Death Comes in Slow Drips
I have an affection for coffee that stems back to childhood. One of my grandmothers used to sip sweet, creamy coffee from a faded red plastic coffee mug. Even just a few drops of lukewarm coffee from the top of her mug were a welcome treat when I was a little guy. That began my love for a rich, creamy cup of steaming java.
Most days, I go through my coffee-making routine without much consciousness of what I’m doing, but one day I noticed something that probably drives my wife insane. I find it nearly impossible to make coffee without leaving a trail of brown drops behind me. No matter the brewing method, I can’t seem to keep from dripping coffee on the counter, the kitchen table, or wherever I land with my next cup of Joe.
What if I simply decided to leave them? For better and worse and sickness and health, and all that, right? A few drops of coffee aren’t such a big deal after all. Most people would never notice them unless they were looking. A spilled cup of coffee would get your attention, but a few drops are harmless. It seems that way, at least.
Demas and the Slow Drip of Sin
Demas looked the part of a true servant of Christ. After something of a conversion experience, he decided to lay his life down for the cause of Christ and give himself to the work of a missionary. Heeding the call to make disciples of all nations, he somehow got linked up with a daring, well-known persecutor turned missionary—Saul of Tarsus. Demas didn’t just seek sound doctrine, he sought to serve in partnership with Mark, Luke, and others to spread the name and fame of Christ throughout the world.
Over time, however, Demas began wondering about an easier, more comfortable life. Perhaps he dreamed of having more money. Maybe he longed to settle down and live a normal life. Another life appealed to Demas so much that his thoughts sometimes drifted toward the possibilities of jumping ship and trying something else. He didn’t notice, but sinful thoughts were dripping from his cup more and more as the days progressed.
You Might also like
-
George Whitefield: Conflict and Conviction
His early death meant that he had no real opportunity to form and shape an organization to continue the more Calvinist part of the revival. Yet the power of his preaching to thousands, his proclamation of the new birth, his doctrinal depth and clarity, and his passion for the poor should leave us thankful to God for calling him—one of the defining and foundational leaders of the fires of evangelical Christian revival.
George Whitefield’s first sermon after his ordination, in June 1736, prompted a complaint to the bishop! He later printed the sermon with the title On the Nature and Necessity of Our Regeneration or New Birth. Whitefield was never far from controversy, both with the established church (in England and American) and, sadly, the great John Wesley. Whitefield was a central figure in the evangelical revival of the 18th century and proved absolutely scathing about the condition of pre-revival clergy. Perhaps less organizationally gifted than Wesley, he nevertheless brought the Gospel to both the poorest of British workers as well as the English aristocracy (forming a close bond with the Countess of Huntingdon, whom we will meet later in the series), thus proving to be an extremely influential figure in the development and continuation of the evangelical tradition within the Church of England.
George Whitefield (1714–1770) was born on December 16, 1714, at the Bell Inn, in Gloucester, England. He was the youngest of seven children to Thomas and Elizabeth. His father died when he was just two years old, his mother made an unsuitable remarriage, and the prosperity of the inn declined rapidly. We know the details of Whitefield’s early life from his Journals, including his “A Short Account of God’s Dealings with the Reverend Mr George Whitefield,” although they cover the period only up to 1745 and have the benefit of hindsight.
Just before his 18th birthday, George entered Oxford as a “servitor.” This was the poor man’s way into Oxford. The student was granted free tuition, but the servitor had to serve other students, wear distinctive dress, and was not permitted to receive Holy Communion with the other students. However, it opened the door to a better, and higher, life.
George Whitefield was prime material for the Holy Club, formed at Oxford by, among others, Church of England priest and evangelist John Wesley and his brother Charles. Club members agreed to take Holy Communion every week, fast regularly, and follow the festivals of the church, as well as visit prisoners in jail. Like Wesley, Whitefield constantly experienced the inner conflict and struggle of daily temptation and the desire to live a religious life. Before arriving at Oxford, he was already reading William Law’s A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life. Soon after his arrival he noted in his Journal that “I now began to pray and sing psalms thrice every day.” Whitefield also recorded his admiration for the “Methodists,” those who were “methodical” and disciplined in their personal piety. It was perhaps inevitable that he join them.
Whitefield’s inner struggles continued. He sought counsel from the Wesleys and, after a breakfast with Charles, was recommended Henry Scougal’s The Life of God in the Soul of Man. Scougal was a 17th-century Scottish theologian and minister, and his book was instrumental in turning over Whitefield’s way of thinking. The Life of God, he recounted, introduced him to true religion as union with Christ rather than the discharge of duty. His moment of conversion was near, which he described in his Journal to have occurred around seven weeks after Easter 1735: “I was delivered from the burden that had so heavily oppressed me,” an expression that reflected the classic evangelical conversion narrative.
Whitefield sought ordination—we have already noted the impact of the first sermon—and then, quite possibly under Wesley’s influence, headed for the state of Georgia in early 1738. The American colonies held some fascination for these early revival leaders. The colony of Georgia had been founded in 1732, with Savannah as the main settlement from 1733. Both Wesley and Whitefield and, indeed, others were drawn here owing to the possibility of the conversion of the indigenous population as well as the opportunity to minister to the settlers. What soon became clear was that the impact of disease left many children orphaned, and raising support for a Savannah orphanage became a focal point of ministry in the Americas for Wesley and Whitefield. In his early visits to the state, Whitefield was shocked by the brutality of slavery.
Read More
Related Posts: -
The Matthew Principle and Inequality
It is God who distributes; it is the LORD who lifts up and casts down, the LORD who brings dark and light, rain or shine, and all as He sees fit. The idea that society is the source of the distribution of goods is the deification of society. This is why socialist countries always have some of the highest wealth disparities; the masses must worship it’s god.
Secular sociologists occasionally borrow from Scripture. Robert Merton did. He discovered in the realm of science a law of inequality. A law with a direct correlation with the words of Jesus in Matthew 25:29, “For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.”
Economists often call this the Pareto principle, but for you and I, in simple terms, we can call it The Matthew Principle.
The Matthew Principle (that is, the Pareto Principle) is the idea that inequality is natural. For example, 20% of salesmen produce 80% of the sales for any given company. And the top 20% of the the top 20% produce the 80% of the sales for that bracket. This applies to consumption as well as production. 20% of people who own shoes, for example, own 80% of the shoes. So, too, can this be applied to the products we sell. 20% of our products or services account for the majority of our actual sales.
One writer believes that this principle is precisely what Adam Smith wrote about in his defense of the free market. Why, then, do so many people think equal distribution is natural and just? Perry Marshall writes:It is a law that almost nobody ever gets taught in school. In fact, our current educational system trains most of us to be blind to it, ignore it when we do see it, and even fight it as our enemy, instead of embrace it as our friend.
The Matthew Principle
This Matthew Effect, or Matthew Principal, was initially used to describe how fame and glory attracts more fame and glory in a disproportionate degree. For example, famous scientists continually get credit for the, sometimes better, work of non-famous scientists. The same holds true in broader academics; famous works are cited disproportionately, even if they are equal or even slightly inferior to obscure works.
Again, this is not the only sphere in which the Matthew Principle applies. It applies to virtually every sphere of reality.
For example, 20% of donors donate 80% of donations, while 80% of donors only donate about 20%. As again Perry Marshall explains:Almost nobody reads simple election statistics that ’14 percent of the voters turned out at the polls in this election’ or ‘5 million people donated at least $5 to the election campaign’ and translates it into a vivid, meaningful picture of those people, all they way from casual interest to rabidly passionate and addicted.
Few people ever even consider that a tiny minority of the donors give almost all the money. And that the one million smallest donors gave less money than the top ten.Men do not shop equally, work equally, or even give equally.
This law shows up even in technology; network hubs that initially have a greater number of links continue to grow at a multiplicative rate. The Matthew Effect is evident in the sphere of education as well. Those who struggle to read will cumulatively fall behind. Those who quickly learn to read well increase at a multiplicative rate.
Consequently, there is truth to the idea that initial failure leads to more failure, and initial success brings more success. Our pasts define us more than we care to admit.
In short, economic equality is a mythical unicorn. It is nowhere to be found. Not in nature, at any rate.Read More
Related Posts: -
Dying, Yet We Live: How Mortification is the Way of Life in the Spirit
Putting sin to death, likewise, is a difficult duty for the Christian, but Paul teaches us that it is necessary and possible. Romans 8:12–13 states that life in the Spirit includes liberation and mortification. We are no longer debtors to this present, evil age, so we walk in a different direction, think after the realm of Christ, and relate to God in a covenant of grace. Since God has delivered us, we are indebted and enabled to walk according to the Spirit, and we express our indebtedness by putting sin to death in the power of the Spirit.
Squatters are notoriously difficult to evict. They may disappear for a while, making you think they are gone, yet they always find a way back and may even bring a few friends along. Indwelling sin is not so easy to evict either, but it is a necessary duty of the Christian life. We are Christ’s temple, therefore all squatters must go. In Romans 8:12–13, Paul teaches us that mortification is not only necessary but possible. Putting sin to death is necessary because Christ has delivered us from this sinful age and possible because the Spirit of Christ leads us in holiness. This means that we are no longer debtors to live according to the flesh; rather, we are indebted and enabled to live according to the Spirit.
No Longer Debtors
Paul concludes the first eleven verses with a negative implication: “So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh” (Rom 8:12). You are no longer a debtor to the powers of this present, evil age because the Spirit of life has set you free from the condemnation of the moral law (v. 1) and the law of sin and death (v. 2). When the Holy Spirit takes up residence in your heart, he changes the direction of your life, the object of your mind, and your covenant with God.
Prior to regeneration, you were a debtor to the flesh. You walked according to the flesh (v. 4), set your mind on the things of the flesh (v. 5), and lived at enmity with God (v. 7). Outside of Christ you were spiritually dead, but you were by no means static or lifeless. To the contrary, you walked in the same direction as the world and followed the powers of this present age (Eph 2:1–2). Like those floating down the lazy river in an amusement park, so you were floating along in the same direction as this rebellious age. Furthermore, you set your mind on the things of the flesh. Your thinking was restricted to this sinful age, not the spiritual age of Christ. This means that you gave little thought to the divine, heavenly realm, to Christ and his gospel, or to God and his Word. Perhaps you did think about heaven–a life of eternal bliss and freedom from pain–but you did not think about Christ, your Savior and Lord. You were captivated and lured by the sins of the age. Finally, verse 7 teaches that you not only walked with the world, thought with the world, but you were at enmity with God. Before the Spirit of life united you to Christ you were in Adam, your federal head, and related to God through a broken covenant of works.
Now that you are indwelt by the Spirit of life, you are no longer a debtor to this age. You do not have to live for the flesh. This is the emphasis of Paul’s “therefore” in verse 12. Since you are united to Christ and indwelt by the Spirit, you are no longer a debtor to this world; rather, you are a son of God and heir with Christ (v. 15–17). When the world demands your allegiance or worship, you are free to refuse because you belong to another master. You were delivered from this world and bought by the Son. While we live in this world, we do not live for this world. We walk in this world, but we do not walk in sync with this world. Since we are sons of God, and no longer debtors to this age, we walk upstream in a downstream world, set our minds on the permanent age of the future, not the transient age of the present, and relate to God in a fulfilled covenant of grace, not a broken covenant of works.
Now, Paul is not just saying you do not have to live according to the flesh. In verse 13, he emphasizes that you ought not to do so. The transition from v. 12 to v. 13 is a shift from deliverance to warning. In verse 12, Paul emphasizes that you do not have to live for this world because you have been delivered from its grip. In verse 13, Paul shifts to a warning, saying that you ought not to live according to the flesh because those who do will surely die.
Verse 13 “If you live according to the flesh, you will die.” The first thing to note about this conditional warning is what it is not saying. It is not saying that those who have been delivered from this present age can lose their salvation. Rather this is a warning to the unrepentant, those who hold Christ in one hand and their sin in the other. Death is the eternal punishment for those who willfully persist in unrepentant sin, who obstinately refuse to part with their beloved sins, and who claim God as their Savior but deny him as their Lord. Death is the just punishment for those who walk according to the flesh, set their minds on the things of the flesh, and live according to the flesh.
Read More
Related Posts: