When we say, “I’ll pray for you,” it can often also become a way of exiting the conversation. When someone is sharing details that are too intimate or too uncomfortable or too painful, we can extricate ourselves pretty neatly with a statement like that. But in asking, “How would you like me to pray?” we are actually pressing in. We are inviting more disclosure. More knowledge. More intimacy. We are choosing to step closer rather than step away, and this is what a true friend does. A true friend presses in.

Friendship Is Work
The older I get, the more convinced I become that it’s true. That’s because when you’re younger, you have natural and regular points of personal connection with the same group of people. You see them every day at school, you play beside them on the court or field, you sit next to them at lunch. These are friends, sure, but they are friends by association. Or, if you’re a little more cynical, they are friends of convenience.
But as you get older, you become more established. You acquire more and more responsibilities. The schedule gets busier. And as a result, friendships are affected. You no longer have as many of these natural and regular connections, and as a result, you have to work at friendships. Every relationship has a cost, and you have to subconsciously weigh the value of that relationship against the cost in time, resources, and energy it will take to maintain and grow it.
I suppose, then, it’s a bit natural that real friendships get smaller in number the older you get. Natural, but still a bit sad. Perhaps that’s one of the many reasons why moving into the empty nest phase of life is so difficult – it’s because parents center their lives around their children, and with the children moving out and moving on, they find a lack of shared interests and a lack of other relationships.
Read More
Related Posts:

What makes me sad is that over the centuries hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions, of brave men died successfully protecting the West against the invasion of Muslims. Yet, in the last thirty years or so, our governments have essentially surrendered to Islam and turned places like London, Malmo (Sweden), the Twin Cities, the Paris suburbs, and other Western cities into strongholds of Islam. From which, unless Westerners and Muslims both repent, it looks like the Islamic invasion may succeed because of the West’s moral and intellectual decline.

There’s been a lot of online banter about both Churchill and the Crusades.
My main response is that it is amazing how many people want to judge history based on modern events and perspectives. We have seen this recently with the American founding, the Civil War, etc. And now with Churchill.
Was Churchill an imperialist? Absolutely. And that was wrong. But at the time it counted most, Churchill fought against German imperialism, going to the defense of smaller countries to keep them from being swallowed up by the Third Reich. His actions ultimately led to the demise of the British Empire, which no longer had the men or wealth to stay whole. Churchill’s actions were the opposite of Franklin Delanor Roosevelt’s response to Soviet aggression. He abandoned much of Eastern Europe to the Soviet Empire. And used the war to expand the American empire. Historian Darryl Cooper is wrong to call Churchill the “villain” of WWII using his revisionist history.
On to the Crusades. Apparently, some in the church are using the Crusades as a motivational tool to get young men to run from the feminized version of men being taught in much of our culture. This has led some to suggest that using as models men who led many men, women, and children to their deaths in the name of Holy War might not be best for our young men today.
The Crusades are a mixed bag. Much of what happened in the Crusades can be laid squarely at the feet of popes who used them to gain power and wealth.
Read More
Related Posts:

I think we make a mistake by believing we are keeping this commandment by not bowing down to images. Of course, there are modern controversies that could be discussed, such as the Catholic practice of veneration of saints and the use of icons. There is also the distinction that some have made between religious worship and civil worship. Nevertheless, we should not be too quick to believe that we are never guilty of this ourselves. Human beings are image worshipers.

Exodus 20:4: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. [5] You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, [6] but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. (ESV)
If the first commandment is remarkable for its brevity, the second is for its length. Yahweh is at pains to make his people understand that, just as there is no place for gods in addition to him to worship, neither is there any room for a physical idol of any sort to receive worship.
The Second Commandment Then
What exactly is being prohibited here? On the face of it, it may appear that Yahweh is outlawing any artistic representations whatsoever. This would mean no carvings, drawings, sculptures, or moldings are allowed. But this is easily exposed as a flawed interpretation. There are multiple instances of likenesses prescribed for the Tabernacle and later the Temple. These exceptions push us to examine our text to determine the command’s delimitations. How far does it extend? What kinds of likenesses are disallowed, and why?
The key becomes clear in verse 5 when Yahweh prohibits bowing down to and serving these likenesses. This means that no likeness may be made which is intended to serve as an object of worship. It must also mean that any likeness already made, perhaps for some other purpose, may not become an object of worship. This means, in effect, that no representation of God may be made to serve as the object of worship and also that no object whatsoever, for any reason, may be worshiped.
The contrast to cultures contemporaneous to the giving of this law is easy enough. Biblical history is replete with accounts and mentions of idols, carvings, images, statues, and the like. From early in the Old Testament through the end of the New Testament and everywhere in between, people from every background, people, and family experience the push toward serving and bowing down to images.
The Second Commandment Now
It is harder to see what the breaking of this commandment looks like today.
Read More
Related Posts:

When you move from the Old Testament to the New Testament, you encounter the life of Jesus of Nazareth, and he seems to be the opposite of the son depicted in Deuteronomy 21:18–21. Whereas the son in Deuteronomy 21 wouldn’t obey the voice of his father or mother (Deut. 21:18), Jesus was an obedient son (Luke 2:51). The significance of Jesus’s obedience was in the fact that not only was he an individual Israelite who was keeping the law, he also represented the nation of Israel as their redeemer and Messiah. He was the true Israel.

Parents in the covenant community of Israel had to face the possibility that they might have, at some point, a rebellious son. The son might become so disobedient, in fact, that his defiance and covenant rejection would need the intervention of the community leaders. If this situation came to pass, the Israelites had guidance from Moses as to the course of action.
The father and mother “shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard’” (Deut. 21:19–20).
If the pattern of the son’s behavior had been characterized by such wickedness, then likely the elders of the city—and others in the city—already knew of such rebellion. This meeting at the city gates was a formal event, however. His covenant violations were pronounced. And the men of the city were to put the son to death, purging the evil from their midst (Deut. 21:21). There is a heaviness, an utter seriousness, to the whole proceeding. Unrepentant and belligerent evil reaps what it sows—the dire consequences of sin.
If you follow the narratives in the Old Testament after Deuteronomy, there is no story of the Israelites applying the preceding law to any of their sons. We don’t read about such a meeting at the city gates, we don’t hear those pronouncements, and we don’t see the penalty applied. Is that because Israelite parents wouldn’t apply the law? Perhaps. Or is it because not every case law has to have a corresponding narrative? Perhaps.
The law in Deuteronomy 21:18–21 takes on an intriguing significance when we read it in light of the nation as God’s son.
Read More
Related Posts:

Target, with its mascot puppy’s tail between its legs, officially “scaled back” its pride displays this June, limiting its best and brightest rainbow gear to just a few stores in “strategic” locations. Bud Light is a cautionary tale sure to be taught as a case study in marketing degree programs for years to come. Home improvement retailer Lowe’s is rumored to be planning a similar divorce from the LGBTQ cause soon.

I don’t know if you’ve heard, but your tractor supplier has decided to stop yelling at you.
If you’re one of the millions upon millions of Americans who could not care less about the personal political views of the people working at companies like John Deere, Ford, Target, and maybe even Lowe’s, there was some really good news recently: They’re going to stop telling you about them.
And if you’re one of the millions of Americans who care very much indeed about whether your purchasing power is supporting retailers who openly promote and agitate for evil, there’s even more good news: Many of these same retailers are backing away from shilling for progressive politics altogether.
A very disappointed Axios reported two weeks ago that the Ford Motor Company has joined a growing list of major U.S. companies in announcing an end to its diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and its decision to stop participating in the Human Rights Campaign Corporate Equality Index, which ranks some of America’s biggest companies every year on how well they support LGBTQ causes. Judging by the index, HRC quantifies that “support” by tallying the amount of money and the amount of time these companies—yes, even companies manufacturing farm equipment—are willing to spend promoting, celebrating, or generally talking exhaustively about so-called LGBTQ rights. In between the selling of the tractors, I guess.
Read More
Related Posts:

In his book, ‘The Beauty of the Lord’, Jonathan King makes a wonderful case that Beauty can be properly identified as a synonym for the glory of God. The implication is that Beauty is a divine attribute. King mentions such passages as Psalm 27:4; 96:6; and 145:5,12 which portray images of the crown, kingdom, and sanctuary of the Lord. These passages directly link to the theological concepts of God’s sovereignty and the kingship of Christ. This connection between the glory of God and Beauty is important because it generates a category for us to objectively evaluate whether something is beautiful or ugly.

Technology shapes the character of our everyday lives. Without it, we would have great difficulty getting to work, having our morning cup of coffee, and reading this article. My problem with technology is not that we have it, but that we have allowed it to shape our lives in a way that we barely recognize. What I mean is that technology is no longer a means of Godly stewardship, but that it now establishes its own worldview. 
The technological worldview urges us to buy, build, trade, and relate with the world in a way that resembles a vending machine. I put x in and out comes y. For example, many people go to work not because they know that it will stimulate the economy by producing valuable goods and services, but rather because it will give them a paycheck. Perhaps another example: the contemporary evangelical scene sees people attending church either because of the spiritual experience or to manipulate God by doing their Christian duty. In an extreme example, one could think of the use of pornography in American culture. Such a phenomenon arises out of a technological impulse that demands ease of access to something that—in a God ordered society—takes time, commitment, and genuine relationship to obtain. 
In a word, the technological worldview is bland. It’s ugly; and it’s ugly for some very specific reasons. My point in this article is to show that the only antidote to the technological worldview is a return to the classical and protestant vision of Beauty. 
Art, Technology, and Idolatry
At the outset, I want to make it clear that when I am discussing technology, I do not necessarily mean technological tools. These are things that can be genuinely useful and fall in line with the biblical notion of stewardship. I readily admit that technological tools have a place in God’s world, but it is the worldview behind the creation of tools that we ought to question. 
As I mentioned above, the technological worldview is ugly and in light of statements about beauty and ugliness it’s appropriate to turn to the topic of art. While art can certainly ascend to true beauty, there is an inherent danger in the human pursuit and use of it. In fact, it is the dangerous temptation that art poses to humanity that has aided in the development of the technological worldview. Technology has emerged out of a desire to reach the highest of human potential. While this aspiration is not entirely bad—think of all the lovely devices that you and I use to our genuine benefit—it has also caused us to become extremely self-centered and goal oriented. 
It is for this reason that I have taken to calling the technological worldview “the idol of the self.” This idolatry arises in the sphere of art as well. In his work of public theology, Abraham Kuyper writes about art and its dominion over humanity. While he does not directly correlate his work on art with technology, a retrospective eye sees the point clearly. He argues that, 
The human race cannot exist without a king. Once it has closed its eyes to the glory of Jesus’ kingship, the presence of sin could mean only one thing: humanity would proclaim itself king over nature, the world, and all of human life…what sets the tone and acts as the instrument for the new enthroned-humanities dominion is art, and it is through art that modern life attempts to satisfy its thirst for the ideal.1
Here we can see that the sphere of art and the sphere of technology occupy the same space. They both seek to “satisfy the thirst for the ideal.” By observing Kuyper’s further remarks, we notice an even stronger correlation between the two. He writes, “What art and religion have in common is that they depend on inspiration.”2 Here, Kuyper exposits the defining feature of art, religion, and technology. Even though he does not mention technology, its origin and the arts’ have a strong correlation. 
Both technology and its devices are derived from inspiration. This claim is rather obvious in regard to devices as they require an inventive mind to create them, but technology’s inspiration may not be so clear. Technology, unlike its subsequent devices, relies on inspiration not as a process, but as a fountainhead. The technological worldview presupposes inspiration by inventors, scientists, and the like in order to fuel their creation of inspired art: their devices. Thus, technology is not a virtueless endeavor, as it rises from human creativity to taking the place of religion as the inspired worldview. 
Herein lies the root of the problem. The technological worldview is a form of idolatry. Art, technology, and religion always derive their inspiration from the divine, but that “does not mean that art—or technology—itself acknowledges and recognizes this circumstance.” In its purest form, the quest for technological tools is not an unworthy pursuit in the realm of God’s created order. However, as Craig Gay notes in his work on Christian interaction with technology, it is an abandonment of the Christian worldview that drove the technological worldview into its idolized position.3 
When the technological worldview takes root in a society, it takes on the role of divinity. No longer is technological progress achieved in light of God’s inspiration, but technology itself becomes the inspiration for human creativity. In The Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin writes, “whenever scripture asserts the unity of God, it does not contend for a mere name, but also enjoins that nothing which belongs to divinity be applied to any other.”4 In North America, the technological worldview is widely assumed and left unquestioned. The problem with this disposition is that it passively allows technology to take on the role of inspirator, where the bible attributes inspiration to God alone. It is, therefore, idolatrous. 
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Derek W.H. Thomas |
Monday, September 16, 2024
God is not the author of sin. God ordains free agency. God allows for the attribution of events to more than one cause, though ultimately it is His own will. “But I don’t understand,” you may protest. You are in good company. Even John Calvin admitted as much. In his commentary on Romans, written early in his ministry when he had been evicted from Geneva, he wrote that “the predestination of God is indeed a labyrinth from which the mind of man can by no means extricate itself.” Care is needed when thinking about God’s sovereignty.

Things happen because God orders them to happen, orders them to happen before they happen, and orders them to happen in the way that they happen. This is a statement of God’s complete sovereignty.
Take Job, for example. In response to one of life’s unimaginable tragedies, losing all ten of his children in one day, Job exclaimed: “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord” (Job 1:21). And when Satan inflicted Job with a disease, Job’s response to his wife is sublime: “Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” (2:10).
It may appear absurd to some that Job expressed no anger at the loss of his children or the disease that brought him to within an inch of his life: “My bones stick to my skin and to my flesh, and I have escaped by the skin of my teeth” (19:20). How could he be so seemingly composed? The Apostle James points out Job’s “steadfastness” under trial (James 5:11). Though Job would lose his composure as the trial evolved, his faith in God’s complete sovereignty kept him calm and resolute, initially at least. Job lived his life under the dome of God’s complete control of all events. He believed in a world where God’s sovereignty was total. Events occur “according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Eph. 1:11). Or, to quote Paul again: “For those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose” (Rom. 8:28).
What does it mean to live under the dome of Ephesians 1:11 or Romans 8:28? It means peace and security even during hard times. The possibility of assurance that we have “an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for [us]” (1 Peter 1:4). This view of total divine causality, one that is perfectly compatible with human responsibility and action, brings about a “peace . . . that surpasses all understanding” and guards both our hearts and minds amid all kinds of trials (Phil. 4:7).
Outside this dome, there is uncertainty and confusion. Nothing is sure. We can be driving along the interstate highway and read a sign that says, “God is not in control between exit 48 and exit 53.” What would you do? God’s sovereignty does not guarantee that we will never make sinful choices or never be the victim of what appears to be a random act. We live in a world where there exists true creaturely agency. We make choices all day long: what clothes we wear, what food we order from a menu, when to go to bed, and when to rise from it. But all these are decisions made under the umbrella of God’s fatherly disposition and upholding of all events and actions. That is what Ephesians 1:11 and Romans 8:28 insist on.
This is the worldview that Joseph lived by. When his brothers sold him into a life of slavery and false imprisonment in Egypt, he told them: “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” (Gen. 50:20). There was human agency involved in the deliberate choices of his brothers. But there was also divine superintendence ensuring a definite outcome—“to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.” God’s sovereign hand ensured that when famine struck the land of the patriarchs, there would be a welcoming embrace of this covenant family in Egypt, thereby ensuring the continuation of God’s redemptive purposes.
Read More
Related Posts:

Vocation is another word for “calling.” Each of us must learn to “lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him” (1 Cor. 7:17). God has called you to do something special. And, while you don’t have to know exactly what that is, there is much you can do, right now, to get ready to flourish in that calling. 

This week the blog is sponsored by Reformed Free Publishing Association. Today’s post is written by William Boekestein, author of the  new book, Finding My Vocation: A Guide for Young People Seeking a Calling. William is a pastor and husband. He and his wife have four children: a college student, two high schoolers, and a middle schooler. He previously worked in residential construction and also taught in a Christian school. William has written numerous other books including Glorifying and Enjoying God: 52 Devotions through the Westminster Shorter Catechism.
What Should I Do with the Rest of My Life?
That’s a huge question, especially if you are young. You might have half a century or more of life in front of you. And the choices you make now can powerfully shape how those years are spent. A big chunk of those years will involve work, whether in the home or out in the world. You want your work to mean something. You don’t have to be rich or famous. But you were made to be productive, to impact God’s world for good (Gen. 1:28). 
At the same time, you can’t pin all your hopes on success in the workforce. Like all of life after the fall, work is “subjected to futility” (Rom. 8:20). It is vital that you understand what work can do for you, and others, and recognize its limitations. This is complicated! And if you consider all the options available to you, and the changing job market and uncertain economic future, trying to follow God’s plan for your work life can be intimidating, even scary. 
Read More
Related Posts:

In the days and weeks that followed the accident, Brian and his wife Amisha started noticing that God’s provision for them often came through relationships and events that had been set in motion long before their specific needs arose. Before Silas was born, God had inspired Amisha to train as a nurse, little knowing how her degree would eventually help her own child. The nurse who had trained her later became the patient care coordinator for the entire hospital, and she was the one on duty when the accident happened, ensuring that Silas received the best possible care in the best possible time. Six months before the accident happened, Silas had started dating the granddaughter of the county commissioner. The commissioner told his friend, the CEO of the hospital, that Silas was receiving care there.

In Luke 19, a short tax-collector named Zacchaeus climbed a sycamore tree to see Jesus as he passed through the crowd. He did see Jesus. Even better, Jesus saw him. Then Jesus stopped and spoke to him, and went to his home for dinner, and Zacchaeus was never the same from that day on. I’ve heard this story since I was a child, but I’d never thought too much about the sycamore tree itself until my friend Brian directed my attention to it. Did you know that sycamore trees in Israel can live for hundreds of years? And the one Zacchaeus climbed must have been fully mature if it was big enough to hold a grown man (a short man, granted) and allow him to see above other people’s heads. To be there for that particular moment of need, that tree must have been growing for decades, at least, and possibly longer. 
When we think of God’s providential provision for his children, we often think in immediate terms—the unexpected financial gift that comes on the day the bill is due, the odds-defying recovery, or the new job starting right when the severance pay ended. These kinds of immediate interventions are marvellous. They should lead us to praise and give thanks to the God who gives them. But we should also be ready to see that many of God’s provisions are prepared for us long before our needs arise. Remember, God is above time. He invented it. If he wants to, he can plant a sycamore tree in exactly the right place 100 years before the man who needs to climb it to see Jesus is even born. Is it any less miraculous if God begins his provision a century in advance? I don’t think so. And he can do the same kind of thing in our lives as well. 
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Matthew Y. Emerson and Brandon D. Smith |
Monday, September 16, 2024
Jesus’s lament comes in a covenantal context, a context in which he is the messianic Son chosen by Yahweh to deliver his people Israel by suffering on their behalf. God pours out his wrath on Jesus, yes, but as his anointed Son who suffers in his people’s place. Further, if we consider the other crucifixion scenes where different portions of Psalm 22 are either quoted or alluded to (e.g., Matt. 27; Mark 15; Luke 23; John 19), we see that they record various ways Jesus fulfills this psalm, pointing us back to the point that Jesus likely had the whole psalm in mind.

“The Father Turned His Face Away”?
The crucifixion is a good case study in showing how a careful Trinitarian framework can help work through thorny issues related to the Trinity and salvation. Not only does it bring to the surface the difficult question of what the Father was “doing” (or not doing) while Jesus hung on the cross, but it also raises the question of the Spirit’s seeming absence during the event.
When Jesus quotes Psalm 22 on the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34), what does this mean? Thomas McCall helpfully frames the issue surrounding this “cry of dereliction”:
Such a question surely comes from someone who has been unfaithful—and who now blames God for their abandonment. . . . But this question, of course, does not come from someone who has been unfaithful. It does not come from a pious person who simply isn’t theologically astute enough to know better. It comes from the lips of none other than Jesus Christ. It comes from the one who has been utterly faithful. It comes from the one of whom the Father said, “This is my beloved Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:17). It comes from the one who is the eternal Logos (John 1:1), the second person of the Trinity. So these words ring out like a thunderbolt.1
Did the Father turn his face away? Put another way, was there some sort of break or rupture between the persons of the Trinity on that fateful day on Golgotha? These answers require carefully handling the biblical text and retrieving sound theological method from the early church. Unfortunately, though a beautiful hymn, lyrics from “How Deep the Father’s Love for Us” have perhaps shaped our view of this verse as much as or more than the biblical text and Christian history.
In popular Christianity, lyrics such as those found in this contemporary hymn are often taken to confirm what many already suspect about the cross, that it is a moment of separation between the Father and the Son. The cry of dereliction in such songs is Jesus’s cry of abandonment, meant to communicate an existential angst, a torment of soul rooted in some kind of spiritual distance between the incarnate Son and his heavenly Father due to the latter’s wrath being poured out. To say it a bit differently, many view the cross as a moment in which the Father pours out his personal wrath on the Son, and this is felt by the Son at a spiritual level and communicated via the cry of dereliction. Let’s briefly work through the issues with the ultimate goal of understanding the unity and distinction in the Godhead. Three considerations help us.
First, there is a Trinitarian consideration: anything we say about the cry of dereliction needs to retain the oneness of the Godhead, both with respect to rejecting any ontological or relational division between Father and Son and with respect to affirming inseparable operations. The cross does not produce division between Father and Son, and it is not only the Father who acts in the crucifixion. It is appropriate to talk about the Father pouring out his wrath, but according to the doctrine of appropriations, ascribing an action to one person of the Trinity does not deny that the other persons are acting inseparably. It is not only the Father that pours out wrath; the Son and the Spirit, as the other two persons of the one God, also pour out the one wrath of the one God. It is, after all, God’s wrath against sin spoken of all throughout Scripture.
On the other hand, we also remember that the Father sent the Son; he did not send himself. The Spirit was active in the incarnation at conception but did not himself put on flesh. So we need to dispel any notions of other Trinitarian persons dying on the cross. This helps us avoid the ancient heresy of patripassianism—the teaching that the Father himself became incarnate and suffered on the cross. Moreover, since we know that God is immutable and incapable of change (Mal. 3:6; Heb. 13:8), it would certainly jeopardize fundamental affirmations about the doctrine of God to assert that the cross initiated a complete three-day (or even a one-millisecond) loss of Trinitarian relations.
One Person, Two Natures
Second, there is a Christological consideration: anything we say about the cry of dereliction needs to retain the oneness of the person of Jesus Christ. He is one person with two natures, divine and human, and he goes to the cross as one person. He is not half God and half man, but rather fully God and fully man. 
Read More
Related Posts: