone.

  1. Help people identify their gifts

A lot of people have no idea what they’re gifts are. They don’t really know what they’re good at, or they feel like the things they’re good at don’t line up with how the church talks about “gifts” and “talents.” For some, the topic of spiritual gifts stirs up questions about their identity. Helping members of your congregation identify their gifts isn’t just valuable to your church or your volunteer program—it’s part of the process of helping people recognize who they are in Christ, and truly seeing that they are fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14). 12 There are lots of different methods for identifying spiritual gifts, but what they all come down to is this: being familiar with the different expressions of the Holy Spirit and being familiar with yourself. There is no substitute for knowing the Holy Spirit and knowing the people in your church. But not every pastor has the privilege of personally knowing every person in the church—and not every pastor has the time to evaluate spiritual gifts with every member of the congregation. Lifeway provides a free spiritual gift assessment tool you can share with your church. If you can, try to identify volunteer roles in your church that align with each expression of the Holy Spirit, so people can easily see where they fit.

  1. Appreciate the volunteers you have

Volunteer appreciation plays an important role in a healthy volunteer recruitment program. Why? Because your current volunteers are some of your biggest assets. 13 People are most likely to share a very positive or a very negative experience. You can’t guarantee every person will have a positive experience, but you can do your best to make sure every person knows they are valued. Public volunteer appreciation also gives you the opportunity to show people what volunteering is like and how your church feels about its volunteers. This isn’t about providing some extravagant gift as incentive to volunteer. It’s about showing your church that it’s an honor to be a volunteer, and to talk about what makes someone a good one. Highlight ways your volunteers are pointing people to Jesus, setting up the gospel, and caring for the people in your congregation. Any public volunteer appreciation you do should leave people with two thoughts:

  1. That’s so cool that so-and-so does that for our church.
  2. I wonder what I could do to help?
  3. Showcase volunteer testimonies

It’s one thing when a pastor says, “Hey, you should all volunteer. I think you’ll like it.” It’s another thing when someone you know shares how much they love what they do. When you want to draw people to a particular role, consider letting one of your volunteers share about their experience. This could be a huge growth opportunity for the volunteer, and you might find that their testimony is far more compelling than anything you could say. Help your volunteers put their experience into words. If they aren’t comfortable sharing on stage, see if filming their testimony would be more comfortable.

  1. Highlight the benefits

14 Your volunteers’ desire to serve shouldn’t be rooted in any form of compensation. But as you probably know, volunteering can be a deeply enriching experience. Highlighting those benefits upfront can help fuel someone’s desire to serve others and be part of your ministry. I’m not saying you should try to accommodate the person who asks,”What’s in it for me?” Highlighting the benefits of volunteering is a strategy to draw the right people into your program. People who have the motivation to stay involved for the long haul. If a desire for better relationships with fellow church members, spiritual growth, and the satisfaction of serving others motivates someone to volunteer, they’re probably the type of person you want to have on your team. Once you get people to join your team, it’s time to dig into the next big piece of your volunteer program: training. 15 Training: The Backbone of Your Volunteer Program Nobody likes to feel like they don’t know what they’re doing. Maybe more than that, nobody likes to look like they don’t know what they’re doing. If either of those scenarios is the reality for people who volunteer at your church, it might not just be a personal problem—it could be a training problem. When new volunteers step through the door to your church office (or send the email, make the phone call, etc.), they’re committing to try something. Some are willing to try harder than others. Solid volunteer training captures that “I want to help” energy and turns potential volunteers into people you can count on. It also helps people decide if something is really the right fit for them. Poor training, on the other hand, dries up a potential volunteer’s desire to help—fast. Just because you have a training program in place doesn’t mean you’re covered here. People learn in different ways. If you’re only utilizing one strategy for training your new volunteers, people who would otherwise be a great fit for your church may feel like they “just don’t have it,” and give up. The more complex a volunteer’s role is, the more important it is that you provide multiple ways for them to learn. The volunteers who work with your presentation software, for example, are going to have varying levels of technical expertise. Some of them might be able to jump into a program on their own and play around until they figure out what they need to do. Others need to have a clear model they can follow, or one-on-one instruction. Whether they’re putting together the slides or running the presentation, the task will require some people to learn and grow more than others. 16 Anytime you have a new batch of volunteers, part of getting to know them should involve finding out how they learn best. If they don’t know, then you can default to your go-to training strategy. If they can tell you how they learn best, it’ll help you make the best use of your time together. In this chapter, we’ll look specifically at training someone how to run your presentations, but the strategies apply to any volunteer role. Here are four basic strategies for training new volunteers.

  1. “Hands-on” training

One-on-one attention is the most obvious way to train someone how to use a new program, but it’s also the most time consuming. It requires you to give personal instruction to each volunteer, and only you can decide if you have the time to do that. Hands-on training doesn’t mean you throw a new volunteer into a live presentation and watch over their shoulder while they struggle through the service. The best way for them to practice is in a controlled environment—a no-pressure situation. Guide them through each step of the service, and then see if they can repeat the process without you. You could walk them through a practice presentation. Maybe have them create a copy of last weekend’s service using the pieces you had—a list of songs, notes from the pastor, events coming up, verses that need to go on slides, etc. You could also write out step-by-step instructions for them, which is a good test of both their ability to follow and your ability to communicate directions (so you can get better at training, too). Or, have them write down what you ask them to do, so they remember it better (and they can put it in their own words). Whatever you have them do, the important part of one-on-one training is that an expert (or at least someone who mostly knows what they’re doing) is right there to answer questions or provide correction. 17

  1. “Hands-off” observation

Similar to hands-on one-on-one training, this strategy allows you to give personal guidance to a volunteer. The difference is, this may not require you to set aside additional time for training. Just do the job as usual, with one change: Have them watch you work through the entire process start to finish. Invite them to join you when you’re putting together the presentation for the next service. Pull out an extra chair and let them watch you during the actual service. Let them see everything the job requires you to do. Watching gives your volunteer the freedom to ask the questions they need answered, so you don’t explain things they already figured out through observation, and they don’t feel dumb for not understanding what you’re telling them to do. If you have steps written out somewhere, show them when you check off each step. Encourage them to take their own notes along the way. When you’re done showing them the whole process, that may be the best time to switch seats and let them drive. See if they can follow your steps, but encourage them to ask questions, and wait until they ask for help—don’t preemptively create and run the entire presentation for them.

  1. Learn, teach, repeat

Once you’ve trained a new volunteer, see if they know everything they need to be able to teach another new volunteer. Sometimes explaining a process to someone else helps you understand it better. You’re not just playing “telephone” with detailed instructions—you’re explaining what you just learned in your own words. 18 This strategy is perhaps the best test of your own ability to train others, and it’s one of the best ways to multiply your expertise and your time. The more people available to answer technical questions, the less burden there is on you. If people know in advance that they’re going to have to teach someone else how to do what they’re learning, they may ask more questions the first time around and pay closer attention to what they’re doing. They’ll be more prepared to perform the tasks themselves, and they’ll be better equipped to repeat the process for someone else. If you choose this strategy, be sure you remove other factors that could add to the stress of teaching (don’t use a live presentation in front of your whole church). Be sensitive to the fact that teaching is stressful enough on its own for a lot of people. If someone isn’t comfortable teaching others, it’s okay to choose another strategy—they might just want to understand the process better before they try to show someone else.

  1. Independent learning

A tech-savvy self-guided learner probably doesn’t want you to hold their hand through every step of the training. Sitting through meetings or in-depth one-on-one sessions may actually slow down their learning process. They may prefer to learn how your presentations work by playing with the features themselves. They still need to know your church’s process—but maybe not how to use the tools. Who knows—they may even discover a better way for your church use a tool or do a job. These people need a one-stop-shop where they can find out everything they need to know and explore their new role on their own. This could be a page on your website, or something as simple as an email with links to pages, articles, and tools you want them to be familiar with. That’s one of the ways Proclaim makes it easy for new volunteers to get started. If you’ve got a self-guided learner on your team, they can see all our training videos, step- 19 by-step guides to presentations, and training on particular features and processes on our Proclaim help page. Find what works for your church Even if you’re just getting to know your volunteers, you have a relationship with each of them. Get to know your team, and if possible, be willing to try a few different training strategies. If someone doesn’t understand what they’re supposed to do, it doesn’t always mean that they aren’t a good fit—they might just need you to teach them in another way. Any of these strategies can be mixed and matched based on your needs and the learning styles of your volunteers. Use training as the time to give your volunteers every opportunity to see if this is the right fit for them—before your church has to count on them, and before they commit to making the role a regular part of their life. So your team is starting to grow, and you’re figuring out the best way to train your new volunteers. We still need to talk about why people quit, and how to keep them from doing it—but first, let’s make these new volunteers feel more appreciated (so more of them will stick around longer). 20 Appreciation: The Secret to Making People Feel Valued I’ve been volunteering as a youth leader with Young Life for six years. Once or twice a year, one of our regular leader gatherings includes a time where volunteers are recognized for their years of service, and the community of people who support us generously provide a small gift of some kind. It’s something simple to physically accompany the words, “Thank you.” A Young Life shirt, a hat, a blanket, or a mug stuffed full of candy. Gift cards to the coffee shops we call home after countless hours spent in conversation with kids. Vouchers for a free meal at a local restaurant or a service provided by a local business that supports the ministry of Young Life. A couple of years ago, a friend who was volunteering with me was bothered by the gift. It was too extravagant. It wasn’t fair to ask people to thank us with their money. And the gift was too impersonal to really feel like sincere gratitude. To him, the whole thing felt inauthentic, forced, and inconsiderate of the people who have already done so much to support us. I understood how he felt, but I also believed that for these people who only knew some of the volunteers personally, the gesture was sincere effort to show every volunteer that they genuinely support the work they do, whether they know each volunteer personally or not. But my friend didn’t feel valued as a volunteer, and he hated feeling like people had a financial burden to say thank you to him. He’s not an ungrateful person. But the thought and effort that went into the gift and the gesture of physically providing something to say thank you was lost on him. It didn’t communicate what it was intended to communicate. And unfortunately, when we use 21 cookie-cutter formulas to show appreciation, some people are going to feel unvalued every time. People receive love in different ways. The things that make you personally feel valued, respected, and cared for might not mean much to someone else. That doesn’t mean they’re ungrateful—it might just mean that they’re different than you. (It’s still totally possible that they are ungrateful, but that’s a whole other conversation.) My friend feels more valued through words of affirmation—a note or personal conversation would’ve meant more to him than that gift ever could. My local Young Life area doesn’t by any means limit the way they thank volunteers to these gifts (they send cards and seize every opportunity to thank volunteers throughout the year in one-on-one and group meetings) but to my friend, the build-up made the gift seem like it was supposed to be the pinnacle of thankfulness, and it fell short. Making large groups of people feel appreciated is too complicated to try just one thing. The bigger your church or ministry is and the more volunteers you have, the harder it is to get to know them all on a personal level—and the more important it is that each volunteer feels personally valued. This is the only formula to make someone feel valued: get to know them. Learn what makes them feel personally cared for, and then do that. Do lots of completely different things to appreciate them and see what sticks. Note: one of the best indicators of how someone prefers to be appreciated is how they choose to show appreciation to others. As you get to know your volunteers and genuinely seek to appreciate them, here are seven ideas for you to try. Full disclosure: most of these come straight from Gary Chapman’s 5 Love Languages series. While Chapman’s focus is on marriages, the principles apply to any personal or professional relationship that involves communicating you care about another person. 22

  1. Acts of service

For some of your volunteers, words, gifts, and even time spent together isn’t what actually communicates that you appreciate them. You can spend time with someone you don’t like. You can give things to people out of obligation. You can say things without really meaning them. Some of your volunteers might feel most loved when people do nice things for them: give them a ride to some appointment they’re dreading, or make a meal for them when they’re stressed or busy. Help them study for that class, offer to babysit, or take care of something else they keep putting off because they’re too busy. (My go-to is usually babysitting). Acts of service shows people that they are worth making sacrifices for, that you’re thinking of them, and that you care about them enough to help make their lives a little easier. If you don’t know enough about your volunteers to know what’s going on in their lives and what you can do for them, it may be time to refer to method #2.

  1. Quality time

Some of your volunteers may feel most loved when someone makes a point of spending quality time with them. Go to a movie or the park, or invite them over for dinner. Bring your families together. Find something to do where you can just hang out with the people you want to appreciate—something that says, “You’re worth spending time with.” It’s not an appointment. It’s not a meeting. And it has nothing to do with the ministry they’re involved with or the role they serve in. It’s two people investing in a personal friendship. 23 When you like being around the people you serve with, the time you spend serving becomes that much more enjoyable, too.

  1. Words of affirmation

This is me. I’m the guy that constantly wants to know what you think of me. My greatest fear is being misunderstood. And the single greatest thing someone can do to show me they appreciate what I’m doing is to tell me. When someone tells me I did a good job, it motivates me to do a good job again. When someone calls out a specific thing that they notice about me—something I did or said, how I approached a situation, or how something about me makes me well-suited to my role—it gives me the fuel I need to keep doing and saying those things to the best of my ability. People who respond well to words of affirmation aren’t constantly looking for a pat on the head or waiting to be singled out for every little good thing they do. But when you notice someone doing an exceptional job, or faithfully and consistently serving your church or ministry in a particular way, tell them. Tell them how glad you are to have their help. If you notice specific things about them and the way they serve that role, all the better. If your words of affirmation aren’t specific, they don’t mean as much. People can tell when you just said the same thing to four other people. Or when you don’t really know what it is they do for you. People who respond well to words of affirmation feel cared about when you give them personal feedback. When you can identify particular ways they are succeeding or specific things they are uniquely gifted for. I’m a writer. And my wife is always looking for new ways to encourage me to keep writing. 24 The best way she can encourage me is to read things I write and say something about them. It’s specific and personal from someone who knows me and understands why I write. That personal affirmation is all I need to feel like what I’m doing matters. The best way to encourage your volunteers who respond to words of affirmation is to get to know them, look at the things they are doing well, and to say something about them.

  1. Gifts

For some volunteers, a thoughtful gift says “I appreciate you” in a meaningful way. It shows that you were thinking of them when you weren’t with them, and that you care about them enough to spend time and/or money on them. Whether it’s a treat you baked or a gift card you chose, it communicates that you notice them and the work they do. Like words of affirmation (and really, all of these ideas), the more personal or thoughtful your gift is, the more valued it makes someone feel. A personal gift that cost you nothing can sometimes do more to communicate your appreciation than one that cost you (or your donors) a fortune.

  1. Cast the vision

Nobody likes to feel like what they’re doing doesn’t really make a difference. If your role is small and you don’t feel like it matters, it’s a lot easier to leave it behind. Show your volunteers why what they’re doing matters. This can go hand-in-hand with words of affirmation, but it’s worth covering in volunteer training, too. Everyone who volunteers for your church should know how their role contributes to your church’s mission, makes your services the best they can be, and ultimately points people to Jesus. 25

  1. Honor their time

Every time they show up to a meeting, training, practice, or event, your volunteers are sacrificing things to be with you. They’re giving up time with friends and family. Time doing the things that help them recover from a long day at work and the wear and tear of life. Some of your volunteers would rather be meeting with you than at home doing something else. But some of them would rather be home, or would like to get home as soon as possible. They’re here because they care about your ministry, they recognize their part in what you’re doing, and because they know that boring or time-consuming meetings are often a necessary part of doing things we enjoy. Show your volunteers that you appreciate what they do by honoring their time. A couple of years ago, I was with a group of team leaders discussing how long our volunteer meetings would be for the upcoming year. Some of our volunteers wanted to spend more time together so that they could get to know each other better. Others felt like we already spent so much time together, and asking them to take off another hour for an informal social time was going to be a struggle. The compromise? We established an optional hour for dinner and hanging out before the “official” meeting started (which always lasted at least two hours anyways). We absolutely wanted to encourage people to get to know each other better and to spend more time together, but we didn’t want that to come at the cost of losing (or discouraging) volunteers who already felt stretched too far for time. How much you emphasize honoring people’s time will completely depend on the makeup of your team, but it’s important to recognize what people are giving up to be with you. Show them that you appreciate what they are already doing enough that you aren’t going to take up more of their time than you have to. You don’t have to cancel all your meetings and shush all small talk. Honoring your volunteers’ time can be as simple as starting and ending on time, being where you’ve 26 asked them to meet you before they arrive, and not letting your meetings have long gaps where nothing is happening. Clearly communicate any changes to the schedule in more than one way. Don’t just send an email—if people aren’t used to getting last minute schedule changes from you, they may not even check their email. Make sure someone has established contact with each person on your team so that nobody shows up when they don’t have to. As you get to know your volunteers, you’ll get to know the best ways to reach them last minute (which hopefully doesn’t happen very often).

  1. Help them grow

As your volunteers give more of their time to your ministry, they should experience personal growth—or know what they need to do to experience it. This could be closely tied to #5: as they understand more about why their role matters to the ministry, they can grow in their understanding of how God uses them in the lives of others. Help them connect the dots between what they’re doing and what God is doing. When you meet together, challenge your volunteers to try specific things that could help them grow personally and in their role. Give your greeters better tools for starting conversations, or something to reflect on while they meet new people. Give your tech volunteers freedom to experiment or try new things (I’d start with a controlled setting), or a more experienced person they can work alongside and learn from. Give your worship team members the opportunity to share something they’ve been learning or reflecting on lately—with the team or the congregation. The specific growth opportunities available to your volunteers completely depends on your church. But for most roles, some of the biggest things that will help volunteers experience personal growth are mentors and community. If you don’t have the capacity 27 to personally walk alongside your volunteers, find someone (or a group of someones) who has the time and energy to invest in the people that serve with you. Help them recognize their potential and show them they are worth investing time in and developing a personal relationship with. With respect to #6, giving your team opportunities to get to know each other can go a long ways towards personal growth and ultimately feeling valued. Know your volunteers Even the most thorough vetting process doesn’t do much to help you get to know someone personally. And the bottom line is, if you want your volunteers to feel valued, you have to know them on an individual level. Being on a first name basis isn’t good enough (but it’s definitely a start). And if you’re looking at this list thinking “I don’t have time to do any of these things,” maybe it’s time to bring someone on board who can. Who knows, maybe someone will volunteer? Maybe you’re already doing these things, and you’re reading this thinking “So why am I still losing volunteers left and right?” If you’re tired of watching your best volunteers walk away for good (or you’re worried they might some day), it’s time for us to talk about burnout. 28 Burnout: The Reality Every Team Faces Sometimes volunteers are just going to quit, and there’s nothing you can do to change their minds. People move. They get new jobs or go through transitions that make volunteering more difficult or stressful. But sometimes people quit for completely preventable reasons. They’re worn out. They don’t feel like what they do really matters to you or your ministry. They feel stuck in their role. Or they feel like no one cares if they show up or not. Each of these feelings are personal. But that doesn’t reduce these issues to personal problems or give you permission to dismiss them because you think someone “just isn’t the right fit.” They’re symptoms of burnout, and you can take steps to make sure other volunteers don’t burnout, too. These are feelings you can address before they ever become problems. And if you don’t take measures to protect your team against them, you could find yourself reading an unexpected resignation letter or having a tough conversation with one of your best volunteers. Whether you’re experiencing burnout yourself or you’re simply concerned about the health of your team, these 12 methods will help you avoid losing valuable volunteers. A lot of these methods overlap, but they each contribute to helping your volunteers feel more connected to their roles, your ministry, and the people they serve with. If you’re serious about fighting burnout, see how these 12 tips can help your volunteer program:

  1. Share the impact volunteers have

29 One of the best ways to remind people why what they do matters is to show them what happens as a result of their work. We don’t always get to see the direct fruits of our labor, and some roles will see more tangible ways they impact your mission, but you can always remind someone what they are contributing to, and how their contribution affects the outcome. Talk about your mission and how what they do each week makes that mission possible, or fulfills that mission in some way. If you’re having trouble communicating this to your volunteers, try to imagine your church without that role. What changes? Imagine your church without greeters. How would visitors feel when they set foot in your door? Imagine you didn’t have a volunteer running your presentations. Who would that role fall to each service? How would you work around it? Imagine that nobody in your church volunteered to play or sing in the worship band. What would worship look like each week? None of these things determine whether or not your church can share the gospel. But every volunteer role has a purpose, and they each empower your church to share the gospel more clearly, with more people, or in different ways. There’s a reason for every role. Identify that underlying purpose—the reason why your church or ministry depends on that volunteer—and highlight that purpose to your team as often as you can. Help them see how they fit into the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:4–30). Note: Be sensitive to how your team responds when you emphasize the importance of their role, and the context in which you share it. In the wrong setting, (like when someone is late to a meeting, or after you’ve just made an additional request) a reminder about the importance of a volunteer role becomes discouraging, and it can contribute to the volunteer burnout you’re trying to prevent. 30

  1. Give your volunteers rest

If you pay attention to your volunteers and know them personally, it’s a lot easier to tell when they need a break. Your ministry depends on your team, and they know that, but it should also be clear to volunteers that they can say no when life is too crazy. If you make volunteering an all-or-nothing commitment, you’re going to have less volunteers, and the ones you do have are going to wear out faster. This isn’t giving people the freedom to be late or to not show up when they’ve said they would be there for you—it’s about giving people permission to tell you when they can’t or shouldn’t do what is being asked of them. I’m not saying you should bend over backwards for lazy people (although Luke 13:6–9 has always made me more flexible with lazy people). All I’m saying is: pay attention. Sometimes people won’t tell you when they’re unusually stressed—they might even tell you they’re fine. What “rest” looks like is up to you and your team. For some ministries, summer is the least active time of year, and volunteers enjoy a more casual commitment. But if every volunteer role is equally active year round, you may have to find other ways to give volunteers breaks. Maybe “rest” means you celebrate your volunteers and the hard work they’ve done all year. Maybe it means less meetings, or you find a way to give them a day off from their role. Obviously, giving people a break is a lot easier when you have more than one volunteer in every role—which brings us to the next big way you can fight volunteer burnout.

  1. Distribute knowledge

When you’re the only one who knows how to do your job, that job can quickly become more stressful. This usually happens in some of the most difficult or important roles— 31 less people want to do it (or are capable of doing it), so the burden falls on a handful of people (or one person). They have to commit more of their lives to the role, and they feel less freedom to say no. I’ve never heard a church or ministry say, “We have too many volunteers. Seriously, we don’t need your help.” There are never enough volunteers. But that doesn’t mean we have to look at this situation and say, “Too bad.” Encourage your more experienced volunteers (or the ones who have more time) to learn multiple roles. Or see if anyone on your staff would be willing to give a volunteer a break now and then. When it comes to the long term health of your ministry, your team has to be able to support each other. It may seem like you’re asking your volunteers for one more thing, but this gives you the opportunity to show your volunteers that they can lean on each other (and you) when they need to.

  1. Appreciate your volunteers

You can never adequately compensate your volunteers for all the work they do for you. And the vast majority of volunteers aren’t looking for compensation. They’re volunteering. And if they’re volunteering in ministry, they’re probably hoping to get something you can’t hand them—like spiritual growth, or a more intimate relationship with God. Volunteer appreciation isn’t about compensation. Knowing that should help you decide how to appreciate your volunteers. Volunteer appreciation is about encouragement. It’s acknowledging the sacrifices your volunteers make for you and your ministry, and helping them see that what they do matters. The ways you show your volunteers that you appreciate them should come from knowing them personally and discovering what makes them feel most cared about. 32 If your volunteers feel like you care about them personally, it makes it more enjoyable to remain in their volunteer community.

  1. Build a volunteer community

My volunteer team doesn’t just meet together to plan youth group or go over “official volunteer business.” We’re friends. We spend time together because we enjoy each other. Sometimes our “official” meetings take longer than they need to because we hang out and talk about life—even though we’re all tired of meetings and we’re always trying to make them shorter. We didn’t become friends overnight. We’ve been volunteering together for years. During that time we’ve made an intentional effort to be part of each others’ lives. Being friends made it that much harder when one of our team members had to quit. We understood her reasons for leaving, but her absence deeply affected our team—and it was harder for her to leave because she knew she’d see us less. Building community isn’t about guilting people into staying. It’s about developing genuine relationships that lead volunteers to enjoy their role more.

  1. Provide clear goals

Once a volunteer has mastered the basics of their position, what’s next for them? Doing the same task in the same way at the same place gets old fast. Goals give volunteers direction for growth and can keep “the usual thing” enjoyable. Providing goals can also help your ministry get more out of your volunteers. Goals could be simple, like learning the names of 10 new people each service. Or they could be bigger, like leading a song for the first time, or preparing a devotional. Give your volunteers the option to challenge themselves to grow. 33 When people stop growing, that’s when they start getting that nagging feeling that something needs to change. If you can, you should try to map out a “volunteer career path” for each of the roles your church or ministry offers. Show volunteers that there are opportunities to take their desire to grow even further. Be reasonable, and don’t push your volunteers into the deep end, but keep fueling their desire to help by acknowledging their strengths and giving those strengths an application. “You’re great at _____. Have you ever thought about trying ____?”

  1. Prevent burnout, don’t react to it

By the time someone gets around to telling you that they’re quitting, they’ve probably made up their mind already. Unless you have a close relationship with your volunteers (and even if you do), they’ve likely discussed the decision with other people before they talked to you. When they get to you, they may already be too committed to their choice for you to change their minds. If your plan to fight burnout is reactionary, you’ll almost always be too late. Burnout doesn’t usually happen all of a sudden. It begins with boredom, dissatisfaction, frustration, or fatigue. Over time, those feelings grow into a desire for change, and then a decision based on those feelings. You can’t prevent every volunteer from burning out. And most won’t stay for life. But if you’re proactive about fighting burnout and you pay attention to how your volunteers feel about their roles, more of them will stay for longer.

  1. Come prepared, every time

34 Few things are more frustrating to a volunteer than a leader who isn’t prepared. Your volunteers take time off work, get babysitters, and plan around the time they spend with you and your ministry. When you show up late or unprepared, it can make your volunteers feel like you don’t care—or like you don’t understand what they’re giving up to be with you. Honor their time, be prepared, and give as much notice as you can when a meeting is going to be shorter or longer than usual. Those changes affect people’s lives.

  1. Remind them why they serve

People volunteer for a lot of different reasons. Some of those reasons—like spiritual growth or a desire to serve God—can keep volunteers going for a long time. Other reasons—like “meeting new people” or because a friend volunteered too—won’t be enough when the going gets tough. Identify the reasons why your volunteers signed up. If you think those reasons will help your volunteers persevere, reinforce them. If the reasons why they signed up won’t last or stand up to friction, try to encourage them with some of the reasons why your other volunteers have stuck around—or else help them hold onto those reasons when things get difficult. These reasons are tools for positive reinforcement and encouragement, not ways to induce guilt. Know your volunteers, and pay attention to how they respond.

  1. Find a mentor for every volunteer

One of the single greatest ways you can help a volunteer grow is to get them a mentor. Whether that’s a more experienced volunteer, a pastor or staff person, or another member of the congregation who enjoys developing relationships with people. 35 There are probably some people in your church right now who are more than capable of mentoring, but they either don’t know it or haven’t been given the nudge they need yet. Find ways to share this need with your congregation—it’s someone else’s spiritual growth opportunity. When your volunteers have people they can talk to about their personal lives, their relationship with God, and how they feel about their role, it’s easier to address burnout before it happens. A mentor can identify the beginnings of burnout, and you can equip them to help reignite the flame.

  1. Pray for your volunteers

This should be obvious. Your volunteers are your partners in ministry, and your brothers and sisters in Christ. Pray for them. Pray for their families. Pray for their own personal ministries. Pray for their gifts. Pray for their jobs, which give them the flexibility to continue working with you. Pray for their personal relationship with Jesus, and pray that he becomes an even greater part of their lives. Pray that Jesus would give them all the encouragement they need to continue. The better you know your volunteers, the more specifically you can pray for them. But even if you don’t get to develop a personal relationship with every volunteer, smother them all in prayer.

  1. Train them well

Whatever your volunteer training strategy is, make sure your volunteers are thoroughly prepared to fulfill their roles. Nobody likes to feel like they’re lost, or to look like they don’t know what they’re doing. A new volunteer doesn’t have to feel that way for very long before they’re ready to be 36 done. Solid training is one of the best ways for you to proactively fight volunteer burnout. Know your team Every single one of these techniques for fighting burnout depends on you to know your team. If you don’t have the capacity to get to know the people who serve with you, or there are too many volunteers for you to manage, assign team leaders for each role, and help them identify signs of burnout, too. If you don’t know the people who serve with you, you could easily wind up doing more harm than good. Fight volunteer burnout, don’t cause it. 37 The Great Invitation Volunteering truly is an opportunity. It’s not just a hole your church or ministry needs to fill—it’s a chance for the members of your church to grow in exciting new ways. It’s a way to build community with fellow believers and grow closer to the God who made us. Every role gives a glimpse of Christ and helps advance the kingdom of God. It’s not the only way for your congregation to do that, but it’s an opportunity most have the ability to attain. If you can successfully recruit, train, appreciate, and retain your volunteers, you’ll find yourself surrounded with a growing number of people who have seized the opportunity to serve, and your ministry will have more hands to lift up Christ. So go, and invite your congregation to take part in this profound opportunity. 38 39 About the Author Ryan Nelson is a volunteer leader for Young Life and a blogger for Faithlife in Bellingham, Washington. Ryan has led multiple teams of volunteers over the years and he’s come to know them all as friends. He frequently writes for the Proclaim blog

Published: October 27, 2016, 11:37 | Comments Off on Every now and then- Bisher und Bald – von Archbishop Uwe AE.Rosenkranz
Category: Bible teaching, Bishop Rosenkranz, Christian, contextualization

Every Square Inch An Introduction to Cultural Engagement for Christians by Archbishop Dr. Uwe AE.Rosenkranz img_1326 


Cover of Cover of Holy Bible: 10th Anniversary Edition[/caption] An Introduction to Cultural Engagement for Christians Bruce Riley Ashford Every Square Inch: An Introduction to Cultural Engagement for Christians Copyright 2015 Bruce Riley Ashford Lexham Press, 1313 Commercial St., Bellingham, WA 98225 All rights reserved. You may use brief quotations from this resource in presentations, articles, and books. For all other uses, please write Lexham Press for permission. Email us at Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Scripture quotations marked (NET) are from the NET Bible ® copyright 1996-2006 by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C. All rights reserved. Scripture quotations marked (NKJV) are from the New King James Version. Copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved. ISBN 978-1-57-799620-0 Lexham Editorial Team: David Bomar, Lynnea Fraser Cover Design: Jim LePage For my son, John Paul Kuyper Ashford. “Children are a heritage from the LORD.” (Psalm 127:3 ESV) Table of Contents Acknowledgments Introduction Chapter 1: Competing Views on Theology and Culture Chapter 2: A Theology of Culture Chapter 3: Culture and Calling Chapter 4: Six Case Studies on Culture Chapter 5: The Arts Chapter 6: The Sciences Chapter 7: Politics and the Public Square Chapter 8: Economics and Wealth Chapter 9: Scholarship and Education Conclusion: The Christian Mission Appendix: Recommended Reading Summary Acknowledgments I wish to thank Brannon Ellis at Lexham Press and Amy Whitfield at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary for their commitment to this project. I further wish to thank Greg Forster and his team at the Kern Family Foundation, whose encouragement and support enabled this project to become a reality. I also express gratitude to my friends Devin Maddox and Dennis Greeson, who helped me take ideas that were conceived as a professor at a graduate school and express them in a way that I hope will be helpful for a broader audience. I am grateful also for friends with whom I’ve had many discussions about Christianity and culture, including Craig Bartholomew, Dennis Darville, James K. Dew, J. D. Greear, Ken Keathley, Ben Quinn, Heath Thomas, and Keith Whitfield. In addition, I wish to thank Greg Forster, Ken Keathley, Jay W. Richards, and Taylor Worley for providing expert feedback on portions of the manuscript. Finally, I express love and appreciation for my wife, Lauren, and our three children, Riley Noelle, Anna Katherine, and John Paul Kuyper. Lauren is a constant encouragement in my writing projects—including this one, as she marked off one of our family’s two weeks of summer vacation so that I could write the manuscript for this little book. Riley, Anna, and Kuyper are a delight to me and Lauren, and we pray that they will be able to bring the entirety of their lives under submission to Christ’s lordship, as a matter of love and worship toward him and as a matter of love and witness toward the world. Introduction In 1998, at the age of 24, I left the United States for the first time in order to become a university English instructor in Tatarstan, a predominantly Muslim republic in a Central Asian corner of Russia. I had never traveled farther west than San Antonio, farther north than the tip of Maine, farther east than Nags Head (North Carolina), or farther south than Miami. Can you imagine what a never-ending carnival of cultural wedgies the next two years were for me? My first week in the country, for example, I was introduced to a special drink called “kuhmis,” which my buddies told me “will taste a lot like an American milkshake.” And truly, it was white and frothy just like a vanilla milkshake. But it turns out that it was white and frothy because it was fermented mare’s milk. At some point in history, an entrepreneur had decided to milk a horse, allow the milk to rot, and then bottle it as a delicacy. Later that week, I also was served fish gelatin for breakfast. But before long—culinary oddities aside—I was immersed in a cultural context that was a mixture of Eastern European and Central Asian, and which had been shaped in various ways in the past by Sunni Islam and Soviet communism, and more recently by global capitalism and postmodernism. These religious and ideological influences shaped everything in the culture, including the arts, sciences, politics, economic, education, entertainment, family life, and even sports competitions. I found myself wondering what it would look like for me to live a faithfully Christian life in that particular context. This small book that you are reading is written as a little introduction for Christians who wish to live faithfully in their cultural contexts. It shows how all of life matters to God, and how every Christian can serve powerfully as a representative of Christ, even if he or she is not an international missionary or a pastor. It is meant to show that God cares not only about the goings-on within the four walls of a church building but also about the goings-on in every corner of society and culture. He wants us to take seriously our interactions in the arts (music, literature, cinema, architecture, interior décor, culinary arts), the natural sciences (biology, physics, chemistry), the social sciences (psychology, sociology), the public square (journalism, politics, economics, law), the academy (schools, universities, seminaries), sports and competition, and homemaking. Every dimension of our lives relates in some way to Christ and can in some manner be directed toward him. Theology and Culture In the space of two years in Russia, I began to realize even more fully the deep and resonant effects of religion upon culture, and vice versa. I was living in a social and cultural context that had been almost entirely devoid of evangelical gospel influence for generations. Conversations with many of my students revealed a deep skepticism about whether God existed, whether life had any meaning, and whether there are any moral absolutes. The institutions of this country—including its government, businesses, marriages, and schools—reflected this deep sense of loss, this sense that its people could no longer believe in a God who endowed their lives with meaning and purpose or who gave a moral law by which all people and institutions should abide. During this time, I began to read books by Christian thinkers such as Abraham Kuyper, Francis Schaeffer, and C. S. Lewis. (On my journey to Russia, I carried one suitcase of clothes and four suitcases of books.) Kuyper lived in 19th-century Holland and served as prime minister of the Netherlands, founded a Christian university, started a newspaper, and wrote influential books on theology, art, science, and many other topics. His deepest convictions might be summed up in one sentence: Jesus Christ is Lord of all, and because of that fact, every aspect our lives should be affected by the fact that we are Christians. If Christ is Lord, he is Lord over our work and our leisure, our families and friendships, our goings-on inside the four walls of a church building and outside those walls. He is not just the Lord over certain “religious” things, but Lord over art, science, politics, economics, education, and homemaking. Kuyper gave me my first insight into the fact that Jesus Christ is relevant to every dimension of society and culture, and that for this reason we should allow our Christianity to shape absolutely everything we do. Francis Schaeffer was an American who lived in Switzerland during the middle of the 20th century. He and his wife, Edith, were known for starting a retreat center—L’Abri—which ministered especially to skeptics and freethinkers, and to those who were hurting spiritually. Schaeffer was known for teaching that the Christian worldview—and it alone—could undergird the full range of human life. What a person believed about Jesus Christ affected that person spiritually, morally, rationally, aesthetically, and relationally. What a society believed about Jesus Christ affected that society in all of its doings—economic, political, ecological, and so forth. Francis and Edith’s ministry to seekers and skeptics took place in their own home (L’Abri was founded in their cottage) over dinnertime conversations, evening Q&A sessions, and walks in the Swiss Alps. From the Schaeffers’ ministry, I learned not only that Christ is Lord but that he is love. Their way of showing his lordship over all things involved showing his love to all people. C. S. Lewis was a British professor and writer who taught at Oxford and Cambridge during the middle part of the 20th century. In the scholarly world, he was known for his expertise in medieval literature. In the more popular realm, he was known as the professor who gave radio talks about Christianity during World War II and who wrote popular science fiction, children’s fiction, and Christian apologetics. In the years after his death in 1963, he would gain the stature of being one of the most influential Christians of the modern world. His writings remain on the bestseller lists and continue in their own way to shape the world in which we live. From Lewis’ life, I learned the powerful effect of Christians shaping their vocations in light of Christ’s lordship. Lewis was not a pastor or a missionary. He had a “secular” vocation as a literature professor, and it was precisely in that vocation that that he was able to speak about Christ and allow his Christian belief to shape his life and work. Spiritual Awakening As I read books written by and about these three men, I began to find the answers to questions I had been asking for most of my life. Does my Christian belief “hold water” in the real world? Does it make sense out there in the real world of art and science, of politics and economics? Does my Christianity have any impact on my life other than church attendance, personal devotions, and sexual ethics? How does my Christianity matter to my work and my leisure, to my community and political involvement? From Kuyper, Schaeffer, and Lewis, I began to learn just how it is that Christ is Lord over everything, how Christianity matters for every aspect of life. I began to see how Christianity is relevant to every dimension of culture (arts, sciences, public square, the academy, etc.) and to all of our human vocations (not only family and church, but also workplace and community). As Christians, God wants us to live every aspect of our lives in a way that is shaped by our belief that Christ is Lord. Aside from my conversion, that was probably the most profound spiritual awakening I have ever had, even to this day. In the years since then, I have slowly but steadily built upon the conviction that the Christian mission includes the outworking of the gospel in every dimension of a given culture, in every human vocation, and across the fabric of human existence. Though I’ve read it or heard it quoted hundreds of times, I am still struck by Kuyper’s claim: “Oh, no single piece of our mental world is to be hermetically sealed off from the rest, and there is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine!’ ” In Pro Rege, Kuyper writes, “The Son [of God] is not to be excluded from anything. You cannot point to any natural realm or star or comet or even descend into the depth of the earth, but it is related to Christ, not in some unimportant tangential way, but directly.” God calls us to obey him and witness to him with the totality of our lives. The Aim of This Book I write as an American, to other Americans, in our increasingly post-Christian democratic republic. I aim to equip Christians to think holistically about how the gospel informs everything we do in the world. It is my sincere hope that the barrier we have erected in our hearts between “sacred” and “secular” will be removed, so that we will awaken—perhaps for the first time—to the reality that Jesus is Lord over all of creation—not only the things we consider sacred, but also the things we consider secular. To that end, first, we will examine theological frameworks for understanding culture; second, we will establish a biblical, theological account of culture; third, we will develop a theology of vocation; fourth, we will survey several relevant Christian leaders from history who have made significant contributions to a proper understanding of Christianity and culture; finally, we will discuss various spheres of culture from a Christian perspective. You’ll notice that, in the first part of the book, we lay a foundation for the type of Christianity that seeks to be both in and for culture. We do so, first of all, by distinguishing our view from other views, which understand Christianity as being primarily against culture or primarily an agent of culture. Next, we show the way in which the Bible’s overarching storyline leads us to hold this sort of view. After this, we discuss some Christians throughout church history whose lives, writings, and cultural products provide us with lessons about how to be in and for our given cultural contexts. Finally, we discuss the various God-given callings that serve as the major media through which we engage our culture. To summarize the message of the first part of the book, we want to live our lives firmly in the midst of our cultural contexts, living in such a way that we shape our words and actions in light of the Christian gospel and direct others to look at the Lord whom we admire. We want to speak of him with our lips and reflect him with our lives so that tapestry of the Christian community’s (cultural) life is seamlessly and beautifully woven with compellingly Christian words and deeds. One of the questions that immediately arises, however, is how to do that in the diverse arenas of culture in which we find ourselves. How do we apply our view of cultural engagement when we find ourselves in particular situations? Where do we even begin to think through what it means to please God in the realms of art, science, or politics? What does it mean to be a “Christian” teacher, scholar, or economist? The chapters in the last half of this book are designed to give brief but enlightening starting points for Christians who want to begin answering these sorts of questions. Because these questions are so profound and the answers to them so interesting and so expansive, each of the topics in the last half of the book could easily demand that an entire book be written just to introduce each of them. For that reason, I will not be able to provide a comprehensive introduction to each topic. Instead, I will pick an aspect of each topic that I think will be interesting to a broad audience, and then I will provide a very brief and hopefully helpful discussion about that aspect of the topic. To aid in our discussion, I have added recommended reading and discussion questions at the end of each chapter. Though this book is suitable for individual use, it is also appropriately read in community with others. Because the Christian life is social in nature, the discussion questions about culture in this book are best discussed with others who are reading it. Furthermore, I hope this isn’t the final book you read on theology and culture. Each chapter is filled with relevant material to guide you to read more deeply on a variety of topics. To close, I am reminded of a quote by Father John Richard Neuhaus, founder of First Things magazine. Neuhaus said, “Barrels of ink have been spilt in trying to define what is meant by culture, and I do not presume to have the final word on the subject.” Like Neuhaus, I do not claim to have cornered the market on “culture.” But I do aim to serve you well as you developing your own theological framework for seeing all of life under the lordship of Christ. Chapter 1: Competing Views on Theology and Culture My second week in the former Soviet Union, I was introduced to the banya. My buddies told me that it “will be a lot like an American sauna.” And sure enough, it was a square room with a lot of heat. But there were a few differences. One difference lay in the fact that steam was generated by pouring vodka onto a barrel full of hot coals. (I wanted to join in, but as a Baptist I didn’t have any vodka and couldn’t find my bottle of Nyquil.) Another difference lay in the fact that many of these “saunas” have bundles of birch branches in the corner, with which the men whip one another on the back, starting at the heels and working methodically and consistently up to the shoulders. Afterward, they go outside the banya and roll around in the snow. I’m not kidding. I’ve never prayed so hard for the Second Coming. Aside from a few odd moments, such as the one I just described, I thoroughly enjoyed the experience of being immersed in a very complex culture, one that was a multilayered synthesis of Soviet-era atheism, Central Asian Islam, global capitalism, and postmodernism. On Friday evenings, I could pay a dollar to attend world-class symphonies and piano concerts at the performing arts center one mile from my apartment. On weekday mornings, I took language lessons in Russian and Tatar, discovering how human languages provide unique categories for thinking and unique advantages and disadvantages for mediating the gospel. On weekday afternoons, I taught at three universities that were cultural legacies of years past. In the evenings, I drank hot tea (the manly drink of choice in Central Asia, best imbibed with a spot of milk and a spoon of sugar) and watched snow fall on a mosque and an Eastern Orthodox cathedral that stood just outside my apartment window. Often, I had a huddle of undergrad or grad students in my apartment, asking me questions about why I believe in God (atheists) or how in the world I could believe that a man was God (Muslims). As an evangelical, Protestant American living in a part of Russia populated mostly by Central Asian Muslims, I was forced to live in a cultural context that was different in many ways from the one in which I had grown up. There were some aspects of this culture that I preferred to my home context, and some that I did not. There were things that I embraced easily, and things that I did not. The question that kept surfacing, however, was: “How should I, as an evangelical Christian, approach ‘culture’?” In other words, is culture something good or bad? On the one hand, is it something I should try to escape or avoid, or against which I should fight? On the other hand, is it something I should embrace? Or is there some third and better alternative? When it comes to interacting with culture, Christians face a choice between several options. One option is to live a life that can be characterized as “Christianity against culture,” which views culture as something that a person tries to escape from or fight against. Another option could be called “Christianity of culture,” which views culture uncritically as something that can be accepted wholesale into a person’s life and church. A final option can be called “Christianity in and for culture,” in which a believer seeks to live Christianly within his or her cultural context and for the betterment of that context, while not rejecting it wholesale, on the one hand, or accepting it wholesale, on the other. The remainder of this chapter, and in fact the whole book, will attempt to articulate what it might look like for American Christians to live out their faith in the midst of their particular cultural contexts. What Is Culture? Before going any further, however, we should take a moment to discuss what we mean when we talk about “culture.” When some people talk about culture, what they really mean is “high culture,” because they have in mind sophisticated cultural products such as Beethoven’s music or Rembrandt’s paintings. When other people talk about culture, what they really mean is “popular culture,” because they have in mind everyday cultural products such as television shows, movies, or Top 40 songs. Still others use the word “culture” to refer to anything that is against what they believe as a Christian. Unlike these three senses of the word “culture,” the meaning I have in mind is all-encompassing. “Culture” is anything that humans produce when they interact with each other and with God’s creation. When we interact with each other and with God’s creation, we cultivate the ground (grain, vegetables, livestock), produce artifacts (clothes, housing, cars), build institutions (governments, businesses, schools), form worldviews (theism, pantheism, atheism), and participate in religions (Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Atheism). We produce culture, and at the same time our cultural context shapes us, affecting who we are, what we think and do, and how we feel. So the concept of culture is very broad, encompassing in one way or another the totality of our life in this world. For this reason, we don’t want to “get it wrong” in figuring out a Christian’s relationship to culture. If we get the relationship right, it will positively transform our lives and the world around us, but if we get it wrong, it will deform our lives and the world around us. Now that we have a basic grasp of what culture is, we are prepared to outline three models for relating Christianity and culture. As I am describing these models, you will probably be able to place yourself and other Christians you know in one of the categories. Christianity against Culture Some proponents of “Christianity against culture” tend to view the Church primarily as a bomb shelter. This is especially a temptation for Americans who realize that their country is becoming increasingly post-Christian—and, in some ways, even anti-Christian. They realize that their beliefs on certain theological and moral issues will increasingly be rejected and mocked by the political and cultural elite and by many of their fellow citizens. Under such an ideological assault, Christians sometimes have a collective anxiety attack. Their dominant mood tends to be protective, conceiving the Church as a bomb shelter trying to protect believers from aerial assault, or perhaps a monastery where people can withdraw from the contingencies of contemporary existence—or even better, a perpetual yoga retreat where we can empty our minds of certain harsh realities. Believers with this mentality have good intentions. They want to preserve the church’s purity, recognizing that the church is under attack and that therefore we should hold fast to the faith (Rev 3:11). They know that there is a great battle being waged (Eph 6), a battle that plays out both invisibly in the heavenly realm, and visibly in the cultural realm. However, this mentality is misguided, arising from a timid fear of humanity; it is spurred more by secular wisdom than by biblical faith, more by faithless fear than by Christian courage and vitality. It views the church as a walled city rather than a living being, as a safe-deposit box rather than a conduit of spiritual power. It externalizes godlessness and treats it as something that can be kept out by man-made walls, rather than understanding that godlessness is a disease of the soul that can never be walled out. This mindset tends toward legalism and tries to restrict Christians’ interactions with society and culture. While it rightly recognizes that the Christian life involves war against the powers of darkness, it wrongly tries to wage that war by escaping from the world. This obeys only one half of Jesus’ admonition to be in the world, but not of it (John 17:14–16). Other proponents of “Christianity against culture” view the Church primarily as an Ultimate Fighter. The Ultimate-Fighter mentality shares much in common with the bomb-shelter mentality, but it deals with its anxiety in a different manner. It tends to see Christians exclusively and comprehensively as fighters, whose weapons are beliefs, feelings, and values wielded in spiritual warfare. Unlike those hiding in the bomb shelter, the fighters venture forth into the surrounding culture, seeking greater awareness of it so that they might assault it with lethal force. Believers with this mentality are clinging to the biblical principle of waging war against what is evil. They rightly recognize that we must put on the whole armor of God (Eph 6:11), fight the good fight of faith (1 Tim 6:12), resist the devil (Jas 4:7), and cast down anything that exalts itself against God (2 Cor 10:4–5). However, this mentality is misguided to the extent that it wrongly applies the principles above. The fault of the Ultimate-Fighter Church (UFC) is not that it wants to fight, but that it suggests that the entirety of the Christian life is nothing but war. Our social and cultural contexts are full of unbelievers—but those unbelievers are not only enemies of God, but also drowning people in need of a lifeboat. The church is not only a base for soldiers, but also a hospital for the sick. The Christian life is surely a battle, but it is no less a journey, a joy, an adventure, and a trust. In other words, Christians must indeed fight, but that is not the only thing they do; their battling is done from within the broader context of the entire Christian life. Christianity of Culture Those with a “Christianity of culture” perspective tend to build churches that are mirrors of the culture. Christians with this mindset tend to view their cultural context in very high esteem—perhaps disagreeing with aspects of it here and there, but for the most part finding it to be an ally rather than a threat. They tend to interact easily and uncritically with the dominant philosophical, political, and cultural trends of the day. Unlike those who seek to escape from culture or to fight it with lethal force, they seek to incorporate the dominant culture seamlessly into their lives and churches. Believers with this mentality rightly recognize that God ordered the world in such a way that humans would make culture, and they rightly recognize that their culture exhibits real aspects of truth, goodness, and beauty. However, this mentality is misguided because it fails to sufficiently see the way in which every culture, and every aspect of culture, is corrupted and distorted because of human sin. When Christians adopt a “Christianity of culture” mindset, they take away Christianity’s ability to be a prophetic voice and usually end up sacrificing doctrines and moral beliefs that run contrary to the cultural consensus. This mindset comes at too high of a cost, as it ends up subverting the historical Christian faith. Christianity in and for Culture We live in and for our cultural context. A third and better mindset is one that views human beings as representatives of Christ who live their lives in the midst of and for the good of their cultural context, and whose cultural lives are characterized by obedience and witness. Every culture possesses some inherent goodness. God ordered the world in such a way that people spontaneously make culture, and the very existence of music, art, food, housing, and education represent a fundamental human good. Furthermore, God has enabled all people—Christian or not—to make good and valuable contributions in the cultural realm. But under this view, the Christian also recognizes that every culture is corrupted and misdirected. Since the time of the first couples’ sin, all human beings sin, and our sin corrupts our cultural efforts. We are idolaters—people who worship things that ought not to be worshiped, such as sex, money, and power—and the cultural realities we produce tend to be directed toward those idols rather than toward Christ. So God structured the world so that it would be a cultural world, but we humans have misdirected our cultural realities. Every cultural context is structurally good, but directionally corrupt. For this reason, we must live firmly in the midst of our cultural contexts (structurally), all the while seeking to steer our cultural realities toward Christ rather than toward idols (directionally). In order to help us think clearly about the cultural aspect of our mission, let me explain more precisely what I mean by “structure” and “direction.” When God created the world, it was a “good” world both structurally and directionally. The way God designed the world (its structures) was good, and the way humanity used his world was good (it honored God and was directed toward him). After the fall, the world remained structurally good but became directionally bad. The world is still good in its design (structure), but human beings use the world in ways that are oriented toward self-worship and the worship of things rather than God (direction). We live in a fallen world. Our tendency as humans is to worship things like sex, money, and power, rather than worshiping God. And when we worship idols like this, it affects our social and cultural activities. Our activities are misdirected, being aimed toward idols rather than toward God. As Christians, we want to speak out against this misdirection of God’s world. But in speaking out against the world, we are doing the best possible thing for the world. We are being against the world for the sake of the world. Because of Christ’s redemption, we are new creatures. God has transformed us so that we live in an entirely different manner than we did before. That transformation affects all of the things we do, including our cultural activities. For this reason, our mission as Christians includes identifying the ways in which our cultures are corrupted and misdirected by sin, and then doing everything in our power to help bring healing and redirection to them. When we do this, we are obeying Christ and being a witness. We do this as a matter of obedience. If Christ is the creator of everything, then we must realize that his lordship is as wide as creation. Nothing in this universe escapes his lordship. And if his lordship is as wide as creation, then our obedience to his lordship must be as wide as culture. The call to be disciples of Christ is the call to bring absolutely every square inch of the fabric of our lives under his lordship. We do this also as a matter of witness. Every aspect of human life and culture is ripe for Christian witness. Every dimension of culture, whether it is art, science, or politics, is an arena in which we can speak about Christ with our lips and reflect him with our lives. We thank God for the existence of culture and recognize whatever is good in it, while at the same time seeking to redirect whatever is not good toward Christ. We realize that we will never “win” by transforming our culture in such a way that it glorifies Christ comprehensively or enduringly. God never promises victory until Christ returns and secures the victory for himself. But he does command us to obey him and bear witness to him by doing everything within our powers to direct our cultural activities toward Christ. A Preview of the Kingdom When Christ returns, he will return as the victorious King. Until that time, the Christian community should live its life as a seamless tapestry of word and deed. When we witness and obey in this manner, we benefit the world by serving as a preview of God’s coming kingdom. We proclaim Christ and the gospel with our lips (word), and we promote Christ and the gospel with our lives (deed). In so doing, we offer to the world a preview of that future era when Christ rules the new heavens and earth—the era in which all social and cultural realities will be directed toward Christ. In that era, we will have right relationship with God, each other, and the created order, and our social and cultural activities will be perfect and resplendent reflections of Christ. Absolutely everything in life matters to God. He cares not only about the goings-on within the four walls of a congregational gathering, but also about the goings-on in other corners of society and culture. We must live Christianly not only as the Church gathered on Sunday morning for worship, but also as the Church scattered into the world in our work, leisure, and community life. We must take seriously our interactions in the arts, the sciences, the public square, and the academy. When we as the Church live our lives in such a way that everything we do and say points to God, our combined witness serves as an attractive preview of God’s coming kingdom. In that kingdom, there will be no more pain or tears, no more sin or the consequences of sin. In that kingdom, we will be in right relationship with God, with each other, and with all of creation. There is no greater calling in life than to live as a preview of that kingdom. While I was living abroad in Russia, it would have been easy to fall in love with my new culture (Christianity of culture). Admittedly, part of the draw of living overseas is the opportunity to experience new cultural realities. But it would have been equally tempting, particularly during seasons of loneliness and isolation or when encountering some aspect of the culture that was hostile to my Christian faith, to despise the culture as a whole (Christianity against culture). My goal—and I hope you share the same goal—was neither to idolize nor to despise the culture I was on a mission to serve. My goal was to reflect the transformative power of God in and for the culture, to the glory of God. Action Points • Many of us live “compartmentalized lives,” having areas that we feel Jesus cares about, and other areas that we feel he ignores. What are some areas of your life that you have never considered as pertaining to Jesus and his lordship. Why? • As I mentioned earlier, the Christian life is often a battle, and yet it is also to be characterized by care for the “sick and wounded.” What are some things you see in your cultural context that Christians are called to fight against? Are there times when it is better not to fight? How do you tell the difference? • As Christians living in a fallen world, we often face the temptation to be Christians “against culture” who view the church as a bomb shelter or an Ultimate Fighter, or to be Christians “of culture” who capitulate by conforming ourselves to the culture. Can you think of contemporary examples of these two flawed approaches? Recommended Reading Crouch, Andy. Culture Making: Recovering our Creative Calling. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008. An engaging and persuasive treatise on the Christian community’s calling to “make culture” rather than merely “engage the culture.” Forster, Greg. Joy for the World: How Christianity Lost Its Cultural Influence and Can Begin Rebuilding It. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014. A well-written and easy-to-read book arguing that the key to cultural transformation is Spirit-induced joy in God and the gospel. Hunter, James Davison. To Change the World: Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. A sociologist argues that Christians should aim to be a “faithful presence” in their culture. Kuyper, Abraham. Lectures on Calvinism. 1898. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1943. In this small book, Kuyper argues that our Christianity should affect every sphere of human life and culture. Mouw, Richard J. Called to Holy Worldliness. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. A small book showing how ordinary Christians can honor God in their culture-making and cultural engagement. Niebuhr, H. Richard. Christ and Culture. New York: HarperCollins, 1956. This text has become the modern benchmark for discussing Christianity and culture. It has flaws—serious ones—but is worth reading. Smith, James K. A. Desiring the Kingdom. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009. A more advanced book which argues that secular “liturgies” compete with Christian liturgies in order to shape who we are and form our deepest identities and views of the world. Chapter 2: A Theology of Culture In the previous chapter, we encountered three different approaches to Christianity and culture and concluded that Christians should be “in and for” the culture rather than primarily “of” it or “against” it. We argued that Christians should try to discern the way in which any cultural reality is corrupted and misdirected by sin and idolatry, and then seek to redirect that reality toward Christ. We do this as a matter of obedience and witness, proclaiming Christ with our lips and promoting him with our lives, in the hope that we can serve as a preview of his coming kingdom. But where in the Bible is this view of Christianity and culture promoted? In this chapter, I will articulate a basic theology of culture under the categories of creation, fall, redemption, and new creation. These four categories are the four “plot movements” of the Bible’s big story, and any view of culture must vindicate itself in relation to these categories. Why a Theology of Culture Is Necessary Evangelical Christians often talk about engaging the culture, contextualizing the gospel, and speaking prophetically to our culture. However, from my experience, not many of us have taken the time to build a biblical theology of culture. Although we usually operate (consciously or unconsciously) with some sort of idea of what culture is and what the Bible says about it, often we haven’t drawn upon the major biblical building blocks in order to construct a thoroughly evangelical theology of culture. When we fail to consciously, actively develop a theology of culture, we operate on whatever theology is closest in proximity. Perhaps it is the theology of culture we have picked up tacitly from popular films. Maybe it comes from a family member. Or perhaps, if one is fortunate, it comes from childhood sermons. Regardless, and without knowing, we make decisions in every sphere of life that are informed by theology that has not been vetted by Scripture and our consciences. It is vital, therefore, that we examine our doctrine for the purpose of faithful living. For this reason, we will now turn to the Scriptures for a basic overview of our topic. Creation The Bible’s opening narrative tells us about God’s creation, including God’s design for human culture. In the very first chapters, we are told that God created the heavens and the earth. He created out of nothing, he shaped what he created, and he called the work of his hands “good.” At each step along the way, the narrative affirms the goodness of God’s handiwork. Moreover, when God completes his creation by making humanity in his image and likeness, the narrative affirms that God’s creation was “very good” (Gen 1:31). Humans are the culmination of God’s good creation. They are different from God’s other handiwork. Indeed, the first statement about humans is that God made them in the image and likeness of God, male and female alike. They are like God in many ways, including but not limited to their capacities for spirituality, morality, relationality, language, rationality, and creativity. Man’s likeness to God, John Calvin argues, “extends to the whole excellence by which man’s nature towers over all the kinds of living creatures.” Because of these capacities, God could place the man and woman in the garden to have dominion over God’s good creation (Gen 1:26–27) and to work it and keep it (Gen 2:15). Pause for a moment to reflect on the fact that God’s command to work was a command to change and even enhance what he had made. Adam and Eve were not supposed to leave God’s creation as it was, but to make something out of it. They and their descendants would be able to “work the garden” not only by cultivating plant life (agri-culture), but also by cultivating the arts, the sciences, or the public square (culture in general). What, then, does the creation narrative contribute to a discussion of culture? First, human culture is part of the physical and material world, which is part of God’s creation before the fall and therefore is not inherently bad. We must not allow ourselves to fall into a form of neo-gnosticism, treating “spiritual” things as good and “material” things as bad. We may not take a dualist view of the creation, with its attendant impulse toward comprehensive cultural separation and withdrawal; to do so is to adopt a hollow and deceptive philosophy, to denigrate God’s good creation and, implicitly, to undermine the incarnation. Second, God gave humans the capacities to create culture and then commanded them to use those capacities. God created humans in his image and likeness, thereby giving them capacities for spirituality, morality, relationality, language, rationality, and creativity. Then he commanded them to use those gifts (e.g., Gen 2:15; Exod 31:1–11). Fall God’s creation of the world is the opening scene of the Scriptures and constitutes the first major plot movement of the overarching biblical narrative. Immediately after this opening scene, however, Adam and Eve rebelled against God, seeking to set themselves up as autonomous. The effect of this sin for them, and for all of humanity, was disastrous (Rom 1:18–32). People no longer live in paradise, but instead live in a world pervaded by sin and its effects. Man’s relationship with God was broken, as well as his relationship with himself, with others, and with the rest of the created order. In Romans 1, Paul describes the result of humanity’s broken relationship with God, pointing out that people now worship the creature rather than the Creator (Rom 1:25). The image of God in humanity is now distorted and defaced. However, people are alienated not only from God, but also from others (Rom 1:28–31). Rather than loving their neighbors as themselves, they lie, murder, rape, and otherwise demean their fellow imagers (e.g., Gen 9:6). Furthermore, they are alienated from the created order, as their attempts to “work the garden” are full of frustration and pain (Gen 3:17–18). Finally, they are alienated even from themselves, as life becomes meaningless because of their separation from God (Eccl 1:1–11). The implications of the fall for a discussion of human culture are massive. Sin defiles everything. Spiritually, humans are idolaters, worshiping God’s gifts instead of worshiping God himself (Col 3:5). Rationally, they have difficulty discerning the truth, and they use their capacities to construct vain philosophies (Rom 1:18–21). Creatively, they use their imagination to create and worship idols rather than to worship the living God (Isa 40:18–20). Relationally, they use their power to exploit others and serve themselves (Gen 5:8). As a result, any and all human culture is distorted and defaced by sin. No dimension of culture is left unscathed by sin’s pervasive reach. The fall and its consequences do not, however, make God’s creation (or, by implication human culture) inherently bad. Even though the world is corrupted by sin, it is still materially good. Recognizing this frees us from false asceticisms and gnosticisms that view the use and enjoyment of God’s creation as wrong. As Al Wolters puts it, God’s creation remains structurally good, although since the fall it is directionally corrupt. Structure refers to the order of creation, while direction refers to the order of sin and redemption. The directional results of the fall, for human culture, are revealed in such things as poor reasoning in the realm of science, kitsch in the realm of art, and hatred in the realm of relationships. Anything in creation can be directed toward God or away from him. It is this directionality that distinguishes between the good and the bad, between worship and idolatry, rather than some distinction between spiritual and material. We should note, however, that in spite of the fall, things are not as bad as they could be. Without common grace and the Spirit’s restraining work, this world would be an utter horror, and because of God’s grace through his Spirit after the fall, we may continue to produce culture, thereby using our uniquely human capacities. Redemption and New Creation The Bible’s third plot movement occurs immediately after the fall. God gives not only a promise of death (Gen 2:17), but also a promise of life (Gen 3:15). He immediately declares that one day the offspring of the woman would destroy the serpent. Paul recognizes this promise as a prophecy of Jesus Christ (Gal 3:16), God’s Son who is “born of a woman” (Gal 4:4). This declaration, therefore, is God’s promise to send the Messiah. Ultimately, the entirety of Scripture testifies about this Messiah, as its pages declare how God, in spite of seemingly insurmountable obstacles, would fulfill his promise to send this Savior. God affirms that by the Savior’s wounds man is healed, and upon the Savior’s shoulders the sin of the world was borne (Isa 52:13–53:12). Furthermore, the redemption he provides reaches into every square inch of God’s creation, including the non-human aspects of creation. This redemption of the created order is made clear in major christological and soteriological passages such as Colossians 1:13–23 and Ephesians 1:3–14. In the Colossians text, we are told that Christ the creator of all things is also Christ the reconciler of all things; God will work “by [Christ] to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him” (Col 1:20 NKJV). In the Ephesians passage, we are told that we have redemption through Christ’s blood, and that, furthermore, “in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him” (Eph 1:10 NKJV). We know that Christ has not yet reconciled all things to himself because creation still groans in bondage (Rom 8:20–22). For this reason, Scripture points us forward to a new heavens and earth in which God’s kingdom will be realized. At the beginning of the Scriptures, we learn that God created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1), while at the end we see him giving us a “new heavens and a new earth” (Isa 65:17; Rev 21:1). At the beginning, we are told of a garden, but in the end we are told of a beautiful city that is cultural through and through, replete with precious metals and jewels and the treasures of the nations (Rev 21). Christ’s redemptive work extends beyond God’s people to God’s cosmos, so that in the end “creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God” (Rom 8:21). This world will be one “in which righteousness dwells” (2 Pet 3:13 NKJV), thus fulfilling God’s good purposes for his world. Therefore, the final two plot movements tell the story of God redeeming both his imagers and his creation. Two cultural implications are important to notice. First, the doctrines of redemption and restoration are confluent with the doctrine of creation in affirming the goodness of God’s creation. God values his creation, and in the end times he will not reject it. Instead, he will restore it, renewing the heavens and earth so that they give him glory. Furthermore, he promises to give us glorified bodies in that day (1 Cor 15:20–28, 50–58). While God could have promised man an eternity floating around in a bodiless state, in some sort of ethereal wonderland, instead he promises to give man a resurrected bodily existence in a restored universe that shines with the glory of God himself (Rev 21:1–4, 9–11). This promise is yet more reason to view God’s creation as good, and our faithful cultural interaction with it as something that pleases God. Second, the doctrine of restoration is confluent with the doctrine of creation in its affirmation of the value of faithful culture-work. Because God (in the beginning) values his good creation and commands humanity to produce culture, and because he promises (in the end) to give us a glorious creation replete with its own culture, we ought to live culturally in a manner consistent with God’s designs. “The difference between the Christian hope of resurrection and a mythological hope,” writes Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “is that the Christian hope sends a man back to his life on earth in a wholly new way.” This new way includes glorifying God from within our cultural contexts, providing a sign of the already-and-not-yet kingdom—of what the world will be like one day when all of creation and culture praises him. As we interact within various dimensions of culture—the arts, the sciences, education, public square, etc.—we are called to do so by bringing the gospel to bear upon those dimensions. In our evangelism and church-planting, we must recognize that the gospel is always proclaimed, the church is always planted, and the Christian life is always lived within a cultural context (through human language, oratory, music, categories of thought, etc.). Instead of chafing against this reality, we may delight in our charge to make the gospel at home in those cultures, and to allow the gospel to critique them and bring them under the scrutiny of God’s revelation. In the words of D. A. Carson: We await the return of Jesus Christ, the arrival of the new heaven and the new earth, the dawning of the resurrection, the glory of perfection, the beauty of holiness. Until that day, we are a people in tension. On the one hand, we belong to the broader culture in which we find ourselves; on the other, we belong to the culture of the consummated kingdom of God, which has dawned upon us.” God restores his creation instead of trashing it and expects us to minister within our cultural context rather than attempting to extract ourselves from it. Action Points • Christians are said to live “between two worlds,” recognizing God’s work in the present fallen world and anticipating the full completion of his work in the new heavens and new earth. What are some specific examples of how our lives in this present era can give the world a glimpse of the future era, the new heavens and earth? • The end view of God’s redemption is the created order as it was always meant to be. In a way, humans will finally be all that it means to be human. God’s redemption has the whole creation in view, including the whole person. How does this affect the Christian life? How should this guide our evangelism and caring for people through the different ministries of the church? • God declares his creation good. In and of itself, therefore, creation is not evil. However, sin misdirects God’s good creation. What types of things does this realization lead us to affirm? List three elements of culture and consider how they can be directed toward God or away from him. • If all humanity is created in the image of God, and if that image is not lost in the fall, then what does that means for how we view and treat other people? Recommended Reading Goheen, Mike and Craig Bartholomew. Living at the Crossroads: An Introduction to Christian Worldview. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. This book is a fine treatment of how the biblical narrative fosters a worldview that in turn shapes the entirety of the Christian life, including especially culture-making and cultural engagement. Wittmer, Michael E. Heaven Is a Place on Earth: Why Everything You Do Matters to God. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004. A very accessible treatment of the Bible’s teaching about culture. Chapter 3: Culture and Calling Has anyone ever asked you, “What do you want to be when you grow up?” In a nation of adults who are all former career-day audience members, it’s easy to see why Americans tend to judge their worth based upon their workplace success or the type of career they have. Or take, for example, the epitome of dinner-party small talk: “So, what do you do?” We introduce who we are by what we do. More times than not, we equate our identity with our workplace vocation. Now, that’s not to say that what we do is irrelevant to who we are—quite the contrary! In fact, it’s not bad to ask children, “What do you want to be when you grow up?” as long as you help them understand that their identity and worth are not bound up exclusively with their 9-to-5 career. As we noted in the first chapter, “culture” is quite broad as a concept, covering various “spheres” or “dimensions” or “arenas”—such as art, science, business, sports and competition, scholarship and education, homemaking, entertainment, and politics. So the concept of culture encompasses in one way or another the totality of our lives in this world. Closely related to these arenas of culture are vocations, which serve as the medium through which we interact in those arenas. Vocation comes from the Latin word vocatio, which means “calling.” One of Christianity’s most famous pastors, Martin Luther, is known for applying his biblical sermons to his congregation’s vocations. Luther was right to recognize that God gives Christians multiple callings—to churches, families, workplaces, and communities. In this chapter, we will discuss these four callings, which enable us to honor Christ in various arenas of culture. In an excellent book titled God at Work, Gene Veith takes his cues from Luther and explains that the purpose of each of these callings is to love the Lord our God and to love our neighbors as ourselves (Mark 12:30–31). We demonstrate our love for God by fulfilling these callings in ways that honor him, bring him glory, and are shaped by his Word. We demonstrate our love for our neighbors similarly, by exercising our callings in ways that honor God and are shaped by his Word. Our love for God leads to love for our neighbors. In fulfilling our callings, we will notice that we are loving our neighbors and they are loving us. Through our callings, we serve our neighbors and they serve us. We depend upon them, and they depend upon us. Consider the example of a hungry child. When God provides for a hungry child, he usually does not do so by sending manna from heaven, or by instantaneously multiplying fishes and loaves. Although in certain instances he might do such things, ordinarily he does not. Ordinarily, God feeds hungry children through the work of farmers. In the United States, the children’s food most likely is grown on a farm, shipped to a warehouse, and then delivered to grocery stores, where parents buy food for their children. So far, the hungry child has been fed because of the work of farmers, tractor designers, truck drivers, warehouse owners, grocery store clerks, parents, and many others. But if we look a little deeper, we’ll also realize that the grocery store itself was built by engineers, contractors, electricians, and plumbers. The quality of food was (hopefully) overseen by public health inspectors. To summarize, God ordinarily feeds hungry children through a vast network of people who are fulfilling their vocations. The same can be said about the way God ordinarily heals sick people, provides shelter for families, or supplies any number of other necessities and conveniences. Notice in the example above that these callings are accomplished by human “hands,” but they are also the “gloves” into which God slips his divine hand in order to care for his world. A parent provides for a child’s physical hunger (a parent’s calling to a family) with food that originated at a farm (the farmer’s calling to a workplace) and was purchased with the parent’s paycheck (the parent’s calling to a workplace) from a grocery store located in their town (the parent’s calling to a community), and then the parent teaches that child to learn to fulfill her spiritual hunger by becoming a disciple in a community of believers (the child’s calling to a church). Family A child’s first experience of God’s provision usually comes through his or her family. As Gene Veith puts it, in the family we find “the most basic of all vocations, the one in which God’s creative power and his providential care are most dramatically conveyed through human beings.” The Bible’s teaching about marriage and family is rich and profound. Paul compares the relationship between a man and woman to the relationship between Christ and the Church. A husband and wife should consciously strive to make their marriage one that gives their children, and anybody else who might be watching, a picture of Christ’s love for the Church, and of Christians’ love for Christ. The Proverbs and other writings teach us that parents are responsible for teaching their children how to live wisely under God’s lordship. From experience, we see that the way children learn to honor their father and mother also is a step on the path toward learning how to honor their heavenly Father; likewise, children who learn to love their family members are also learning to love other people they will encounter in the world. So the calling to a family is significant, and it shapes a person from childhood until death. Church After God raised his Son from the dead, Jesus appeared to his disciples and promised to empower them through the Holy Spirit, so that they could be his witnesses to the world (Acts 1:8). When the Spirit came upon the disciples, as Jesus had promised, the first thing he did was empower them to win people to Christ and to form churches that ministered to them through teaching and learning, worship, fellowship, and witness (Acts 2:40–47). We learn from the New Testament that God’s intention is for believers to be disciples in the midst of these committed communities of believers that we call churches. The Bible describes the Church by using various images. Peter describes the Church as the people of God, reminding us that we are God’s possession, and that we are a community rather than merely a collection of individuals (1 Pet 2:9–10). Paul describes the Church as the body of Christ. He uses this image to refer sometimes to the Church universal (Eph 1:20–23) and sometimes to the church local (1 Cor 12:27). This image helps us to understand that we are many members but one body (unity and diversity) and that each of us belongs to the other members of the body (mutual love and interdependence). Peter and Paul both describe the Church as the temple of the Spirit. Our body is a temple of the Spirit (1 Cor 6:19), and we are living stones built into a spiritual house (1 Pet 2:5). One of the things this image does is remind us that we as believers are held together by the Spirit. Numerous other Bible passages illuminate for us the way in which our calling to a church teaches us how to be Christian. One example is the “one another” commands. We are told to live in harmony with one another (Rom 12:16; 15:5), forgive and bear with one another (Col 3:13), and not pass judgment on one another (Rom 14:1). We must admonish and encourage one another (1 Thess 5:14), care for one another (1 Cor 12:25), and comfort one another (2 Cor 13:11). Perhaps all of the many “one another” commands could be summed up in 1 Thessalonians 5:15: “Always pursue what is good for one another and for all” (NET). These commands, which are given to all of the members of the church, show that we are all responsible to one another and ultimately to Christ. So our calling to a church teaches us to love God and to love one another. It reminds us that we are God’s possession, that we are a community rather than a mere collection of individuals, and that we are a unity-in-diversity that is held together by the Spirit. It teaches us to love one another even when it is not comfortable to do so, and it shapes us through its ministries of teaching and learning, worship, fellowship, and witness. When the church lives and witnesses together in this manner, it serves as a window into which the world can peer in order to see Christ, and it serves as a “boot camp” that equips and trains its members to go out into the world and witness to Christ both in word and in deed. Workplace Some Christians view their workplaces merely as a way to put bread on the table, as drudgeries that they endure in order to provide a paycheck for their families. But the biblical portrayal of work is much deeper and more profound. In the first place, the Bible portrays God as a worker who made the world in which we live and who in fact made us. Because of his work, we exist in this world. But second, the Bible portrays work as essential to our humanity, as his first words to humanity included admonitions to till the soil, name the animals, and manage the world that God had created. In fact, the Bible portrays God and man as cooperative workers. God continues to provide for the world (God is a worker) and often does so precisely through our human workplaces (we are workers). This sort of cooperation can be seen in Psalm 90:7, which says that God is the one who establishes the work of our hands. The British pastor John Stott writes, “This concept of divine-human collaboration applies to all honorable work. God has so ordered life on earth as to depend on us.… So whatever our work, we need to see it as being … cooperation with God.… It is this that glorifies him.” When we obey God’s calling in our workplaces, we are actively cooperating with him as he provides for the world. This should come as good news, because most of us spend the majority of our waking hours at our workplaces, whether we work as entrepreneurs, teachers, or homemakers. During those hours, we make many relationships, interact in various arenas of culture, and use many of our God-given abilities simply through doing our jobs. It would be a shame to waste our jobs by doing those things in a merely repetitive manner marked by drudgery rather than by happy obedience to God and in purposeful witness to those who are watching. When we view our workplaces as “callings” from God, we recognize that they are amazing opportunities for witness and obedience. When we obey God by doing our jobs in a way that glorifies him, we find that our jobs are opportunities to speak about Christ and to shape our work toward him. In other words, our jobs are opportunities to witness about Christ precisely by backing up our words with actions. Not only do we let people know verbally that Christ is Lord, but we also do our work in a way that is shaped by Christ and his Word. This combination of word and deed can be powerful. For many people, the workplace is their best opportunity to meet unbelievers who might have never heard the gospel or seen a Christian living out the gospel in front of their very eyes. Community Another calling that we often neglect is our calling to be a citizen of multiple communities—town, state, national, and global communities. Even in a democratic republic, where we have a maximal opportunity to help shape our communities toward Christ, we sometimes don’t take advantage of that opportunity. There are many ways that we might miss the opportunity to be responsible Christian citizens. We might err by not taking seriously the responsibility to have an informed and distinctively Christian view on important social and political issues. We might sin by shying away from speaking out about issues when we are in the minority, or, alternatively, by giving our opinions about issues in a disrespectful, unfair, or uncharitable manner. So there are many ways to forsake this responsibility. On the flipside, the fact that God has placed each of us in certain communities provides an awesome responsibility to witness and obey. First, we can love our communities by faithfully fulfilling our calling to our families, churches, and workplaces. These institutions (family, church, workplace) are the ones that undergird a community and make it a viable place for people to live and flourish. Second, we can love our communities by being active in certain other nongovernmental sectors. We can serve our community’s schools and nonprofit organizations. We can help shape public opinion about important issues by engaging in neighborhood and coffee-shop conversations, or by writing in newspapers or blogs, and by doing so in a manner shaped by Christian love and conviction. Third, we can love our community by being actively involved in the political process in ways that reflect true Christian conviction and Christian love. Fulfilling Our Callings Our vocation as Christians is more than a career. God created his imagers to work in multiple spheres. Putting bread on the table is a noble task, but it is just one part of human vocation. Seeing all of life through the lens of vocation helps us see the significance of things we might otherwise consider mundane. Our callings are our primary means to bring God glory, loving him and our neighbor, and the primary ways in which our lives intersect with various cultural arenas. If we are seeking to fulfill these callings faithfully and with excellence, we will find ourselves able to witness to Christ with the whole of our lives in every dimension of society and culture. Action Points • This chapter identified four callings God gives to his people: family, church, workplace, community. Identify ways that God has called you to love him and your neighbor through these four callings. Be specific. • These four callings encompass the totality of our lives. We are called to be faithful in our families, churches, workplaces, and communities. Pause for a moment to consider the potential impact on your community if you—and the other members of your church—were to take seriously each of these callings. • Regardless of context, we run the risk of being out of balance in regards to each area of calling. We can either fall into apathy on one side or idolatry on the other. In what ways have you been out of balance in these spheres? In what ways is this like or unlike the rest of the cultural context in which you live? Recommended Reading DeKoster, Lester, and Stephen Grabill. Work: The Meaning of Your Life. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Christian’s Library Press, 2010. A very short book introducing the Christian understanding of work. Keller, Timothy. Every Good Endeavor: Connecting Your Work to God’s Work. New York: Penguin, 2012. A more extensive treatment of the Christian view of work. Veith, Gene Edward Jr. God at Work: Your Christian Vocation in All of Life. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011. A short book introducing the Christian’s calling to church, family, workplace, and community. Chapter 4: Six Case Studies on Culture Throughout 2,000 years of Christian history, there are many men and women who lived exemplary lives in their cultural contexts, and from whom we can learn rich and profound lessons. If we overlook these men and women, we do so to our own detriment. For this reason, this chapter will offer six case studies in church history—examples of men and women who sought to direct their cultural activity toward Christ. Although the case studies will be concise to the extreme, I hope to offer lessons that can be learned from each person’s life. In this chapter, we will learn about Christians who lived centuries ago, but whose lives are instructive for us in the 21st century. Augustine of Hippo Augustine of Hippo was an early Christian theologian and philosopher who lived during the later years of the Roman Empire. One of his most famous books was titled City of God, and it reveals to us some lessons about Christianity and culture. Augustine wrote City of God just as the Alarics and the Goths were attacking Rome. The Roman intellectuals and common people scrambled to interpret this event, to make sense of it, in much the same way that Americans scrambled to make sense of the 9/11 attack. Many Romans concluded that the real reason for Rome’s fall was not the Alarics and the Goths, but the Roman gods, who were taking revenge because the Roman people had embraced Christianity. As Curtis Chang has noted, the Roman intellectuals’ interpretation of Rome’s fall was political, religious, and philosophical. It was political, arguing that the Romans had abandoned their founding story (Romulus and Remus) in favor of the biblical story of the world. It was also religious, arguing that the Romans had abandoned their gods in favor of Christ. Finally, it was philosophical, arguing that the Romans had rejected Plato’s philosophy in favor of the Christian belief that God came down to earth, took on a human body, and was crucified and rose from the dead so that we could be reconciled to God. On the backdrop of these three arguments, Augustine received a letter from Marcellinus, a Christian who was well known among the culturally powerful and elite, asking for help in answering the Roman intellectuals. Augustine responded to Marcellinus with a letter that is now published in the form of a 1,000-page book, City of God. He argued that the Roman intellectuals’ interpretation was wrong, and that all three of their arguments—political, religious, and philosophical—were wrong. Augustine was well prepared to respond to them; he already had taken the time to understand their political, religious, and philosophical beliefs and was able to respond immediately and compellingly. His basic move was to point out that the Romans were not at the center of the universe. God, through his Son, Christ, is at the center! He showed how the story of Rome’s rise to power was really only one small story in the midst of a much larger story of God creating the world and then responding to the world’s sin by sending his Son to save us. He explained that Rome (the greatest city in the world at that time) wasn’t even an eternal city. There were only two eternal cities, which he called the “city of God” and the “city of man.” Each city has a basic love—either God or idols. Each city is symbolized in the Bible by an earthly city—Jerusalem and Babylon. Each city has a telos or end goal—eternal life or eternal death. In making his argument, Augustine not only drew upon his deep knowledge of the Bible and Christian theology, but also used Roman literature, philosophy, politics, and history to make his points. He referred to their great authors and celebrities and quoted them favorably when possible, but he also showed how they fell short of Christian truth. Significantly, he argued that Rome was an unjust city politically. This was a particularly biting argument, because Romans viewed their city as being founded upon just laws. But Augustine showed that all of their talk about justice and law served only to conceal what they really loved, which was dominating other people. He unmasked their religious pretensions, showing that the Romans had never really believed in their gods; even their best religious historians didn’t believe in the gods. He unmasked their philosophical shortcomings, showing how the deficiencies in Plato’s philosophy could be made up for only by Christianity. What can we learn from Augustine? There are many lessons to be learned, but we will limit our discussion to a few: (1) Augustine was ready when the challenge came. He had spent a lifetime reading and learning, and he was prepared to give a compelling answer when one was needed. (2) He was able to recognize both the good and bad in Roman culture, and to use both the good and the bad aspects to help him point to Christ. (3) He was able to interpret the Bible masterfully and interpret his cultural context skillfully. As a result, he could diagnose Rome’s disease and use the Bible as a surgeon’s scalpel to lay bare the disease for all to see. (4) He wrote City of God with such power and beauty that it has become an enduring component of culture. In other words, Augustine was a culture-maker. Balthasar Hübmaier Balthasar Hübmaier was a forerunner of contemporary Baptists. He lived in 15th-century Europe and is known for preaching the gospel under heavy opposition and persecution. One significant moment in his life occurred when he was imprisoned in Zürich in 1525, and under torture he recanted some of his Christian beliefs. After being released, Hübmaier repented, confessed his sin of recanting, and wrote a Short Apology—in which he pointed out that he was human and had erred, but that he would never be a heretic because he lashed his theology to the Word of God. A short while later, in 1528, he and his wife, Elizabeth, were arrested by authorities, tortured, and tried for heresy. He was burned at the stake, and she was drowned in the Danube. Hübmaier is probably best known for his conviction that Scripture is God’s revealed word to humanity, and that Scripture is the final court of appeal in any theological dispute. He stated this conviction repeatedly, and his life story supports the weight of his conviction. Both of the imprisonments mentioned above came about because of Hübmaier’s biblical convictions. From Hübmaier we could learn many lessons, foremost among which are three: (1) Hübmaier, like Augustine before him, sought for Scripture to shape his cultural engagement. (2) He was willing to speak his convictions, even in the face of persecution and martyrdom. (3) In being willing to speak against prevailing cultural winds, he spoke words that were good for his cultural context. Abraham Kuyper Abraham Kuyper lived in the Netherlands in the late 1800s and early 1900s. He was a pastor, a journalist, a newspaper founder, a professor, a university founder, a parliament member, and a prime minister. From these many vantage points, Kuyper sought to work out the implications of the gospel. Both his writings and his life story show us a Christian who, like Augustine, not only critiqued culture but made culture. Kuyper is known for his teachings about Christianity and culture, some of the most important of which can be summarized in these nine points: 1. God’s creation is good and remains structurally good, even after the fall. This point is significant for a discussion of culture because cultural realities are creational. They stem from God’s created humans interacting with this created order. 2. God’s creation is a unified diversity, an ordered but multifaceted reality. In particular, God designed the world to have diverse cultural “spheres,” such as family life, art, science, church, and business. Each sphere is unique and has God-given principles upon which it is founded. Christians must locate those principles and conform their cultural activities to them. 3. When God told the first couple to have dominion and to work and keep the garden, he was telling them to enhance the good creation he had given them, to bring out its hidden potentials. He was telling them to be culture-makers. 4. In the aftermath of the first couple’s sin, all culture-making and cultural interaction is distorted and corrupted by sin. 5. However, God graciously restrained sin and its consequences, keeping it from making the world an unlivable horror. In other words, he enabled people to continue their social and cultural lives. 6. In response to sin, God sent his Son to redeem his imagers and restore his good creation. He has given his Son all authority in heaven and on Earth. Christ is Lord over all creation and therefore Lord over every sphere of culture. We should bring our cultural activity under submission to his lordship. 7. Christians must draw upon God’s word and upon their Christian beliefs to guide them in their cultural projects. 8. As we enter the public square to work for the common cultural good, we should use reason and persuasion rather than coercion. 9. When Christians leave the gathering of their churches on Sunday morning, they should do so consciously, seeking to apply their Christian faith to their cultural activities. I agree with Kuyper’s teachings, and each of these nine points serves as a lesson for us today. But in addition to those points summarizing his teaching, here are a few additional lessons gleaned from his life: (1) Kuyper was a savvy and insightful commentator on the culture of his day, knowing his context well enough that he could identify where it was misdirected and corrupted and needed to be redirected toward Christ. He was a skilled interpreter of Scripture, but also a skilled interpreter of his culture. (2) Kuyper was not only a cultural commentator; he was a culture-maker. He founded a university, a church, a political party, and a newspaper and wrote numerous books and articles. (3) Kuyper serves as an example of how we should seek to allow Christ his lordship in every aspect of our lives. Although Kuyper, like the other persons highlighted in this chapter, was an extraordinarily talented person whose life is, in some ways, out of reach for most people, he still serves as an example of the way in which we should try to honor Christ in everything we do and say. For example, we might not have the opportunity to found a university, but we can shape our children’s education toward Christ. Similarly, we might never be the leader of our country, but we can vote and interact politically in a way that honors Christ. C. S. Lewis C. S. Lewis was a professor at Oxford and Cambridge during the middle of the 20th century. During his early years, he fought in World War I and was wounded in battle. After returning from war, he became a professor at Oxford University. During his initial years as a professor, he was an agnostic, but he later converted to Christ after extensive conversations with his friend J. R. R. Tolkien. His conversion was dramatic, in the sense that his Christianity affected everything he did. After becoming a believer, he met regularly with Tolkien and other writers to talk about Christianity and literature. Lewis’ conversion was transformative in a way that extended beyond his personal spiritual life and into his career as a writer. He wrote more than 30 books, including science fiction (The Space Trilogy), mythology (Till We Have Faces), children’s fiction (The Chronicles of Narnia), theology (Mere Christianity), and literary studies (The Discarded Image). Because Lewis’ conversion transformed his worldview, everything he wrote from that point on was affected by his faith. Lewis wrote, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” In some of the books, such as Mere Christianity, Lewis was arguing straightforwardly for his readers to trust in Christ. In other books, such as Till We Have Faces, he led his reader toward Christian faith in a more implicit manner, by telling a myth that helps the reader see the beauty of Christianity. In other books, such as his scholarly works including Allegory of Love or The Discarded Image, the Christian influence was even more subtle. As Lewis scholar Michael Travers has noted, Lewis viewed evangelism as the main purpose of a Christian’s life. Lewis’ literary career can be viewed as an extended exercise in evangelism. Not only in his explicitly theological books, but also in his literature, Lewis wanted to translate Christianity into popular language for ordinary people who were not theologians. In his fiction texts, he tried to create in his readers a longing for God, and to help them “see” the gospel in concrete form. He called this type of writing praeparatione evangelica, or “preparation for the gospel.” So for Lewis, “evangelism” is something that Christians do with their whole lives, not only through interpersonal encounters, but in the work they undertake and the shape of their professional lives. From Lewis’ life and writings, we can learn many things about Christianity and culture, among which are three: (1) Lewis exercised his Christianity in both the professional and popular realms. As scholar and professor, Lewis witnessed to Christ in the scholarly realm by shaping his professional writings and teaching in light of the gospel, but he also witnessed to Christ in the popular realm by writing books that promoted Christ to ordinary people. (2) Lewis recognized the power of fiction to convey truth via his readers’ imaginations. Instead of limiting himself to arguments made by logical syllogisms, he often made his arguments through stories and analogies. (3) Lewis expended great effort to communicate Christianity in compelling language, to know how to use words and sentences in the most effective manner for the sake of the gospel. Dorothy Sayers Dorothy L. Sayers was an author, a playwright, a translator of Dante, and an occasional theologian in the first half of the 20th century. During her heyday, Sayers was called the “Queen of Crime” in recognition of her revolutionizing work in the detective-novel genre, work that helped that genre gain legitimacy in literary circles. She had no formal theological training, but she was once offered an honorary doctorate in divinity, which she refused. Sayers was an Anglican Catholic, more conservative than her father, a country-parish rector. Toward the middle of her career, she got involved with a motorcycle mechanic, who fathered her only child. During this time, her faith was rekindled, and it began to shine through her literary works. Her return to Christianity became apparent, though subdued, in the central character of her crime novels, the religiously skeptical amateur criminologist Lord Peter. However, for Lord Peter to become a devout Christian would have been out of character, so Sayers pursued other avenues for explicitly Christian culture-making. A significant opportunity arose with a request to write the play for the 1937 Canterbury Festival; it was intended to be a play that accentuated Christian themes, illuminating a doctrine or pericope for the public during the Easter season. The play she wrote for the festival celebrated vocation and service through the arts. For Sayers, vocation was not primarily an economic exercise, but a calling. Sayers engaged culture as a culture-maker. She was convinced that her work must glorify God by its excellence rather than merely because of explicitly Christian content. During a contract battle over the script of one of her BBC radio dramas—a play about the life of Christ—an editor pleaded with her not to walk away from the contract, writing, “In the writing of these plays the spirit of God would be working through you.” Sayers responded: I am bound to tell you this—that the writer’s duty to God is his duty to the work, and that he may not submit to any dictate of authority which he does not sincerely believe to be to the good of the work.… Above all, he may not listen to the specious temptation that suggests that God finds his work so indispensable that he would rather have it falsified than not have it at all. Doing one’s proper job is a most important duty. Subjective demands, such as emotions, must be subordinated to that greater duty. This means that the goal in writing is to express truth. In Gaudy Night, Lord Peter convinces Harriet, the novel’s protagonist, to rewrite a story because the characters are not fully human and thus the story is not true. In The Mind of the Maker, Sayers notes in the preface that the book was not “an expression of personal religious belief.” Rather, she was explaining the creeds of Christendom. These theological truths, she wrote, “claim to be statement of fact about the nature of God and the universe.”23 For Sayers, there was, in a very Augustinian way, reality found in the created order. This reality is undeniably, objectively and discernibly true. Sayers recognized that God reveals aspects of himself through the created order. However, she also recognized the impact of sin on the world as it disrupts the created order, disorders our loves, and distorts our interpretation of God’s creational revelation. In other words, since the fall, our culture-making and cultural engagement are corrupted and misdirected, and need to be redirected toward Christ. She saw withdrawing from the culture and becoming one with the culture as twin dangers. The first makes Christianity irrelevant, and the other removes the authentically Christian nature. Sayers’ conclusion was that the Church must do the impossible: It must influence culture without becoming identified with the institutions of the culture.26 Sayers’ literary and theological works are exemplary for several reasons, including these three: (1) Her repeated emphasis on doing work for its own sake illustrates the value of the creation and undermines a dualistic view of the world. (2) Sayers’ theological work demonstrates the way in which a layperson with no formal theological training can communicate truth to a wide audience. (3) Sayers points toward the importance of culture and cultural activity while also warning not to be conformed to negative influences. She encouraged attempts to transform culture without being transformed by culture. Francis Schaeffer Francis Schaeffer was the director of a Swiss retreat center, L’Abri, and became well known as a teacher and defender of the Christian faith. Schaeffer and his wife, Edith, had moved to Europe to work with a Christian children’s ministry, but they ended up founding L’Abri in the village of Huemoz, Switzerland, in a cottage that also served as their home. L’Abri became a place where hundreds and eventually thousands of seekers and skeptics came to have their spiritual and intellectual questions answered. Schaeffer’s daughter Priscilla remembers the excitement she felt as a university student when she realized that her friends at the university were drawn to the Christian faith through interacting with her father. “There wasn’t anybody I couldn’t bring home,” Priscilla said, “no matter how eccentric, how rebellious, how blasphemous.… I didn’t have to be ashamed.” The seekers and skeptics who came to L’Abri were ministered to at every level of their humanity—intellectual, social, spiritual. Intellectually, Schaeffer presented Christianity as an all-encompassing world-and-life-view that outstripped all other such views. Socially, seekers took part in meals and evening fellowship with the Schaeffer family and other guests. In terms of their inner spiritual life, they were encouraged to read the Scriptures, pray, and spend time in solitude and reflection. Notably, the Schaeffers viewed those to whom they ministered as important people who were worthy of time and attention. One L’Abri participant, Dorothy Hurley, remarked: When Mr. Schaeffer would talk to you, there was nothing else in the world that was going on. He was totally focused on you and what you were talking about and was very involved, very interested. It wouldn’t matter who the person was. It could be from the most simple person to the most intellectual—that focus and interest and involvement was the same. I saw it time and time again. I experienced it myself, and it wasn’t anything false. He was really interested in people, and it was something that was very, very striking. I’d never seen that degree of concentration and having that kind of attention, I don’t think, with anybody else. Schaeffer’s biographer, Colin Duriez, summarized his interviews with L’Abri participants by describing Schaeffer’s approach as one which was marked by kindness: His preferred medium was talk—conversation, whether with an individual or with a large group of people. He had the uncanny knack of addressing an individual personally, even if one was sitting with several hundred other people. His tapes, books, and films are best seen as embodiments of his conversation or table talk. The overwhelming impression of those who met him briefly or more extensively, particularly in connection with his homely yet expansive community at L’Abri in Switzerland, was his kindness, a word that constantly occurs in people’s memories of him, whether Dutch, English, American, Irish, or other nationality. As Schaeffer listened to a person’s life story and to their questions, doubts, and concerns, he was able to locate common ground with that person and show the ways in which their (non-Christian) worldview was unable to make sense of things for them. Only Christianity can make sense of one’s inner life, one’s intellectual questions, and of the world at large. In his efforts to commend Christ, Schaeffer also produced resources. In How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Culture (which is a book and a film series), Schaeffer tries to show how the Christian worldview is the only enduringly viable worldview for sustaining a civilization, and how European and American rejections of that worldview were detrimental. In The God Who Is There, he argues that God exists and is relevant to human concerns. In Escape from Reason, he shows how the rejection of the Christian God causes a person to lose contact with reality and become increasingly irrational. In Pollution and the Death of Man, he addresses ecological issues from a Christian point of view. In A Christian Manifesto, he provided a Christian response to Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto and to the Humanist Manifesto of 1973. From Schaeffer’s life and ministry, we learn many lessons, among which are these: (1) Schaeffer expended great effort to understand not only Christianity but also his cultural context. This dual understanding allowed him to be effective as an evangelist and apologist. (2) Schaeffer treated individuals as God’s unique creations, made in God’s image and likeness. Even when—and especially when—he disagreed with their ideas or actions, he treated them with kindness and respect. (3) Francis and Edith recognized the value of Christian community, so they created an environment in their home that would allow unbelievers to share meals with them, to live life together with Christians, and to otherwise experience Christian love. What We Can Learn from History in Order to Live Faithfully Today Each of us must live faithfully in the time and place where God has put us. This means, on the one hand, that we cannot be slavishly beholden to the past. The ways that Augustine or Lewis made culture and engaged culture will be different from our ways. For Augustine, faithfulness included taking into account Roman gods and Roman politics. For Lewis, it meant bearing witness to Christ in England in the aftermath of war. For us, however, faithfulness must be accomplished in our own 21st-century contexts. On the other hand, we can and should learn from Christians in the past. As we observe the ways in which they proclaimed and promoted Christ in their contexts, we will find instruction for how to do so in our own. Action Points • Augustine argued that Roman civilization was corrupt politically, religiously, and philosophically. Pause for a moment to reflect upon ways in which your own country is corrupt politically, religiously, and philosophically. • Balthasar Hübmaier was persecuted and eventually killed for the sake of his loyalty to Christ. What are some ways Christians in your country are opposed today? What can we learn from Hübmaier’s example as we prepare to face opposition? • Abraham Kuyper is known for his emphasis on Christ’s lordship. What are some facets of your own life and cultural engagement that have not been brought into line with Christ’s lordship? • All the people discussed in this chapter display a creative presence in their cultural context, showing Christ to be Lord of every sphere of life. Who are some people you know to be displaying this same sort of Christ-focused presence? • Both C. S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer were known for their ability to listen and meaningfully converse with people. In what ways do you hear those around you? What are the marks of gospel-listening, and how should that influence our gospel-sharing? Recommended Reading Chang, Curtis. Engaging Unbelief: A Captivating Strategy from Augustine and Aquinas. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000. A brief reflection on the way Augustine and Thomas Aquinas engaged unbelief in their respective cultural contexts. Duriez, Colin. Francis Schaeffer: An Authentic Life. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008. A biography of Francis Schaeffer, written by a man who knew Schaeffer well. Markos, Louis. Lewis Agonistes: How C. S. Lewis Can Train Us to Wrestle with the Modern and Postmodern World. Nashville: B&H, 2003. An exposition of what Lewis can teach us about engaging with art, science, philosophy, and other realms of culture. Moore, T. M. Culture Matters: A Call for Consensus on Christian Cultural Engagement. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2007. A helpful introduction to the ways in which some Christians have engaged their respective cultures. Mouw, Richard J. Abraham Kuyper: A Short and Personal Introduction. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. An excellent little introduction to Kuyper’s life and thought. Chapter 5: The Arts As a young believer and a cultural separatist in the 80s and 90s, I was pretty sure that “the arts” were very bad in some foreboding but non-specific manner. I wasn’t sure why the arts were so bad, but it seemed self-evident that I was supposed to be against them, not for them. During my childhood years, I had a rather limited television intake (“The Andy Griffith Show” was an exception, although the presence of Otis made even this show “iffy”), an almost nonexistent movie intake (except for Billy Graham movies), and a zero-calorie music diet (classical music and hymns only; rock music was Satan’s music, and I knew this because Bill Gothard told me so). Now, don’t get me wrong—I’m happy about the alternatives my parents presented. I read books (lots of them, including biography, history, theology, fiction, etc.), I played sports, and I spent time with my family. But by the time I got to college, I wasn’t sure what to do with the arts, including popular art forms like cinema, television, and Top 40 music. I knew that I disagreed with a lot of the messages that were being put forth through those media, but I also knew that some of it was beautiful and that all of it was powerfully influential. Because of this recognition that I didn’t know what to do with the arts, in my college and early seminary years I fluctuated between cultural anorexia and cultural gluttony, sometimes within the span of one week. It wasn’t until I met the Christian philosopher L. Russ Bush and read books by Abraham Kuyper, C. S. Lewis, and Francis Schaeffer that I began to learn what to do with the arts. L. Russ Bush was the academic dean and professor of philosophy at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, where I was enrolled. In his introductory philosophy course, he covered the history of philosophy and, while doing so, illustrated by pointing to movies, music, and television shows that espoused particular philosophical viewpoints. In his Ph.D. seminar on “Christian Faith and the Modern Mind,” he surveyed late 20th-century art, architecture, cinema, and music, showing the philosophical and religious underpinnings of various artists and works. During Dr. Bush’s courses, he introduced us to Christian art critics such as Hans Rookmaaker (professional art historian and critic) and popular art critics such as Francis Schaeffer (Christian theologian and apologist). Rookmaaker and Schaeffer were friends and influenced each other’s work in the realm of art. In this chapter, I will center our discussion on Schaeffer’s view of art (which depended in part upon Rookmaaker’s) as expressed in his book Art and the Bible, because it has some very important things to teach us and because Schaeffer communicates those things in a way that is easily understood by non-professionals in the field of art. Along the way, however, I will add to what Rookmaaker and Schaeffer said, and even express some ideas differently than they might have. Before we continue, let’s define some terms that we will be using and then turn our attention back to the Bible’s storyline for a moment. Traditionally the word “art” has been defined as something that imitates the real world (Plato) or as a purposive representation of the world that helps us communicate (Kant). However, the traditional conceptions of art tend to reduce it to one “thing,” when there is in fact a myriad of diverse things we recognize as art. The philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff is onto something when he writes: Art plays and is meant to play an enormous diversity of roles in human life. Works of art are instruments by which we perform such diverse actions as praising our great men and expressing our grief, evoking emotion and communicating knowledge. Works of art are objects of such actions as contemplation for the sake of delight. Works of art are accompaniments for such actions as hoeing cotton and rocking infants. Works of art are a background for such actions as eating meals and walking through airports. In addition to talking about art, we will talk about “artifacts.” Artifacts are things made by humans that give evidence of the God-given capacity for creativity, which is part of being created in the image of God. “Artistry” refers to the way humans respond to God’s equipping and calling them to be creative. The Biblical Storyline Turning to the biblical storyline, we notice that, in the creation account, God is portrayed as the first artist and craftsman. The world we live in, and we ourselves, are the product of his craftsmanship and artistry. Additionally in those chapters, we learn that he created human beings in his image and likeness—which implies that we will be artful and creative similar to the way God is artful and creative. Good art is art that honors God and causes human beings to flourish. After the fall, however, every dimension of culture, including the arts, has experienced the corrupting and misdirecting influence of sin. Bad art is art that is warped and distorted by sin and idolatry, which arises from a wrong view of God and his good world. In the midst of this fallen state of affairs, the Son of God came to earth and took on human flesh. He was the exact representation of God (Heb 1:3), the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15). Describing this biblical teaching, a 20th-century theologian named Hans Urs von Balthasar wrote that supreme beauty is the glory of the invisible God radiating in the visible materiality of the world. All art and indeed all culture are measured by the standard of the incarnate Son. Additionally, because of the incarnate Son’s redemption, we now seek to bring healing and redirection to the arts, by producing art that honors Christ and is free from the corrupting influence of sin. We do this as an act of obedience to Christ and as a witness to the world. Hans Rookmaaker and Francis Schaeffer In Rookmaaker’s book Art Needs No Justification, he makes a good point when he notes that good art does not need to have Bible characters or church content as its subject matter. God made us artfully and wants us to be artful, so the subject matter of the art doesn’t matter so much. What matters more is that the art is done from within a Christian worldview, for God’s glory, and in a way that helps human beings flourish. Schaeffer picks up this theme and expands on it in Art and the Bible. At the beginning of the book, Schaeffer makes a biblical-theological argument for the goodness of the arts. He begins by arguing for the lordship of Christ over every realm of culture and specifically over the arts. He continues by giving specific examples of Scripture promoting the arts. He hones in on “religious” art and artifacts in the tabernacle and temple, “secular” art in the Bible, Jesus’ use of art, the biblical writer’s use of poetry and portrayal of music, drama, and dance in the Bible, and finally the pervasively “artful” portrayal of heaven’s beauty. After having built his theological case for the value of the arts, he begins to show the reader how to evaluate specific works of art. One of the more noteworthy sections is his provision of four standards by which one can judge a work of art. Although Schaeffer had in mind primarily oil paintings, statues, and similar types of art, the standards he articulates are ones that any Christian can use to evaluate other types of art, such as movies, music, graphic design, or home design. The first category Schaeffer provides is technical excellence. He asks whether a painter’s canvas gives evidence of technical excellence in categories such as color, form, balance, the unity of the canvas, its handling of lines, and so forth. Similarly, one could ask whether a movie director is skillful in his use of sound and lighting. The second category he provides is validity. In order for a work of art to possess validity, it should have been produced by an artist who is honest to herself and her worldview (or does she, for example, sell out for money?). Does the artist explore themes or questions that are within her depth, or that indicate she is merely trying to impress? The third category is content. Is the artist’s worldview resonant with a Christian worldview? A piece of art gives glimpses of an artist’s worldview, and an artist’s whole body of work will tend to reveal the broad contours of his worldview, even though he may not be aware of this. When a singer sings about love, is his view of love shaped by the biblical teaching about love? When a screenwriter produces a movie script whose theme is the meaning of life, does her treatment of the theme reflect Christianity’s deepest teaching on the matter? The fourth category is integration of content and vehicle. Does this work of art correlate its content with its style? If the lyrics speak to a theme of personal loss, does the music similarly convey a sense of loss? If the lyrics portray the beauty of romantic love, does the music enhance that sense of beauty or subvert it? After discussing these four categories for evaluating works of art, Schaeffer distinguishes between four types of artists. His first type, and the one that holds the possibility for art that truly honors God and contributes to the flourishing of humanity, is the Christian artist who works from within a Christian worldview. Assuming that this artist is skilled and able to produce art that is technically excellent, valid, and integrated, she will produce the very best sort of art. The second type is the non-Christian who works from within a consistently non-Christian worldview, and it serves as the mirror-opposite of the first type. Even if this artist is skilled and able to produce art that satisfies the four categories above, her art will not be the best sort of art and will in some ways subvert God’s design for human flourishing. The third type is the non-Christian who works with the remnants and residue of a Christian worldview. This artist does not work consistently from within a non-Christian worldview, but either consciously or unconsciously has adopted elements of a Christian worldview. The fourth type is the Christian who does not fully grasp the Christian worldview and therefore works with elements of a non-Christian worldview. This artist is a Christian whose worldview has not been conformed to Christianity and who therefore is not able to produce art that arises consistently from within a Christian view of things. While the first two types are examples of the best-case scenario and the worst-case scenario, the last two types are more of a mixed bag. Schaeffer was not a professional art critic, and his work has some flaws. However, there is much that a Christian (especially one who is not a professional artist or critic) can learn from him. Building on Schaeffer’s ideas above, and modifying them a bit, we can say that: (1) As Christians, we should strive to produce good art—art that arises from within a comprehensive Christian worldview and contributes to the well-being of God’s people and of the broader community; (2) good, Christian art does not have to be explicitly religious and often is more powerful when it is not; and (3) as Christians, we should pay careful attention to the art arising from our culture, because it is a significant component of the culture and likely reveals something about the predominant beliefs and lifestyles operating in our context. Embracing the Arts One of the reasons why Christians have been increasingly ineffective witnesses in the United States is that we have neglected our responsibility to glorify God in the arts. I agree with the great writer Dorothy Sayers when she says, “The church has never made up her mind about the Arts, and it is hardly too much to say that she has never tried,” and with the Christian theologian Colin Gunton, who recently wrote, “Christianity has tended to be ambivalent about the arts, at once fostering and developing them and yet always ready to doubt their true value.”36 Christians have paid insufficient attention to this dimension of human culture—a dimension that is significant in God’s creation-order and that wields great influence over the hearts and minds of humanity. We would be foolish to continue minimizing the arts. Abraham Kuyper writes, “Understand that art is no fringe thing that is attached to the garment, and no amusement that is added to life, but a most serious power in our present existence.” For this reason, we must accept the challenge recently set forth by the musician and theologian Jeremy Begbie, who wrote, “As the western Churches face the enormous challenge of how the faith ‘once delivered’ is going to be redelivered in a society increasingly alienated from the institutional Church and increasingly ignorant about the Christian faith, to neglect the arts’ potential would be curious, perhaps even irresponsible.”38 Instead of neglecting the arts, we need to encourage our churches to place significance on them and create environments that can produce Christian artists and Christians who engage the arts. Action Points • Art is a key element in our discussion on culture redirected toward God, because few things engage the whole person the way art does. What are some of your favorite expressions of the arts? What brings you joy or elevates your thoughts and emotions to the deeper things of life? • Name some of your favorite artists (be they musicians, painters, photographers, poets, or novelists). In which of Schaeffer’s four categories of artists would you place them? • Creating beauty and enjoying beauty are unique to humans in God’s creation and are things we are called to do as full-orbed worshipers of God. What are ways that you might use your creative capacities, your artfulness, to enhance your home, workplace, church, or community? Recommended Reading Gallagher, Susan V. and Roger Lundin. Literature Through the Eyes of Faith. New York: HarperCollins: 1989. An excellent introduction that shows how reading literature helps us interpret our lives. Godawa, Brian. Hollywood Worldviews: Watching Films with Wisdom and Discernment. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009. An engaging book that equips readers to watch films critically. O’Connor, Flannery. “The Church and the Fiction Writer” in Mystery and Manners, 143–53. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1961. An essay providing insight into the relationship of faith and writing. Rookmaaker, H. R. Modern Art and the Death of a Culture. 2nd ed. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1973. A modern classic that offers penetrating insight into modern art and the intellectual context beneath it. Advanced. Schaeffer, Francis A. Art and the Bible: Two Essays. Rev. ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006. A small book encapsulating Schaeffer’s approach to the arts. Seerveld, Calvin. Bearing Fresh Olive Leaves: Alternative Steps in Understanding Art. Toronto: Piquant, 2000. An advanced treatment of how Christians can understand, make, perform, and evaluate the arts. Veith, Gene E. State of the Arts: From Bezalel to Mapplethorpe. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991. A useful introduction to understanding the biblical foundations for art and the broad contours of contemporary art. Wolterstorff, Nicholas. Art in Action: Toward a Christian Aesthetic. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. A Christian philosophy of art arguing that art has a legitimate and necessary place in everyday life. Advanced. Chapter 6: The Sciences Christians sometimes think that the sciences are somehow at odds with the Christian faith. Perhaps they remember that their biology professor in college was not a Christian, or maybe they have listened to atheists like Richard Dawkins denounce the Christian faith. On top of this, many Christians think of the sciences as being only those disciplines such as physics, chemistry, or biology, and thus think of the sciences as being far removed from ordinary life and from the Christian mission. But in fact, the sciences are not at odds with the Christian faith, and science is not far removed from the Christian life. Although scientists and theologians might find themselves sometimes disagreeing with one another on certain topics, “science” and “Christianity” are never in conflict. In fact, Christianity ought to have a close working relationship with all of the sciences, including not only biology, physics, and chemistry, but also sociology, anthropology, psychology, and medicine. In this chapter, we will focus our attention on whether the sciences confirm the Christian faith or call it into question. In particular, we will pay attention to a claim made by certain scientists such as Richard Dawkins: that Christianity and science are incompatible and that the modern “scientific” worldview should replace the outdated “Christian” one. The Biblical Storyline Before doing so, however, let’s turn our attention back to the Bible’s storyline, asking how it can illuminate this chapter’s topic. From the creation account, we can infer that God is the first “scientist.” He created the universe that scientists study, and he even reveals certain things about himself through our study of the universe (Rom 1:20). God sustains the universe and holds it together (Col 1:15–20) so that it manifests the unity, regularity, and stability that a scientist must demonstrate when studying the world. Additionally, God created humans as inquisitive and rational beings who have both the desire and the ability to study his world scientifically. In a nutshell, science has a unique and powerful capacity to honor God and to cause human beings to flourish. In the aftermath of the fall, every aspect of creation and culture finds itself corrupted and misdirected by sin. Science is no exception. Scientific investigation is undertaken by fallen human beings who, for example, make an idol out of the sciences by trusting that science can answer life’s deepest questions and fix its most perplexing problems. In other words, Westerners often worship science instead of God. Additionally, many Westerners view the story of the modern world as a story in which science has made progress precisely because it has proven Christianity wrong in some of its major teachings. For them, the history of science provides a master narrative of the world—one that they often hold to in a deeply emotional and religious manner. This is one way in which science has been corrupted and misdirected. Because of the redemption we have in Jesus Christ, we seek to glorify God in every dimension of life and culture, including the scientific dimension. We want to bring healing and redirection to science in those areas where it has been corrupted and misdirected. One way we can do that is by retelling the “story” of science, showing the world that Christian theology and natural science are mutually beneficial dialogue partners. In doing so, we are able to correct the misperceptions that many people have and to help them see God as the enabler and encourager of scientific study. The Christian Foundations of Modern Science One of the first things we should note is the fact that modern science arose within a predominantly Christian civilizational context. At the turn of the 20th century, the French physicist Pierre Duhem began researching the roots of modern science. He concluded that modern science began, in seminal form, in the Middle Ages, and that Christianized Europe was a conducive environment to scientific inquiry. Nancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton, in The Soul of Science, argue that Duhem was an astute and perceptive observer of the history of science. They note that modern science could have arisen from China or Arabia, as both civilizations had produced a higher level of learning and more advanced technology than European civilization at that time. “Yet,” they write, “it was Christianized Europe and not these more advanced cultures that gave birth to modern science as a systematic, self-correcting discipline. The historian is bound to ask why this should be so.” Pearcey and Thaxton acknowledge that several factors (e.g., trade and commerce) contributed to Europe’s success in the sciences, but they argue that among those factors the Christian worldview was central. Pearcey and Thaxton list 10 aspects of Christian teaching that enabled modern science to arise in a Christianized European context, several of which we will now mention. One aspect is the biblical teaching that the physical and material world is both real (unlike the illusory world envisioned by many Hindus) and good (contrary to the negative perspective of Gnostics and neo-Platonists). Furthermore, Scripture teaches that the world is good but not divine, which allows humans to study it as an object rather than revering it as a god. Additionally, the Bible portrays an orderly world that can be studied (unlike the pagans, who viewed the world as a chaotic arena influenced by the conflicting whims of various deities). Its regularity is such that we have come to speak of “the laws of nature,” which can be stated in mathematical formulas. Finally, Scripture portrays humans as beings who have the rational capacities to study this orderly world. In other words, God created the world in such a way that it can be studied, and he created humans in such a way that we can do the studying. Christianity, therefore, played a significant role in the rise of modern science and is hospitable to science and scientists. Not all scientists, however, see it that way. Some of them argue that the claims of science and theology are incompatible—that science trumps theology, and that theology is no longer credible in the modern world. Atheism’s Errant Claims That Science and Theology Are Incompatible Stephen Barr is a theoretical particle physicist at the Bartol Institute of the University of Delaware. Several years ago, he wrote an important article in which he showed how there is no real conflict between science and theology. Instead of a conflict between science and theology, there is a conflict between materialism and theology. (Materialists believe that nothing exists except matter, and they almost always believe there is no God.43) Barr argues that Christianity is rational, that it actually gave birth to modern science, and that the Bible’s storyline and teachings fit hand-in-glove with the best of science. In the main body of his paper, Barr shows how scientific materialists claim that science makes a Christian conception of the world unbelievable; then he proceeds to overturn each of the materialists’ claims. In the next few paragraphs, I will summarize four of the materialists’ claims and Barr’s response to them. The first materialist claim is that Copernicus’ discoveries overturned Christian cosmology. They argue that Copernicus’ discovery that the Earth revolves around the sun refuted a Christian belief that the sun revolves around the Earth. Barr responds that Copernicus did not overthrow any distinctively Christian belief. The sun-centered view of the cosmos came from pagan thinkers (Ptolemy and Aristotle) rather than from Christian Scripture—so Copernicus refuted Ptolemy and Aristotle, not Christianity. Barr goes on to make a very interesting point: Contemporary cosmology has recently moved in the direction of affirming Christian beliefs about the cosmos. While the scientific consensus 30 years ago was that the cosmos was eternal, the consensus now is that it must have had a beginning (which is what theologians have argued for thousands of years). A second materialist claim is that “mechanism” has triumphed over “teleology.” Teleology is the view that the world has a design and a purpose, while mechanism is the view that it does not. Materialists argue that physicists have discovered certain “laws” of physics that hold the world together in such a way that there is no need to believe in a Designer who put it together. Barr argues that this mechanistic view is wrong. Barr is himself a physicist, and he argues that most physicists recognize that deep laws underlie the universe’s operations——laws so profound and elegant that they actually cause physicists to postulate some sort of cosmic design. While materialists continue to assert that the universe could not have had a divine Designer, many physicists now suspect that it could or does. A third materialist claim is that biologists have dethroned humanity from the high position given to it by Christian theology. Materialists say that biology has led us to believe that humans are merely animals who make up just a tiny part of a huge and hostile universe. If this is true, it must disprove Christianity, which teaches that God created human beings in his image and likeness and set them apart from the animals. Barr’s response is to argue the opposite point: As it turns out, the universe is amazingly (even gratuitously) hospitable to humans. Many features of our universe are fine-tuned in such a manner that minute alteration would leave the Earth uninhabitable for humans. Such “anthropic coincidences” seem to be built into nature—and if they have been built in, there must be a divine Builder. A fourth materialist claim is that humans are nothing more than biochemical machines, and that this “fact” renders the God-postulate unnecessary. Materialists argue that there is no proof whatsoever that humans have “souls” or spiritual capacities of any type and that therefore we have no reason to believe in God either. However, Barr explains that some physicists are now arguing that the quantum theory in physics is incompatible with a materialist view of the mind. He concludes that research in physics shows the laws of the universe to be grand and sublime in a way that implies design—and, because of that, this research also implies that the universe has a Designer. Science and Theology as Mutually Beneficial Dialogue Partners The best way to view science and theology is as “mutually beneficial dialogue partners.” Like Barr, we recognize that God is the author of both Scripture and nature. If so, then there should be a partnership between those whose primary object of study is Scripture and those whose primary object of study is nature. Theologians and scientists should dialogue with one another and partner together in seeking to understand reality. As philosopher David Clark writes: Reality is complex, human knowers access different dimensions of reality using different methods. This is precisely why dialogue among disciplines is important. Dialogue permits us to adopt multiple frames of reference on reality. Still, if truth is unified as we hold, we must seek connections between and integration of these multiple frames of reference. Clark goes on to elucidate some ways that theology speaks to science and science speaks to theology. Theology speaks to science by: (1) explaining the origin and destiny of the universe; (2) explaining why it is orderly and can be interpreted; (3) explaining why science matters; (4) helping to guide future scientific research; and (5) helping provide warrant for one scientific theory over another. Moreover, science speaks to theology by: (1) offering conceptual frameworks and analogies helpful for elucidating theological concepts; (2) helping provide warrant for one theological interpretation over another; and (3) illustrating and providing further explanation of biblical teaching on aspects of created reality. The English physicist and theologian John Polkinghorne puts it well when he writes: The scientific and theological accounts of the world must fit together in a mutually consistent way. In fact, because I also accept the dialogue description of this relationship, I believe that they can do so—not as a mere matter of compatibility, but with a degree of mutual enhancement and enlightenment. When Scientists and Theologians Disagree The discussion of Barr’s article raises a question that many Christians have on their mind: How do we find a resolution when certain scientists present evidence that appears to conflict with Christian teaching? As Christians, we believe that there cannot be any real or final conflict between theology and science, because God is the author of both the “book of Scripture” and the “book of nature.” If there is a conflict between certain theologians and certain scientists, it exists because of human error in interpreting Scripture or interpreting nature. In other words, there will sometimes be disagreement between theologians and scientists, but there will never be disagreement between God’s two books (Scripture and nature). In light of these convictions, I offer three principles to resolve the disagreements that sometimes exist between theologians and scientists. These three principles are modified from an article written by the Christian philosopher Norman Geisler: 1. Either group (theologians or scientists) can err; for that reason, either group should be open to correction. Both theologians and scientists have made mistakes. On the one hand, centuries ago many theologians thought that the Earth was square, based on biblical texts referring to the “corners” of the Earth. However, scientists have demonstrated beyond doubt that the world is not square, and theologians now realize that the biblical authors used “corners of the Earth” language metaphorically. On the other hand, decades ago many scientists thought the Earth was eternal. However, most scientists now believe in the “Big Bang” theory, which explains that the universe is expanding outward from a point of “infinite density” (which is as close as scientific language can come to saying that it appeared out of nothing). 2. The Bible is not a science textbook. Scripture does make statements that can be investigated and either affirmed or denied by scientists. However, it does not use technical scientific language and it does not give scientific theories. Instead, it uses language that would be accessible to persons who are observing the world from an ordinary human standpoint. When Scripture is interpreted correctly in this manner, we see that God’s written Word does not conflict with science in any real or final manner. Any disagreement we find should be located in human interpretive error, rather than in any real conflict between God’s two books. 3. Science is constantly changing. One generation of scientists might argue that the universe is eternal, while the very next generation argues that the universe emerged from a point of infinite density and therefore had a beginning. For this reason, Christians should be careful not to hurriedly revise a traditional interpretation of Scripture in order to satisfy the demands of contemporary scientists. God’s revelation of himself gives Christians deep motivation to embrace the sciences and do excellent work in them. Viewed from a Christian perspective, science is the discipline of studying the good world that God has given us. For this reason, we should build into our churches the habit of encouraging those who are gifted to pursue work in the sciences. We should work hard to build world-class research universities that give scientists the freedom to do their work without laying aside their core convictions and the freedom to hypothesize Christianly as they attempt to make sense of the data. Additionally, we should encourage the most gifted and mature of our young people to study science in our Ivy League and major state universities. In so doing, these students will find themselves in places of influence as research scientists or tenured professors of science at those same universities. Action Points • Barr retells the story of science, arguing that science is not in conflict with Christianity. Have you ever encountered a person who thought science and Christianity are in conflict? How would you respond to them if you had the opportunity to do so? • What are some ways we benefit from science and technology? What are some ways we make an idol out of science and technology? Recommended Reading Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: Touchstone, 1996. A fetching read by a working biochemist about a central problem with Darwinian theory. The book is technical but accessible to the lay reader. Carlson, Richard F., ed. Science and Christianity: Four Views. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000. This book offers four views on the relationship of science and Christianity: Creationism, Independence, Qualified Agreement, and Partnership. Davis, John Jefferson. The Frontiers of Science and Faith. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002. A terrific exploration of 10 current scientific issues and their intersection with Christian theology and life. Keathley, Kenneth D., and Mark F. Rooker, 40 Questions about Creation and Evolution. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2014. This is the best one-stop introduction to the contested question of the relationship between creation and evolution. Pearcey, Nancy R. and Charles B. Thaxton. The Soul of Science: Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1994. An analysis of the way in which Judaeo-Christian thought funds the scientific enterprise, including a look at mathematics and scientific “revolutions,” and the discipline called the “History of Science.” Plantinga, Alvin. Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. An argument that there is deep resonance between Christianity and science, and deep conflict between atheism and science. Advanced. Chapter 7: Politics and the Public Square As a Christian citizen of the United States, I get the distinct sense that I am living in an increasingly post-Christian country. The majority of Americans no longer consider traditional Christian doctrines (for example, the doctrine of sin) or traditional Christian ethics (for example, biblical sexual morality) to be plausible in the modern world. Christians who do not abandon these beliefs are labeled intolerant and even hateful. Given the fact that the United States is a democratic republic, the beliefs of the majority affect the lives of the minority socially, culturally, and politically. This reality makes it increasingly important for Christians to figure out the best way to voice their Christian convictions and enact Christian love in the public square. I use the phrase “public square” to refer to our public life—the places where we speak, act, debate, dialogue, and exchange ideas about the best ways to organize our communities, cities, states, and nation. Certain people—such as politicians, lawyers, and journalists—find that their jobs are inherently oriented to the public square. However, those persons are not the only ones who have the opportunity to participate in the public square. Each of us can be actively involved in shaping public life. As Christians, the question that arises immediately concerns the relationship between our personal religious beliefs and our shared public life: Should we bring our Christianity with us to the public square or should we leave it home? In this chapter, we will address this significant question about the relationship between religious belief and public life, especially as it pertains to a country like the United States. In the United States, and in many other democracies, Christians find themselves in conversations with citizens who hold very different opinions on the most important matters in public life. In this situation, we must figure out the most appropriate and compelling manner in which to set forth publicly our vision of the good life. The Biblical Storyline In just a moment, we will discuss different views about how to relate religious belief and the public square. But first, let’s trace the biblical storyline once again, this time with an eye toward politics and the public square. When we reflect on the biblical account of creation, we realize that Adam and Eve lived in right relationship with God, with each other, and with the created order. This interconnected web of rightly ordered relationships encapsulated God’s design for his people to flourish alongside of one another, experiencing harmony and delight in their common life. After the fall, God’s creational design was corrupted and misdirected. In the aftermath of the first couple’s sin, humanity experienced broken relationships with God, each other, and the world. Rather than being in loving fellowship with God, we are born predisposed to reject God, competing with him in an attempt to be Lord over his universe. Instead of living in loving fellowship with each other, we experience social brokenness in the form of murder, rape, adultery, ethnocide, slavery, and terrorism, to name a few. Instead of living in perfect mutual reciprocity with God’s creation, we treat his creation badly, and his creation supports our life imperfectly. In other words, sin has created a situation in which we need a governing authority to restrict evil and promote the common good (Rom 13:1–5; 1 Pet 2:13–14). In the West, most countries are governed by some form of democracy, in which “we the people” have a real say in government. We have the opportunity to gather in the public square to discuss and debate matters of concern to the whole society. And yet, because we are finite human beings and sinners, often we do not achieve consensus. We disagree with one another on many of the most important issues in our shared public life, we have difficulty achieving justice for all, and we wage our debates in the most unhelpful and uncivil of manners. However, because of Christ Jesus’ redemption, we find ourselves sent back into the public square in a wholly new way. We have been reconciled to God and seek to live in reconciled relationships with each other and with God’s world. We want to put our Christian convictions to work in the political realm, helping to foster justice for our cities, states, and nation. We do these things out of love for the Lord and obedience to him. However, we also do it out of love for our fellow citizens and as a witness to them. As we employ our Christian love and conviction in the public square, we are providing a preview of a future era when Christ will return and reign as King over a new heavens and earth. A Naked Public Square? We have just now reviewed the biblical storyline, which gives us the broad contours of God’s design for our shared human life, sin’s corruption of his design, and Christ’s redemption that eventually will heal the corruption. Now, we must try to apply these basic truths to a specific question that the Bible does not address directly: How should Christians—who live in a 21st-century democratic republic populated by diverse religions and ideologies, and characterized by political incivility and injustice—act and speak in the public square? More specifically, should we bring our religious beliefs into the public square or should we leave them at home? One of the foremost American political thinkers of the late 20th century was John Rawls, who taught at Harvard University. His most influential book, A Theory of Justice, addresses many of the questions we are asking in this chapter. Rawls argues that American citizens should engage in vigorous public discussion about important political issues but should leave their religious beliefs out of it. He suggests that we hide behind a “veil of ignorance.” We should pretend to be ignorant of our own religious convictions (and of other things that could prejudice us, such as our race or socioeconomic class). Rawls thinks that his view will help citizens achieve the most just outcome. In my view, Rawls’ vision for a naked public square is both impossible and unhelpful. All people are religious, and their religion radiates outward into every part of their lives. Rawls’ religion was political liberalism, and it deeply influenced his public-square interaction. Our religion is Christianity, and it will—and should—influence our interactions in the public square. As believers, we affirm our Christian convictions as the very things that should help us create a good and just society. We should employ those convictions appropriately as we seek to contribute to the common good. Many prominent Christian thinkers, such as Richard John Neuhaus, Lesslie Newbigin, and John Howard Yoder, have rejected Rawls’ approach in favor of a view that recognizes the need for believers to bring their convictions to the public square. Each of those thinkers offered valuable insights that will prove helpful for Christians who wish to chart a path of Christian faithfulness in our 21st-century context. In the following section, however, we will rely primarily on the insights of Richard Mouw, an American philosopher and theologian who has applied Abraham Kuyper’s insights to our contemporary North American context. A Convictional Public Square A core biblical teaching is that all humans are worshipers, either of God or of idols. Our worship is located in the heart, and it radiates outward into all that we do. People who are not Christians are still worshipers, and whatever or whoever they worship radiates outward into all that they do, including their public-square interactions. As Christian believers, we worship the God of Jesus Christ. Because he is the creator and Lord of all that exists, we seek to bring all of our lives, including our public-square interactions, into submission to his lordship. The question remains, however: “How exactly do we bring our public-square interactions in line with Christ’s lordship?” Here are seven points that offer a way forward. 1. We want to avoid a coercive relationship between the church and the state From Genesis, we learn that God created the world and ordered it by means of his world. This ordering includes various spheres, such as family, church, art, science, and politics. Each sphere has its own creational design, its own way of reflecting God’s glory and enabling humans to flourish. Ideally, each sphere exists directly under God’s lordship, rather than under the “lordship” of one of the other spheres. For example, the church should not seek the authority of the state, and the state should not encroach upon the church. On the one hand, we should avoid “ecclesiasticism”—a situation in which the church seeks to control the state. There are many instances in history in which the institutional church has sought to exercise power directly over the government. However, Scripture never directs or encourages the church to do so. Although God himself is sovereign over the government and can exercise authority directly over it, the church is not sovereign in this manner. Instead, the church is called to equip its members to live godly lives and to be salt and light in their public-square interactions. On the other hand, we must avoid “statism”—a situation in which the state encroaches upon the other spheres and especially (for our purposes) upon the church. As Roger Williams, John Locke, and others argued so compellingly in years past, the Christian doctrine of the image of God implies religious freedom. Os Guinness writes, “Freedom of religion and belief affirms the dignity, worth and agency of every human person by freeing us to align ‘who we understand ourselves to be’ with ‘what we believe ultimately is,’ and then to think, live, speak and act in line with those convictions.” Just as the individual person possesses freedom of conscience, so societies should provide a freedom of religion in the public square. Although the state should not encroach upon other spheres, and especially not upon the church, this does not mean that the government cannot interfere in these autonomous spheres. Mouw follows Kuyper in noting three such instances. The government of any country can and should play the role of a referee when there is conflict between the spheres (e.g., it might restrict an artist from displaying obscene art in public). It can protect the weak from the strong within a given sphere (e.g., it might interfere in a family after an instance of abuse). It also can use its power in matters that affect multiple spheres (e.g., it taxes us in order to build roads that enable all spheres to function). Finally, I add that a government ideally will create an environment in which all of the spheres can operate healthily, enabling society to flourish. 2. We should be active in promoting the common good In Romans 13:1–7 Paul urges the Roman church to live in submission to its government. However, this passage cannot be employed to justify ultimate allegiance to the government or a passive citizenship in contemporary democratic situations. As Mouw explains: In modern democracies, the power of national leaders is derived from the populace, which is the primary locus of God-given authority. Built into the very process is the possibility of review, debate, reexamination, election, and defeat. Given such a framework, for Christians simply to acquiesce in a present policy is to fail to respect the governing authorities. God has always called his people to be a light to the nations, and contemporary democracies provide a unique venue for being just such a light. We can be salt and light not only by calling people to salvation, but also by promoting the common good and looking for ways to restrain public evil. 3. We should be discerning in how we articulate our beliefs As we are looking for ways to promote the common good and restrain sin and its effects, we will have to provide a rationale for the ways we suggest. When providing a public rationale, we face a choice between articulating that rationale in explicitly Christian language or with more neutral language. If we give a more robust and explicitly Christian rationale for our proposals, we often run the risk of being ignored or misunderstood. If we give a more neutral rationale, we are not able to speak with the same convictional force or precision. For example, if a Christian is arguing against abortion, she might in one instance articulate her rationale in terms of the Christian doctrine of the image of God, but in another instance focus on demonstrating the negative effects of abortion on families and the broader society. Such choices are difficult, and we must pray for wisdom and discernment about the best way to argue our points. 4. We should be discerning in what we say from our pulpits The gospel we preach is political (we declare that Jesus is Lord and “Caesar” is not), and therefore the church is a political community. We are political in the sense that we are a “contrast community” whose life is ordered under Christ and should be markedly different from other communities. Our power does not come from wealth, social position, or military power. Instead it comes from Christian love, prophetic witness, generosity, and sacrificial service. One contested issue is whether politics should be preached from the pulpit. This is not an easy question. Mouw is right when he says that we should proceed carefully and pray for discernment when faced with the question of whether to address a political issue from the pulpit. If we decide to do so, we must be confident that our words and concerns arise from God’s words and concerns as expressed in Scripture. If we are confident that our words and concerns match God’s, we might address the situation directly. If we are not so confident, we might merely raise a question about the issue and say that Christians should pray for discernment. A preacher might be confident in addressing the evil of abortion from the pulpit, for example, but likely would not preach about federal regulation of the aviation industry. 5. We should be civil in our demeanor Public square interactions often become contentious, and Christians should make sure that their interactions are shaped by their love for Christ and for their fellow humans. We should be courteous toward those with whom we disagree. We should represent our debate partners accurately rather than misrepresenting them. We should recognize the good in their lives and their arguments, rather than glorifying ourselves and demonizing them. We should be teachable, rather than close-minded. In a nutshell, we should be publicly righteous and our churches should be formation centers for public righteousness. 6. We should be realistic in what we expect from the political sphere As believers, we should be measured in what we expect from the political realm. After all, we are sinners, our politicians are sinners, and in fact we live in societies full of sinners. However, we also know that Christ Jesus will return to institute a new order in which righteousness will prevail. So we should be neither pessimists who throw up our hands in despair nor utopians who try to force the present era to be the new heavens and earth. Instead, we should be clear-eyed Christian realists, who participate patiently in the public square, seeking to bear witness to Christ and promote the common good. 7. We should remember that politics is only one dimension of our cultural witness Before concluding our discussion of religion and the public square, I think it is important to remind ourselves that politics is only one dimension of culture. Additionally, what happens in the political realm often is influenced by things that have taken place in other realms. In other words, if we want to influence our society, we should not put all of our hopes in politics. We should expend our energies in all arenas of culture, because each of those arenas affects what happens in the political realm. Consider the influence that universities have in shaping the minds and hearts of young men and women. Or consider the power of the arts (especially music, TV, and movies) to shape the way entire cultures and subcultures think and feel about issues. So politics is one arena among many, and it is shaped by the other arenas. Grace and Joy in Politics As Christians, we should participate in politics and in discussions about the public good. We do so with seriousness, because Christian love and conviction demand that we work for the public good. We do so with grace, because Christian love extends even to people with whom we have irreconcilable differences politically. And we do so with joy, because our final hope is in Jesus Christ, rather than in the United States of America. Action Points • Reflect on incivility in public life. Can you think of current examples of Christians who interact in public life in ways that are uncivil, such as misrepresenting or demonizing those on the other side of a political debate? • Pick a public-square issue (e.g., just war, abortion, health care). How would you address this issue if you were invited to speak about it on national television? Would you give an explicitly Christian rationale for your stance, or would you choose to use more neutral language? What type of tone would you use? • Christianity is political in the deepest sense of that word. Jesus is Lord, and Caesar is not. However, preachers should be cautious about addressing political issues from the pulpit. Identify appropriate and inappropriate instances of addressing political issues from the pulpit. • When we are unrealistic about what we expect from politics in a fallen world, we can become angry, depressed, and cynical. Can you think of ways in which you or others are unrealistic in your expectations? Recommended Reading Audi, Robert and Nicholas Wolterstorff. Religion in the Public Square: The Place of Religious Convictions in Public Debate. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1997. A somewhat technical discussion of Christian convictions and the ways in which believers should dialogue in the public square. Audi argues that Christians should appear “naked” in the public square, while Wolterstorff (himself a political liberal), argues that they should come “fully clothed.” Budziszewski, J. Evangelicals in the Public Square: Four Formative Voices on Political Thought and Action. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. This intermediate-to-advanced book describes the way four theologians—Carl Henry, Abraham Kuyper, Francis Schaeffer, and John Howard Yoder—approached the public square. Mouw, Richard J. and Sander Griffioen. Pluralisms and Horizons: An Essay in Christian Public Philosophy. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. An unpacking of the problem of political consensus in a pluralist environment, which includes a helpful comparison and contrast of major thinkers on the topic, including John Rawls, Robert Nozick, and Richard John Neuhaus. Mouw, Richard J. Uncommon Decency: Christian Civility in an Uncivil World. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010. An argument that Christians should bring not only their Christian convictions to the public square, but also their Christian virtue—especially the ability to be civil in the midst of debate and discussion. Neuhaus, Richard John. The Naked Public Square: Religion and Democracy in America. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984. A very influential and well-argued text on the place of Christian conviction in public political discourse. Chapter 8: Economics and Wealth In the previous chapter, we discussed the relationship of Christian religious beliefs, politics, and the public square. In this chapter, we will discuss an issue at the center of many political discussions and debates: economics and wealth. Does the Bible have anything to say about this topic? We will see that the Bible does, in fact, provide some guidelines for Christians who want to manage their personal wealth in the right way and who want to live in a society that is economically healthy and just. Matters of economics and wealth are important to us not only because they affect our livelihood, but because Jesus spoke about them often. The broader economy either enables or disables us in our attempts to flourish and prosper. In one way or another, it affects all of our callings (family, church, workplace, community) and every arena of culture (art, science, business, education). Our view of wealth, and our possession of it, likewise affects all of our callings and can affect our interactions in the broader culture. As in previous chapters, this topic is too broad to cover in such a short chapter, even if I tried to cover just the basics. For that reason, I will once again focus on a single aspect of our topic that is relevant to Americans in the 21st century: Marxist socialism. During the 20th century, the nations of the world clashed over Marxism—and in many ways, even today, any discussion of economics is affected by it. I will provide a brief description of Karl Marx’s views and then show how they tend to undermine biblical wisdom concerning the economic realm. Then, I will argue that a healthy brand of capitalism fits well with biblical teaching. But before doing so, let’s trace the biblical storyline in order to see what it has to say about wealth and the economy. The Biblical Storyline In the beginning, God’s creation was one in which Adam and Eve could flourish in the midst of created abundance. God told them to “have dominion” over (manage) this world of abundance, and to “till the soil” (bring out the hidden potentials) of this abundant world. At the time of creation, there were no wealth-related sins such as theft or greed. After the fall, however, things changed dramatically. In the chapters and books immediately following the story of the first couple’s sin, we notice humans sinning in their acquisition of wealth. Instead of working to acquire life’s necessities and luxuries, they stole from others. For this reason, the eighth commandment says, “You shall not steal” (Exod 20:15), and the writer of Proverbs praises hard work while criticizing laziness (Prov 6:6–11). People also sinned in their use of wealth. For this reason, the Bible commends those who share with others rather than hoarding for themselves (Acts 2:44–45) and who pay a fair wage to those who work (Acts 5:3–4). Finally, people also sinned in their view of wealth and possessions, by seeing those things as ultimate rather than seeing God as ultimate. For this reason, we are warned to not make an idol out of silver (Eccl 5:10) or earthly treasures (Matt 6:19–24), to not be greedy (Prov 28:25), and to not be anxious about the material things that we need (Matt 6:25–34). Because of Christ’s redemption, we have been set free to redirect our lives wholly toward Christ, and this redirection includes the economic aspect of our lives. In terms of the acquisition of our wealth, we want to work hard to earn the things we need and want, and to make sure that our labor is always done morally and legally. In terms of the use of our wealth, we should view our possessions as being (ultimately) God’s possessions and have an attitude of thankfulness toward God, who is the provider of those things. We should be generous to those who have need, especially those (such as widows and orphans) who are least able to provide for themselves. We should not allow wealth to cause divisions within the church, and we should not display favoritism toward the wealthy. In terms of our view of wealth and possessions, we should never treat those things as ultimate or as saviors, because only God is ultimate and only he can save. Karl Marx and Socialism The field of economics is beyond our ability to summarize in this chapter, so, again, I will select one aspect of the topic that will be helpful and interesting for most people reading this book. Our chosen topic is Karl Marx and his view of economics and wealth, which is a certain brand of socialism. Marx is the thinker behind the communist revolutions of the 20th century, and in some ways he is the shaping hand behind socialist economies in the 21st century. Marx believed that economic factors are the most important factors in any society and culture. He argued that world history is really a history of people struggling with economic reality and treating each other well or badly based on that reality. In their famous book, The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles, [contests between] freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed.” Marx believed that humanity had evolved in stages economically—from hunter-gatherer societies, to slave-based societies, to medieval feudalism, to modern capitalism. And in his mind, capitalism needed to evolve into socialism. Marx criticized capitalism by arguing that it undermines national identities and cultural distinctives, because it encourages people to clamor for wealth rather than honoring those traditional identities and distinctives. Most important, he argued that capitalism dehumanizes people by alienating them from their labor. In his view, capitalist economies value money and wealth acquisition more than they value workers. They view the worker as a business expense rather than as a human being. And, judging from the state of capitalism today, Marx’s critique has some truth to it. But his solution was extreme: He believed that workers of the world should (and would) overthrow capitalism. When that happened, he argued, workers should abolish private property and eventually abolish the state itself. It is important to note that socialism is a broad category, and Marxism is just one version of it. To make things even more complex, Marx viewed socialism as only a temporary stage on the way to an even better (in his view) economic system: communism. Marx envisioned a day when his socialism (with state ownership of property) would be replaced by communism (in which the state would no longer exist). Marx’s wishes were never fulfilled. In fact, quite the opposite happened: Marxist socialism has always created an even bigger and more intrusive government than existed before. The Problem with Marxist Socialism One criticism of Marxist socialism is that it wants to abolish private property. But the ownership of private property is closely tied to freedom and liberty, which are essential to God’s design for human culture. When the government takes public ownership of all property, it reduces our ability to interact freely with each other in every cultural arena. Another criticism of socialism is based on the work of an economist named Ludwig von Mises, who argued that economic activity isn’t sustainable without pricing set by the free market. Take, for example, the Soviet version of Marxist socialism. In its centrally planned economy, the prices were not determined naturally by supply and demand (as they are in capitalism), but instead were determined artificially by the government. Officials in Moscow set prices on goods and services all around the country, from eggs to tractors to heart surgeries. The problem with this approach is that it severely reduces the incentives people have to do their work with creativity and excellence, because there is no financial reward for it. If heart surgeons get paid the same as street sweepers, then the men and women who have the potential to make breakthrough discoveries in heart surgery might never have the motivation to go through many years of medical school or to work the 60–70 hours per week that world-renowned heart surgeons work. When there is no incentive for progress, the culture stagnates or declines. A final criticism, and a very serious one, is that socialist forms of government have to be more coercive than democratic capitalist forms. The more the government controls, the more power it has. The 20th-century Russian version of socialism was authoritarian, as are the ongoing systems in Cuba and China. A Christian’s Argument for Capitalism Capitalism is a form of economy that values a free market rather than a restricted market. Capitalists believe that value arises naturally from supply and demand, rather than artificially by the hand of the government. If the rule of law is in place, and if the economy is undergirded by an overall moral citizenry, then the prices of goods will tend to reflect the underlying supply and demand. Capitalists want citizens to own property and workers to receive the monetary reward for hard work, creativity, and excellence in their labors. In a nutshell, they believe that a free market is the economic system for helping people to flourish in a fallen world. The Bible does not actually set forth a preferred economic system paired with a preferred system of government, so we have to be creative in trying to figure out which type of economic and political system best fits biblical principles. A Christian thinker named Michael Novak wrote an important book, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism, in which he argued that biblical principles can be honored best in a democratic capitalist system. One of Novak’s arguments in favor of capitalism is that the free market encourages competition, which in turn provides incentive for people to build better businesses and create better products and services. This sort of economic progress, if it is accompanied by a moral citizenry, will provide all sorts of benefits to a society. The better the products and services we provide for one another, the more likely we are to flourish. God will not judge us for creating wealth, but for our use of it. He blesses us so that we can bless others. Another of Novak’s arguments is that the Bible encourages us to build societies that respect the realities of a fallen world. Marxism does not do that; it seeks to create a utopia, a human version of the kingdom of God. But capitalism recognizes, for example, that fallen people generally need economic incentives in order to do their best work. Novak’s argument for free-market capitalism is much broader and deeper than what I’ve described, but those two arguments are examples of how we can apply biblical principles to economic realities. Misdirected Capitalism Yet, even though free-market capitalism is our preferred economic system, it can be corrupted and misdirected. In Two Cheers for Capitalism, Irving Kristol rightly cautions free-market proponents not to be so enthusiastic for capitalism that they self-destruct. In our support for the free market, therefore, we must be wary of potentially destructive misdirections. One way we can misdirect the free market is by idolizing the goods and services offered by the market. The free market does not itself make judgments on what people buy or how much they buy. People can buy (almost) anything they wish, as long as they can pay for it. In allowing that type of liberty, the free market opens the door to materialism and consumerism. Materialism is the belief that we will be happier if we acquire more goods and services, while consumerism is our preoccupation with acquiring those goods and services. The materialist-consumerist mindset is idolatrous, because consumption becomes a functional savior offering the sort of redemption that only Christ can offer, and promoting the sort of utopia that will exist only in the new heavens and earth. Not only individuals but also entire societies can make an idol out of the consumption of material goods and services. Another way we can misdirect the free market is by fostering an unhealthy relationship between the government and large corporations, a relationship we can call “cronyism” or “corporatism.” In cronyism, the government uses regulators to control corporations. Significantly, and to the detriment of a free market, many of the regulators work in the very offices of those corporations, as if the regulators were actually now a part of the corporation. Government officials can be attracted to this model because they are able to control the corporation. If things go bad, the government can blame the corporation, but if things go well, the government can claim credit. Large corporations can be attracted to this model also, because they are able to collude with the government to prevent competition and to protect themselves. In addition, in the United States there are strategically important financial institutions so critical to our economy that they are protected by the government. The government “gives” to these institutions by protecting them financially in such a way that they cannot fail, but in return “takes” from them the regulation of their own business. Alexis de Tocqueville predicted this approach in the 18th century and called it “soft tyranny.” Because we do not have the space to go into greater detail in this little book, let’s summarize crony capitalism by saying that it exerts too strong a control over free enterprise. An optimal free market is one that keeps government from controlling businesses and encourages healthy competition between businesses, which in turn incentivizes businesses to create better products and services. This free-market environment, if it is supported by a moral citizenry, will provide the optimal environment for its citizens to flourish. Security in God, not Wealth The Bible does not prescribe for us any particular economic system or any particular form of government, and it certainly does not prescribe for us the way in which economic systems and forms of government should fit together. But we have tried to argue that a democratic capitalist form of government can be a very healthy way of applying biblical principles, especially if the citizens of that nation are moral, and if they resist the excesses of materialism and consumerism. Christians who live in a democratic capitalist society are in a unique position to be able to elect representatives and have a voice in the economic direction of our nations. We should take seriously our responsibility to vote and to voice our opinion in the public square. But even closer to home is our responsibility to acquire, use, and view our personal wealth in a way that pleases God. We should work hard to acquire our wealth in a way that is moral, legal, and beneficial to society. We should use the wealth we possess to bless our families, but also to bless our neighbors. We should never lose sight of the fact that God, rather than wealth, is our security and our savior. Action Points • What are some biblical truths that our 21st-century societies need to hear regarding the economy? • Do you sometimes find yourself slipping into a materialist or consumerist mindset? What goods and services seem to trigger this for you? How can Christians resist the excesses of materialism? • What are ways that you can begin living as a preview of God’s kingdom in relation to economic realities? How do you live out obedience and faithful witness in this realm of life? • Imagine a scenario in which you find yourself in a public disagreement about an economic issue. The person you are disagreeing with is a member of a different political party. Keeping in mind what we learned in the previous chapter about grace, joy, and civility, how should you interact with this person? What should be your tone? How closely would you associate your opinions with your Christianity? Recommended Reading Brand, Chad. Flourishing Faith: A Baptist Primer on Work, Economics, and Civic Stewardship. Grand Rapids: Christian’s Library Press, 2012. This book is the most concise and accessible primer I know of that addresses work, economics, and civic stewardship. Corbett, Steve and Brian Fikkert. When Helping Hurts, How to Alleviate Poverty Without Hurting the Poor … and Yourself. Chicago: Moody, 2014. The authors lay a foundation for social ministry and poverty-alleviation by defining Jesus’ gospel and mission. From there, they show how social ministry and poverty-alleviation can be accomplished without hurting the poor or hurting the church. Grudem, Wayne. Business for the Glory of God. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2003. A short introduction to the Bible’s teaching on the moral goodness of business and entrepreneurship. Novak, Michael. The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism. Lanham, MD: Madison, 1991. A vigorous examination of capitalism and democracy with a particularly good articulation of a “theology of democratic capitalism.” Richards, Jay W. Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem. New York: HarperCollins, 2009. An excellent argument that Christians can and should work from within the free-market economy (rather than viewing it as evil) to help our world flourish. ———. Infiltrated: How to Stop the Insiders and Activists Who Are Exploiting the Financial Crisis to Control Our Lives and Our Fortunes. New York: McGraw Hill, 2013. A deft exposé of big-government economic regulation and the crippling effects of cronyism. Chapter 9: Scholarship and Education When an 18-year-old believer enters college, she often is entering an environment in which the smartest people she will meet (her professors) are opposed to Christianity. In fact, many universities and academic disciplines have become breeding grounds for professors who take delight in undermining or even mocking our deepest Christian convictions. The university is one the most influential institutions in the modern world, a funnel though which hundreds of thousands of young people pour out annually into every sector of American life. It is not altogether implausible to say, “As goes the university, so goes the next generation.” As Christians, we should expect to encounter resistance from the world. In fact, Jesus promised his disciples that they would be persecuted (John 15:20). However, from my experience, I’ve learned that many 18-year-olds enter college with very little ability to think Christianly or critically. For that reason, instead of being able to enter into serious discussion and debate, they either compartmentalize their faith or compromise their convictions. When a student “compartmentalizes” his faith, I mean that he tends to dissociate his Christian belief from his academic learning, as if the two didn’t have anything to do with each other. Compartmentalization is one way a student can resolve the tension when his professor’s teaching contradicts Christianity. Another way to resolve the tension is to compromise one’s convictions. In this scenario, the student doesn’t know how to respond to views that conflict with a Christian worldview, and so he chooses the professor’s views over his Christian worldview. This sort of scenario is quite common. The intellectual environment in the United States is one in which non-Christian worldviews are privileged. In particular, “secular” forms of thinking are privileged. Trinity University’s President David Dockery writes: The ‘cultured despisers’ of religion regard faith, Christian faith in particular, as irrational and obscurantist. They consider that it may be necessary to tolerate and perhaps even accommodate faith on campus by providing or recognizing denominational chaplaincies, student religious groups, and so forth. But religious faith, even when tolerated, is understood as at best irrelevant to, and at worst incompatible with, serious and unfettered intellectual inquiry and the transmission of knowledge to students. However, as Christians, we believe that Jesus Christ is the creator and savior of the world, and that the Bible’s teachings about the world are true and trustworthy. For this reason, we should allow our Christian convictions to motivate our learning and to shape it. The world of education is multifaceted and broad. In this chapter, we will focus in on one aspect of the world of education: Christians who find themselves in a college or university environment. We will discuss how Christians can approach higher education in a way that honors God and produces excellence in learning. Before doing so, however, we need to review the broad contours of the biblical storyline to glean some basic insights about education. The Biblical Storyline The world that is studied and taught about in any school or university is in fact God’s creation. When God created the heavens and earth, he was creating the very world that we examine in a math or science course. He was shaping the men and women about which we study when we take classes in psychology, English, or marketing. Additionally, he is the one who gifted human beings with the ability to teach and study; he is the one who endowed us with physical, intellectual, creative, moral, spiritual, and relational capacities. After the fall, however, we know that human beings experience difficulty in their ability to learn. The Apostle Paul argues that our ability to discern the truth about reality is warped and corrupted by the sin and rebellion present in our hearts. For this reason, when we receive the redemption offered by Christ Jesus, we must allow him to redirect our minds toward him, so that we can allow him and his Word to shape our learning. God’s Word serves as an enabling Word, which motivates us to learn and shapes the way we learn. In this way, our teaching and learning become forms of obedience and witness. We conform our thinking to Christ who is the Lord of all teaching and learning, and we witness to others by allowing our educational words and deeds to point to him. God’s Design for Education Many different proposals have been made about how to build schools and universities that are distinctively Christian. The best of those proposals are the ones that recognize that the Christian worldview not only motivates us to teach and learn, but also shapes the way we teach and learn. A truly Christian education is one which is holistic; in other words, it shapes, in one way or another, every academic discipline, every professor, and every student in a university. The Bible’s basic storyline provides a framework for understanding reality. In a Christian university, that framework influences the way each discipline is taught. Because God created the world, we know that there is a design and order inherent to it, so that it can be studied; based on this, we also know that in each discipline there is a way things ought to be. Because humans are fallen, we know that every academic discipline can be corrupted and misdirected and therefore should be redemptively redirected toward its proper end. Most important, because God is creator of the whole world about which we teach and study, the whole world possesses a certain unity. All things were created by God and are held together by God. The implication for Christian universities is that the curricula and courses should be taught in such a way that the student can comprehend the unity of truth. Each academic subject and each course should be placed in the context of the broader body of knowledge that finds its unity in Christ. The Sinful Misdirection of God’s Creation One of the reasons we find it so difficult to build truly Christian universities is that universities in the United States and Europe have tended to sideline religious belief. For several hundred years now, our state universities and most of our private universities have encouraged professors to keep their religious beliefs private. In other words, university education has been marked by the dis-integration of religion and education, rather than the integration of them. This disintegration caused a Christian historian named George Marsden to write a book, The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship, in which he argues that truly Christian scholarship is rare because Christian scholars have been trained to keep their religious beliefs private. He quotes a political scientist named John Green, who said: If a professor talks about studying something from a Marxist point of view, others might disagree but not dismiss the notion. But if a professor proposed to study something from a Catholic or Protestant point of view, it would be treated like proposing something from a Martian point of view. Marsden argues that American universities tend to force their professors to be quiet about their faith if they want to be accepted at the university. This sort of disintegration warps and stunts the process of teaching and learning. Historically, the earliest medieval universities and many of the modern universities were truly uni-versities because they understood knowledge to be uni-fied—that is, they saw God as the creator of everything that they studied and taught. However, once modern universities began to sideline religious belief, universities slowly became dis-universities, because God could no longer serve as the center that allowed the disciplines to be unified. This sort of disintegration has fostered negative developments in education, such as relativism and scientism. Once the universities no longer had a centering point (God) around which knowledge could be unified, it was easy for that disunity to turn into relativism. In the faculty lounges and classrooms of many universities today, an atmosphere of intellectual and moral relativism reigns. Alternately, the decentering of God caused a tendency toward scientism. If God has been sidelined, then his revealed word has been sidelined, as well. And if this religious perspective is sidelined, then it is easy to think that the scientific perspective on reality is the only perspective. So instead of viewing science and theology as mutually beneficial dialogue partners (see chapter 6), and instead of recognizing the spiritual dimension of human life, the modern world tends to view science as the supreme (or only) form of knowledge and as the ultimate cultural authority. In response to disintegration, relativism, scientism, and other ills, Christian universities, professors, and students need to bring their Christian worldview to bear upon their teaching and learning. We don’t want to merely tack onto the lectures some Bible verses or a prayer, but to do the hard work of figuring out how God’s revealed word applies to the subject we are teaching or learning. We cannot be simplistic about Christian education. The way in which Christianity applies will differ according to the subject being studied, and often it will be hard to discern. In the instance of moral philosophy or ethics, we can fairly readily understand the way that biblical teaching speaks to the subject matter at hand. The Bible contains a significant amount of straightforward teaching on ethics and morality. Similarly, it might be easy to see the way biblical teaching informs a literature course. When an English class studies a novel, for example, students can fairly readily see how the story-world created by the author is a world that makes judgments about life’s meaning and purpose, or about truth, goodness, or beauty. However, there are other subjects in which the Christian application might not be so easy to discern. Take, for example, a course in veterinary studies. And take, for further example, the fairly superficial subject of “how to properly wash a cat”—which can serve as a scenario we might find very difficult to relate to the Christian worldview. How in the world would a Christian worldview shape the way a person teaches about feline hygiene? We can begin by noting that (1) the doctrine of creation reveals that the animal world is part of God’s good creation, and therefore animals are not inherently evil. For this reason, an ethical treatment of animals leads us to avoid cruelty toward them. In addition, (2) the doctrine of creation makes clear that animals, including cats, are not created in the image and likeness of God; only humans are. For this reason, one should not wash one’s cat with more care than one washes, say, one’s baby. Humor aside, society should not value animal life more than it values human life. It should not craft policies against animal cruelty while at the same time allowing human babies to be exterminated before birth. (3) From the doctrine of the kingdom, we know that God will one day restore and renew his good cosmos (Rom 8:18–22; Rev 21–22), including animals. Therefore our care for animals is in some way a preview of God’s coming kingdom, in which, the Bible tells us, lambs and wolves will lie down together (Isa 11:6; 65:25). Therefore, (4) we conclude that we should behave responsibly toward cats (Christian worldview) and refrain from worshiping them (as do certain ancient and Eastern worldviews) or being cruel to them (classic middle-school-boy worldview). Building truly Christian learning environments will be difficult because we must operate simultaneously within two traditions (Western and Christian). We certainly can learn from the Western tradition, but we also will always be at odds with it, because it sidelines religious belief and therefore warps and distorts knowledge. Craig Bartholomew and Michael Goheen put it well when they write, “On the one hand, since God is faithful to his creation, much true insight into God’s world will come to us from the non-Christian academic community; on the other hand, the idolatry that underlies Western scholarship will be at work to distort that insight.” We must find a way to fulfill our calling faithfully and with excellence, doing so simultaneously with the Western and Christian traditions. A Spiritual Calling The founders of Harvard College published a pamphlet in 1643 containing their mission statement: Let every Student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed, to consider well [that] the maine end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternall life, Jn 17:3, and therefore to lay Christ in the bottome, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and Learning. Other Ivy League schools had similar Christian foundations that enabled them to view their colleges as uni-versities, places of learning in which one could find a uni-ty of truth—a unity that revolved around a God who created all things, who sustains all things such that they consist in him, and who endowed man with the ability to learn about what he created. We concur that learning is best done from within a Christian framework. Cornelius Plantinga, Dean of Calvin College, writes, “Learning is therefore a spiritual calling: properly done, it attaches us to God. In addition, the learned person has, so to speak, more to be Christian with.” Indeed, we should want to “knead the yeast of the gospel” (as Plantinga puts it) through everything that happens on campus, so that all of a student’s rational, creative, and relational capacities would be “permeated with the spirit and teaching of Christianity.”66 Because of the relevance of Christianity for teaching and learning, the Christian community should: (1) build colleges and research universities; (2) encourage Christian scholars to teach in state universities and other private universities that do not integrate Christian faith and learning, in order to be a faithful Christian presence in those places; and (3) encourage our young people to glorify God in their studies. Action Points • Think back to your educational experience. What encounters did you have with people who were hostile to a Christian worldview or who tolerated it as long as you kept it private? What were some of the reasons they gave against your beliefs? How did they argue for theirs? • What are the ways that academic studies and scholarship can be worshipful to God? What does that mean for your studies, whether they include formal education, your own private studies, or your charge to teach others in your vocation? • All of knowledge is unified. This is one of the most significant claims that separate Christians from the rest of the Western academic context today. In what way can we claim that knowledge is unified? What are some things in your life that seem to have little relation to your faith (like washing a cat)? How then do they relate? Recommended Reading Dockery, David. Renewing Minds: Serving Church and Society through Christian Higher Education. Nashville: B&H, 2008. An excellent and accessible treatise on how to recover a robust and authentic view of faith and learning. Holmes, Arthur. The Idea of a Christian College. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. An evangelical classic. This slim little volume packs a powerful punch as it sets forth the distinctive mission and contributions of a Christian college. Marsden, George. The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. A 20th-century classic that provides a compelling argument for mainstream American higher education to be open to explicit expressions of faith in an intellectual context. Noll, Mark. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. A compelling argument that evangelicals should value the life of the mind. Plantinga, Cornelius. Engaging God’s World: A Christian Vision of Faith, Learning, and Living. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. A very accessible interaction with the biblical narrative and its implications for faith, learning, and living. Wolterstorff, Nicholas. Educating for Life: Reflections on Christian Teaching and Learning. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002. A collection of essays in which Wolterstorff applies his high-octane brain to the notion of faith and learning in Christian high-school education. ———. Educating for Shalom: Essays on Christian Higher Education. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. A collection of essays in which Wolterstorff reflects upon faith and learning in higher education. Conclusion: The Christian Mission Culture matters to God, and it should matter to us. God created us as profoundly social and cultural beings, and this is what separates us from the animals. When God created Adam and Eve, he told them to be fruitful and multiply, till the soil, and have dominion over all the earth. The command to be fruitful and multiply is a profoundly social command, which implied that God wanted humans to build families and communities and societies populated by people who worship him. The commands to till the soil, name the animals, and have dominion are profoundly cultural commands. The command to till the soil implied that God wanted people to take his good creation and change it, to make something of it by bringing out its hidden potentials. The command to have dominion states directly that God wanted people to serve as loving managers of his good world (more literally, to serve as vice-regents under God the King), which implies cultural activity. Humanity’s mission, therefore, was to spread God’s glory across the face of the earth by building societies of worshipers who, in turn, produced cultures that honored God. The story of humanity took a dark turn when Adam and Eve sinned against God. Satan had tempted Adam and Eve by speaking a word against God’s word. He tempted them to question God’s word and God’s goodness. He tempted them to take upon themselves the qualities of God in order to make their own decisions about right and wrong. They succumbed to the temptation, and the consequences of that sin remain today. After Adam and Eve’s sin, all human beings have sinned against God. There is not one corner of society or culture that is left untainted by sin and its consequences. All human beings are alienated from God and from each other, and our social and cultural activities are corrupted and misdirected by sin. In response to our sin, God sent his Son to atone for our sins. He shed his blood on the cross on our behalf, taking upon himself God’s wrath against sin, so that we would not have to pay the consequences of our own sin and so that we could be reconciled to God. Additionally, Christ will redeem and restore the heavens and earth, so that in a future era we will be able to live together with him in an environment whose society and culture is not corrupted by sin. In light of the fall and God’s offer to humanity of a great salvation, our mission now takes on added dimensions. Before the fall, our mission was to spread God’s glory across the face of the earth by building societies of worshipers who lived their cultural lives to his glory. After the fall, we retain the original mission, but also have to deal with the ugly fact of sin. This changes the mission in two ways. First, we now have the privilege and responsibility of speaking the good news about Christ’s salvation so that our neighbors can believe and be saved from their sin. Second, it means that we have to identify the ways in which our societies and cultures have been corrupted and misdirected by sin, so that we can work to redirect them toward Christ. Word and Deed As we seek to live “redirective” lives, we will find that we must do so with a powerful combination of words and deeds. The Christian life was never meant to be merely words or merely deeds. Whenever we lean too heavily on one and minimize the other, we distort and derail the mission. One of the strengths of many evangelical Christians is their belief in the centrality of God’s Word and of human words to communicate the gospel. Words are absolutely vital to the Christian mission; without them we cannot communicate Christ and the gospel. However, sometimes evangelicals speak about the “priority” of word over deed in such a manner that it seems like they’re saying, “Well, if I had to choose between words and actions, I’d choose words.” But this is unhelpful. It’s like saying, “Well, if I have to choose between telling my neighbor about Jesus and refraining from serial adultery, I’d choose to tell the neighbor about Jesus.” But we don’t have a choice between verbal evangelism and faithfulness to our spouse. Similarly, the Christian community should not choose between speaking the gospel, on the one hand, and participating in social ministries and cultural activities, on the other. Another one of the strengths of other evangelical Christians is their belief that the Christian faith ought to be lived out. These Christians recognize the hypocrisy of speaking the gospel without obeying Christ. They participate in social ministries and seek to redirect culture toward Christ. However, sometimes they focus so much on the social and cultural aspects of our obedience that they seem to be choosing actions over words. It’s as if they’re saying, “Well, the people around me have had Christianity crammed down their throats for so long that I’m going to focus my energies on showing people the way that Christ brings change to a person’s life socially and culturally.” But this is profoundly unhelpful. Unless your neighbor has the gospel spoken to her, she will not know how to interpret your actions. True and False Worship What is at stake here? Nothing less than true and false worship. Nothing in a culture is entirely neutral. Cultural institutions are either directed toward Christ or against him, or perhaps they are an inconsistent mixture of the two. When God’s people neglect cultural engagement, they do so to the detriment of society. To ignore culture is to ignore the cultural institutions that shape people’s lives and that will point people either toward Christ or against him. James K. A. Smith recognizes this reality when he speaks about “secular liturgies.” We are familiar with the word “liturgy.” When we speak of liturgy, we are speaking of a set of rituals and words used in public worship, usually in a Christian church’s worship service. However, any set of practices becomes a liturgy when it plays a significant role in shaping our identity. Secular institutions are liturgical because they provide a matrix of practices and rituals that inculcate a certain (un-Christian) vision of the good life. They misdirect our loves and desires. They skew our basic attunement to this world by pointing us away from Christ and toward a certain idol or cluster of idols. Smith argues that the mall is a fine example of a cultural institution with a secular liturgy. The mall is a concentrated and intense location for the practices and rituals associated with consumerism. For many people, the mall functions as their primary place of worship. It holds out a certain vision of the good life: “the hip, happy people that populate television commercials are the moving icons of the consumer gospel, illustrations of what the good life looks like: carefree and independent, clean and sexy, perky and perfect.” This vision is communicated by the mall’s “evangelists”—TV commercials, magazine displays, and Internet advertising. People who worship at the mall are those who are drawn to its vision of the good life. They compare themselves to the carefree, sexy, perfect people portrayed in the ads and decide that they must shop in order to become more like those people. Implicit in their shopping, therefore, is the idea that the mall provides a certain sort of redemption—a salvation acquired by purchasing goods and enjoying services. The mall’s liturgy, therefore, is antithetical to Christian liturgy because the mall’s vision of the good life is different from the Christian vision of human flourishing, and its salvation is an alternative to the salvation provided in Christ. As Christians, therefore, we want to take advantage of every opportunity to shape our cultural activities toward Christ. If the Christian community neglects the cultural aspect of its mission, in effect it is saying, “To hell with culture!” But we cannot do this. Every cultural activity is an opportunity to practice discipleship, to employ words and deeds in Christ’s service, to orient our lives toward Christ. Three Questions It can be overwhelming to think about obeying Christ culturally because of how tall a task it is. Practically everything we encounter in the world is cultural. Culture encompasses the totality of our lives, including our eating and drinking, our work and our leisure, and our life inside the church and our life out in the community. It includes not only the aspects of culture we’ve addressed in this book—art, science, politics, economics, and education—but also ones that we’ve not addressed, such as homemaking, business and entrepreneurship, and sports and competition. How can we ever get a handle on this tall task? To live out the cultural aspect of our mission, we should ask three questions every time we find ourselves engaging a certain realm of culture: 1. What is God’s creational design for this realm of culture? 2. How has it been corrupted and misdirected by our sin and rebellion? 3. How can I bring healing and redirection to this realm? Although we might find it easy to remember these questions, and even though they do help us get a handle on the task, we will find that the answers to these questions usually do not come easily. We must ask God to empower us and give us wisdom, and we must work hard to figure out how to apply God’s redemptive word to the cultural realities around us. Action Points • Throughout this book, we’ve attempted to relate the notion of culture to the Christian mission, arguing that our cultural activities should be oriented toward Christ as a matter of witness and obedience. In your own words, summarize these things and share your response with someone else. As you prepare for that, what concepts seem most clear to you? What things seem cloudy? In light of all that we have discussed, where can you go for answers? • Make a list of the areas of culture in which you’re currently engaged. Of those areas, are there some in which you feel the Lord is calling you to reconsider your obedience and witness? As you join God’s mission, what new areas of culture do you feel he is inviting you to launch out into? Recommended Reading Ashford, Bruce Riley, ed. Theology and Practice of Mission: God, the Church, and the Nations. Nashville: B&H, 2011. A compendium of essays arguing that a Christian view of mission should take into account the whole biblical storyline, should combine words and deeds, and should emphasize the need to take the gospel to the ends of the earth. Dickson, John. The Best Kept Secret of Christian Mission. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. A well-written introductory treatment of Christian mission, emphasizing the need to promote the gospel with words and deeds. Wolters, Albert M. Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. A narrative treatment of the biblical worldview, making the connection between the biblical storyline, the Christian worldview, and the Christian mission. Wright, Christopher J. H. The Mission of God’s People: A Biblical Theology of the Church’s Mission. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. This is a brief and accessible book on the Christian mission written by a world-class mission theologian. Emphasizes that our mission includes verbal, social, and cultural aspects. Appendix: Recommended Reading Summary Ashford, Bruce Riley, ed. Theology and Practice of Mission: God, the Church, and the Nations. Nashville: B&H, 2011. A compendium of essays arguing that a Christian view of mission should take into account the whole biblical storyline, should combine words and deeds, and should emphasize the need to take the gospel to the ends of the earth. Audi, Robert and Nicholas Wolterstorff. Religion in the Public Square: The Place of Religious Convictions in Public Debate. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1997. A somewhat technical discussion of Christian convictions and the ways in which believers should dialogue in the public square. Audi argues that Christians should appear “naked” in the public square, while Wolterstorff (himself a political liberal), argues that they should come “fully clothed.” Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: Touchstone, 1996. A fetching read by a working biochemist about a central problem with Darwinian theory. The book is technical but accessible to the lay reader. Brand, Chad. Flourishing Faith: A Baptist Primer on Work, Economics, and Civic Stewardship. Grand Rapids: Christian’s Library Press, 2012. This book is the most concise and accessible primer I know of that addresses work, economics, and civic stewardship. Budziszewski, J. Evangelicals in the Public Square: Four Formative Voices on Political Thought and Action. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. This intermediate-to-advanced book describes the way four theologians—Carl Henry, Abraham Kuyper, Francis Schaeffer, and John Howard Yoder—approached the public square. Carlson, Richard F., ed. Science and Christianity: Four Views. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000. This book offers four views on the relationship of science and Christianity: Creationism, Independence, Qualified Agreement, and Partnership. Chang, Curtis. Engaging Unbelief: A Captivating Strategy from Augustine and Aquinas. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000. A brief reflection on the way Augustine and Thomas Aquinas engaged unbelief in their respective cultural contexts. Corbett, Steve and Brian Fikkert. When Helping Hurts: How to Alleviate Poverty Without Hurting the Poor … and Yourself. Chicago: Moody, 2009. The authors lay a foundation for social ministry and poverty alleviation by defining Jesus’ gospel and mission. From there, they show how social ministry and poverty alleviation can be accomplished without hurting the poor or hurting the church. Crouch, Andy. Culture Making: Recovering our Creative Calling. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008. An engaging and persuasive treatise on the Christian community’s calling to “make culture” rather than merely “engage the culture.” Davis, John Jefferson. The Frontiers of Science and Faith. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002. A terrific exploration of 10 current scientific issues and their intersection with Christian theology and life. Dickson, John. The Best Kept Secret of Christian Mission. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. A well-written introductory treatment of Christian mission, emphasizing the need to promote the gospel with words and deeds. Dockery, David. Renewing Minds: Serving Church and Society through Christian Higher Education. Nashville: B&H, 2008. An excellent and accessible treatise on how to recover a robust and authentic view of faith and learning. Duriez, Colin. Francis Schaeffer: An Authentic Life. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008. A biography of Francis Schaeffer, written by a man who knew Schaeffer well. Forster, Greg. Joy for the World: How Christianity Lost Its Cultural Influence and Can Begin Rebuilding It. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014. A well-written and easy-to-read book arguing that the key to cultural transformation is Spirit-induced joy in God and the gospel. Gallagher, Susan V. and Roger Lundin. Literature Through the Eyes of Faith. New York: HarperCollins: 1989. An excellent introduction that shows how reading literature helps us interpret our lives. Godawa, Brian. Hollywood Worldviews: Watching Films with Wisdom and Discernment. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009. An engaging book that equips readers to watch films critically. Goheen, Mike and Craig Bartholomew. Living at the Crossroads: An Introduction to Christian Worldview. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. This book is a fine treatment of how the biblical narrative fosters a worldview that in turn shapes the entirety of the Christian life, including especially culture-making and cultural engagement. Grudem, Wayne. Business for the Glory of God. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2003. A short introduction to the Bible’s teaching on the moral goodness of business and entrepreneurship. Holmes, Arthur. The Idea of a Christian College. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. An evangelical classic. This slim little volume packs a powerful punch as it sets forth the distinctive mission and contributions of a Christian college. Hunter, James Davison. To Change the World: Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. A sociologist argues that Christians should aim to be a “faithful presence” in their culture. Keathley, Kenneth D., and Mark F. Rooker, 40 Questions about Creation and Evolution. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2014. This is the best one-stop introduction to the contested question of the relationship between creation and evolution. Keller, Timothy. Every Good Endeavor: Connecting Your Work to God’s Work. New York: Penguin, 2012. A more extensive treatment of the Christian view of work. Kuyper, Abraham. Lectures on Calvinism. 1898. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1943. In this small book, Kuyper argues that our Christianity should affect every sphere of human life and culture. Lester DeKoster and Stephen Grabill. Work: The Meaning of Your Life. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Christian’s Library Press, 2010. A very short book introducing the Christian understanding of work. Markos, Louis. Lewis Agonistes: How C. S. Lewis Can Train Us to Wrestle with the Modern and Postmodern World. Nashville: B&H, 2003. An exposition of what Lewis can teach us about engaging with art, science, philosophy, and other realms of culture. Marsden, George. The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. A 20th-century classic that provides a compelling argument for mainstream American higher education to be open to explicit expressions of faith in an intellectual context. Moore, T. M. Culture Matters: A Call for Consensus on Christian Cultural Engagement. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2007. A helpful introduction to the ways in which some Christians have engaged their respective cultures. Mouw, Richard J. Abraham Kuyper: A Short and Personal Introduction. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. An excellent little introduction to Kuyper’s life and thought. ———. Called to Holy Worldliness. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. A small book showing how ordinary Christians can honor God in their culture-making and cultural engagement. ———. Uncommon Decency: Christian Civility in an Uncivil World. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010. An argument that Christians should bring not only their Christian convictions to the public square, but also their Christian virtue—especially the ability to be civil in the midst of debate and discussion. Mouw, Richard J. and Sander Griffioen. Pluralisms and Horizons: An Essay in Christian Public Philosophy. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. An unpacking of the problem of political consensus in a pluralist environment, which includes a helpful comparison and contrast of major thinkers on the topic, including John Rawls, Robert Nozick, and Richard John Neuhaus. Neuhaus, Richard John. The Naked Public Square: Religion and Democracy in America. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984. A very influential and well-argued text on the place of Christian conviction in public political discourse. Niebuhr, H. Richard. Christ and Culture. New York: HarperCollins, 1956. This text has become the modern benchmark for discussing Christianity and culture. It has flaws—serious ones—but is worth reading. Noll, Mark. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. A compelling argument that evangelicals should value the life of the mind. Novak, Michael. The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism. Lanham, MD: Madison, 1991. A vigorous examination of capitalism and democracy with a particularly good articulation of a “theology of democratic capitalism.” O’Connor, Flannery. “The Church and the Fiction Writer” in Mystery and Manners, 143–53. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1961. An essay providing insight into the relationship of faith and writing. Pearcy, Nancy R. and Charles B. Thaxton. The Soul of Science: Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1994. An analysis of the way in which Judaeo-Christian thought funds the scientific enterprise, including a look at mathematics and scientific “revolutions,” and the discipline called the “History of Science.” Plantinga, Alvin. Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. An argument that there is deep resonance between Christianity and science, and deep conflict between atheism and science. Advanced. Plantinga, Cornelius. Engaging God’s World: A Christian Vision of Faith, Learning, and Living. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. A very accessible interaction with the biblical narrative and its implications for faith, learning, and living. Poythress, Vern. Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2006. An argument that Christianity, theology, and science are mutually beneficial dialogue partners. Richards, Jay W. Infiltrated: How to Stop the Insiders and Activists Who Are Exploiting the Financial Crisis to Control Our Lives and Our Fortunes. New York: McGraw Hill, 2013. A deft exposé of big-government economic regulation and the crippling effects of cronyism. ———. Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem. New York: HarperCollins, 2009. An excellent argument that Christians can and should work from within the free-market economy (rather than viewing it as evil) to help our world flourish. Rookmaaker, H. R. Modern Art and the Death of a Culture. 2nd ed. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1973. A modern classic that offers penetrating insight into modern art and the intellectual context beneath it. Advanced. Schaeffer, Francis A. Art and the Bible: Two Essays. Rev. ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006. A small book encapsulating Schaeffer’s approach to the arts. Seerveld, Calvin. Bearing Fresh Olive Leaves: Alternative Steps in Understanding Art. Toronto: Piquant, 2000. An advanced treatment of how Christians can understand, make, perform, and evaluate the arts. Smith, James K. A. Desiring the Kingdom. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009. An advanced book which argues that secular “liturgies” compete with Christian liturgies in order to shape who we are and form our deepest identities and views of the world. Veith, Gene Edward Jr. State of the Arts: From Bezalel to Mapplethorpe. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991. A useful introduction to understanding the biblical foundations for art and the broad contours of contemporary art. ———. God at Work: Your Christian Vocation in All of Life. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011. A short book introducing the Christian’s calling to church, family, workplace, and community. Wittmer, Michael E. Heaven Is a Place on Earth: Why Everything You Do Matters to God. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004. A very accessible treatment of the Bible’s teaching about culture. Wolters, Albert M. Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. A narrative treatment of the biblical worldview, making the connection between the biblical storyline, the Christian worldview, and the Christian mission. Wolterstorff, Nicholas. Art in Action: Toward a Christian Aesthetic. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. A Christian philosophy of art arguing that art has a legitimate and necessary place in everyday life. Advanced. ———. Educating for Life: Reflections on Christian Teaching and Learning. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002. A collection of essays in which Wolterstorff applies his high-octane brain to the notion of faith and learning in Christian high-school education. ———. Educating for Shalom: Essays on Christian Higher Education. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. A collection of essays in which Wolterstorff reflects on faith and learning in higher education. Wright, Christopher J. H. The Mission of God’s People: A Biblical Theology of the Church’s Mission. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. This is a brief and accessible book on the Christian mission written by a world-class mission theologian. Emphasizes that our mission includes verbal, social, and cultural aspects. Ashford, B. R. (2015). Every Square Inch: An Introduction to Cultural Engagement for Christians (S. iii–143). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

Published: October 18, 2016, 08:34 | Comments Off on Free sqare-Inch- via Uwe Rosenkranz
Category: Bible teaching, Bishop Rosenkranz, Christian, contextualization

CRUCIAL QUESTIONS No. 4 CAN I Know GOD’S WILL? R. C. SPROUL Reformation Trust PUBLISHING A DIVISION OF LIGONIER MINISTRIES • ORLANDO, FLORIDA Can I Know God’s Will? © 1984, 1999, 2009 by R. C. Sproul Previously published as God’s Will and the Christian (1984) and as part of Following Christ (1991) by Tyndale House Publishers, and as Can I Know God’s Will? by Ligonier Ministries (1999). Published by Reformation Trust a division of Ligonier Ministries 400 Technology Park, Lake Mary, FL 32746 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise—without the prior written permission of the publisher, Reformation Trust. The only exception is brief quotations in published reviews. Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Scripture quotations marked RSV are taken from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright 1952 (2nd edition, 1971) by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Scripture quotations marked KJV are from The Holy Bible, King James Version. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Sproul, R. C. (Robert Charles), 1939– [God’s will and the Christian] Can I know God’s will? / R. C. Sproul. p. cm.–(The crucial questions series) First published as: God’s will and the Christian. 1984. Following Christ. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, c1991. Can I know God’s Will? Ligonier Ministries, 1999. ISBN 978-1-56769-179-5 1. Providence and government of God–Christianity. 2. God (Christianity)–Will. I. Sproul, R. C. (Robert Charles), 1939– Following Christ. II. Title. BT135.S745 2009 248.4–dc22 2009018820 Contents One—THE MEANING OF GOD’S WILL Two—THE MEANING OF MAN’S WILL Three—GOD’S WILL AND YOUR JOB Four—GOD’S WILL IN MARRIAGE Chapter One THE MEANING OF GOD’S WILL Lost in Wonderland, Alice came to a fork in the road. Icy panic stung her as she stood frozen by indecision. She lifted her eyes toward heaven, looking for guidance. Her eyes did not find God, only the Cheshire cat leering at her from his perch in the tree above. “Which way should I go?” Alice blurted. “That depends,” said the cat, fixing a sardonic smile on the confused girl. “On what?” Alice managed to reply. “It depends on your destination. Where are you going?” the cat asked. “I don’t know,” Alice stammered. “Then,” said the cat, his grin spreading wider, “it doesn’t matter which way you go.” The destination matters to the Christian. We are a pilgrim people. Though we do not wander in a wilderness in route to the Promised Land, we seek a better country, an eternal city whose builder and maker is God. Someday He will take us home to His kingdom. So the ultimate destination is clear. We are certain that there is a glorious future for the people of God. However, what of tomorrow? We feel anxious about the immediate future, just as unbelievers do. The specifics of our personal futures are unknown to us. Like children we ask: “Will I be happy? Will I be rich? What will happen to me?” We must walk by faith rather than by sight. As long as there have been people, there have been soothsayers and wizards exploiting our anxieties. If prostitution is the world’s oldest profession, surely fortune-telling is the second oldest. “Tell me of tomorrow” is the plea of the stock market speculator, the competitive businessman, the sports forecaster, and the young couple in love. The student asks, “Will I graduate?” The manager muses, “Will I be promoted?” The person in the doctor’s waiting room clenches his hands and asks, “Is it cancer or indigestion?” People have examined lizard entrails, snakeskins, the bones of owls, the Ouija board, the daily horoscope, and the predictions of sports handicappers—all to gain a small margin of insurance against an unknown future. The Christian feels the same curiosity, but frames the question differently. He asks: “What is the will of God for my life?” To search for the will of God can be an exercise in piety or impiety, an act of humble submission or outrageous arrogance—depending on what will of God we seek. To try to look behind the veil at what God has not been pleased to reveal is to tamper with holy things that are out of bounds. John Calvin said that when God “closes his holy mouth,” we should desist from inquiry (Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, trans. and ed. John Owen [reprint, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House. 2003], 354). On the other hand, God delights to hear the prayers of His people when they individually ask, “Lord, what do you want me to do?” The Christian pursues God, looking for His marching orders, seeking to know what course of action is pleasing to Him. This search for the will of God is a holy quest—a pursuit that is to be undertaken with vigor by the godly person. The Biblical Meaning of the Will of God We yearn for simple answers to difficult questions. We want clarity. We desire to cut through the entanglements to the heart of the question. Sometimes the answers are simple enough in themselves, but the process of finding them is laborious and confusing. Sometimes the answers are simplistic, giving us temporary relief from the pressures and the burdens of confusing questions. However, there is a profound difference between the simple answer and the simplistic answer. The simple answer is correct; it accounts for all the data found in the complex problem. It is clear and can be easily grasped in its fullness. It abides, being able to stand the test of rigorous questioning. The simplistic answer is a counterfeit. On the surface it appears to be the genuine article, but under closer scrutiny it yields its bogus flaws. The simplistic answer may account for some of the data but not all of it. It remains fuzzy. Worst of all, it does not abide; it fails the test of deeper questioning. It does not satisfy in the long haul. One of the most excruciating questions in theology is, “Why did Adam fall?” The simplistic answer, commonly heard, is that Adam fell by his own free will. Such an answer is satisfying until we probe the question more deeply. Suppose we ask: “How could a righteous creature made by a perfect Creator sin? How could Adam make an evil choice while possessing no prior inclination or disposition to evil? Was he simply deceived or coerced by Satan? If so, why would Adam then be blameworthy?” If he was merely deceived, then the fault is all Satan’s. If he was coerced, then it was not a free choice. If he sinned because he had a prior desire or inclination to sin, then we must ask: “What was the source of his evil desire? Did God put it there?” If so, then we cast a shadow on the integrity of the Creator. Perhaps the simplest way to expose the weak character of the simplistic answer that Adam fell by his own free will is to ask our question another way: “Why did Adam exercise his own free will to sin?” It simply won’t do to answer, “Because he chose to.” This answer is a mere repetition of the question in a declarative form. I would like to offer a simple answer to the difficult question of Adam’s fall, but I simply can’t. The only response I can give to the question is that I don’t know the answer. Some readers will surely chasten me at this point by saying to themselves: “I know the answer! Adam fell because it was the will of God.” I immediately ask: “In what sense was Adam’s fall the will of God? Did God force Adam to fall and then punish him for doing what he had no power to avoid?” To ask such an impious question is to answer it. Certainly the fall must have been the “will of God” in some sense, but the crucial question remains, “In what sense?” So here we are, pressed squarely against a biting question that involves the matter of the will of God. We want to know how the will of God worked in Adam’s life; but more personally, we want to know how the will of God works in our own lives. When questions are difficult and complex, it is a good rule to collect as much data about them as possible. The more clues the detective has to work with, the easier it usually is to solve the crime (note the word usually). Sometimes the detective suffers from too many clues, which only serve to compound the difficulty of the solution. The corporate executive faced with major decision-making responsibilities knows the importance of sufficient data- and record-keeping. His maxim may be: “If you have enough data, the decisions jump out at you.” Again we must add the qualifier usually. Sometimes the data are so complex that they jump out like screaming banshees, defying our ability to sort through them all. I emphasize the point of data, complexity, and simplicity because the biblical meaning of the will of God is a very complicated matter. To approach it simplistically is to invite disaster. At times, wrestling with the complexities of the biblical concept of the will of God can give us an Excedrin headache. Yet ours is a holy quest, a pursuit that is worth a few headaches along the way. But we must guard against proceeding in a simplistic way, lest we change the holy quest into an unholy presumption. We note at the outset that the Bible speaks of the “will of God” in more than one way. This is the key problem that complicates our quest and serves as a warning against simplistic solutions. In the New Testament, there are two Greek words that can be and have been translated by the English word will. It would seem that all we need is to identify precisely the meanings of the two words and check out the Greek text every time we see the word will, and our problems will be solved. Alas, it doesn’t work that way. The plot thickens when we discover that each of the two Greek words has several nuances of meaning. Simply checking the Greek text for word usage is not enough to solve our difficulty. However, finding the meanings of the Greek words is a helpful starting place. Let’s examine the two words briefly to see whether they shed any light on our quest. The words are boule and thelema. The term boule has its roots in an ancient verb that means a “rational and conscious desire,” as opposed to thelema, meaning “an impulsive or unconscious desire.” The ancient subtle distinction was between rational desire and impulsive desire. As the Greek language developed, however, this distinction was softened, and eventually the words became used at times as synonyms, with authors switching from one to the other for purposes of stylistic change. In the New Testament, boule usually refers to a plan based on careful deliberation; it is used most often with respect to the counsel of God. Boule frequently indicates God’s providential plan, which is predetermined and inflexible. Luke is fond of using it this way, as we read in the book of Acts: “This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan [boule] and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men” (Acts 2:23). Here the resolute decree of God is in view, which no human action can set aside. God’s plan is impregnable; His “will” is unalterable. The word thelema is rich in its diversity of meanings. It refers to what is agreeable, what is desired, what is intended, what is chosen, or what is commanded. Here we have the notions of consent, desire, purpose, resolution, and command. The force of the various meanings is determined by the context in which thelema appears. The Decretive Will of God Theologians describe as the “decretive will of God” that will by which God decrees things to come to pass according to His supreme sovereignty. This is also sometimes called “God’s sovereign efficacious will”; by it, God brings to pass whatsoever He wills. When God sovereignly decrees something in this sense, nothing can prevent it from coming to pass. When God commanded the light to shine, the darkness had no power to resist the command. The “lights” came on. God did not persuade the light to shine. He did not negotiate with elemental powers to form a universe. He did not achieve a plan of redemption by trial and error; the cross was not a cosmic accident exploited by the Deity. These things were decreed absolutely. Their effects were efficacious (producing the desired result) because their causes were sovereignly decreed. A serious danger faces those who restrict the meaning of the will of God to the sovereign will. We hear the Muslim cry, “It is the will of Allah.” We slip at times into a deterministic view of life that says, “Que será, sera,” or “What will be, will be.” In so doing, we embrace a sub-Christian form of fatalism, as if God willed everything that happened in such a way as to eliminate human choices. Classical theologians insist on the reality of man’s will in acting, choosing, and responding. God works His plan through means, via the real choices of willing and acting creatures. There are secondary as well as primary causes. To deny this is to embrace a kind of determinism that eliminates human freedom and dignity. Yet there is a God who is sovereign, whose will is greater than ours. His will restricts my will. My will cannot restrict His will. When He decrees something sovereignly, it will come to pass—whether I like it or not, whether I choose it or not. He is sovereign. I am subordinate. The Preceptive Will of God When the Bible speaks of the will of God, it does not always mean the decretive will of God. The decretive will of God cannot be broken or disobeyed. It will come to pass. On the other hand, there is a will that can be broken: “the preceptive will of God.” It can be disobeyed. Indeed, it is broken and disobeyed every day by each one of us. The preceptive will of God is found in His law. The precepts, statutes, and commandments that He delivers to His people make up the preceptive will. They express and reveal to us what is right and proper for us to do. The preceptive will is God’s rule of righteousness for our lives. By this rule we are governed. It is the will of God that we not sin. It is the will of God that we have no other gods before Him; that we love our neighbor as we love ourselves; that we refrain from stealing, coveting, and committing adultery. Yet the world is filled with idolatry, hatred, thievery, covetousness, and adultery. The will of God is violated whenever His law is broken. One of the great tragedies of contemporary Christendom is the preoccupation of so many Christians with the secret decretive will of God to the exclusion and neglect of the preceptive will. We want to peek behind the veil, to catch a glimpse of our personal future. We seem more concerned with our horoscope than with our obedience, more concerned with what the stars in their courses are doing than with what we are doing. With respect to God’s sovereign will, we assume we are passive. With respect to His preceptive will, we know that we are active and therefore responsible and accountable. It is easier to engage in ungodly prying into the secret counsel of God than to apply ourselves to the practice of godliness. We can flee to the safety of the sovereign will and try to pass off our sin to God, laying the burden and responsibility of it on His unchanging will. Such characterizes the spirit of antichrist, the spirit of lawlessness or antinomianism, that despises God’s law and ignores His precepts. Protestants are particularly vulnerable to this distortion. We seek refuge in our precious doctrine of justification by faith alone, forgetting that the very doctrine is to be a catalyst for the pursuit of righteousness and obedience to the preceptive will of God. Biblical Righteousness Habakkuk’s famous statement, “the just shall live by his faith” (Hab. 2:4, KJV), is found three times in the New Testament. It has become a slogan of evangelical Protestantism, whose emphasis has been on the doctrine of justification by faith alone. This slogan, containing a hint of the essence of the Christian life, has its focal point in the biblical concept of righteousness. One of Jesus’ most disturbing comments was the statement, “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:20). It is easy for us to assume that Jesus meant that our righteousness must be of a higher sort than that characterized by men who were hypocrites. The image that we have of scribes and Pharisees from the New Testament period is that of unscrupulous, ruthless practitioners of religious deceit. We must bear in mind, however, that the Pharisees as a group were men historically committed to a very lofty level of righteous living. Yet Jesus tells us that our righteousness must exceed theirs. What did He mean? When we consider the biblical notion of righteousness, we are dealing with a matter that touches virtually every plane of theology. In the first place, there is the righteousness of God, by which all standards of rightness and wrongness are to be measured. God’s character is the ultimate foundation and model of righteousness. In the Old Testament, righteousness becomes defined in terms of obedience to the commandments delivered by God, who Himself is altogether righteous. Those commands include not only precepts of human behavior with respect to our fellow human beings, but also matters of a liturgical and ceremonial nature. In Old Testament Israel and among the New Testament Pharisees, liturgical righteousness was substituted for authentic righteousness. That is to say, men became satisfied with obeying the rituals of the religious community rather than fulfilling the broader implications of the law. For example, Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for tithing their mint and cumin while omitting the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy. Jesus indicated that the Pharisees were correct in giving their tithes, but were incorrect in assuming that the liturgical exercises had completed the requirements of the law. Here, liturgical righteousness had become a substitute for true and full obedience. Within the evangelical world, righteousness is a rare word indeed. We speak of morality, spirituality, and piety. Seldom, however, do we speak of righteousness. Yet the goal of our redemption is not piety or spirituality but righteousness. Spirituality in the New Testament sense is a means to the end of righteousness. Being spiritual means that we are exercising the spiritual graces given by God to mold us after the image of His Son. The disciplines of prayer, Bible study, church fellowship, witnessing, and the like are not ends in themselves, but are designed to assist us in living righteously. We are stunted in our growth if we assume that the end of the Christian life is spirituality. Spiritual concerns are but the beginning of our walk with God. We must beware of the subtle danger of thinking that spirituality completes the requirements of Christ. To fall into such a trap—the trap of the Pharisees—is to substitute liturgical or ritualistic practices for authentic righteousness. By all means we are to pray and to study the Bible, and to bear witness in evangelism. However, we must never, at any point in our lives, rest from our pursuit of righteousness. In justification we become righteous in the sight of God by means of the cloak of Christ’s righteousness. However, as soon as we are justified, our lives must give evidence of the personal righteousness that flows out of our justification. It is interesting to me that the whole biblical concept of righteousness is contained in one Greek word, dikaios. That same Greek word is used to refer, in the first instance, to the righteousness of God; in the second instance, to what we call justification; and in the third instance, to the righteousness of life. Thus, from beginning to end—from the nature of God to the destiny of man—our human duty remains the same—a call to righteousness. True righteousness must never be confused with self-righteousness. Since our righteousness proceeds from our justification, which is based on the righteousness of Christ alone, we must never be deluded into thinking that our works of righteousness have any merit of their own. Yet as Protestants, zealously maintaining our doctrine of justification by faith alone, we must be ever mindful that the justification that is by faith alone is never by a faith that is alone. True faith manifests itself in righteousness exceeding that of the Pharisees and the scribes, for it is concerned with the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy. We are called to bear witness to the righteousness of God in every area of life—from our prayer closets to our courtrooms, from our pews to our marketplaces. The top priority of Jesus is that we seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness. All other things will be added to that. An Allergy to Restraint “Everybody do your own thing.” This cliché from the sixties characterizes the spirit of our age. Increasingly freedom is being equated with the inalienable right to do whatever you please. It carries with it a built-in allergy to laws that restrain, whether they be the laws of God or the laws of men. This pervasive anti-law, or antinomian, attitude is reminiscent of the biblical epoch that provoked God’s judgment because “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judg. 17:6). The secular world reflects this attitude in the statement, “Government can’t legislate morality.” Morality is seen as a private matter, outside the domain of the state and even of the church. A shift has occurred in word meaning so subtle that many have missed it. The original intent of the concept, “You cannot legislate morality,” was to convey the idea that passing a law prohibiting a particular kind of activity would not necessarily eliminate such activity. The point of the phrase was that laws do not ipso facto produce obedience to those laws. In fact, on some occasions, the legal prohibition of certain practices has incited only greater violation of established law. The prohibition of alcoholic beverages is an example. The contemporary interpretation of legislating morality differs from the original intent. Instead of saying that government cannot legislate morality, it says government may not legislate morality. That means government should stay out of moral issues such as the regulation of abortion, deviant sexual practices, marriage and divorce, and so on, since morality is a matter of conscience in the private sector. For government to legislate in these areas is often viewed as an invasion of privacy by the state, representing a denial of basic freedoms for the individual. If we take this kind of thinking to its logical conclusion, we leave the government with little to do. If government may not legislate morality, its activity will be restricted to determining the colors of the state flag, the state flower, and perhaps the state bird. (However, even questions of flowers and birds may be deemed “moral,” as they touch on ecological issues, which are ultimately moral in character.) The vast majority of matters that concern legislation are, in fact, of a decidedly moral character. The regulation of murder, theft, and civil rights is a moral matter. How a person operates his automobile on the highway is a moral issue since it touches on the well-being of fellow travelers. Questions relating to the legalization of marijuana often focus on the fact that a majority of certain age groups are violating the law. The argument goes like this: Since disobedience is so widespread, doesn’t this indicate that the law is bad? Such a conclusion is a blatant non sequitur. Whether or not marijuana should be decriminalized should not be determined by levels of civil disobedience. The point is that a vast number of Americans reflect an antinomian spirit regarding marijuana. Such disobedience is hardly motivated by noble aspirations to a higher ethic suppressed by a tyrannical government. Here the law is broken as a matter of convenience and physical appetite. Within the church, the same spirit of antinomianism has prevailed too often. Pope Benedict XVI faces the embarrassing legacy of his predecessors as he tries to explain to the world why a majority of his American adherents tell the pollsters they practice artificial means of birth control when a papal encyclical explicitly forbids such methods. One must ask how people can confess their belief in an “infallible” leader of their church and at the same time obstinately refuse to submit to that leader. Within the Protestant churches, individuals frequently become irate when called to moral accountability. They often declare that the church has no right to intrude into their private lives. They say this in spite of the fact that in their membership vows, they publicly committed themselves to submit to the moral oversight of the church. Antinomianism should be more rare in the evangelical Christian community than anywhere else. Sadly, the facts do not fit the theory. So blasé is the typical “evangelical” toward the law of God that the prophecies of doom that Rome thundered at Martin Luther are beginning to come true. Some “evangelicals” are indeed using justification by faith alone as a license to sin; these can be deemed properly only as pseudo-evangelicals. Anyone who has the most rudimentary understanding of justification by faith knows that authentic faith always manifests itself in a zeal for obedience. No earnest Christian can ever have a cavalier attitude toward the law of God. Though obedience to such laws does not bring justification, the justified person will surely endeavor to obey them. To be sure, there are times when the commandments of men are on a collision course with the laws of God. In those instances, Christians not only may disobey men, but must disobey men. I am not talking here of isolated moral issues but of attitudes. Christians must be particularly careful in this era of antinomianism not to get caught up in the spirit of the age. We are not free to do what is right in our own eyes. We are called to do what is right in His eyes. Freedom should not be confused with autonomy. As long as evil exists in the world, the moral restraint of law is necessary. It is an act of grace by which God institutes government, which exists to restrain the evildoer. It exists to protect the innocent and the righteous. The righteous are called to support it as much as they possibly can without compromising their obedience to God. God’s Will of Disposition While we understand that the decretive will and the preceptive will of God are part of His overall will, other aspects of the mystery of His sovereignty remain. One such aspect is “the will of disposition.” It is tied up with the ability of man to disobey God’s preceptive will. This aspect of the will of God refers to what is pleasing and agreeable to God. It expresses something of the attitude of God to His creatures. Some things are “well pleasing in his sight,” while other things are said to grieve Him. He may allow (but not via moral permission) wicked things to transpire, but He is by no means pleased by them. To illustrate how these differing aspects of the will of God come into play in biblical interpretation, let us examine the verse that says the Lord is “not willing that any should perish” (2 Peter 3:9, KJV). Which of the above-mentioned meanings of will fits this text? How is the meaning of the text changed by the application of the nuances? Try first the decretive will. The verse would then mean, “God is not willing in a sovereign decretive sense that any should perish.” The implication would then be that nobody perishes. This verse would be a proof text for universalism, with its view that hell is utterly vacant of people. The second option is that God is not willing in a preceptive way that any should perish. This would mean that God does not allow people to perish in the sense that He grants His moral permission. This obviously does not fit the context of the passage. The third option makes sense. God is not willing in the sense that He is not inwardly disposed to, or delighted by, people’s perishing. Elsewhere, Scripture teaches that God takes no delight in the death of the wicked. He may decree what He does not enjoy; that is, He may distribute justice to wicked offenders. He is pleased when justice is maintained and righteousness is honored, even though He takes no personal pleasure in the application of such punishment. A human analogy may be seen in our law courts. A judge, in the interest of justice, may sentence a criminal to prison and at the same time inwardly grieve for the guilty man. His disposition may be for the man but against the crime. However, God is not merely a human judge, working under the constraints of the criminal justice system. God is sovereign—He can do what He pleases. If He is not pleased or willing that any should perish, why then does He not exercise His decretive will accordingly? How can there be a hiatus between God’s decretive will and His will of disposition? All things being equal, God does desire that no one should perish. But all things are not equal. Sin is real. Sin violates God’s holiness and righteousness. God also is not willing that sin should go unpunished. He desires as well that His holiness should be vindicated. It is dangerous to speak of a conflict of interests or of a clash of desires within God. Yet, in a certain sense, we must. He wills the obedience of His creatures. He wills the well-being of His creatures. There is a symmetry of relationship ultimately between obedience and well-being. The obedient child will never perish. Those who obey God’s preceptive will enjoy the benefits of His will of disposition. When the preceptive will is violated, things are no longer equal. Now God requires punishment while not particularly enjoying the application of it. Yet does this not beg the ultimate question? Where does the decretive will fit in? Could not God originally have decreed that no one ever would be able to sin, thus ensuring an eternal harmony among all elements of His will: decretive, preceptive, and dispositional? Often the answer to this question is superficial. Appeals are made to the free will of man, as if by magic man’s free will could explain the dilemma. We are told that the only way God could have created a universe guaranteed to be free from sin would have been to make creatures without free will. It is then argued that these creatures would have been nothing more than puppets and would have lacked humanity, being devoid of the power or ability to sin. If that is the case, then what does it suggest about the state of our existence in heaven? We are promised that when our redemption is complete, sin will be no more. We will still have an ability to choose, but our disposition will be so inclined toward righteousness that we will, in fact, never choose evil. If this will be possible in heaven after redemption, why could it not have been possible before the fall? The Bible gives no clear answer to this thorny question. We are told that God created people who, for better or for worse, have the ability to sin. We also know from Scripture that there is no shadow of turning in the character of God, and that all of His works are clothed in righteousness. That He chose to create man the way He did is mysterious, but we must assume, given the knowledge we have, that God’s plan was good. Any conflict that arises between His commandments to us, His desire that we should obey Him, and our failure to comply does not destroy His sovereignty. God’s Secret and Revealed Will We have already distinguished among the three types of the will of God: His decretive will, His preceptive will, and His will of disposition. Another distinction must be established between what is called God’s secret, or hidden, will and His revealed will. This secret will of God is subsumed under the decretive will because, for the most part, it remains undisclosed to us. There is a limit to the revelation God has made of Himself. We know certain things about God’s decretive will that He has been pleased to set forth for our information in Holy Scripture. But because we are finite creatures, we do not comprehend the total dimension of divine knowledge or the divine plan. As the Scriptures teach, the secret things belong to the Lord, but that which He has revealed belongs to us and to our children forever (Deut. 29:29). Protestant theologians have made use of the distinction between the hidden God (Deus obsconditus) and the revealed God (Deus revelatus). This distinction is valuable and indeed necessary when we realize that not all that can be known of God has been revealed to us. There is a sense in which God remains hidden from us, insofar as He has not been pleased to reveal all there is to know about Him. However, this distinction is fraught with peril since some have found within it a conflict between two kinds of gods. A god who reveals his character to be one thing, but who is secretly contrary to that revealed character, would be a supreme hypocrite. If we say that God has no secret will and proposes to do only what He commands and nothing more, then we would perceive God as one whose desires and plans are constantly thwarted by the harassment of human beings. Such a god would be impotent, and no god at all. If we distinguish between the secret aspect of God and the revealed aspect of God, we must hold these as parts of the whole, not as contradictions. That is to say, what God has revealed about Himself is trustworthy. Our knowledge is partial, but it is true as far as it goes. What belongs to the secret counsel of God does not contradict the character of God that has been revealed to us. The distinction of God’s revealed will and hidden will raises a practical problem: the question of whether or not it is possible for a Christian to act in harmony with God’s decretive (hidden) will and at the same time work against His preceptive will. We must admit that such a possibility exists—in a sense. For example, it was in God’s decretive will and by His determinate counsel that Jesus Christ was condemned to die on the cross. The divine purpose, of course, was to secure the redemption of God’s people. However, that purpose was hidden from the view of men who sat in judgment over Jesus. When Pontius Pilate delivered Jesus to be crucified, Pilate acted against the preceptive will of God but in harmony with the decretive will of God. Does this make nonsense of God’s preceptive will? God forbid. What it does is bear witness to the transcendent power of God to work His purposes sovereignly in spite of, and by means of, the evil acts of men. Consider the story of Joseph, whose brothers, out of jealousy and greed, sold their innocent brother into slavery in Egypt. At their reunion years later, and upon the brothers’ confession of sin, Joseph replied, “You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” (Gen. 50:20). Here is the inscrutable majesty of God’s providence. God made use of human evil in bringing to pass His purposes for Joseph and for the Jewish nation. Joseph’s brothers were guilty of willful and malicious sin. By directly violating the preceptive will of God, they sinned against their brother and against God. Yet in their sin, God’s secret counsel was brought to pass, and God brought redemption through it. What if Joseph’s brothers had been obedient? Joseph would not have been sold into slavery; he would not have been taken to Egypt; he would not have been sent to prison, from which he was called to interpret a dream. What if Joseph had not become prime minister? What would have become the historical reason for the brothers’ settling in Egypt? There would have been no Jewish settlement in Egypt, no Moses, no exodus from Egypt, no law, no prophets, no Christ, no salvation. Can we, therefore, conclude that the sins of Joseph’s brothers were, in fact, virtues in disguise? Not at all. Their sin was sin, a clear violation of the preceptive will of God, for which they were held responsible and judged to be guilty. But God brought good out of evil. This reflects neither a contradiction in God’s character nor a contradiction between His precepts and His decrees. Rather it calls attention to the transcendent power of His sovereignty. Is it possible for us in this day and age to obey the preceptive will of God and yet be in conflict with the secret will of God? Of course this is possible. It may be the will of God, for example, that He use a foreign nation to chastise the United States for sinning against God. It may be in the plan of God to have the people of the United States brought under judgment through the aggressive invasion of Russia. In terms of God’s inscrutable will, He could be, for purposes of judgment, “on the side of the Russians.” Yet at the same time, it would remain the duty of the civil magistrate of the American nation to resist the transgression of our borders by a conquering nation. We have a parallel in the history of Israel, where God used the Babylonians as a rod to chastise His people Israel. In that situation, it would have been perfectly proper for the civil magistrate of Israel to have resisted the wicked invasion of the Babylonians. In so doing, the Israelites would have been, in effect, resisting the decretive will of God. The book of Habakkuk wrestles with the severe problem of God’s use of the evil inclinations of men to bring judgment on His people. This is not to suggest that God favored the Babylonians. He made it clear that judgment would fall on them also, but He first made use of their evil inclinations in order to bring a corrective discipline to His own people. Knowing the Will of God for Our Lives Pursuing knowledge of the will of God is not an abstract science designed to titillate the intellect or to convey the kind of knowledge that “puffs up” but fails to edify. An understanding of the will of God is desperately important for every Christian seeking to live a life that is pleasing to his or her Creator. It is a very practical thing for us to know what God wants for our lives. A Christian asks: “What are my marching orders? What should my role be in contributing to the establishment of the kingdom of God? What does God want me to do with my life?” It is inconceivable that a Christian could live for very long without coming face-to-face with these gripping questions. Having been a Christian for some fifty years, with the study of theology my main vocational pursuit, I find the practical question of the will of God pressing on my mind quite frequently. I doubt a fortnight passes that I am not seriously engaged by the question of whether I am doing what God wants me to do at this point in my life. The question haunts and beckons all of us. It demands resolution, and so we must ask ourselves, “How do we know the will of God for our lives?” The practical question of how we know the will of God for our lives cannot be solved with any degree of accuracy unless we have some prior understanding of the will of God in general. Without the distinctions that we have made, our pursuit of the will of God can plunge us into hopeless confusion and consternation. When we seek the will of God, we must first ask ourselves which will we are seeking to discover. If our quest is to penetrate the hidden aspects of His will, then we have embarked on a fool’s errand. We are trying the impossible and chasing the untouchable. Such a quest is not only an act of foolishness, but also an act of presumption. There is a very real sense in which the secret will of the secret counsel of God is none of our business and is off limits to our speculative investigations. Untold evils have been perpetrated on God’s people by unscrupulous theologians who have sought to correct or to supplant the clear and plain teaching of sacred Scripture by doctrines and theories based on speculation alone. The business of searching out the mind of God where God has remained silent is dangerous business indeed. Luther put it this way: “We must keep in view his word and leave alone his inscrutable will; for it is by his word and not by his inscrutable will that we must be guided.” Christians are permitted, in a sense, to attempt to discern the will of God by means of illumination by the Holy Spirit and by confirmation through circumstances that we are doing the right thing. However, as we will discover, the search for providential guidance must always be subordinate to our study of the revealed will of God. In our search, we must also come to terms with the dynamic tensions created by the concept of man’s will versus predestination. Before our inquiry can lead us into such practical avenues as occupation and marriage, we must face the thorny issues involved in the free will/predestination issue. We have seen what the will of God entails. What about the will of man? How do the two relate? How free is man, after all? Chapter Two THE MEANING OF MAN’S WILL The term free will as applied to man is often glibly declared with little or no understanding of its meaning. There is actually no unified theory of man’s free will, but a variety of competing and often conflicting views about it. The question of man’s free will is made more complicated by the fact that we must examine it in terms of how the will functioned before and after the fall of Adam. Most important is how the fall affected man’s moral choices. Augustine gave the church a close analysis of the state of freedom that Adam enjoyed before the fall. His classic concept of freedom distinguished four possibilities. In Latin, they are: 1. posse pecarre—able to sin 2. posse non pecarre—able not to sin (or to remain free from sin) 3. non posse pecarre—unable to sin 4. non posse, non pecarre—unable not to sin Augustine argued that before the fall, Adam possessed both the ability to sin (posse pecarre) and the ability to not sin (posse non pecarre). However, Adam lacked the exalted state of the inability to sin that God enjoys (non posse pecarre). God’s inability to sin is based not on an inner powerlessness to do what He wants, but rather on the fact that God has no inner desire to sin. Since the desire for sin is utterly absent from God, there is no reason for God to choose sin. Before the fall, Adam did not have the moral perfection of God, but neither did he have the inability to refrain from sin (non posse, non pecarre). During his time of “probation” in the garden, he had the ability to sin and the ability not to sin. He chose to exercise the ability to sin and thus plunged the human race into ruin. As a result, Adam’s first sin was passed on to all his descendants. Original sin refers not to the first sin but to God’s punishment of that first transgression. Because of the first sin, human nature fell into a morally corrupt state, itself partly a judgment of God. When we speak of original sin, we refer to the fallen human condition that reflects the judgment of God on the race. The Fallenness of Man Christians differ in their views concerning the extent and seriousness of the fall. However, it is almost universally conceded that in dealing with mankind, we are dealing with a fallen race. Augustine located the depths of man’s fallenness in his loss of original powers of righteousness. No longer does man have the ability to not sin. In man’s fallen state, his plight is found in his inability to keep from sinning (non posse, non pecarre). In the fall, something profoundly vital to moral freedom was lost. Augustine declared that in his prefallen state, man enjoyed both a free will (liberium arbitrium) and moral liberty (libertas). Since the fall, man has continued to have a free will, but has lost the moral liberty he once enjoyed. Perhaps the most insightful study of the question of fallen man’s free will is the epic work of Jonathan Edwards, On the Freedom of the Will. Edwards and Augustine differ in terminology, but their meaning is essentially the same. Edwards distinguished between the natural ability of freedom and the moral ability of freedom. Natural ability deals with the powers of action and choice that we possess by nature. Man’s natural abilities include the power to think, to walk, to speak, to eat, and so on. Man lacks the natural ability to fly, to live beneath the sea as a fish, or to hibernate for months without food. We may desire to fly, but we lack the natural equipment necessary to live out our desire. Our freedom has a certain built-in restriction related to the limitations of our natural faculties. With respect to the making of choices, fallen man still has the natural ability and the natural faculties necessary to make moral choices. Man can still think, feel, and desire. All of the equipment necessary for the making of choices remains. What fallen man lacks is the moral disposition, the desire, or the inclination for righteousness. Stated simply, man still has the ability to choose what he wants, but lacks the desire for true righteousness. He is naturally free, but he is morally enslaved to his own corrupt and wicked desires. Both Edwards and Augustine said man is still free to choose, but if left to himself, man will never choose righteousness, precisely because he does not desire it. Edwards took the question a step further. He said man still has not only the ability but the built-in necessity to choose according to his desires. Not only can we choose what we want, we must choose what we want. It is at this point that the protest is sounded: Is free choice an illusion? If we must choose what we choose, how can such a choice be called free? If we are free to choose what we want but want only what is evil, how can we still speak of free will? This is precisely why Augustine distinguished between free will and liberty, saying that fallen man still has free will but has lost his liberty. It is why Edwards said that we still have natural freedom but have lost moral freedom. Why talk of freedom at all, if we can choose only sin? The crux of the matter lies in the relationship between choice and desire, or disposition. Edwards’s thesis is that we always choose according to the strongest inclination, or disposition, of the moment. Again, not only can we choose according to our strongest desires, we must choose according to our strongest desires of the moment. Such is the essence of freedom—that I am able to choose what I want when I want it. If I must do something, then in a sense my actions are determined. But if my actions are determined, how can I be free? The classic answer to this difficult question is that the determination of my choices comes from within me. The essence of freedom is self-determination. It is when my choices are forced on me by external coercion that my freedom is lost. To be able to choose what I want by virtue of self-determination does not destroy free will but establishes it. Choices Flow from Desires To choose according to the strongest desire or inclination of the moment simply means that there is a reason for the choices I make. At one point, Edwards defined the will as “the mind choosing.” The actual choice is an effect or result that requires an antecedent cause. The cause is located in the disposition or desire. If all effects have causes, then all choices likewise have causes. If the cause is apart from me, then I am a victim of coercion. If the cause is from within me, then my choices are self-determined or free. Think about Edwards’s thesis that we always choose according to the strongest inclination or desire of the moment. Think, if you will, of the most harmless choice that you might make in the course of a day. Perhaps you attend a meeting of a group and choose to sit on the left side in the third seat from the end of the fourth row at the front of the room. Why did you choose to sit there? In all probability, when you entered the room, you did not engage in a thorough analysis of your seating preferences. You probably did not make a chart to determine which seat was best. Your decision probably was made quickly, with little or no conscious evaluation and with a sense of apparent spontaneity. Does that mean, however, that there was no reason for your choice? Perhaps you sat where you did because you are comfortable sitting on the left side of the room in such meetings. Perhaps you were attracted to that seat because of its proximity to a friend or its access to the exit. In situations like this, the mind weighs a host of contributing factors so quickly that we tend to think our responses are spontaneous. The truth is that something in you triggered a desire to sit in a certain seat, or else your choice was an effect without a cause. Perhaps your seat selection was governed by forces outside your control. Perhaps the seat you chose was the only seat left in the room, so that you had no choice in the matter at all. Is that completely true? The option to stand at the back of the room was still there. Or the option to leave the meeting altogether was still there. You chose to sit in the only seat available because your desire to sit was stronger than your desire to stand and your desire to stay was stronger than your desire to leave. Consider a more bizarre illustration. Suppose on the way home from the meeting you encounter a robber who points a gun to your head and says, “Your money or your life.” What do you do? If you accede to his demand and turn over your wallet, you will become a victim of coercion, and yet in some measure you will have exercised free choice. Coercion enters by virtue of the fact that the gunman is severely restricting your options to two. The element of freedom that is preserved stems from the fact that you still have two options and that you choose the one for which you have the strongest desire at the moment. All things being equal, you have no desire to donate your money to an unworthy thief. You have even less desire, however, to have your brain poured out on the sidewalk by the gunman’s bullet. Given the small number of options, you still choose according to the strongest inclination at the moment. We always do what we really want to do. The Bible teaches, some will say, that we do not always do what we want to do. The apostle Paul lamented in Romans 7 that the good he wanted to do he did not do, and the thing he did not want to do was the very thing he did. Paul’s frustration over the wretchedness of his condition would seem totally to refute Edwards’s thesis of the relationship of choice to desire. Paul, however, was not giving expression to an analysis of the causal relationship between desire and choice. He was expressing a profound frustration that centers on the complex of desires that assault the human will. We are creatures with a multitude of desires, many of which are in violent conflict with each other. Again, consider the “all things being equal” dimension of our moral choices. As a Christian I have a profound desire to please Christ with my life and to attain righteousness. That good desire for obedience to God is neither perfect nor pure, as it struggles daily with other desires in my sinful personality. If I had no conflicting desires, I would never be disobedient. If the only desire I had, or if the strongest desire I had, was to obey God continuously, I would never willfully sin against Him. However, there are times when my desire to sin is greater than my desire to obey; when that happens, I sin. When my desire to obey is greater than my desire to sin, at that moment I refrain from sinning. My choices reveal more clearly and more certainly than anything else the level of my desire. Desire, like appetite, is not constant. Our levels of desire fluctuate from day to day, from hour to hour, and from minute to minute. Desire moves in an ebb-and-flow pattern like the waves of the sea. The person who goes on a diet experiences intensifying pangs of hunger at various times of the day. It is easy to make a resolution to diet when one is satiated. Likewise, it is easy to resolve to be righteous in the midst of a moving spiritual experience of prayer. Yet we are creatures of changing moods and fleeting desires who have not yet achieved a constancy of will based on a consistency of godly desires. As long as conflict of desire exists and an appetite for sin remains in the heart, man is not totally free in the moral sense of which Edwards spoke, and neither does he experience the fullness of liberty described by Augustine. Choice as a Spontaneous Act Over against the Augustinian view of free will is the classical notion that describes the action or activity of choice in purely spontaneous terms. In this concept, the will chooses and is free from not only external forces of coercion but from any internal rule of disposition or desire. The choice of the moment proceeds freely in the sense that no inclination or prior disposition controls, directs, or affects the choice that is made. It is safe to say that this is the dominant view of free will in Western culture and is the view Calvin had in mind when he stated, “Free will is far too grandiose a term to apply to man.” At bottom it implies that man can make choices that are effects without any causes. Here it is suggested that the power of man to produce an effect without a cause exceeds even the creative power of God Almighty. Moreover, the cardinal rule of causality—ex nihilo, nihil fit (“out of nothing, nothing comes”)—is broken. Such a view of freedom is repugnant not only to Scripture but to reason. To understand freedom as purely spontaneous choice with no prior disposition controlling it is to rob freedom of any moral significance. That is, if I act with no prior motive or no previous inclination toward or away from righteousness, how can it be said that my act is moral at all? Such activity would be without reason or motive behind it; it would be a purely random action, with no moral virtue attached to it. However, a deeper question remains: Is such a spontaneous action possible at all? If the will is inclined neither to the right nor to the left, how could it choose at all? If there is no disposition toward, or away from, the action, then the will suffers from complete paralysis. It is like the donkey that had set before him a bale of hay and a bucket of oats. The donkey’s inclination with respect to the hay and the oats was exactly equal, with not the slightest degree of preference toward one or the other. The story is told that the donkey in such circumstances starves to death with a banquet feast in front of him because he has no way to choose between the two. The practical problem that remains with the classical view of freedom is one raised by behavioristic psychology. If man is indeed self-determined or free, does that not imply that if his desires were completely known, man’s action in every given circumstance would be completely predictable? There is a sense in which we must agree that such a predictability would be implied. However, there is no way that any genius short of God and His omniscience could possibly know all the complex factors present in the human mind weighing a choice. We recognize with psychologists that preferences and inclinations are shaped in many respects by experience and environment, but we cannot predict with certainty what any human being will do. Hidden variables within the complex of human personality make for this unpredictability. It nevertheless remains a fact that there is always a reason for our actions, a cause for our choices. That cause stems partly from ourselves and partly from the forces operating around and over against us. The Definition of Freedom The safest course to steer is to define freedom as did the church fathers, such as Augustine: “the ability to choose what we want.” God’s sovereignty does not extinguish that dimension of human personality, but certainly rules over it. Out of rigid forms of determinism comes the cry of despair: “If the complex factors that make up personality completely determine my choices, then what value is self-improvement or the search for righteousness? If my will is enslaved by my dispositions and desires, what hope do I have of ever breaking out of the patterns of sin that are so destructive to my present mode of behavior?” In a real sense, the process of sanctification involves a radical reprogramming of the inner self. We are not the victims of blind mechanical forces that control our destiny. As intelligent beings, we can do something to change the dispositions of our hearts and the inclinations of our minds. It is important to remember that desire is not a fixed and constant power that beats within our souls. Our desires change and fluctuate from moment to moment. When the Bible calls us to feed the new man and starve the old man, we can apply this injunction by taking advantage of the ebb and flow of moods to strengthen the new man when our desire for Christ is inflamed and to kill the old man’s desires by starving him in times of satiation. The simplest way to state the mechanism of sin is to understand that at the moment I sin, I desire the sin more than I desire to please God. Stated another way, my love for the sin is greater at the moment of its intense desire than is my love for obedience to God. Therefore, the simple conclusion is that to overcome the power of sin within us, we need either to decrease our desire for the sin or to increase our desire to obey God. What can we do to effect such changes? We can submit ourselves to the discipline of a class or a teacher and devote ourselves to a rigorous study of the law of God. Such disciplined study can help renew our minds, equipping us with a new understanding of what pleases and displeases God. The development of a renewed mind is the biblical definition of spiritual transformation. The mind and the will are linked, as Edwards noted. Understanding more deeply how abhorrent our sin is to God can change or reprogram our attitudes toward sin. We are to follow the biblical injunction to concentrate on whatever things are pure and good. It may be too much to expect that a man in the midst of an attack of profound lust will switch to pure thoughts. It would be difficult for him to push a button and change the inclination of his desire at that moment. However, in a more sober mood, he may have the opportunity to reprogram his mind by filling it with high and holy thoughts of the things of God. The end result is that he may well strengthen the disposition of his heart toward God and weaken the disposition of his fallen nature toward sin. We need not surrender to a superficial form of rigid determinism or behaviorism that would cause us to despair of any hope of change. Scripture encourages us to work out our salvation “with fear and trembling,” knowing that not only are we applying the means of grace by our own effort, but that God Himself is working within us to bring about the necessary changes to conform us to the image of His Son (Phil. 2:12–13; 1:6). Sovereignty of God and Freedom of Man What about man’s will with respect to the sovereignty of God? Perhaps the oldest dilemma of the Christian faith is the apparent contradiction between the sovereignty of God and the freedom of man. If we define human freedom as autonomy (meaning that man is free to do whatever he pleases, without constraint, without accountability to the will of God), then of course we must say that free will is contradictory to divine sovereignty. We cannot soft-pedal this dilemma by calling it a mystery; we must face up to the full import of the concept. If free will means autonomy, then God cannot be sovereign. If man is utterly and completely free to do as he pleases, there can be no sovereign God. However, if God is utterly sovereign to do as He pleases, no creature can be autonomous. It is possible to have a multitude of beings, all of whom are free to various degrees but none of whom are sovereign. The degree of freedom is determined by the level of power, authority, and responsibility held by each being. However, we do not live in this type of universe. There is a God who is sovereign—which is to say, He is absolutely free. My freedom is always within limits. My freedom is always constrained by the sovereignty of God. I have freedom to do things as I please, but if my freedom conflicts with the decretive will of God, there is no question as to the outcome—God’s decree will prevail over my choice. It is stated so often that it has become almost an uncritically accepted axiom within Christian circles that the sovereignty of God may never violate human freedom in the sense that God’s sovereign will may never overrule human freedom. The thought verges on, if not trespasses, the border of blasphemy because it contains the idea that God’s sovereignty is constrained by human freedom. If that were true, man, not God, would be sovereign, and God would be restrained and constrained by the power of human freedom. As I say, the implication here is blasphemous because it raises the creature to the stature of the Creator. God’s glory, majesty, and honor are denigrated since He is reduced to the status of a secondary, impotent creature. Biblically speaking, man is free, but his freedom can never violate or overrule God’s sovereignty. I and my son are free moral agents; he has a will and I have a will. However, when he was a teen living in my home, his will was more often constrained by my will than was my will constrained by His. I carried more authority and more power in the relationship and hence I had a wider expanse of freedom than he had. So it is with our relationship to God; God’s power and authority are infinite, and His freedom is never hindered by human volition. There is no contradiction between God’s sovereignty and man’s free will. Those who see a contradiction, or even point to the problem as an unsolvable mystery, have misunderstood the mystery. The real mystery regarding free will is how it was exercised by Adam before the fall. Options for Considering Adam’s Sin If Augustine was correct that pre-fall Adam possessed an ability to sin and an ability not to sin, and that he was created with no prior disposition or inclination toward sin, then the question we face is, “How was it possible for such a creature with no prior disposition toward evil actually to take the step into evil?” As we grapple with this mystery, let me present several options that have served as explanations in the past. First, we can hypothesize that Adam fell because he was duped by the craftiness of Satan and simply did not know what he was doing. The inspiration for this hypothesis is the biblical emphasis on the craftiness of the Devil. Satan, in his guile, was able to seduce Adam and Eve by confusing their thought patterns. Thus, the weakness of our primordial parents was not moral in nature, but intellectual, inasmuch as they failed to perceive the chicanery of the serpent. What complicates the picture is the fact that the Scriptures in this instance do not describe Adam and Eve as having been completely duped by their adversary; rather, they had full knowledge of what God allowed and did not allow them to do. They could not plead ignorance of the command of God as an excuse for their transgression. There are times when ignorance is excusable, namely when such ignorance cannot possibly be helped or overcome. Such ignorance is properly described by the Roman Catholic Church as “invincible ignorance”—ignorance that we lack the power to conquer. Invincible ignorance excuses and gives one a reprieve from any accusation of moral wrongdoing. However, the biblical record gainsays this option in the case of Adam and Eve, for God pronounces judgment on them. Unless that judgment was arbitrary or immoral on the part of God Himself, we can only conclude that what Adam and Eve did was inexcusable. A just God does not punish excusable transgressions. Indeed, excusable transgressions are not transgressions. A second option is that Adam and Eve were coerced by Satan to disobey God. Here we see the original instance of the statement “The Devil made me do it.” If, however, Satan, in fact, fully and forcibly coerced Adam and Eve to transgress the law of God, then once again we would find an excuse for their actions. We would have to conclude that they did not act with a reasonable measure of freedom, a measure that would at least have delivered them from moral culpability. Such a theory violates the clear teaching of the biblical text, which hints at no coercive manipulation on the part of Satan. Consistently, the Scriptures place the responsibility, the blame, and the full culpability on Adam and Eve themselves. They committed evil. Their choice was an evil one. By what means did Adam and Eve make an evil choice? If we apply the analysis of choice common to Augustine and Edwards to pre-fall Adam, we face an insoluble dilemma. If Adam had been created with a purely neutral disposition (with no inclination toward righteousness or evil), we would still face the same rational impasse that Edwards notes for those who would impose it for post-fall man. A will with no predisposition would have no motivation to choose. Without motivation, there could be no choice. Even if such a choice were possible, it would have no moral import to it. We must examine the other two alternatives—that Adam was created with a predisposition toward evil or with a singular predisposition toward good. Both of these options end at the stone wall of intellectual difficulty. If we assume that Adam was created with a predisposition toward evil, we cast a horrible shadow over the character of God, for this would mean that God created man with a predisposition toward evil and then punished man for exercising the disposition that God Himself had planted within his soul. In a real sense, this would make God the author of, and the one ultimately responsible for, human wickedness. Every page of Holy Scripture recoils from such a thesis, as it would transfer the blame from man to God Himself, who is altogether good. Still, many take this option, following in the footsteps of the implied criticism of the first man, Adam, who excused himself before the Creator by saying, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate” (Gen. 3:12, emphasis added). Men from Adam onward have manifested their fallenness by trying to transfer the blame for that fallenness to the Creator. A third option is that God created man with a disposition toward only righteousness. If this were the case, then we have an effect without a sufficient cause. How is it possible for a creature created with the disposition toward only righteousness to have chosen a wicked act? Other Inquiries into the Mystery of Adam’s Sin I have a built-in antipathy to dialectical theology—theology that proclaims the beauty of contradictions and nonsense statements. Thus, I must swallow hard to agree with one neoorthodox theologian about the origin of Adam’s sin. Karl Barth calls the sin of Adam the “impossible possibility.” Barth, of course, is calling attention to the utterly inexplicable mystery of Adam’s transgression—what was rationally impossible and inconceivable happened, and remains a bona fide and impenetrable mystery to us. Other attempts have been made to seek a complex and sophisticated answer to the mystery of iniquity. One suggestion is that the sin of Adam was like all sin, namely, a privation, a corruption, or a negation of something that was inherently and intrinsically good. In other words, Adam was created with a good moral disposition. His appetites and desires were continuously good, and as a result, one would expect his activities to have been equally good. However, it is suggested that in the complexity of moral choices, sometimes a good will (which has a desire that in itself is good) can be misused and abused toward an evil end. The supreme example of such a twisting occurred at the temptation of Jesus, the second and new Adam. In Jesus’ temptation experience in the wilderness, Satan came to Him in the midst of a prolonged fast. It is probably safe to assume that at that point Jesus had a consuming passion for food. That natural human desire to eat carried no immoral overtones in and of itself. One expects a hungry man to have a disposition to eat. However, Jesus wanted to obey God through this act of self-deprivation. When Satan came to Jesus and suggested that He turn stones into bread, Satan was appealing to a perfectly normal appetite and desire within Jesus. However, Jesus’ desire to obey the Father was deeper than His desire to partake of food. Thus, filled with an altogether righteous desire, He was able to overcome the temptation of Satan. Now the theory goes like this: Perhaps it was something good that caused Adam to fall—something that in and of itself was good, but which could have been misused and abused by the seductive influences of Satan. Such an explanation certainly helps make the fall more understandable, but it goes only so far before it fails. At its most vital point, the explanation does not account for how this good desire could have become distorted, overruling the prior obligation to obey God. At some point before the act of transgression took place, Adam must have had to desire disobedience to God more than obedience to God; therein the fall already had taken place because the very desire to act against God in disobedience is itself sinful. I leave the question of explaining the fall of Adam by virtue of the exercise of his free will to the hands of more competent and insightful theologians. To blame it on man’s finite limitations is really putting blame on the God who made man finite. Biblically, the issue has been, and always will be, a moral one. Man was commanded by the Creator not to sin, but man chose to sin, though not because God or anyone else forced him. Man chose out of his own heart. Consequently, to probe the answer to the how of man’s sin is to enter the realm of deepest mystery. Perhaps all we can do in the final analysis is to recognize the reality of our sin and our responsibility for it. Though we cannot explain it, certainly we know enough to confess it. We must never attribute the cause of our sin to God or adopt any position that would excuse us from the moral responsibility that Scripture clearly assigns to us. Some have criticized the Christian faith for its inability to give a satisfying answer to the question of sin. The fact is that other religions must come to terms with this same question. Some respond simply by denying the reality of evil—a convenient but absurd way out. Christianity alone deals head-on with the reality of sin by providing an escape from its consequences. The Christian solution to the problem of sin is a radical departure from what other religions provide, for it is centered in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Through His perfect sacrifice, which has the efficacy of blotting out believers’ sins, we have become righteous in God’s eyes. However, that righteousness does not give us the license to do as we please. We must still seek to do God’s preceptive will, especially as we swim through the perilous waters of the moral, ethical, and social dilemmas of our age. While we have discussed the more theological aspects of man’s will and God’s will, two other topics now beckon us: God’s will for our jobs and for our marital status. These two practical concerns take center stage in the drama of our personal lives. What can we learn about God’s will and man’s will in relation to these vital aspects of living? The next chapters offer guidelines to facilitate our decision making in these all-important areas. Chapter Three GOD’S WILL AND YOUR JOB When we are introduced to people, the following three questions are generally asked: “What is your name?” “Where are you from?” and “What do you do?” The third question is the one that concerns us in this chapter. “What do you do?” is obviously a question about one’s occupation, career, or vocation. People want to know what task or service constitutes our livelihood or helps fulfill our personal aspirations. We are all familiar with the aphorism, “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.” We understand that life is more than work. We devote periods of time to recreation, sleep, play, and other activities not directly part of our principal employment or labor. However, the portion of our lives that is taken up by work is so encompassing and time-consuming that we tend to understand our personal identity in the light of our work. Whatever else we are, we are creatures involved in labor. This was the design of creation—God Himself is a working God. From the very moment of creation, He conferred on our original parents the responsibilities of work. Adam and Eve were called to dress, till, and keep the earth, to name the animals, and to have dominion by way of managerial responsibility over the earth. All of these activities involved the expenditure of time, energy, and resources—in short, work. Sometimes we fall into the trap of thinking that work is a punishment that God gave us as a result of Adam’s fall in the Garden of Eden. We must remember that work was given before the fall. To be sure, our labor has additional burdens attached to it because of the fall. A mixture of thorns and thistles is found among the good plants we seek to cultivate. Our labor is accomplished by the sweat of our brow. These were some of the penalties of sinfulness, but work itself was part of the glorious privilege granted to men and women in creation. It is impossible to understand our own humanity without understanding the central importance of work. Most of us spend the early years of our lives preparing and training for a lifelong activity of work. The sensitive Christian understands that in the labor of his occupation, he is responsible to make a contribution to the kingdom of God, to fulfill a divine mandate, to embark on a holy calling as a servant of the living God. Such a Christian is keenly interested to discover how best to serve God through his labor. Vocation and Calling The idea of vocation is based on the theological premise of a divine call. The word vocation comes from the Latin word meaning “calling.” In our secular society, the religious meaning of the term has lost its significance, having become merely a synonym for career. I will be using the term vocation in its original sense: a divine call, a holy summons to fulfill a task or a responsibility that God has laid on us. The question we as Christians wrestle with is, “Am I in the center of God’s will with respect to my vocation?” In other words, “Am I doing with my life what God wants me to do?” Here the question of the will of God becomes eminently practical, for it touches on that dimension of my life that fills most of my waking hours and has the greatest impact on the shaping of my personality. If the Bible teaches anything, it teaches that God is a calling God. The world was created through the call of the omnipotent Creator: “ ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light” (Gen. 1:1). God also calls His people to repentance, to conversion, and to membership in His family. In addition, He calls us to serve Him in His kingdom, making the best possible use of our gifts and talents. Still, the question faces us: “How do I know what is my particular vocational calling?” One of the great tragedies of modern society is that, although the job market is vast and complex with an infinite number of possible careers, the educational systems that train us tend to guide and direct us to a very small number of occupational choices. When I was a high school graduate embarking on college, a great deal of discussion centered on one’s major and career aspirations. At that time, it seemed as if everyone was setting out to become an engineer. The mechanized culture of the 1950s was opening up thousands of lucrative positions in engineering. College campuses were flooded with young aspirants for degrees in the field of engineering. I also remember the engineer glut on the market that occurred in the 1970s. Stories circulated about people with doctorates in engineering who were collecting unemployment or washing dishes in the local diner because there simply were not enough engineering jobs available. The same could be said for education majors. Positions in education became fewer and fewer while the number of applicants became greater and greater. The problem was heightened by misguided publicity and counseling that steered people into occupational roles that society already had filled. In the early twentieth century, the choices were much less difficult since the vast majority of American children spent their time preparing for a life in agricultural labor. Today, roughly two percent of the population is employed in farming—a radical decrease in one occupation that has opened the door for a vast number of other occupations. Finding Your Vocation The question of vocation becomes a crisis at two major points in life. The first is in late adolescence, when a person is pressured into deciding what skills and knowledge he should acquire for future use. Some college freshmen feel pressured to declare a major in their first year, before knowing the available options and the limits of their ability. The second period in life when vocation becomes critical is in midlife, when a person experiences a sense of frustration, failure, or lack of fulfillment in his current position. He may ask: “Have I wasted my life? Am I sentenced forever to a job that I’m finding meaningless, unfulfilling, and frustrating?” Such questions highlight the fact that vocational counseling is a major part of pastoral counseling in America, second only to marital counseling. We must also consider the fact that vocational frustration is a major contributing cause of marital disharmony and family strife. Thus, it is important to approach the matter of vocation with great care, both in the early stages of adolescent development and in the latter stages, when the sense of frustration hits home. The problem of discerning one’s calling focuses heavily on four important questions: 1. What can I do? 2. What do I like to do? 3. What would I like to be able to do? 4. What should I do? The last question can plague the sensitive conscience. To begin to answer it, we need to take a look at the other three questions because they are closely linked to the ultimate question, “What should I do?” What can I do? Reasonably assessing our abilities, skills, and aptitudes is a crucial and basic part of the decision-making process in choosing a vocation. We need to ask: “What are my abilities? What am I equipped to do?” We may object that Moses and Jeremiah both protested against God’s call by saying that they were not equipped for the task. Moses protested that he had limited speaking ability, and Jeremiah reminded his Creator of his youthfulness. Both experienced God’s rebuke for seeking to evade a divine calling on the basis of the flimsy claim that they lacked the ability to do the job. Neither Moses nor Jeremiah had a full understanding of what was needed to carry out the summons God gave him. Moses, for instance, protested that he lacked speaking skill, but God had prepared Aaron to help Moses with that part of the task. What God was looking for was obedient leadership from Moses; public speaking could be delegated to another. God certainly took into consideration Moses’ gifts, abilities, and aptitude before He called him. We must remember that God is the perfect Manager. He is efficient in His selection, calling people according to the gifts and talents that He has given them. Satan’s strategy is to manipulate Christians into positions for which they have no ability or skill to perform well. Satan himself is very efficient in directing Christians to inefficiency and ineffectiveness. What can I do? This question can be answered by proficiency examinations, analysis of our strengths and weaknesses, and a sober evaluation of our past performance. Abilities and performances can be, and are, measured in sophisticated ways in our society. We need to know the parameters of our abilities. People often apply for positions for which they have no skill. This is particularly and sadly true within the church and in related Christian service. Some hunger and thirst to be in full-time Christian service but lack the ability and the gifts required for the particular job. For example, they may have the academic training and credentials for the pastorate, but lack the managerial skills or the people skills to be effective pastors. Perhaps the most important principle in Scripture regarding abilities is found in Paul’s injunction that we ought to make a sober analysis of ourselves, not thinking too highly of ourselves (Rom. 12:3). Through sober analysis, we can make a serious, honest, and clear evaluation of what we can and cannot do, and we should act accordingly. The young person has a different question: What would I like to be able to do? Such a person may have developed very few skills or have little educational background, but he realizes that he has enough time to acquire skills and talents through education or vocational training. At this point, the concept of aptitude is relevant. Aptitude involves a person’s latent abilities as well as his acquired abilities. A person may have a certain aptitude for mechanical things and have no aptitude whatsoever for abstract things. This person may desire to be a philosopher but would make a far better investment of his time by learning to be an airplane mechanic. However, preferences are still important. Here we tread into that critical and frightening area of human experience called the realm of motivation. Motivated Abilities Research indicates that most people have more than one ability, and that their abilities can be divided into two basic types: motivated abilities and non-motivated abilities. A non-motivated ability is a skill or a strength that a person has but is not motivated to use. Some people are very good at doing certain things, but find no particular fulfillment or enjoyment in doing them. Performing them is sheer drudgery and pain. They may be proficient in what they do, but for one reason or another they find the task odious. I know of one young woman who in her early teenage years attracted national attention because of her proficiency at the game of golf. While still a teenager, she won a national tournament. Yet when the time came for girls her age to turn professional, she chose a different vocation, not out of a higher calling to seek a more spiritual enterprise than professional athletics, but because she found golf to be very unpleasant. Her displeasure came as the result of fierce pressure her father had placed on her in pushing her to become a proficient golfer at a young age. When she became of age and was out from under parental authority, she decided to do something else. She had the ability to become a professional golfer, but she lacked the motivation. We might ask, “How could she have become so proficient in the first place if she had not been motivated to perform well in golf?” We have to realize that she had been motivated to become proficient, but the motivation was largely based on fear of her father’s wrath. In order to please him, she disciplined herself to acquire a skill that she never would have pursued on her own. Once free from the driving force of his authority, she turned her vocational pursuits in another direction. The moral to the story is obvious. The person who gives his full measure of time and energy to a non-motivated ability is a walking pressure cooker of frustration. It is true that, as Christians, we don’t always have the luxury of doing the things we want to do. God calls us to sacrifice and to be willing to participate in the humiliation of Christ. To be sure, we live in the midst of warfare, and as Christians we have signed up for the duration. We should never neglect our awesome responsibility to the kingdom of God. Called to be servants, we are also called to obedience. Sometimes we are called to do things that we don’t particularly enjoy doing. Nevertheless, the overriding consideration is to bring our motivation into conformity with our call and our call into conformity with our motivation. All things being equal, Jesus did not want to go to the cross, as He expressed in His agony in the Garden of Gethsemane. Yet at the same time, He had an overarching desire and motivation to do the will of His Father. That was His “meat and drink,” the focus of His zeal. When it was confirmed to Him that it was the Father’s will that He lay down His life, Jesus was, in a very real and vital sense, motivated to do it. Let us extend the concept of service and obedience to the analogy of human warfare. A crisis besets a nation, and people are summoned to the cause of national defense. Leaving the security and comfort of their homes and jobs, they make sacrifices by enlisting in the armed services. Are not Christians called to do the same? Certainly there is a sense in which we are. Yet within the context of the earthly military, there are a vast number of jobs, some for which we would be suited and others for which we would not. Some military tasks would be in line with our motivated skills and patterns of behavior, while others would be completely at odds with our motivated skills and behavior. Even within the context of sacrificial service, a consideration of motivation is a vital ingredient in determining our vocation. Some rugged individualists in our society are self-employed and find it totally unnecessary to fit into an organizational working structure that involves supervisors, bosses, and lines of authority. Most of us, however, carry out our working lives within the context of an organization. Here we face the problem of fitting. Do our jobs fit our gifts, talents, and aspirations? Do our motivated abilities fit our jobs? The degree to which our job requirements and our motivated abilities fit often determines the usefulness of our contribution and the extent of our personal satisfaction. When personal motivations do not fit job descriptions, many people suffer. The first to suffer is the individual, because he is laboring in a job that does not fit his motivated abilities. Because he is in a job for which he is unsuited, he tends to be less efficient and less productive. He also creates problems for others in the organization because his frustration spills over and has a negative effect on the group. Some of us are “sanctified” enough to perform assigned tasks for which we lack motivation, doing them as proficiently as we do tasks that are more enjoyable. However, people who are that sanctified make up an infinitesimal minority within the workforce. Research shows again and again that there is a strong tendency for people to do what they are motivated to do, regardless of what is called for in their job description. That is, they spend the majority of their time and effort doing what they want to do rather than what the job, in fact, calls them to do. Such an investment of time and energy can be quite costly to a company or an organization. The following simple diagrams show the relationships between motivated ability patterns and job descriptions. They have been borrowed from People Management, a Connecticut-based organization. People Management helps people to discern their motivated ability patterns and helps organizations to coordinate people’s gifts and motivations with the needs and aims of the organizations. This kind of guidance works not only in secular industry but also within the structures of the church and sacred vocations. MISFIT DIAGRAM Job Description Unused Abilities Frustration Personal Organizational Frustration Tasks Not Performed Motivated Abilities Job Fit In this diagram, the top left block represents the job description of the employee, including the tasks required for optimal organizational functioning. The lower right block represents the motivated abilities of the employee. The shaded area represents the area of job fit. It is not in balance. A large portion of the employee’s motivated abilities are not being used. This produces frustration for the employee. Also, a large portion of the organizational job description is either left unperformed or performed at a low degree of proficiency. The result is organizational frustration. This pattern spells problems for both the individual employee and the organization. Changes must be made. The diagram below represents an ideal matchup between job description and motivated abilities. The result is fulfillment for both the employee and the organization. ORGANIZATIONAL FIT Job Description Motivated Abilities Through the influence of the world-denying spirit of Manichaeism, early Christians got the idea that the only way they could possibly serve God would be by living their lives on a bed of nails. It was assumed that to embark on a pathway of service involved self-denial. Real virtue could be found only in being as miserable as possible in one’s job. However, if God indeed called us to devote ourselves to the most unpleasant tasks possible, He would be the cosmic Chief of Bad Managers. The Scriptures describe God’s management style differently. God manages by building us into a body according to our abilities and our desires. He gives gifts to each one of His people. Every Christian is gifted of the Lord to fulfill a divine vocation. Along with the gift, God gives a desire or a motivation to make use of that gift. What Should We Do? This brings us to the final and paramount question: “What should I do?” The most practical advice I can give is for you to do what your motivated ability pattern indicates you can do with a high degree of motivation. If what you would like to do can be of service to God, then by all means you should be doing it. One vital constraint is at work: the preceptive will of God. If a woman’s great ability and motivation were to be a prostitute and a man’s motivated ability were to be the world’s greatest bank robber, then obviously vocational goals would have to be adjusted. To fulfill such motivated abilities would bring individuals into direct conflict with the preceptive will of God. If we carefully analyzed the root causes for the motivated ability of the bank robber and the motivated ability of the prostitute, we probably would find root abilities and motivations that could profitably and productively be channeled into godly enterprises. We must not only bring our motivated abilities into conformity with the law of God, but also make sure that the vocation we choose has the blessing of God. There is certainly nothing wrong, for example, with devoting one’s life to the practice of medicine, for we see the good that medicine can do in terms of alleviating suffering. We also understand that the world needs bread to eat and that the vocation of baker for someone who is motivated and able to bake is a godly enterprise. Jesus Himself spent many of His years not in preaching and teaching but in being a carpenter, a craftsman in a legitimate trade. During those years, Jesus was in “the center of God’s will.” Any vocation that meets the need of God’s world can be considered a divine calling. I underscore this because of the tendency in Christian circles to think that only those who go into “full-time Christian service” are being sensitive to divine vocation—as if preaching and teaching were the only legitimate tasks to which God calls us. A cursory reading of the Bible would reveal the flaw in such thinking. The temple was built in the Old Testament through not only the wise oversight of Solomon but also the craftsmanship of those who were divinely gifted in carving, sculpting, and so on. David’s vocation as a shepherd, Abraham’s vocation as a caravan trader, Paul’s vocation as a tentmaker—all were seen as part of God’s plan to bring about the redemption of the world. When God made Adam and Eve, neither was called to be a full-time professional worker in the ecclesiastical structure; they were basically called to be farmers. A vocation is something that we receive from God; He is the one who calls us. He may not call us in the way that He called Moses, by appearing in a burning bush and giving a specific set of marching orders. Instead, He usually calls us inwardly and by giving us certain gifts, talents, and aspirations. His invisible sovereign will is certainly working in the background to prepare us for useful tasks in His vineyard. The External Call from People In addition to the inner call of God, we recognize that there is such a thing as an external call to labor, a call that comes from people who request our services for their particular mission or purpose. We may be called by the church to be preachers or by a company to be foremen or shippers. Every time an organization places a want ad in a newspaper, a human call is going out for able workers to come and match their gifts and talents to a presented need. Some Christians have argued that the need always constitutes the call. They say that there is a need for evangelists in the world and therefore everyone should be an evangelist. I agree that we must consider the needs of the kingdom of God as we make vocational decisions. However, the very fact that the world needs evangelists does not necessarily imply that everyone in the world is called to be an evangelist. Again, the New Testament makes it clear that not all are called to be preachers or administrators. The church is composed of people with a diversity of gifts, talents, and vocations. We must not make a simplistic, passive assumption that the need constitutes the call. Certainly the presence of a need requires that the people of God strive to meet that need. However, it does not necessarily mean that people who are not equipped to meet the need are thereby forced into the gap. For example, it is every Christian’s responsibility to help carry out the mandate for evangelism. It is not every Christian’s responsibility to be an evangelist. I am not an evangelist, though I contribute to evangelism by teaching evangelists theology and by contributing money for the church’s task of evangelism. I do those things so that those who do have the gift and the motivation can be called out, trained, equipped, and sent into the world as evangelists. I participate in the responsibility of the body of Christ to see that the task is met, but I myself am not the one who delivers the goods as the practicing evangelist. I could say the same regarding a host of other vocations. How do others affect our vocational calling? We do need to listen to the community of believers and friends. Sometimes our gifts and abilities are more evident to those around us than they are to us. The counsel of many and the evaluation of the group are important considerations in our search for our vocations. However, we must put up a red flag of warning. The group’s judgment is not always correct. The fact that a particular individual or group thinks we should be doing a certain task is not a guarantee that it is the will of God. I went through a period in my life of being unemployed for six months. During that time, I had five different job offers in five different cities in the United States. Five different friends came to me and said out of sincerity and urgent zeal that they were sure God wanted me to take each of the particular jobs. This meant that if all five of them had a direct pipeline to the will of God, God wanted me to hold five full-time positions and live in five different cities in the United States at the same time. I explained to my friends that I knew I was iniquitous (full of sin), but had not yet discovered the gift of being ubiquitous (being everywhere at the same time). I simply could not possibly do all five jobs. Somebody was wrong in their estimation of the will of God for my life. I find it very difficult to resist the pressures that come from people who are sure they know what God wants me to do with my life. We all experience that kind of pressure, so we must be careful to pay attention to those whose judgment we trust. We must be able to discern between sound judgment and the vested personal interests of other people. As it turned out, I accepted a sixth position for which no one came to me in the middle of the night with a telegram from God. I was convinced that the sixth position was the one that matched my abilities with the job that needed to be done. Considering Foreseeable Consequences One last consideration that is often neglected but is of crucial importance is the foreseeable consequences of the job. To take a job simply for money or for geographical location is a tragic mistake. All things being equal, I would like to have a salary of a $1 million a year, to be a teacher of theology, and to live where the climate is mild twelve months of the year. At the present time I am a teacher of theology living in Florida, but I make far less than $1 million a year. Somewhere along the way, I had to make a decision about my priorities. Did I want to make a million dollars or did I want to heed my vocational calling? My residence was determined by the locale of my vocation. Job decisions have both short-range and long-range consequences. Consider the case of Abraham and his nephew Lot, who lived and worked together in the Promised Land. Conflict between their hired hands made it necessary for them to divide the territory they were occupying. Abraham gave Lot the first choice, offering any half that he chose. Lot gazed toward the barren area of Transjordan and then looked toward the fertile valley near the city. He thought for a moment: “If I take the fertile valley, my cows can graze there and become fat. It’s a short distance to the city market. My profit will be great.” In consideration of his business, Lot opted for the fertile areas around the city and left Abraham the barren land. Lot’s choice was brilliant—from the perspective of raising cattle. He didn’t ask himself, “Where will my family go to school? Where will my family go to church?” The city he chose was Sodom—a great place to raise cows. The short-term consequences were fine, but long-term living in Sodom turned out to be a disaster in many ways. How will our job decisions be conducive to fulfilling our other responsibilities? The person who chooses a vocation purely on the basis of money, location, or status is virtually guaranteeing his later frustration. Much of the confusion we often experience in the job arena would be dispelled by asking ourselves one simple question: “What would I most like to do if I didn’t have to please anyone in my family or my circle of friends?” Another good question is, “What would I like to be doing ten years from now?” These questions are good to keep in mind even after one has settled into a particular job. Another thing to remember is the promise of God’s Word that the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth. As His children, that includes the area of our work. While God’s decretive will may not always be clear to us even in our occupational pursuits, His preceptive will is more easily discerned. Wherever we are, in whatever work we find ourselves, His preceptive will must be done. Finally, what does God expect of us in relation to our work? As Christians, we have been called to be spiritual salt in a decaying world, to be spiritual light in the midst of darkness. We are to be wise stewards of God’s gifts and talents. That means striving to be the most honest, patient, hardworking, and committed workers we can be. It means settling for nothing less than excellence. God help us to live up to His high call for each of us. Chapter Four GOD’S WILL IN MARRIAGE Besides our work, the other topic of perennial concern is our marital status. Should we marry or remain single? It is possible that Christians expend more decision-making energy over the subject of marriage than any other area of human existence. No wonder, since the decisions relevant to the marital relationship have such far-reaching effects on our lives. How a person feels about his marital status determines, in large part, his sense of fulfillment, his productivity, and his self-image. The reality and the seriousness of the marital relationship are brought home when we realize that the one who knows us most intimately, the one before whom we are the most fragile and vulnerable, and the one who powerfully shapes and influences our lives is our marriage partner. That is why entering the marital relationship is not something anyone should undertake lightly. Before we tackle the general question, “Is it God’s will for me to marry?” several specific questions need to be considered. Should I Get Married? The answer to this question has often been assumed by our culture, at least until recent years. Even today, most of us absorb the idea while growing up that marriage is a natural and integral part of normal life. In many ways—from the fairy-tale characters Snow White and Prince Charming, the romantic plays of Shakespeare, and some mass media heroes and heroines—we receive signals that society expects us to be numbered among the married. Among individuals who fail to fulfill this cultural expectation, those of a more traditional mindset are left with the nagging feeling that perhaps something is wrong with them, that they are abnormal. In earlier generations, if a young man reached the age of thirty without getting married, he was suspected of having homosexual tendencies. If a woman was still single by thirty, it was often tacitly assumed that she had some defect that made her unattractive as a marriage partner or had lesbian preferences. Such assumptions are by no means found in the Scriptures. From a biblical perspective, the pursuit of celibacy (as Scripture expects for the unmarried) is a legitimate option in some instances. Under other considerations, it is viewed as a definite preference. Though we have our Lord’s blessing on the sanctity of marriage, we also have His example of personal choice to remain celibate, obviously in submission to the will of God. Christ was celibate not because of a lack of the masculine traits necessary to make Him desirable as a life partner. Rather, His divine purpose obviated the destiny of marriage, making it crucial that He devote Himself entirely to the preparation of His bride, the church, for His future wedding. The most important biblical instruction that we have regarding celibacy is given by the apostle Paul in a lengthy passage from 1 Corinthians: Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. I think that in view of the present distress it is well for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a girl marries she does not sin. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. I mean, brethren, the appointed time has grown very short; from now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the form of this world is passing away. I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin. But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better. A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. But in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I have the Spirit of God. (1 Cor. 7:25–40, RSV) Paul’s teaching in this matter of marriage has been subjected to serious distortions. Some observe in this text that Paul is setting forth a contrasting view of marriage that says celibacy is good and marriage is bad, particularly for Christians called to service in the interim period between the first advent of Christ and His return. However, even a cursory glance at the text indicates that Paul is not contrasting the good and the bad, but rival goods. He points out that it is good to opt for celibacy under certain circumstances. Moreover, it is also good and quite permissible to opt for marriage under other circumstances. Paul sets forth the pitfalls that a Christian faces when contemplating marriage. Of prime consideration is the pressure of the kingdom of God on the marriage relationship. Nowhere has the question of celibacy been more controversial than in the Roman Catholic Church. Historically, Protestants have objected that the Roman Catholic Church, by imposing on its clergy a mandate beyond the requirements of Scripture itself, has slipped into a form of legalism. Though we believe that Scripture permits the marriage of clergy, it indicates, at the same time, that one who is married and serving God in a special vocation does face the nagging problems created by a divided set of loyalties—his family on one hand, the church on the other. Unfortunately, the dispute between Protestants and Catholics over mandatory celibacy has become so heated at times that Protestants have often reacted to the other extreme, dismissing celibacy as a viable option. Let us return to the focus of Paul’s word, which sets forth a distinction between rival goods. His distinction, in the final analysis, allows the individual to decide what best suits him or her. Paul in no way denigrates the honorable “estate” of marriage, but rather affirms what was given in creation: the benediction of God over the marriage relationship. One does not sin by getting married. Marriage is a legitimate, noble, and honorable option set forth for Christians. Just a Piece of Paper? Another aspect of the question, “Should I get married?” moves beyond the issue of celibacy to whether a couple should enter into a formal marriage contract or sidestep this option by simply living together. In the past few decades, the option of living together, rather than moving into a formal marriage contract, has proliferated in our culture. Christians must be careful not to establish their precepts of marriage (or any other ethical dimension of life) on the basis of contemporary community standards. The Christian’s conscience is to be governed not merely by what is socially acceptable or even by what is legal according to the law of the land, but rather by what God sanctions. Unfortunately, some Christians have rejected the legal and formal aspects of marriage, arguing that marriage is a matter of private and individual commitment between two people and has no legal or formal requirements. These view marriage as a matter of individual private decision apart from external ceremony. The question most frequently asked of clergymen on this matter reflects the so-called freedom in Christ: “Why do we have to sign a piece of paper to make it legal?” The signing of a piece of paper is not a matter of affixing one’s signature in ink to a meaningless document. The signing of a marriage certificate is an integral part of what the Bible calls a covenant. A covenant is made publicly before witnesses and with formal legal commitments that are taken seriously by the community. The protection of both partners is at stake; there is legal recourse should one of the partners act in a way that is destructive to the other. Contracts are signed out of the necessity spawned by the presence of sin in our fallen nature. Because we have an enormous capacity to wound each other, sanctions have to be imposed by legal contracts. Contracts not only restrain sin, but also protect the innocent in the case of legal and moral violation. With every commitment I make to another human being, there is a sense in which a part of me becomes vulnerable, exposed to the response of the other person. No human enterprise renders a person more vulnerable to hurt than does the estate of marriage. God ordained certain rules regulating marriage in order to protect people. His law was born of love, concern, and compassion for His fallen creatures. The sanctions God imposed on sexual activity outside marriage do not mean that God is a spoilsport or a prude. Sex is an enjoyment He Himself created and gave to the human race. God, in His infinite wisdom, understands that there is no time that human beings are more vulnerable than when they are engaged in this most intimate activity. Thus, He cloaks this special act of intimacy with certain safeguards. He is saying to both the man and the woman that it is safe to give oneself to the other only when there is a certain knowledge of a lifelong commitment behind it. There is a vast difference between a commitment sealed with a formal document and declared in the presence of witnesses, including family, friends, and authorities of church and state, and a whispered, hollow promise breathed in the back seat of a car. Do I Want to Get Married? Paul states in 1 Corinthians 7:8–9: “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” The distinction is between the good and the better. Here Paul introduces the idea of burning, not of the punitive fires of hell, but of the passions of the biological nature, which God has given us. Paul is speaking very candidly when he points out that some people are not made for celibacy. Marriage is a perfectly honorable and legitimate option even for those who are most strongly motivated by sexual fulfillment and relief from sexual temptation and passion. The question, “Do I want to get married?” is an obvious but very important one. The Bible does not prohibit marriage. Indeed, it encourages it except in certain cases where one may be brought into conflict with vocation, but even in that dimension, provisions are left for marriage. So to desire marriage is a very good thing. A person needs to be in touch with his own desires and conscience. If I have a strong desire to marry, then the next step is to do something about fulfilling that desire. If a person wants a job, he must seriously pursue employment opportunities. When we decide to attend a college or a university, we have to follow the formal routine of making applications and evaluating various campuses. Marriage is no different; no magic recipe has come from heaven that will determine for us the perfect will of God for a life partner. Here, unfortunately, is where Christians have succumbed to the fairy-tale syndrome of our society. It is a particular problem for young, single women. Many a young woman feels that if God wants her to be married, He will drop a marriage partner out of heaven on a parachute or will bring some Prince Charming riding up to her doorstep on a great white horse. One excruciating problem faced by single women—more so in past generations than today—is caused by the unwritten rule of our society that allows men the freedom actively to pursue a marriage partner while women are considered loose if they actively pursue a prospective husband. No biblical rule says that a woman eager to be married should be passive. There is nothing that prohibits her from actively seeking a suitable mate. On numerous occasions, I’ve had the task of counseling single women who insisted at the beginning of the interview that they had no desire to be married but simply wanted to work out the dimensions of the celibacy they believed God had imposed on them. After a few questions and answers, the scenario usually repeats itself: the young woman begins to weep and blurts out, “But I really want to get married.” When I suggest that there are wise steps that she can take to find a husband, her eyes light up in astonishment as if I had just given her permission to do the forbidden. I have broken a taboo. Wisdom requires that the search be done with discretion and determination. Those seeking a life partner need to do certain obvious things, such as going where other single people congregate. They need to be involved in activities that will bring them in close communication with other single Christians. In the Old Testament, Jacob made an arduous journey to his homeland to find a suitable marriage partner. He did not wait for God to deliver him a life partner. He went where the opportunity presented itself to find a marriage partner. But the fact that he was a man does not imply that such a procedure is limited to males. Women in our society have exactly the same freedom to pursue a mate by diligent search. What Do I Want in a Marriage Partner? A myth has arisen within the Christian community that marriage is to be a union between two people committed to the principle of selfless love. Selfless love is viewed as being crucial for the success of a marriage. This myth is based on the valid concept that selfishness is often at the root of disharmony and disintegration in marriage relationships. The biblical concept of love says no to acts of selfishness within marital and other human relationships. However, the remedy for selfishness is nowhere to be found in selflessness. The concept of selflessness emerged from Asian and Greek thinking, where the ideal goal of humanity is the loss of self-identity by becoming one with the universe. The goal of man in this schema is to lose any individual characteristic, becoming one drop in the great ocean. Another aspect of absorption is the notion of the individual becoming merged with the great Oversoul and becoming spiritually diffused throughout the universe. But from a biblical perspective, the goal of the individual is not the annihilation or the disintegration of the self, but the redemption of the self. To seek selflessness in marriage is an exercise in futility. The self is very active in building a good marriage, and marriage involves the commitment of the self with another self based on reciprocal sharing and sensitivity between two actively involved selves. If I were committed to a selfless marriage, it would mean that in my search for a marriage partner I should survey the scene to find a person for whom I was willing to throw myself away. This is the opposite of what is involved in the quest for a marriage partner. When someone seeks a mate, he should be seeking someone who will enrich his life, who will add to his own self-fulfillment, and who at the same time will be enriched by that relationship. What are the priority qualities to seek in a marriage partner? One little exercise that many couples have found helpful is based on freewheeling imagination. While finding a marriage partner is not like shopping for an automobile, one can use the new car metaphor. When one purchases a new car, he has many models from which to choose. With those models, there is an almost endless list of optional equipment that can be tacked onto the standard model. By analogy, suppose one could request a made-to-order mate with all the options. The person engaged in such an exercise could list as many as a hundred qualities or characteristics that he would like to find in the perfect mate. Compatibility with work and with play, attitudes toward parenting, and certain skills and physical characteristics could be included. After completing the list, the person must acknowledge the futility of such a process. No human being will ever perfectly fit all the possible characteristics that one desires in a mate. This exercise is particularly helpful for people who have delayed marrying into their late twenties or early thirties, or even later. Such a person sometimes settles into a pattern of focusing on tiny flaws that disqualify virtually every person he or she meets. After doing the made-to-order mate exercise, he can take the next step: reduce the list to the main priorities. The person involved in this exercise reduces the number of qualifications to twenty, then to ten, and finally to five. Such a reduction forces him to set in ordered priority the things he is most urgently seeking in a marriage partner. It is extremely important that individuals clearly understand what they want out of the dating and eventually the marital relationship. They should also find out whether their desires in a marriage relationship are healthy or unhealthy. This leads us to the next question, regarding counseling. From Whom Should I Seek Counsel? Many people resent the suggestion that they seek counsel in their selection of a marriage partner. After all, isn’t such a selection an intensely personal and private matter? However personal and private the decision might be, it is one of grave importance to the future of the couple and their potential offspring, their families, and their friends. Marriage is never ultimately a private matter, because how the marriage works affects a multitude of people. Therefore, counsel can and should be sought from trusted friends, pastors, and particularly from parents. In earlier periods of Western history, marriages were arranged either by families or by matchmakers. Today, the idea of arranged marriages seems primitive and crass. It is totally foreign in the American culture. We have come to the place where we think that it is our inalienable right to choose one whom we love. Some things need to be said in defense of the past custom of arranged marriages. One is that happy marriages can be achieved even when one has not chosen his own partner. It may sound outrageous, but I am convinced that if biblical precepts are applied consistently, virtually any two people in the world can build a happy marriage and honor the will of God in the relationship. That may not be what we prefer, but it can be accomplished if we are willing to work in the marital relationship. The second thing that needs to be said in defense of arranged marriages is that in some circumstances, marriages have been arranged on the objective evaluation of matching people together and of avoiding destructive parasitic matchups. For example, when left to themselves, people with significant personal weaknesses, such as a man with a profound need to be mothered and a woman with a profound need to mother, can be attracted to each other in a mutually destructive way. Such negative mergings happen daily in our society. It is not my intention to lobby for matched or arranged marriages. I am only hailing the wisdom of seeking parental counsel in the decision-making process. Parents often object to the choice of a marriage partner. Sometimes their objections are based on the firm conviction that “no one is good enough for my daughter [or son].” Objections of this sort are based on unrealistic expectations at best and on petty jealousy at worst. However, not all parents are afflicted with such destructive prejudices regarding the potential marriage partners of their children. Sometimes the parents have keen insight into the personalities of their children, seeing blind spots that the offspring themselves are unable to perceive. In the earlier example of a person with an inordinate need to be mothered attracting someone with an inordinate need to mother, a discerning parent might spot the mismatch and caution against it. If a parent is opposed to a marriage relationship, it is extremely important to know why. When Am I Ready to Get Married? After seeking counsel, having a clear understanding of what we are hoping for, and having examined our expectations of marriage, the final decision is left to us. At this point, some face paralysis as the day of decision draws near. How does one know when he or she is ready to get married? Wisdom dictates that we enter into serious premarital study, evaluation, and counseling with competent counselors so that we may be warned of the pitfalls that come in this new and vital human relationship. With the breakdown of so many marriages in our culture, increasing numbers of young people fear entering into a marriage contract lest they become “statistics.” Sometimes we need the gentle nudge of a trusted counselor to tell us when it is time to take the step. What things need to be faced before taking the actual step toward marriage? Economic considerations are, of course, important. Financial pressures imposed on a relationship that is already besieged with emotional pressures of other kinds can be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel’s back. That is why parents often advise young people to wait until they finish their schooling or until they are gainfully employed so that they can assume the responsibility of a family. It is not by accident that the creation ordinance of marriage mentions that a man shall leave his father and mother and “hold fast to” his wife, and the two shall become “one flesh.” The “leaving and cleaving” dimensions are rooted in the concept of being able to establish a new family unit. Here, economic realities often govern the preparedness for marriage. Entering into marriage involves far more than embarking on new financial responsibilities. The marriage commitment is the most serious one that two human beings can make to each other. A person is ready to get married when he or she is prepared to commit to a particular person for the rest of his or her life, regardless of the human circumstances that befall them. In order for us to understand the will of God for marriage, it is imperative that we pay attention to God’s preceptive will. The New Testament clearly shows that God not only ordained marriage and sanctified it, He regulates it. His commandments cover a multitude of situations regarding the nitty-gritty aspects of marriage. The greatest textbook on marriage is sacred Scripture, which reveals God’s wisdom and His rule governing the marriage relationship. If someone earnestly wants to do the will of God in marriage, his first task is to master what Scripture says that God requires in such a relationship. What does God expect of His children who are married or thinking about getting married? God expects, among other things, faithfulness to the marriage partner, provision of mutual needs, and mutual respect under the lordship of Christ. Certainly the couple should enhance each other’s effectiveness as Christians. If not, something is wrong. While celibacy is certainly no less blessed and honorable a state than marriage, we have to recognize Adam and Eve as our models. God’s plan involved the vital union of these two individuals who would make it possible for the earth to be filled with their “kind.” Basically, I cannot dictate God’s will for anyone in this area any more than I can or would in the area of occupation. I will say that good marriages require hard work and individuals willing to make their marriages work. What happens in our lives is cloaked ultimately in the mystery of God’s will. The joy for us as His children is that the mystery holds no terror—only waiting, appropriate acting on His principles and direction, and the promise that He is with us forever. Sproul, R. C. (2009). Can I Know God’s Will? (Bd. 4, S. i–102). Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing.

Published: September 21, 2016, 09:13 | Comments Off on Bible Teaching: Knowing GOD´s will- by Archbishop Uwe AE.Rosenkranz
Category: Bible teaching, Bishop Rosenkranz, Christian, contextualization




Archiv + Cloud

RSS feed