How many goals can occupy the position of first in your life? Only one. “If you stay focused on one mission—seeking first Christ’s agenda of righteousness every sphere of your life and world—then,” says Jesus, “everything else will take care of itself.”

This past week, while studying George Barna’s Millennials in America report, I read “One of the most attention-grabbing attributes revealed in this research regarding the Millennial way of life is their widespread desire to identify a purpose for living. Three out of four Millennials are still searching for their purpose in life.” This evidence that Millennials want a life of purpose reminds me of the popularity of Rick Warren’s book, The Purpose Driven Life, which has been translated into 137 languages and sold more than 50 million copies. There is weighty evidence that human beings are designed to want a purpose for living. This episode series is designed to help the men listening accomplish exactly what so many Millennials—and so many humans in general want: experiencing the satisfaction and joy of knowing that they are accomplishing the purpose for which they were created. Our goal for this episode is to frame a biblical, one-sentence description of the mission that Christ assigned us—so that we can stay focused upon it.
So far in this series, Don’t Waste Your Life: Rule It for Jesus, we saw that the foundational commitment required to overcome a disordered way of life is the conviction that our inner private world of the spiritual must govern the outer physical world of activity. Then we observed that the only way to connect our everyday lives to God’s mission for us is intentionality. We observed Jesus demonstrating this intentionality by shutting out his outer world and retreating to a quiet place to discuss his mission with his CO, as a regular part of his life. Today we examine a third requirement for staying focused on our mission: mission clarity. A clear target on the wall to aim for is essential for living according to our mission. Fuzziness about our calling is a major cause of inaction. Competing internal drives take us down paths that consume our time and energy. I am reminded of the conversation in Lewis Carroll’s, Alice in Wonderland, between a disoriented Alice and the Cheshire cat. The cat’s sage wisdom is summarized in the famous quote, “If you don’t know where you are going, any road will take you there.”
Let’s return to football for an analogy. The more I enjoy a son who coaches high school football, the more complicated I realize the offensive and defensive game plans have to be—and that’s just at the high school level! Nevertheless, as complicated as forming a game plan is, at least the mission is clear and simple. In fact, you could state the mission in one sentence. We need to move the football into the opponent’s endzone more times than they move the football into our endzone. Yes, there are extra points, safeties, field goals, and touchdowns. But at least the mission is clear: move the ball downfield on offense and stop them from moving downfield on defense.
What about our mission from Jesus? Is there some way to bring crisp clarity to our target on the wall by stating our mission in one sentence? After all, there are 7957 verses in the NT alone that relate to our mission. No wonder our understanding of it is so fuzzy! I believe Jesus has given us a one-sentence summary of our mission. It is just nine words: SEEK FIRST THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS (Mt 6:33). I believe this rich sentence is as accurate a description of the Christian’s mission as saying “The object of football is to get the ball into the opponent’s endzone more times than they get the ball into ours” is of the game of football. But Christians today often miss the simplicity and power of this mission summary. Why? Here are three reasons.
1. Many Christians today come from traditions that misunderstand the term kingdom of God. The Bible-believing Christians of the twentieth century in America were significantly shaped by a movement called Dispensationalism, which believed in inerrancy but denied the significance of the created material world, promoted an overly spiritualized Christianity, denied God’s command to Adam and Eve to shape culture (the cultural mandate), and instead urged separation from the “evil” world. Its view of the end times (called Premillennialism) deemphasized the present rule of Christ’s kingdom, teaching instead that Christ’s kingdom does not come until the return of Christ. This view ignored the command to seek the kingdom, because it saw the kingdom as primarily future. It mistakenly understood the words of the Lord’s prayer, “May your kingdom come. May your will be done” to be a request for Jesus to return soon, instead of a request for Christ’s present kingdom of righteousness to spread over the earth. Tim Keller explains:
Some conservative Christians think of the story of salvation as the fall, redemption, heaven. In this narrative, the purpose of redemption is escape from this word; only saved people have anything of value, while unbelieving people in the world are seen as blind and bad. If, however, the story of salvation is creation, fall, redemption, restoration, then things look different. In this narrative, non-Christians are seen as created in the image of God and given much wisdom and greatness within them (cf. Ps. 8), even though the image is defaced and fallen. Moreover, the purpose of redemption is not to escape the world but to renew it…it is about the coming of God’s kingdom to renew all things (“Our New Global Culture: Ministry in Urban Centers” article).
2. The second reason some believers miss the Matt 6:33 summary of our mission is that when they hear seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, they hear this command primarily as the evangelistic call to be saved. Good theology teaches us that the only way any of us is truly righteous is to be “declared righteous,” i.e. justified by God the judge through our faith. We default to thinking that seeking righteousness any other way means pursuing self-righteousness. To seek righteousness feels like moralism to us.
However, and it is a big however, IT IS THE LORD JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF WHO COMMANDS US TO SEEK FIRST HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS. Righteousness (DIKAIOSUNE) in the NT is not just a term to describe our being declared legally righteous by God the judge; it is also the term that describes our sanctification—our character growth into holiness. DIKAIOSUNE is whatever conforms to the moral will of God. It describes right living. It describes what is just, what is wholesome. To pursue righteousness is to pursue wholeness, the restoration of everything on earth broken by sin. It is to make life the way it was supposed to be before Adam and Eve brought sin’s destruction into the world. It is to restore shalom—complete flourishing over every inch of the earth through restored harmony with God, within ourselves, with other humans, and with the material world. Jesus’ mission was not only to justify (declare righteous) the elect; it was also to transform their character and restore wholeness (“rightness”) to his entire, good creation. Seeking righteousness is not moralism; it is our mission!
Read More
Related Posts:

As society and the global church reaps in the coming decades the egalitarian fruit it has sown, the reality of its shortcomings will prove painful for many. Therefore, it is important that Christian parents teach their children, through godly instruction and through godly example, what Christian marriage is and what the ethos of the Christian home is to be. 

God has composed a melody for the Christian home—a sweet, pleasant, and satisfying tune, composed in such a way as to draw attention to its harmonies. God wrote the parts to this melody when he created humanity male and female, and through his Word he conducts his music in Christian homes today. God has graciously designed each household member with the desires, capacities, and opportunities needed to contribute to the choir. To join in the singing is fitting, right, and beautiful.
God’s melody for how the Christian home is to operate has in recent decades been called complementarianism. At the heart of complementarian theology has been the claim that men and women have equal and value dignity, but distinct roles in the church and home. Rooted in creation, however, the complementary vision of men and women also includes the claim that God has designed each gender with innate physical, psychological, and spiritual constitutions that are different from and yet complementary to one another. Like the various vocal parts in an acapella choir (bass, tenor, alto, etc.) coming together in one harmonious note, men and women have complementary parts to play in the melody of God’s design for the home. If one tries to imitate the sounds of the other, the harmony is ruined, and the song becomes discordant and jarring.
The complementary contributions of both men and women of the home are practically beneficial for everyone. And they create a harmony that non-complementary singing cannot replicate. Specifically, when men take godly initiative and when women are joyfully home-focused, the Christian home experiences practical benefits in ways that egalitarian home structures will never fully experience. Or, leaning again into the analogy, are men suited to sing soprano, or women bass? The musical discord resulting from egalitarianism role-swapping simply cannot practically compete with the beautifully sounding harmony of God’s complementary design.
The Deep Notes of Masculine Initiative
In the dissonant cultural imagination of modern Western society, masculine initiative-taking has seemingly hit an all-time low. From fewer men being the primary breadwinner than ever in American history to a successful dating platform where women make “the first move” to an outright rejection of men entirely by a growing movement in South Korea, today male initiative is neither widely celebrated nor expected. But God’s complementarian melody woos men to exercise masculine leadership for the benefit of the whole family. In this section, I want to highlight how the New Testament expects men to be the leaders of their families and show how this leadership may be expressed in two practical ways.
The New Testament expects men to lead their families. This is assumed when wives are called to follow their husbands’ leadership (Eph. 5:22–24, Col. 3:18; Titus 2:4–5; 1 Pet. 3:1–6), and it is also shown by the position of authority that husbands and fathers have in the household codes of Ephesians 5:22–6:9 and Colossians 3:18–4:1.[1] In Ephesians 5:22–33 particularly, the wife is called to submit to her husband’s leadership just as the church submits to Christ’s leadership. Those who would deny that men have a leadership role in their family must also deny that Christ exercises a leadership role in his relationship to the church.
But beyond the husband and wife relationship, men also have a unique responsibility in parenting. In Ephesians 6:1 children are to “obey their parents,” but just three verses later fathers specifically are commanded to discipline and instruct their children. Colossians 3:21 has the same interplay: children are commanded “obey your parents in everything,” and then in the next verse Paul particularly hones in and commands, “Fathers, do not provoke your children” (Col. 3:22). This is not to say that women will never discipline or instruct their children, but rather that fathers have a primary responsibility to do so, as Hebrews 12:7–10 also assumes (“For what son is there whom his father does not discipline?”). Now that we’ve established the biblical basis for male leadership in the home, let’s address the specifics of how this leadership is expressed in in taking initiative in the family’s spiritual life and in disciplinary matters.
First, a Christian man benefits his family by initiating in their spiritual lives in a variety of prudential ways. he considers how to be of greatest spiritual good to each of them. As leader, the husband keeps his pulse on each individual family member’s spiritual condition and needs. He initiates regular conversations about God’s Word and how it intersects with life (Deut. 6:4–8). He ensures that his family worships their God together regularly (Eph. 6:4; Psa. 78:5–7), and especially in the gathered congregation (Heb. 10:25). He guards his home from evil influences that would seek to turn his family away from Christ (Gen. 2:15). When there is no clear leader responsible for gathering the family, curating content, and leading conversation, a version of the Bystander Effect[2] occurs and family worship does not happen. Christian men see the tendency towards this reality and take action to preserve this important family rhythm.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by David R. Upham |
Thursday, June 15, 2023
 In Dobbs, the Court once again has looked back to our tradition, our laws, our Constitution, and found therein a reserved right of the states to protect prenatal life. Dobbs is in full harmony with Loving. Like Loving, Dobbs is a recovery and vindication of our republic—a great victory for constitutional truth, justice, and the American way.

Our national Supreme Court has set aside the so-called “right” to abortion established in Roe v. Wade (1973) in favor of the states’ reserved authority to protect prenatal life. The Court’s decision proceeded from this syllogism:
(1) The Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment protects only the rights enumerated in the Constitution or otherwise “deeply rooted” in our “Nation’s history and traditions”;
(2) the right to abortion is not such a right;
(3) therefore, contra Roe, the Amendment does not secure any right to abortion.
According to the dissent and many commentators, the Court’s reasoning threatens various unenumerated and innovative rights. Indeed, Justice Thomas, in his concurrence, specifically questioned the putative constitutional rights of contraception, nonmarital sexual activity, and same-sex “marriage.” These putative rights do, indeed, seem foreign to our Constitution and were only recently acknowledged by some of our laws.
The dissenters, however, mentioned the right of interracial marriage, first endorsed by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia (1967). According to Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, the right of interracial marriage, like the abortion right, is not deeply rooted in our traditions. Indeed, laws banning such marriage once prevailed as widely as anti-abortion laws did; therefore, just as the new right of interracial marriage was vindicated in Loving, so was the new right of abortion six years later in Roe: “The Fourteenth Amendment’s ratifiers did not think it gave black and white people a right to marry each other. To the contrary, contemporaneous practice deemed that act quite as unprotected as abortion.” By this account, Loving, like Roe, was evolutionary, and anti-traditional.
But the Dobbs dissenters are wrong, egregiously so. Their opinion reflects a widespread and serious misunderstanding of our nation’s history.
The right of American citizens to intermarry, regardless of race, is, indeed, deeply rooted in our traditions of freedom and citizenship, and is, for this reason, consistent with the original intent and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. To be sure, bans on interracial marriage, of course, were once widespread in some parts of our county.
But such laws were never our American tradition. They were not original but innovative. It was not until 1691, nearly a century after Jamestown, that Virginia became the first colony to ban such marriages. Moreover, these laws were never universal. At Independence, only about half the states retained such laws—and nearly all were south of the Mason-Dixon line.
When our political ancestors first migrated to America, they brought with them the English common law—a general customary law recognized in England at the time. This original law recognized three principles.
First, that law secured extensive liberty, including a broad freedom to marry. The ease with which the common law allowed marriages gave rise to what we still call “common law marriage”: a marriage that happens simply by the unofficiated and even unwitnessed private agreement to live as husband and wife. The “consent of the parties is all that is required,” as James Kent later explained. Under this law, racial barriers to marriage were unknown.
Second, the law recognized broad birthright membership: All persons born under English jurisdiction were English subjects. Here too, the law recognized no racial discrimination.
Third, that law incorporated or reflected the complementary principles of legal “due process” and “equal protection,” both of which aimed to secure, to all persons, the rights of life, liberty, and property against lawless violence. Here too, these principles involved no racial discrimination whatsoever.
This protection extended to all living human beings—even before birth.
Read More
Related Posts: