Written by Daniel P. Miller |
Thursday, April 4, 2024
Set your eyes on eternity. This is not a means of ignoring reality, but the only way of truly facing it. There is a day when all the pain you suffer from the presence of sin and Satan will vanish. Focus more on your future accounting before Christ than on those who fail you on earth. Above all, trust in the Lord who promises never to leave or forsake his children (Heb. 13:5). Local churches hurt people. Thankfully, the Lord of the church will one day wipe away every tear, including yours.

Dear Brother or Sister,
Local churches hurt people. People hurt people, of course, but since churches are people, churches have the capacity to inflict severe relational pain.
By God’s grace the reverse is also true. The local church is designed by Christ to function as a spring of encouragement and joy to its members. I hope that you have experienced the blessing of walking in fellowship with a body of believers that Jesus used, or is now using, to strengthen your faith and envelop you in covenantal love.
But despite Christ’s gracious provision, you may find yourself experiencing heartache in the context of a church for which Jesus died. Ironic, isn’t it? By grace alone the risen Christ is gathering out of the nations a people for his name (Acts 2:38–39). He forms us into a new humanity, uniting us to himself (Eph. 2:11–22; Gal. 2:20). We are adopted as his children and chosen as his holy bride (Rom. 8:14–17; Eph. 5:23–32; Rev. 19:6–8). He sovereignly places us in the body to complete one another (1 Cor. 12:12–27). How ironic, then, that relating to God’s people can result in such deep heartache.
Ironic, but not mysterious. The closer the human relationship, the more pain one suffers when that relationship falters. We routinely witness this in families. It’s why divorce, child rebellion, family feuds, neglect, and the like are such bitter heartaches. The closer the relationship, the greater the potential not only for joy but also for sorrow.
In the spiritual family of a local church, such heartache often stems from personal offense—one member wrongs another. At other times the problem is more corporate in nature—the departure of a leader, a change in policy, an altered ministry direction that seems to betray much of what you once loved about your church, and the like.
It’s not hard to identify the source of the pain we suffer in the context of a body of believers. It’s considerably harder to respond to that pain in God-honoring ways.
Don’t breeze past that “God-honoring” bit. Expressive Individualism programs us to feel our pain while avoiding hard questions about our responses to it. Hurt feelings are as natural as shivering from cold on a wintry day, we are assured by our therapeutic world. Therefore, how I feel about someone’s ill treatment of me or how I feel about a hurtful ministry change becomes not only my responsibility to own but everyone else’s obligation to affirm.
The Bible does not counsel us in this direction. Rather, it calls us to respond to such pain with a devotion to love others and glorify Christ in his church. This means that despite how terribly I may feel, Christ’s renown remains of supreme importance. Therefore my affections for his honor in the assembly must never fall below affections for my own. If they do I am likely to cause as much damage in the future as I’ve suffered in the past.
Our Redeemer is never surprised by sin, nor has he ever promised us a church that’s free of it. Every church family hurts people one way or another. What the Lord has done is to arm us with wise, Christ-honoring habits of response. While not an exhaustive list, consider the following disciplines.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by P. Jesse Rine |
Monday, March 11, 2024
The question is not whether a college or university should be civilizational, but rather which sort of civilization it ought to cultivate and how that project can be pursued most effectively. Although the cultural fragmentation of our age has rendered these questions highly contested within the secular academy, the answers are far more straightforward in the Christian college context. In fact, the Christian intellectual tradition provides a storehouse of resources for defining the true, the good, and the beautiful in clear and compelling ways, and then applying those judgments to the pressing issues of our day. This requires, however, that Christian colleges be staffed with faculty who are confident enough in the Christian vision to make those applications amidst a hostile culture.

Can a college be both confessionally Christian and civilizational in its emphasis? This question lies at the heart of a recent essay by Jay Green, Professor of History at Covenant College, which caused a stir among pastors serving in the college’s sponsoring denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). Green warns of the rise of “civilizational” colleges “lurking in the background” of the sacred/secular divide, places that use Christian faith to attract Christian families but don’t actually embody a Christian identity. The singular example he cites is Hillsdale College, where “faith is ‘honored’ rather than necessarily believed” and where “less time and attention are given to using Christian insights to critique things like Western Civilization and the American Founding.” In Green’s telling, Hillsdale essentially uses Christianity as both an enrollment marketing tool and a curricular garnish to achieve its real mission—advancing a decidedly conservative political agenda.
Now, it is true that Hillsdale does not fit the traditional definition of an evangelical Christian college. That descriptor has been historically reserved for colleges and universities like Green’s employer, Covenant College, that hire only professing Christians as full-time faculty members and senior administrators. This hiring policy is a baseline requirement for membership in the two national associations that serve Christian postsecondary institutions, the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities (CCCU) and the International Alliance for Christian Education (IACE).
Yet it is impossible to ignore the dramatic reassertion of faith that has occurred at Hillsdale over the last decade, a renaissance made all the more remarkable when placed against the backdrop of secularization that has afflicted most American colleges originally founded by Protestant denominations. In recent years, as many Christian colleges softened the edges of their identities in an attempt to appeal to a broader pool of prospective students, Hillsdale took the opposite approach by more emphatically embracing its institutional mission as a “nonsectarian Christian institution” that “maintains ‘by precept and example’ the immemorial teachings and practices of the Christian faith.” The most striking example of this reassertion was the 2019 opening of Christ Chapel, which was placed in the heart of Hillsdale’s campus as a visible—and costly—marker of the college’s identity. The last decade has also witnessed the expansion of the college’s free online course catalogue, the topics of which—Genesis, Exodus, King David, Ancient Christianity, the Western Theological Tradition, and C. S. Lewis, among others—also testify to the institution’s renewed emphasis on its Christian identity.
On their own, an aesthetically impressive chapel and faith-based public curriculum do not a Christian college make. They do, however, represent the sorts of investments one would expect from an institution serious about its faith-based mission, particularly because both require significant resources and swimming against the cultural tide. Their existence also suggests an educational environment where Christian students and faculty can thrive. To his credit, Green acknowledged this reality in a follow-up piece that walked back some of his most egregious assertions while simultaneously doubling down on his original “distinction between ‘confessional’ and ‘civilizational’ ideas of a Christian college.” 
Green’s distinction fundamentally misunderstands both the societal function of higher education and the unique mission of the Christian college.
Read More
Related Posts:

First, we need to remember why the disciples are asking these questions in the first place. They have not been thinking about global events that will transpire at the end of the world or cataclysmic phenomena that would usher in the end of history. These men were thinking about the things that were in front of them, such as the abandonment and destruction of their beloved temple and when Jesus would return to make sure that event happened. They were not assuming a multi-millennia wait for the second coming of Christ. They saw His next coming would be against Jerusalem when He destroyed it within a generation.

Black Mamba Eschatology
One of the things that separate great players from legendary players is drive. Great players wake up early in the morning and give everything they have in practice. Legendary players get up hours before everyone else, play through blood, sweat, and tears, perfecting every facet of their game before practice, and then outwork everyone else during practice. Great players get scoring titles and end up in the hall of fame. Legendary players put their teams on their back and will get them into championship, after championship, after championship. Great players are disappointed after a hard-fought loss. Legendary players would rather die than lose a game.
That, in my humble opinion, is what differentiates truly great players like Shaquille O’Neal, Allen Iverson, and Lebron James from NBA legends like Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant, (also known as the black mamba). One group was truly great and deserves all the accolades we can give them. The other group lived with a never-ending obsession to be the greatest that ever lived and they are in a class all by themselves.
One of the ways we see this distinction playing out is among childhood fans. Fans love the great players and cheer for them. But when it comes to who they want to be when they grow up, or who they pretend to be in their driveway when no one else is looking, children almost always choose the legends, because they can sense the difference. And as a child growing up in the 80s, I certainly fell afoul of this fandom, wanting with all my heart to be “Like Mike”, while being unwilling to put in the effort of men like Jordan and Kobe. This silly introduction, ironically, may help us understand one of the great dilemmas in eschatology and may aid us when we come to Matthew 24.
The Most Important Chapter
When it comes to Biblical chapters of eschatology, Matthew 24 is the zenith of all the end-times passages. It is the Superbowl, it is game seven of the NBA finals or the last round at Augusta. No one wins at that level accidentally just as no one begins to understand Matthew 24 by sloth. It is a chapter that will only yield its treasures to the ones who are willing to put in the maximal effort. Perhaps this is why so few understand eschatology in the church today. Because passages like this one can only be understood with rigorous effort, which is out of style in a culture of easy believism.
For the last eight weeks, we have been working towards Matthew 24. We did so by attempting to understand the basics and introductory materials of eschatology in our first couple of weeks. Then we moved along to Malachi where we learned the hermeneutical principles for interpreting eschatology. From there we saw those principles playing out in the theology of John the Baptist and our Lord. And over the last several weeks, we have observed how Matthew 21-23 provides the essential context that will aid us in understanding Matthew 24. Had we not labored in the way we did, we would not have been prepared for what we now face. So, with that introduction, let us remember very briefly the context and then let us dive, or maybe only stick our pinky toe, in the water of Matthew 24.
Remembering the Context
Matthew 24 occurs as a part of the dramatic events surrounding Jesus’ final week where He will bring judgment to some and salvation to others. In judgment, He rides into the fruitless city, judges the fruitless temple, curses a fruitless tree, and shows how this judgment applies to Jerusalem (Matthew 21). With three successive parables of judgment, Jesus demonstrates that Jerusalem will soon fall and that God’s Kingdom will be given to a people who will bear God’s fruit (Matthew 22). After prophesying Jerusalem’s downfall, Jesus seals their fate with seven covenantal curses of woe and pronounces the wrath of God upon the city and its temple (Matthew 23). In Matthew 24, Jesus does not abandon the narrative of judgment against Jerusalem but instead gives the clearest prophecy ever uttered describing its downfall.
Since this passage is of the utmost importance for our understanding, we will move slowly through it over the next several weeks until we have sufficiently covered its material. Our goal is that we would understand it, not fly through it. With that, let us begin.
A Shocking Point
The passage picks up immediately where Matthew 23 left off. Jesus finished uttering fiery woes against the Pharisees (Matthew 23:13-33). Then He prophesied God would visit that generation with the harshest judgment ever given (Matthew 23:34-36). And then He tells them Jerusalem’s house, the temple, will be left entirely desolated (Matthew 23:37-38).
Read More
Related Posts: