Stay Awake!
We are to be ready to open the door, whether on the second or third watch of the night. We are to be ready to open to the Master no matter what time it is. So, again and put simply, we are to have our loins girded so that we might be ready to open the door for the Master! Now, what is being said? What is being taught? The lesson is about saving faith. In other words, Jesus is telling us that we must have faith. Faith alone saves (Romans 3:22, 25; 10:30-32; Phil. 3:9). Now, this behooves us to ask about the nature of faith. What is it?
When the Lord says in Luke 12:35, “Stay dressed for action and keep your lamps burning…” we immediately begin nosing around the text looking for what it means to “stay dressed” and keep the “lamps burning.” In other words, what is the action we are looking for that requires us to steer clear of bedclothes and keep the energy bills high? What are we being charged to do? What is required of us in this text? Such questions deserve our mental energy. So, take a minute to open your Bible to Luke 12:35-40 and ask yourself, “What is the action for which I am to be prepared?” What is the thing I must do?
Go ahead, I’ll wait.
Did you find it? Yes, we are to “gird our loins” or tuck our robes into our belt so as to be ready to move and we are to keep the lights on so as to be ready, even in the night. But ready for what? Ready to do what? The fact of the matter is the text doesn’t say. So, Biblical scholars often go backward in their search for the action. Thus, girding up our loins means ready to tackle anxiety (v. 22ff), being ready to fend off greed (v. 13ff), or having the boldness to acknowledge the Lord before men (v. 8ff). All of these things come earlier in chapter 12, but the fact is they are not part of the 12:35-40. So, what does that text say about the action for which we are to be ready?
The answer is simple. We are to be ready to open the door, whether on the second or third watch of the night. We are to be ready to open to the Master no matter what time it is.
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
A Christian Funeral Service or A “Celebration of Life” Service?
I humbly suggest there should be a funeral service of witness to the resurrection of Christ to help us grieve properly, and hope substantively, knowing that Christ has indeed defeated death. While our hearts are tender and our minds are anxious with the thought of being without one we love, the message of a certain resurrection to come-as promised and proven by Christ- is exactly what is needed.
The recent funeral activities for the longtime Queen of England prompted me to address the importance of the Christian practice of grieving the loss of loved ones as a church community. In particular, the increasingly common American evangelical practice of conducting a “Celebration of Life” service rather than a funeral service provokes this brief article.
Historically, Christian funeral services make the truth of the gospel and the resurrection of Christ the focus and hope for those understandably and rightly grieving the death of a loved one. Such a service declares Christian truth in the face of our worst enemy- death. It prompts those attending to consider their own mortality. Such a service does not shy away from grief, but rather helps us to grieve with hope. The body of the deceased (normally) being present, does not allow us to color coat the reality of what sin has brought and none of us will escape unless Christ returns first. The declaration of God’s Word meets our grief with gospel surety and a future hope. One leaves a true Christian funeral service having been helped to mourn properly and more focused on Christ. When we think of the deceased, we are comforted knowing they are alive together with Christ. We even find joy in the midst of sorrow knowing there will be a reunion of believers in the not too distant future. We will have plenty of time to remember past interactions with our departed loved one as the months and years unfold (indeed, we should make remembering them a regular part of our lives going forward), but the funeral service is about Christ first and the certainty we find in Him.
So called “celebrations of life” cannot help but focus on the person who died more than anything else. Such services are relatively recent inventions that probably come from (at least partially) a desire to avoid the reality, ugliness, and finality of death, hence the name of the service. Though well-intentioned, such services often become embellishments of the person who died, laden with sentimentality and emotionalism. Grieving is not usually a real part of such services, in fact, a sort of “the person wouldn’t want us to be sad” message is given. It’s almost like such services try to suspend grief. “Bob wouldn’t want us to be crying and sad right now,” is the kind of vibe that is often given by such services. I suggest, if Bob would actually want to pause from his heavenly, contented basking in the glorious presence of Christ, he would tell us something like, “Who cares that I taught theater, told corny jokes, and was a good cook? Believe and praise the risen Christ! I am alive in glory because of Him!” I suspect Bob would exhort us to have a funeral service of witness to the resurrection of Christ in response to his departure, not a celebration of his life, as such. There will be plenty of time and occasions to memorialize Bob and think of his contributions to our lives. However, immediately after his death, enroute to burial, I humbly suggest there should be a funeral service of witness to the resurrection of Christ to help us grieve properly, and hope substantively, knowing that Christ has indeed defeated death. While our hearts are tender and our minds are anxious with the thought of being without one we love, the message of a certain resurrection to come-as promised and proven by Christ- is exactly what is needed.
Whatever we might call a service for a Christian loved one who died:Christ should be the focus.
Grieving is proper, necessary, and OK.
Any “celebration” should be about Christ’s victory over the grave, and people should leave thinking of Christ more than the deceased.But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep (1 Thessalonians 4:13–14).
Dr. Anthony J. Felich is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is Pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Overland Park, Kansas.
Related Posts: -
Don’t Criticize Your In-Group in the Out-Group’s Forums
Written by Aaron M. Renn |
Tuesday, December 19, 2023
If you criticize your in-group in the out-group’s forum, using the value system of the out-group, don’t be surprised if you alienate a lot of people and receive a lot of hate in return. Maybe that’s something you don’t care about or even relish. Sadly, in today’s world, hate is a commodity you can monetize. Regardless, thinking about the venue where you say something is a important as thinking about what it is you actually want to say.Where you say something can be as important as what you say.
It’s a good thing to want to hold your own people accountable. But where and how to do that is important.
I recently wrote an op-ed criticizing the idea of Christian nationalism. I said Yes when asked to do this because it was for the American Mind, a publication of the very conservative Claremont Institute. I would not have written it for a liberal publication or one with the reputation of being hostile to Christian nationalism.
When I worked for the Manhattan Institute, I observed that one of the easiest ways for a conservative to get positive coverage or an op-ed placed in the in an elite media publication was to criticize Republicans or conservatives using the left’s value system as the rationale. Some Never Trump types turned this into de facto full time gigs.
I myself once wrote an article criticizing Protestant church architecture for a Catholic architecture journal. I did it because I held the editor and the publication in high regard – and still do. But I realized in retrospect I should not have done that. I should not have criticized an element of Protestantism in a Catholic publication. It would only reinforce the Catholic sense of their own superiority.
I think my ideas were broadly right, but I chose the wrong venue to express them.
I resolved not to do that again. For example, I have been a critic of the how Indiana’s Republicans have governed the state. Surely one of the national publications where I have bylines would love to receive a pitch from me trashing the Indiana GOP. But I don’t want to create bad national press for my state. And I especially don’t want to do it by catering to the left’s value system, reinforcing their moral hegemony. So I elected to write a long piece in a niche policy journal American Affairs instead.
When I started this newsletter, I set as one of my guiding principles, “Don’t criticize other Christians in the liberal secular media if you can avoid it, and certainly do not criticize them from the secular value system of the publication in question.”
I’d rather have a smaller audience for my ideas than gain a big one by flattering the sensibilities of people who don’t like evangelicals or conservatives.
Elite media like the Washington Post and New York Times figured out that the lure of a byline in those places would be too tempting for many conservative Christians to ignore. Those Christians were willing to write harshly critical op-eds for those publications that used the value system of the secular publications for their critiques.
We’ve seen this many times already, from Russell Moore, David French, and a relatively small group of others whose names repeatedly occur in anti-evangelical media hit pieces.
Read More
Related Posts: -
An Appeal to Southern Baptists to Support the Pro-life Cause
If you are a Southern Baptist and you care about the pro-life cause in the SBC, now is the time to make your voice heard. Speak up for the incremental gains we have made over the last several decades, and keep pushing the ball down the field until we get into the endzone.
I am writing this short essay as an appeal to Southern Baptists who care about the pro-life cause. Right now, there is an effort underway by what I believe to be a tiny minority in the SBC to reverse the SBC’s longstanding commitment to the pro-life cause. They call themselves “Abolitionists,” but they are not the only ones who support the abolition of abortion. All sides of this debate want to see abortion abolished. The Abolitionists, however, condemn and repudiate the pro-life movement’s efforts to restrict abortion in whatever measure possible.
After the Roe decision in 1973, the pro-life movement eventually coalesced around an incrementalist strategy to abolish abortion. Pro-lifers realized that because Roe prevented them from passing laws to outright end abortion, they would have to take whatever ground they could to save as many unborn lives as possible. So we have tried to pass parental notification laws. We’ve supported the Hyde Amendment to prevent taxpayer funded abortions. We’ve supported fetal heartbeat laws in an attempt to outlaw abortion. We supported and passed a ban on the reprehensible procedure known as partial birth abortion. Etc.
The so-called Abolitionist movement condemns all of these measures as compromises with evil. The abolitionists even oppose any exception to save the life of a mother. The only laws or public policies they support are ones that completely abolish abortion all at once. Anything short of that fails to honor the humanity of the unborn. Not only do Abolitionists oppose pro-life policies, they also publicly condemn and shame pro-lifers as compromisers with evil.
To use a football analogy, pro-lifers would love to have a 100-yard touchdown run. But if that isn’t possible, then pro-lifers are eager and willing to take 5-10 yard runs in a sustained drive down the field toward the same end. Abolitionists only accept 100-yard touchdown runs. Anything short a 100-yard touchdown run should be condemned and repudiated as a grave compromise with evil. That’s the difference between the pro-life movement and so-called Abolitionism. It’s not about the final goal of abolishing abortion but about how to get there. Pro-lifers will take whatever ground they can get. Abolitionists are all-or-nothing.
If we had followed an Abolitionist strategy, we would not be on the cusp of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. The Mississippi fetal heartbeat law that is the basis for the Supreme Court’s recently-leaked Dobbs decision is a pro-life, incrementalist law. Abolitionists oppose that law and thereby support an all-or-nothing approach that would have undermined the most significant pro-life victory in two generations.
Southern Baptists have expressed themselves clearly decade after decade in resolution after resolution to be on the side of the pro-life movement. Southern Baptist resolutions have long supported incrementalist measures to abolish abortion. We have put ourselves on the side of those moving the ball down the field 5-10 yards at a time. We would welcome a 100-yard dash for the endzone. But short of that, we’ve been more than willing to support measures to take whatever ground we can get. That is why we have supported legislation to outlaw partial birth abortion, to keep the Hyde Amendment in place, to pass parental notification laws, etc. Our record on this goes back at least 41 years.
Read More
Related Posts: