Gadfly's Muse:

This Perfect Union.....

[Texas In The Spring, 2010 - rendered as oil painting]

Heb. 2:10,11: 10 For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 11 For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren...

The "mystery" of the incarnation shall remain eternally beyond our finite, creaturely understanding. We can know something of it, even, by our standards, a lot about it, but to fully understand it.... no, it is just too holy... too wondrous... too incredible.

It remains to old men, I think, to rejoice at the degree of their ignorance. Young folks are so inclined to comprehensive assertions. It is not enough to know one or two things and rejoice in that. The zeal of youth is to make encompassing claims. "This is how things are...." Because only the elementary things can be stated categorically and finally, youth does not aspire to go further. Thus, speaking of the incarnation, youth is content to say "God became man....", enough said. That's it... what more do I need to know... that's the comprehensive truth. There is no rejoicing that the depths of that statement remain unexplored in their minds... or the wonder that is hidden in it has not filled their hearts. There's too much to do "out there" in the big old world that promises so much, to dawdle over mystery.

But what a joy it is to lose one's self in that deep pool. What comfort it brings to the soul to have its implications begin to register, not only in our minds but in our hearts.

Here's something that moved me this week.¹

When the Eternal Son of God took on flesh and became Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ of God... He did not become "Man" as such. He did not become comprehensive "Man", "Man" in the abstract, universal sense. The Christ became Elect Man. He united Himself to those He came to save and He united them to Himself, in such a way that a "perfect union" was established. He did not just take on their sins in the sense that they were "added" to Him. He became their sin (2 Cor. 5:21)² because in some mysterious and blessed way, He became the sinner. All of their present reality was united to Him. From the original sin imputed to them by the death of their first parent Adam, to the sins of omission and commission that characterize their lives from birth to death, all are borne by Him because the sinner and He are inseparable.

But, on the other hand, the sinner being united to Christ now, without blasphemy, is also united to His holiness, His perfection and amazingly enough, His obedience. As Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ of God, took up His calling under the Covenant of Redemption, as He gladly commenced His work on earth and did all that His Father and our Father commanded, so, we being united to Him and in Him, in a sense did these works also. As He was obedient even to the cross so we, by virtue of our union with Him, are fully and (thanks Witsius for this) justly deserving of the reward He gains from it. His righteousness is imputed to us and credited to our account because of this marvelous mystery of His Being. The writer of Hebrews so profoundly and beautifully sums it up: "For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one... He is not ashamed to call them brethren." Witsius develops this beautifully while carefully limiting how far it can be taken.

What a mind boggling and deeply moving truth this is. Is there a soul, that claims to be born again, that can be so dull, so quenched, that it cannot be stirred to astonishment at this? Jesus, even in glory, is still united to us... His elect, who are distinguished from all the rest of mankind by the gift and badge of faith. Because of this "perfect union", we cannot fail to be "where He is" because, in a sense, we are already there. He has ascended to heaven and, in Him, so have we. Our lives in these tents are lived with a longing to complete the "one flesh" relationship that is our true marriage (Eph. 5:30) and our assurance is certain. God would have to deny Himself for this ultimate consummation to be withheld from us. God would have to lie... He would have to be unfaithful... He would have to be a god other than Himself for this union with Christ to be broken, because it was this union with us that constituted the very substance of the Covenant of Redemption between Father and Son before the dawn of Creation. God, the Son, united Himself to us, the true seed of Abraham (Heb. 2:16) and God the Father promised that this union would never be broken.

Amazing grace... how great the sound. Wonderful grace of Jesus, ....greater than all my sin. No condemnation, now I fear,... Jesus and all in Him is mine.

Bless the Lord, Oh my soul, and all that is within me... bless His Holy Name.

¹ Pondering Witsius' development of Christ as our Surety in "The Economy of the Covenants, Bk. II, Ch. 4, sect. III

²my translation: "was made sin"

Posted by Gadfly on February 04, 2016 at 10:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Common Ground on Poverty

[Annapolis Rock Sunset, Texture Added, 2010]

Matthew 26:11 (NKJV)

¹¹For you have the poor with you always, but Me you do not have always.

See Background Article HERE

The New York Times article by Eduardo Porter sets a hopeful but cautious tone.

It appears that a bi-partisan (Liberals/Conservatives) committee issued a report in December¹ where some agreement was reached about things we can do to alleviate some of the poverty in these United States. Mr. Porter calls the poverty problem "entrenched" and provides a link to a data base which supports his claim that it is deepest in American "among advanced industrialized nations."

It is good to hear that thinkers are talking across ideological lines and I hope that some of the things that he reports are taken further in the discussion. There are subjective caveats applied on the left and right but the willingness to find common ground is good..

Here, as always though, I wonder if the unspoken presuppositions that underlie the conclusions should give us pause.

For example... the idea that the US has the most entrenched poverty among all industrialized nations. If we read the "small print," the measure is against the poverty line for each individual country, not against a common standard. It is " taken as half the median household income of the total population." (HERE) Clearly that number would make the threshold for poverty in the United States at a significantly higher total value (in comparative purchasing power) than in other nations. It comes out to about $23K for a family with two adults and four kids. I agree that this is not a lot of money but given the social situation in this country, does it reflect the associated despair that a similar situation in another country might engender? I am a bit uncomfortable with how "poverty" is defined.

But of far greater concern to me is the unspoken presupposition reported by Mr. Porter, that the government has the primary responsibility to "fix it." Here conservatives and liberals seem to be agreeing on the "who" and only differing on the "how." This is the crux of the issue.

As a Christian, before we start talking about "what to do about poverty", I think we need to ask "why does poverty exist?"

This, of course, falls under the over-arching heading: "Why does God allow evil to exist?" The only pious answer to that question is "because it serves His good purposes to do so." Once we get beyond that over-arching question and answer though, we recognize that each form of evil serves God's good purposes in its own way. "Poverty" is not a moral evil in the experience of it. Inflicting poverty on others through unjust treatment certainly is a moral evil. Bringing poverty on one's self through laziness or through gambling addiction or something similar, certainly is a moral evil. But, in and of itself, poverty is not a moral evil and therefore does not contaminate the individuals who are subjected to it.

Christians are prone to error here in assuming that, in a country like ours, if someone is poor it is because they are morally responsible for it. This just ain't so and we need to guard against it.

Next, if poverty is present and we believe it serves God's good purposes, what then are those purposes? I think that here is where we also begin to address the issue of whether it is the government that is primarily responsible to deal with it. The Scriptures call for the people of God to strive for economic justice in the world about them. That is a broad statement and I simply cannot go beyond the immediate question of poverty here. But I believe that God has ordained the "poor to be with us" as a proving ground for the Kingdom of God. Jesus said that He came to preach good news to the poor (Luke 4:18). Throughout Scripture God has a special interest in the unjustly deprived, the widow, the orphan, the defenseless among His people. I believe God intends for His people to shine as stars among the fallen generations of this world by the way that they care for the poor among them. Paul teaches us in Galatians that we are to do good things for all people but especially for the household of God. Our care for the poor "of the world" should just be a side benefit for our first duty to care for the poor among our Christian brothers and sisters. We are not to be haughty nor are we to be harshly discriminatory in this, but the witness of the Christian church ought to be that "there are no poor" among us. (Deut. 15:4)

What kind of witness would it be to the world if the local church took on a larger role in immediate loving assistance to those, within its membership, who are struggling to make ends meet. If one of our brothers or sisters is in a family with a total income of $23k or less, what kind of witness would it be if the church (perhaps through its deacons): was able to get them off food stamps?... would seriously undertake to network through the denomination or sister churches in the region, to find job opportunities? ... would be able to provide child care so that both parents could work if absolutely necessary?

It is so easy to "let the government do it." It has become so ingrained in our culture that the mere contemplation of an alternative approach seems silly. Why not let them use food stamps? They're available... the family qualifies... why not?

Why not? First, and most importantly, we should question whether or not this is what God wants. Does He allow the poor "to be always" with us so that the government gets all the glory for meeting their physical needs? Second, where is the Christian witness if we neglect the opportunity? Does this not make us just like every other benevolent organization? What commends the Christian Church over other groups of people then? Third, how can the gospel be preached to the poor if the government has a more important relationship with them than does the Church? The most important way we can help an individual in need is to combine our physical assistance with the offer of a discipling relationship. This is most possible when the poor are within the Church, but it can be extended in an evangelistic setting also.

The point is this. This article sees hope in a possible consensus among conservatives and liberals regarding what to do about the poor. It's good for conservatives and liberals to talk... I am all for it. But as long as the talk always assumes that the government is the first responder to the needs of the poor... we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Posted by Gadfly on February 03, 2016 at 11:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Guest Blogger: Gun Ownership and Correlative Issues -

[Hat, with texture: 2010]

Sometimes something I write prompts a reader to respond with more than a comment and asks that it be posted in a separate blog entry. With the usual conditions (I get to edit unduly inflammatory language, unseemly expressions, etc.) I am happy to oblige. This one is from my brother who I freely admit makes me look positively liberal in comparison. He has seen the world change even more than I and that counts for a lot.

Guest Essay:

W. S. Van Devender, Sr.

I own guns - rifles, handguns, shotguns -, and I resent being lumped together with that crazy, irresponsible group that has no concern for the fact that some idiots take advantage of the availability of guns in our country for irrational purposes.

I am proud that our country was founded, fought for, and defended by people who owned guns, or people who did not care that others owned them. It was (is) a freedom that, if our country was still dedicated to individual freedom, would show the world that we are free and individually responsible for our freedoms. To curtail that freedom would be the same as admitting that we can no longer be free in one of the ways that we have enjoyed for almost two hundred and fifty years. What will be next? We can no longer worship except in approved groups? We can no longer take photographs unless specifically approved? We can no longer voice our concerns in public? Rescind one freedom and the whole system is less than what was intended by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

What should be done?

We should enforce existing law.

We should recognize that not all aliens are integrable with our society until perhaps the third generation. All resident aliens must be identified and put on probationary status with education requirements. The borders must be sealed against illegal entry.

We should have real education in our public schools so that our society will be well served by successive generations.

We should strive to break this two-wage earners per family culture and promote at-home child rearing.

We should have a no-holds-barred approach to restricting the influx of illegal drugs, and the distribution and use of such drugs. All nations should be be made aware, at the risk of military incursion or retaliation, that they must have active drug control measures vis-a-vis drug entry into the U.S.

How many of the "allow-no-guns" advocates are social drug users? How much does their behavior contribute to the existence of the providers and the associated violence among them?

The people of the United States, the corporations of the United States, and the Congress should adopt a "National Security" attitude about the drug culture problem. Increased military strength and a total shake-down of our drug control measures would be necessary.

We should recognize that automatic weapons should not be in the hands of anyone who is not specifically licensed to own them.

We should, as a society, recognize that the weapons are not the real problem, but that our society fails to inculcate into our people the necessity for individual responsibility in all instances of behavior.

We must guard against the tendency toward total regulation of individual prerogatives. The ultimate is dictatorship. Be careful what you demand of government - you might get it!

Well, I don't know. Maybe a crowded society is incapable of freedom. I'll just resist losing mine in the hope, however improbable, that we might return to a society of sensible people;

W. S VanDevender, Jr

Dec. 4, 2015

Posted by Gadfly on February 02, 2016 at 01:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

What's Ahead?

[Focused On The Horizon, 2010]

Isaiah 21:6 (NKJV)

⁶ For thus has the Lord said to me: Go, set a watchman, Let him declare what he sees.”

I suppose I will never know how those early frontiersmen felt. "The West" at one time was the Blue Ridge mountains. It was so densely forested that a man had to follow deer trails, leading his horse and pack mule, hacking the underbrush, not at all certain that a hostile Indian might not be drawing a bead on him, and having no maps, each clearing presented a storehouse of new information.

At some point, one of them stood on a rock like this, on the crest of the "mountain" and saw, for the first time, the richness of the valley ahead. I can imagine him there, staring intently, letting the scene fill his soul even as he sought out details for his further travel. Perhaps he saw a meadow, filled with bison or deer. There was at least one river out there which promised quicker and easier travel once a canoe was constructed. There ... ahead... was a vision and a hope.

In my mind's eye I think that man, ripe as he was from his exertions, lean as a willow reed because of his spare diet and high octane life style, was yet willing to linger there for a time. I think his soul required quiet and refreshment and so he may have pondered the view throughout the remaining sunlight hours and even under the stars. A hope filled future can do that for a man.

But a high rock can have another purpose, it can provide a vantage point for a watchman.

We have arrived at a kind of promontory in our national travels. Like a traveler cresting a mountain, I think we have come to a kind of divide between the past and the future that sharply differentiates the one from the other.

There is a new energy stirring and the movement of events foretell that old landmarks, past guidelines, even what passed as common knowledge and common sense, will be viewed differently and perhaps despised altogether. "Politics as usual" is now understood as a cause for revolution and the old paths of religion, morality, patriotism, vocation, relationships, family and social manners, are widely disparaged or viewed as relics of a near Neanderthal ignorance.

Have you ever stopped to consider why "Downton Abbey" is so popular... and with whom it is popular? If there is any appeal to the story it lies mostly in the solidity of the social order, a solidity that allowed for change but only slowly, and most importantly a sense of mutual respect growing out of a near universally endorsed code of manners. It presents a picture of personal pride, where servants bow to their "lord" but without ever sacrificing their own self-worth or self-respect. Civility of tone and manner was the coinage of freedom because an abuse of freedom was "simply not acceptable." It is, of course, a myth in some respects. Camelot never existed nor was there a real "Downton Abbey" in the sense it is presented, but that doesn't make it any less appealing.

Paradoxically it is this perceived "past" that is being rejected in the lynch mob mentality that is currently ascendant. There is little evidence that a calm assessment of what lies ahead, given that the nation and the world take this path or another, is happening. Visions of utopia are pursued through the sole or primary mechanism of the cry: "let us tear down what is not working." In the space of my life time certainly and within my limited grasp of history, there has not been this severe a challenge to our social order since the War Between the States. Now is the time that watchmen need to be called and set in place for the future is beginning to be show itself a bit.

The Iowa caucuses are over... the results are mixed... but they highlight the need for watching. An openly avowed Socialist with a hysterical economic agenda has virtually tied with a demonstrably untrustworthy opponent with equally hysterical political objectives, for the Democratic nomination. A man who has promised to "bomb them until they glow in the dark" has just eeked out a majority over a pompous egomaniac who claims that he will deal us into a very hazy, "beautiful" future based on his personality alone. There is little cause for rejoicing in any of these results. We have reason to be anxious.

"Set the watchman", the Lord told Isaiah. Look to see what is about to happen! "Discern the times" was our Lord's challenge to the Pharisees. So it is with us. The alarm needs to be rung. The calming platitude "it will all work out" must be rejected. It is wrong to cry out "peace" when there is no peace. Those who can climb the hill and gaze out at what appears to be ahead must begin to speak and to point us toward the obstacles that they see and the paths by which they may be bypassed or overcome. It is a time for requiring solutions... plainly spoken and clearly defined... rather that slogans. And even more, it is a time for people to reject those whose only ability is to voice those slogans.

Posted by Gadfly on February 02, 2016 at 10:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Faith As A Political Selling Point?

[Still Life, 2016]

[New York Times Article HERE]

Mat. 23:5 But all their works they do to be seen by men.....

I am afraid that Frank Bruni has a point, though I don't like agreeing with him. The campaign rhetoric gushing out in this final sprint to the Iowa caucuses makes me more than a bit uncomfortable.

Christians must not be shy violets regarding their faith. Christ didn't die on the cross so that we hide our lights in a closet. I do not believe that there is any such thing as a "private" Christian faith. Jesus Himself said that if we do not confess Him before men then He will not confess us before His Father in heaven. So, Christians should desire to make their faith known, they should long to praise God for what He has done for them and for the world, they should enthusiastically seek out opportunities to turn conversations to the spiritual realm and extol the virtues of Christ and His Visible Church.

But... uh... when should it be offered up as a political selling point? Should a candidate argue that his or her own Christian faith is better, more virtuous, more sincere that "the other guy's." Especially when other candidates also present themselves as Christians. (Here I am deliberately not going to address the relative merits of denominations, etc.)

I suppose that I should address the question dialectically.

On the one hand I think the faith stance of a candidate for public office IS important when viewing their relative merits. I don't care what anyone says, religion is grounded in morality and, on one extreme, if some guy's religion has more in common with Jezebel of Thyratira (Rev. 2:18ff) than Peter or Paul, then I would definitely fear the moral agenda he would set for the nation. In this case it would be a deciding factor for me. There are some religions that would simply preclude me voting for one of their adherents.

In that same vein, if a candidate has a life history of vigorous Christian activity, it would definitely color my overall impression of his integrity. Jimmy Carter comes to mind here. I would not vote for him for president because I differ with his political views, but I readily confess that he appears to be a brother in Christ and I do not doubt his integrity. I would not confess our current president in a similar fashion.

So, on the positive side, I think that a person's faith should be taken into account at some level, with subjective qualifiers based on the immediate individual.

But to what extent should candidates make their own faith an issue? What bothers me about this question is that it flows from Evangelicals becoming a "voting", or political, block. Candidates start "showing off" their faith when they think the mere fact of their faith is of first importance to the voters. The peril of hypocrisy here is so blatantly evident that we Evangelicals ought to consider how we are putting a stumbling block in our "brother's" path... how we are tempting them to this sin. This is especially critical when we begin to see high level candidates actually diminishing their opponent's faith, making light of it, rather than being concerned for their spiritual state. How ugly this is! How seriously does this undermine our efforts to influence the wider culture when we act like just one more political ideology?

I am very much in favor of Christian activism and Christian vocation as part of the witness of God's people. I do not believe that a Christian should put his or her religion on the shelf once taking office. I abhor the idea that all Christians engaged in governing should use only "natural reason" and "secular arguments" to advance their agenda or even in enacting laws. But the very last thing our Lord desires of us, His people, is that we make the "show" of religion a rung on the ladder of secular success.

I believe these current candidates, several of whom I highly respect, are erring in this regard. Those candidates which are blatantly hypocritical (let the reader understand) in their profession of faith are, I think, easily recognized as such. Evangelicals should not only take this evident hypocrisy into account, but I think it perhaps should rise to the level of disqualifying them from our vote. This doesn't need to be shouted by their opponents. The Lord's command that we take care of the log in our own eye applies to presidential candidates every bit as much as it does to the rest of us.

I think that a simple statement of faith by a candidate for office, as part of a resume if you will, should suffice. Once made public it should simply be referenced if questions arise, but that is about as far as I think it should go. Let the concerned citizen inquire into the candidate's history of church attendance and check their general biography of "walking the walk", but it violates Christian decorum for an opponent to make it a political issue.

That being said... as far as Bill Clinton is concerned... his "public" sin was shameful and was (and is) open to political attack. This goes back to my first point above and I think it balances out the picture.

In this as in all things, I believe Christians must seek wisdom and discernment in our expectations of political candidates. Though a Christian profession is not, in my mind, a necessary and sufficient pre-requisite for public office yet it is definitely a positive attribute. In cases where one has to choose between a Christian candidate whose political views are unacceptable (Jimmy Carter) and a non-Christian candidate who poses no threat to the Christian community, of acceptable moral standard, and has a better political agenda, then I would state that the Christian profession is not a "necessary" condition in that case.

We Christians should guard ourselves in what we demand from political candidates so as not to 'politicize' our faith. We cannot simply blame them for this recent unpleasantness... we are guilty to some extent also.

Posted by Gadfly on February 01, 2016 at 12:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Gadfly's Muse

The truth may be one, but it sounds less like a single wavering note than like a symphony. D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God

My Life Verse

About

Stuff

Become a Fan

February 04, 2016

This Perfect Union.....

February 03, 2016

Common Ground on Poverty

February 02, 2016

Guest Blogger: Gun Ownership and Correlative Issues -

What's Ahead?

February 01, 2016

Faith As A Political Selling Point?

Recent Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Categories