Jesus Wept
Written by H.B. Charles Jr. |
Friday, February 11, 2022
As Jesus wept, the people said, “See how he loved him!” (John 11:36) Jesus wept because he cared about the living – Mary and Martha. Jesus wept because he cared about the dead – Lazarus. Jesus wept because he cared about sin that causes pain, death, and death. The compassionate heart of Jesus has not changed. He cares for you! Peter bids us to be “casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you” (1 Peter 5:7).
Jesus wept. – John 11:35
John 11 records the miracle of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. John tells the story in a series of conversations. The passage begins with a conversation Jesus has with his disciples about the sickness and death of Lazarus. When he finally arrived in Bethany, Lazarus’ sister Marth confronted him. In the ensuing conversation, Jesus says, “I am the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25). Then Jesus talked with Lazarus’ other sister, Mary.
Mary fell at the feet of Jesus, consumed with grief. Unlike his encounter at Jairus’ house, Jesus does not question the mourning of the grieving community (Mark 5:39). Here Jesus was “deeply moved in his spirit and greatly troubled” (John 11:33).
Jesus took charge of the situation, asking, “Where have laid him?” (John 11:34). They led Jesus to Lazarus’ tomb, where he would work a miracle. At this point, John reports a remarkable detail: “Jesus wept.” John 11:35 is one of the shortest verses in the Bible. The verse is short in words but long in meaning. It is an ocean of truth in a teaspoon of words. The weeping Jesus is a comforting truth.
Jesus wept as a man. John records seven miraculous “signs” that prove the deity of Jesus. Raising Lazarus from the dead is the final and climactic miracle Jesus performed that identifies him as God in the flesh. Yet the one who was God enough to raise the dead was man enough to weep with the grieving. Jesus was a real man. Jesus was a perfect man. Jesus was a divine man. Yet Jesus wept. When life makes you cry, you are in good company!
Jesus wept, despite what he knew. Well-meaning Christians say to the grieving, “Don’t cry. You knew where your loved one is.”
You Might also like
-
Urging the Current PCA Stated Clerk to Resign from the Standing Judicial Commission.
I’m by From a practical standpoint, the onerous duties of the Stated Clerk would seem to be enough for any one man. From an appearance standpoint, serving on the 24-man judicial commission and as Stated Clerk would seem to lodge undue denominational power with one man.
Dr. Bryan Chapell, recently-elected Stated Clerk of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), is a respected churchman with a sterling reputation, which is why he should immediately do two things: resign from the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) and disavow the secretive political organizing group, the National Partnership, which has claimed him as a member and an ally.
The Stated Clerk of the PCA has “no special role as spiritual leader or teacher to the denomination” (BCO 3-2 b), but does possess considerable influence and power by virtue of his duties. He routes overtures to committees as he deems appropriate, arranges the docket of the General Assembly, makes or directs most of the public communications of the PCA, and is the chief administrative officer of the Administrative Committee of the General Assembly—the committee that sets the agenda of the PCA more than any other. He also gives advice to the innumerable questions posed to him and his office, and renders non-binding opinions as called upon, some of which are related to judicial or discipline matters.
Because of the power described and duties outlined above, he should resign from the SJC, the denomination’s highest court of appeal.
From a practical standpoint, the onerous duties of the Stated Clerk would seem to be enough for any one man. From an appearance standpoint, serving on the 24-man judicial commission and as Stated Clerk would seem to lodge undue denominational power with one man. Also, the SJC is a commission of the General Assembly, of which the Stated Clerk is parliamentarian and for which he sets the docket. While actual conflict of interest might rarely exist, apparent conflicts are easy to imagine at a time of great division and controversy in the denomination. It is fair to ask if the attention generated by SJC service (Dr. Chapell voted in the recent controversial case involving teaching elder Greg Johnson and Missouri Presbytery) is something a Stated Clerk should prudently avoid.
While the Book of Church Order does not prohibit the Stated Clerk from serving on the SJC, wisdom and precedent suggest stepping down is the right thing to do. Retired Stated Clerk Roy Taylor had just begun a second term on the SJC in 1997 when he was nominated for Stated Clerk. He resigned his SJC post even before being elected as Stated Clerk in 1998.
Besides resigning from the SJC for the reasons listed above, Dr. Chapell should also make clear his past and current relationship (if any) with the secretive political group, the National Partnership. Recently disclosed emails (seen by hundreds if not thousands and now well and truly in the public domain) reveal that Dr. Chapell was considered a member (at least by National Partnership leaders) and an ally. He was referred to as an “NP member” in 2014 and his SJC nomination was supported. He was thanked for “not wait(ing) the extra second to hear calls for ‘division’” in his role as General Assembly moderator in 2014 as well. Apparently, this was considered a helpful parliamentary maneuver by the National Partnership. If his seeming membership in the National Partnership had been generally known at the time one wonders how others might have viewed his moderator performance.
If Dr. Chapell has cut all ties with the National Partnership, well and good. A public statement to that effect would be wise. It would be helpful to know when he cut those ties with the group and why he did so. Disavowing any relationship to the National Partnership, and secret political groups more generally, would certainly increase confidence in his ability to serve as a Stated Clerk for the entire PCA.
Charles Inverness is a member of the Presbyterian Church in America and serves as a ruling elder in a congregation in Tennessee. -
Its Leaf Does Not Wither | Psalm 1:3
Charles Spurgeon once fittingly wrote: “The Lord’s trees are all evergreens. No winter’s cold can destroy their verdure; and yet, unlike evergreens in our country, they are all fruit bearers.” Each season will bring its own variety and quantity fruit in the life of a Christian, yet throughout each season, the blessed man’s leaves remain green. He is rooted beside streams that do not run dry, which keep his leaves unwithered.
and its leaf does not wither.
Psalm 1:3 ESVAs we continue to meditate through Psalm 1, we reach the third and final metaphorical description of the blessed man’ tree-likeness: and its leaf does not wither. As we have seen, the comparison of God’s people to a tree is meant to convey steadfastness that, although it begins small and grows slowly, becomes large and mighty in the end. To this end, the previous phrases have described the tree’s source of growth (streams of water) and its fruitfulness in season. Now the psalmist describes the endurance of the tree through its unwithered leaves.
Interestingly, our association of trees with fortitude is typically centered upon trees’ trunks. The trunk, after all, is the largest, strongest portion of a tree. The psalmist, however, does not describe an unbroken trunk as a metaphor for the endurance and perseverance of God’s people; instead, he turns to the leaves, which are quite easily the most fragile part of a tree. Indeed, every year winter’s winds shrivel tree’s leaves until the fall to the earth dead. Of course, in warmer places, the great heat of the summer can do the same, which is likely what the psalmist had in mind.
Read More -
Christianity & Progressivism: A Pastor’s Perspective
Progressive Christianity, at this moment, is not proposing to change the Evangelical and Reformed Confessions. It simply ignores them or claims to affirm them while twisting their meaning with interpretive gymnastics. How? By something that places Progressive Christianity like Liberal Christianity as an insidious adversary of Biblical Christianity: Confessional deception.
Why are venerable Evangelical and Reformed institutions systematically departing from theological fidelity to embrace new mission objectives? It seems to be happening in a similar fashion in churches, colleges, seminaries, publishing houses, para-church organizations, and historically reliable mission agencies. Why is there a steady stream of well-known Evangelical and Reformed leaders either denying the faith “once and for all delivered to the saints” or publicly “deconstructing their faith”? Why are first order Biblical doctrines including the Gospel itself—which is the first of the “first things—being adulterated or abandoned for theological novelties that inevitably result in heresies?Why are professing Evangelical and Reformed ministries embracing, celebrating, and propagating Gospel heresies such as the prosperity gospel, the therapeutic gospel, the pragmatic church growth gospel, and the newly renovated social gospel, etc.? Why are unbiblical and Gospel-denying political and social ideologies being quoted and implemented from pulpit ministries and in discipleship strategies?
Having spent the last two decades prayerfully attempting to respond biblically and pastorally to this seemingly endless series of theological and ministerial aberrations that have penetrated and permeated Evangelical and Reformed churches, it became obvious that it was past time to pause and reflect on the source of this “poison fruit.” As I’ve taken time for renewal, because of ministry exhaustion, and to reflect, because of increasing ministerial bewilderment, two observations have become obvious, which in turn lead to a decisive conclusion.
First, the content and focus of the identifiable theological and missional poison fruit was obvious. It consistently manifested itself in the theological and missional adulteration of the Gospel Message and the renovation of the Gospel Mission for Christ’s Church. What was not so obvious was the poisonous root at the source of the poisonous fruit.
Second, over the last two decades I have found myself increasingly recommending J. Gresham Machen’s Christianity & Liberalism even though no one in the increasingly confused orbit of Evangelical and Reformed Christianity seemed to be promoting the radical 19th century theological renovations now known as classical Liberal Theology. Yet not only was Machen’s Christianity & Liberalism helpful to me in the current context, but it was observably helpful to any and all I recommended it to who actively read and used it in addressing this “present distress.”
The conclusion, as I contemplated these things, became clear. The poisonous root that has produced theological apostasy beginning with the Gospel itself, and the Missional confusion that follows from that, is the 60-year-old movement that calls itself “Progressive Christianity,” a movement which has been and continues to be aimed at redefining the Mission of the Evangelical and Reformed Church as well as its Message. When Progressive Christianity in its 60-year evolution is held under the microscope, the reason why Machen’s Christianity & Liberalism feels so relevant becomes obvious: even though the doctrinal errors and heresies of Liberal Christianity are distinct from the ever-evolving errors and heresies of Progressive Christianity, it becomes undeniable that Progressive Christianity is “cut from the same bolt of cloth” as Liberal Christianity. Both ultimately embrace the fabric of Theological and Missional renovation and therefore inevitably embrace Theological and Missional apostasy.
In other words, Progressive Christianity, at its core, is Liberal Christianity 2.0. As I’ve continued to explore this connection, I’ve identified five affirmations that reveal the intrinsic connection between so-called Progressive and Liberal Christianity:
Five AffirmationsLiberal Christianity, as it gained influence in the 19th century, entered the 20th century with its sights set upon the Mainline Protestant Church. In the same fashion, Progressive Christianity, having established its footing in the concluding decades of the 20th century, fixed its sights upon the Evangelical and Reformed churches and institutions in the opening decades of the 21st century.
Just as Liberal Christianity inevitably produced the errors and heresies of Liberal Theology, so Progressive Christianity produces its own errors and heresies in Progressive Theology as it adulterates historical and biblical orthodoxy. It does this—in a method poached from Liberal Christianity—by embracing the novelty of a culture-focused Mission for Christ’s Church as superior to the Word of God. This theological downgrade is not only manifested by a loss of Confessional integrity in general, but by the theological devolution of the Christ-given and Gospel-defined Message and Mission of His Church.
Progressive Christianity as Liberal Christianity is both parasitic and destructive. It does not bring forth—it tears down. It does not develop—it destroys.
Progressive Christianity as a movement, like Liberal Christianity with its theological adulterations and apostasies, promotes unbelief and therefore qualifies as the doctrine of demons. Demonic doctrine means that in the final analysis Progressive Christianity, like Liberal Christianity, is not a subset of Christianity but a virulent adversary of Biblical Christianity. Like so-called Liberal Christianity there may be believers and even faithful churches under its influence for a time. But in the name of Biblical fidelity and Confessional integrity, it must be rejected as a professed movement of Christianity and noted as an adversary because in the final analysis it becomes an instrument of sending the souls of men and women to the judgment of God without the Blessed Hope of the Gospel.
Progressive Christianity shares the same three poisoned threads—Motivation, Mission, and Message—with Liberal Christianity. In light of the decimation wrought by Liberal Christianity in the Mainline Protestant Church of the 20th century, the Evangelical and Reformed Church of the 21st century must examine the Motivation, Mission, and Message of Progressive Christianity and its pervasive, penetrating influence. Let’s examine each thread.Although separated by 100 years, Progressive Christianity in a real sense is Regressive Christianity revealed as Liberal Christianity 2.0. It shares Liberal Christianity’s same failed motivation, it’s committed to its same failed mission, which ensures an inevitable Theological downgrade of its message, though not necessarily adulterating the same particular doctrines as Liberal Theology did. The theological apostasy of Progressive Christianity will not, for various reasons, necessarily mimic all the apostasies of Liberal Christianity but it will be equally destructive.
Motivations
The self-confessed motivation of 19th and 20th Century Liberal Christianity was not to destroy Christianity but to save the Mainline Protestant Church from “modernity” and the intimidating sophistication of the “modern mind.” This was obvious in the talking points of Liberal Christianity: “in light of modernity the church must be saved from cultural irrelevance” and “Christianity must be saved from the intellectual dustbin of history” and “if Christianity doesn’t change we will lose the next generation.” Sound familiar?
Likewise, the Progressive Christianity of the 20th and 21st Century does not originate from a desire to destroy Christianity. This time the desire is not to save the Protestant Mainline Church, but to save the Evangelical and Reformed Church from “cultural irrelevance,” “the dustbin of history” and “the loss of the next generation.” There is no doubt in my mind that very few contemporary Progressives are “wolves in sheep’s clothing” such as those Paul warned the Elders of the Church at Ephesus to alertly guard. In fact, I believe the vast majority of them are actually “sheep in wolves’ clothing.” But make no mistake. As affirmed by its celebrated apologists and preachers, Progressive Christianity is “wolves’ clothing” in that it has the identical motivation as Liberal Christianity, and dare I say that in reality it is an arrogant motivation— to save Christianity and the Church from cultural irrelevance. Today, instead of saving Christianity from the “burgeoning movement of modernity”, Progressive Christianity proposes to save Christianity from the triumphal movement of post-modernity.
Read More
Related Posts: