The Weight of Memory and the God Who Recalls
History’s greatest act of remembrance: the resurrection. Jesus didn’t remain forsaken in the tomb—the Father “remembered” and raised him from the dead. Through pardon for sin, Christ’s resurrection replaces the fear of death with the hope of endless life. If you are a Christian who fears death and its whispers of insignificance, find comfort in these words: “[The righteous] will be remembered forever. He is not afraid of bad news; his heart is firm, trusting in the LORD” (Ps. 112:6–7).
Most days of our lives slip by, never to be remembered again. Nothing significant occurs; nothing stands out. Another ordinary day erased.
But some days are etched with an iron stylus.
July 8, 2005, began as an ordinary day. My dad, mom, and two sisters started a 600-mile drive across Texas to help my wife and me move. I had just completed my first year of medical school and looked forward to their arrival. We watched and waited. The hours ticked by as anticipation eventually melted into nervousness, then anxious speculation, then dread.
My family never arrived. That night, the 911 dispatcher confirmed our worst fear: they had all died.
Reeling at Remembrance
Weeping, I picked up my Bible and turned to the first passage that came to mind: “Whom have I in heaven but you? And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you. My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever” (Ps. 73:25–26).
The ordinary day was etched in tears, never to be erased.
The following weeks were filled with memorials, sorting a house, and selling a house. Grace infused these moments with friendships both old and new. Most of the car’s contents were destroyed by oil, but out of the wreckage God preserved all four Bibles and journals. The pages of his Word, prayer, and the presence of people carried me through the tempest.
During the twists and turns of that year, a weight of memory emerged that pressed down on me—a desire to remember and to be remembered. When my family died, I scrambled to write down anything I could remember about them: mannerisms, expressions, likes, dislikes. I wanted to hold on to these memories, but I quickly realized my limitations. I forgot. Others also forgot.
You Might also like
-
Problems with Preferred Pronouns
Some Christians say you’re not required to use a person’s preferred pronouns, but it’s courteous to do so if you’re asked. It’s simply a matter of being a kind Christian. Whether it’s courteous or kind to comply, however, depends on the nature of what is being asked of you. Complying with a transgender person’s request might seem like a minor change in your behavior, but it’s not.
All we’re being asked to do is change one word. It’s a simple request. Just use a different pronoun. It might seem like a no-brainer for a believer to comply. Why cause unnecessary tension by refusing a request to be courteous?
Even some Christians encourage the church to practice “pronoun hospitality” and use the preferred pronouns of a person who identifies as transgender. They believe it’s a simple act of kindness that engenders relationship and avoids unnecessary distress in a transgender person’s mental health.
But it’s not that simple. It’s not that we don’t want to be kind or are indifferent about their well-being. Rather, it’s because we care about truth, fidelity to God, and their well-being that many believers abstain from this social ritual. Here are some things to consider.
First, it’s important to distinguish between using preferred pronouns and using preferred names. Here’s why. Names are a matter of convention, something that is a subjective preference. Pronouns, however, are not a matter of convention but are a reference to objective reality (biological sex). That’s why they can’t be chosen.
To say that names are a matter of convention means that names can be chosen because they are not inherent to who a person is. For example, traffic light colors are also a matter of convention. Green means go and red means stop. It’s possible our society could have determined different meanings for traffic light colors—red meaning go and green meaning stop. There’s nothing inherent about green that means go. It was simply a matter of preference (a convention) that green was chosen for go, but it could have been otherwise.
In the same way, names are a matter of convention. My wife and I considered naming our daughter Anya, but we ended up choosing Sarah. Either one would have worked. There’s nothing inherent about the name Sarah that refers to our daughter. Furthermore, our daughter could one day change her name to Shelly if she desired. That’s because names are a matter determined by preference and can be chosen.
For this reason, I can abide by a person’s preferred name. In many cases, I don’t have any other option since they decide what name to share with me. I understand some parents insist on using their child’s given name because of the uniqueness of the relationship. I’m not arguing that preferred names should be used, but that they can be used.
I don’t use a person’s preferred pronouns, however, since pronouns refer to an objective reality—one’s biological sex. Whether you are male or female isn’t a matter determined by preference and, therefore, can’t be chosen.
For example, age is also a biological reality and not chosen. Dutch positivity guru and television personality Emile Ratelband decided to identify as a 49-year-old when he was in his late sixties. No one should be obligated to refer to him as the younger age because age is a biological reality that can’t be changed and is therefore not a matter of preference. In the same way, sex is a biological reality that also can’t be changed and also is not a matter of preference. Using a pronoun that refers to a person’s chosen sexual identity is like using a number to refer to person’s chosen age. Both are illegitimate because neither age nor sex is a matter determined by choice.
Some people, however, claim that language evolves and pronouns can now refer not only to biology but also to “gender identity” (a person’s internal sense of what “gender” they believe themselves to be). Though that might be believed by a segment of society, there is also another large portion of the population that doesn’t accept that shift in language. In fact, they believe words matter and allowing/collaborating with the change in what a pronoun refers to is a problem. They don’t see the attempt to change language to embrace transgender ideology as benign.
Second, when talking to a person, you don’t use their pronouns. You just use their name (“Kaitlyn, can you meet for coffee?”) or “you” (“You did an amazing job”) to refer to them. In other words, declining to go along with a person’s preferred pronouns will not likely upset that person since they’re not usually present when you use their pronouns.
Pronouns are most often used when you’re talking about someone with another person.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Two Kinds of Sermons that Seem Expositional but Really Aren’t
Written by Matthew T. Martens and Theodore D. Martens |
Friday, August 11, 2023
Study the text. Understand its words. Observe the relationship of the words to one another. Consider the structure. But do all of this not as an end itself. Do it in order to get to the point of the text. Only then can you deliver a truly expository sermon that makes the point of the text the point of your sermon in a way that will thoroughly furnish your congregation unto all good works (2 Tim 3:17).Common in conservative evangelical circles today—certainly among the readers of ministries like 9Marks—is a professed commitment to expository preaching. We say “professed” commitment because our experience over decades as both a pastor and faithful church member, having either delivered or listened to thousands of sermons, has led us to the conclusion that much “expository preaching” does not in fact meet the definition.
Too many sermons focus on the biblical text, but fail to exposit the main point of the scriptural passage under consideration. To be clear, this critique isn’t merely an academic or definitional one. If a sermon fails to unpack the main point of the text at hand, the pastor is failing to preach the whole counsel of God regardless of how throughly the speaker examines the scriptural passage. Such a sermon fails to communicate what God intended to communicate by inspiring that text.
Let’s be more specific. Two kinds of preaching are often confused with expository preaching because of a superficial resemblance: “sequential preaching” and “observational preaching.” We’ll discuss them below. We pray that this discussion will be edifying to preachers as you seek to feed your flocks.
1. Sequential preaching is not necessarily expository preaching.
Many preachers believe they’re engaged in expository preaching simply because they sequentially preach through a particular book of the Bible. While there’s much to commend about this approach, it doesn’t necessarily equate to expository preaching.
For example, a pastor may preach a 16-week series through the book of Romans. That fact by itself would cause many preachers to think they’re doing expository preaching. But it’s not. Whether the sequential preacher is delivering an expository sermon in any given week depends on two things:whether the preacher has rightly identified the main point of the week’s assigned passage,
and whether the sermon then keeps as its focus the main point of the passage.An example may clarify this point. If, in the third week of the series, the preacher delivers a sermon on Romans 3 that centers on and rightly explains the doctrine of inspiration, then the preacher would not be preaching an expository sermon. Why do we say that? Because the main point of Romans 3 is not the doctrine of inspiration, but rather the fallenness of man. The entire chapter builds to man’s fallenness; Paul surveys the Old Testament and concludes that “all have sinned and fall short of God’s glory” (3:23).
To be sure, the doctrine of inspiration is mentioned, but only in passing in verse 2 (“the very words of God,” NIV). Simply put, inspiration is not the main point of Romans 3. Rather, the inspiration of the Old Testament is invoked by Paul to give authoritative weight to his recitation of passages that make his main point.
Furthermore, the main point of Romans 3 is not the unbelief of Israel (vs. 3), the faithfulness of God (vs. 3), the righteousness of God (vs. 5), the coming judgment of the world (vs. 6), or the ways men demonstrate depravity (vs. 13–18). All of those concepts appear in Romans 3 not as ends in themselves, but rather as elements of an argument toward Paul’s main point: we all, Jew and Gentile alike, have a sin problem that we cannot solve.
What distinguishes an expository sermon is not simply that what the preacher is saying is biblically accurate, but that it draws its main truth from the main point of the passage. An expository sermon on Romans 3 requires that the main point of the sermon is the main point—not a sub-point, not peripheral to the main point—of Romans 3.
Of course, there’s value in sequentially preaching through books of the Bible. It helps to ensure that the whole counsel of God is preached and you have “kept nothing back that was profitable for” the congregation (Acts 20:20 KJV). Furthermore, by taking an entire book under study, the preacher is forced to grapple with the flow of the author’s argument throughout. This increases the likelihood that the preacher is rightly identifying the main point of a particular sermon’s text.
Read More
Related Posts: -
And Justice For All
Through his sacrifice Christ brought the offer of reconciliation to the world, tearing down the dividing wall of hostility. Christ appointed his children as peacemakers; his children have now put to death their hostility (Romans 14:19). Despite their many blind spots, faults, and failings, it has been Christians, the new humanity, who have fought to end racism, slavery, inequality, and every kind of injustice throughout the world for the past 2,000 years.
First and foremost Critical Theory is, as its name implies, critical of something. But before we get into all of the details we need a little history.
Karl Marx, in his 1848 book, The Communist Manifesto, was critical of the social, political, and economic systems in his day. He simplistically divided the world into two artificial categories. The oppressors were the wealthy people who owned factories and businesses, in other words they owned the capital. The oppressed were the poorer people who worked for the oppressors in the factories and businesses. Marx envisioned a world where the oppressed would rise up in rebellion and take over the factories and businesses so that both groups would be socially, politically, and economically equal.
In addition to his writings on economics Marx was openly a disciple of Lucifer, writing many works in his praise:
“Heaven I’ve forfeited, I know full wellMy soul once true to God, Is chosen for hell”(“The Devil and Karl Marx: Communism’s Long march of Death, Deception, and Infiltration,” Paul Kengor, August 18, 2020.)
Marx taught that because economic and political systems were flawed they needed to be torn down. He believed that these systems were rigged by the powerful and wealthy to their advantage, keeping the underclasses in subjugation. His solution was to stir up disunity and resentment in the oppressed so that they would rise up and tear down the existing system. The old system would then be replaced.
Marx’ society did not value freedom or equal opportunity, rather he envisioned a society of equal outcomes. No matter where you started out in life and no matter how much effort you put into your life, everyone ended up with the same amount of money, possessions, education, freedom, etc. To make this possible an all-powerful government would be established to redistribute all the resources necessary for life equally to everyone.
The problem that the Communists faced was that everywhere Communism was tried it was discredited as a violent, non-functioning, failed economic system, that brought the world nothing but servitude, genocide, and crushing poverty. And this makes sense because God designed man to be free and God designed an industrious and entrepreneurial economic system that included private property rights. As a result, the masses of people that Marx identified as oppressed never rose up, as envisioned, against the people and systems that he identified as oppressors.
To make Communism more acceptable it was repackaged in the 1930’s as Critical Theory. Like Marxism before it, the Neo-Marxists, teaching Critical Theory, seek to deconstruct and tear down all of the traditions and norms of society including systems of power: government, courts, family, religion, individual ownership, and private business. This time, instead of violent revolution, Marxist Philosopher, Antonio Gramsci planned for “a long march through the institutions… Socialism is the religion that must overwhelm Christianity. In the new order, Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of school, universities, churches, and the media to transform the consciousness of society.”
This process was helped along by Saul Alinsky. In his book, “Rules for Radicals, Alinsky, a Marxist community organizer, laid out the steps necessary to successfully dismantle competing social and economic systems, making way for the Marxist system to be built in its place. This would be accomplished through the use of community organizers. He wrote, “In the beginning the organizers job is to create the issues or problems.” In other words, to dismantle a functioning but flawed system the organizer must sow disunity. Perhaps you have heard the Critical Theorist’s political maxim, “Never let a crisis go to waste.” The organizer, seeking to “create issues or problems” is taught to seize upon any crisis that can be used in disrupting the existing system. The goal is to create a class of people who see themselves as victims. The victims are taught to fiercely covet whatever their “oppressors” have: wealth, power, privilege, property, education, freedom, etc. so that they will tear the existing system down.
Critical Theorists are currently seeking to divide and exploit people by dividing them into many different victim groups. Perhaps you have heard of Critical Race Theory, or Queer Theory, or Post-Colonial Theory, or Fat Studies, or Disability Studies, or Gender Studies, or ageism, or economic justice, or racial justice, or environmental justice. I could go on but though their speech is as smooth as butter, there is war in their hearts (Psalm 55:21). The point is that they want to dismantle the foundations that society rests upon, including the concept of truth.
Interestingly, Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer, “the first radical… who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he won his own kingdom.” Lucifer rebelled against the God of truth, and Lucifer’s followers, Marx, Gramsci, and Alinsky, have continued in that rebellion. Objective truth does not exist. In fact, truth is defined as an artificial system, put in place by the oppressors, to keep the oppressed in line.
The new subjective “truth” is whatever advances the Critical Theory narrative. Perhaps you have begun to notice this double standard in regard to truth. When Critical Theorists riot, loot, occupy buildings, and burn, “creating issues and problems” their actions are reported as peaceful speech. In contrast, those who speak up against such behavior are condemned for hate speech and de-platformed from popular social media sites. Or perhaps you have heard that gender is just a social construct, meaning that you may choose your own gender. Or perhaps you have heard that both the family and marriage are social constructs, meaning that anyone or anything can be married; two men, two women, two men four women, a woman and a horse, or any other combination that you may want. Or perhaps you have heard that punctuality, knowledge, reason, loyalty, reliability, science, facts, math, evidence, productivity, virtue, freedom of speech and Christianity are all inventions of the oppressor class and must, therefore, be overthrown.
You don’t believe this? While I could show you many examples, because this is the subject of an ongoing national debate that is infiltrating the church, the following is taken directly from the official Black Lives Matter website:
“We do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege. Everybody has the right to choose their own gender by listening to their own heart and mind. Everyone gets to choose if they are a girl or a boy or both or neither or something else, and no one else gets to choose for them. We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure,.. We demand the defunding of law enforcement.”
Because the Critical Theorists in the leadership of Black Lives Matter have a catch phrase that everyone can agree with (of course black lives matter!) and because they cleverly claim that they are seeking Social Justice, many Christians are deceived. Social Justice sounds good but because it is really a Marxist term it is counterfeit justice. It opposes God’s true justice at every step, preaching a gospel of hatred against marriage, family, patriarchy, private property, free speech, binary genders, and much more, opposing truth and God’s created order. This amounts to reimagining the world in the image of the father of lies, Lucifer (John 8:44).
Alinsky was correct in connecting Lucifer’s rebellion and the necessity for sowing division in bringing down a society. Lucifer sowed rebellion, convincing Eve, “You shall be like God” (Genesis 3:5). Covetousness is breaking the Tenth Commandment of God. Desiring what you don’t have and feeling like a victim is the path to resentment: the perfect emotion to use in building the angry mob necessary for revolution.
Christians must never make common cause with those Marxist organizations seeking to sow division. In ‘Strength to Love” Martin Luther King Jr. wrote, “Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.” And what does that look like in practice? Forgiveness. As Christ taught and as James urged his congregation, we must forgive others as God has forgiven us (Matthew 6:12). Christians must never harbor resentment or nurture hatred because of wrongs suffered (1Corinthians 13:5).
Sowing disunity cannot bring unity. Dwelling on hate will only produce hate. But remember, Critical Theory is all about criticism. The Social Justice that the official BLM organization seeks can never produce unity. They intentionally and deceptively use great sounding catch phrases like social justice, racial justice, and black lives matter to gain support for their cause. But they have redefined the meaning of these phrases. “Their paths are crooked, they are devious in their ways” (Proverbs 2:15).
In reality, they don’t want solutions. The Critical Theory end game is tearing down society so that another can be built on the ashes. If they have to foment a race war, recounting past sins and present failures to reach their goal they are willing to do so. They depend on the historical fallacy, re-litigating the historical sins of the past. They do this, not to build unity but rather to destroy. Remember: “The organizers job is to create problems.” They are not reformers seeking to “strengthen what remains” (Revelation 3:2), they are revolutionaries seeking to “destroy even the foundations” (Psalm 11:3).
And not surprisingly, like both Marx and Alinsky before her, BLM founder and avowed Marxist community organizer, Patrisse Cullors, worships Lucifer. Further, contrary to Deuteronomy 18:11, she has stated that she calls on the spirits of the dead victims of racism to give her supernatural guidance in tearing down the system. She reports that she has developed close relationships with the spirits of these people that she “never knew in this life.” She has gone so far as to admit that the chants, “Say her name” and “Say their names” are acts of worship. She stated that when she is able to coerce people to chant the names of her spirit guides she “pours out libations in the street” in worship, to gain “spiritual power and guidance” (The Occult Spirituality of Black Lives Matter, including video interviews with Patrisse Cullors, Melina Abdullah, BLM cofounder, and Nissy Tee).
In contrast, Christians, because we are unified in Christ, are instructed how to work together for true justice, seeing to it that racism and injustice of all kinds come to an end in our lives, in our churches, and in the world. As Paul taught:
“Remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility…” (Ephesians 1:12-19).
Through his sacrifice Christ brought the offer of reconciliation to the world, tearing down the dividing wall of hostility. Christ appointed his children as peacemakers; his children have now put to death their hostility (Romans 14:19). Despite their many blind spots, faults, and failings, it has been Christians, the new humanity, who have fought to end racism, slavery, inequality, and every kind of injustice throughout the world for the past 2,000 years.
Christians should continue to follow the teaching of Christ, who entered into our world showing us the way to life: forgiveness, mercy, reconciliation, and peace. We should pursue Christ’s path of love rather than joining with Critical Theorists, whose goals include destroying Christ’s Church. Christians, of all people, are no longer strangers but are fellow citizens, members of the same household. As such, Christians should build up with the truth; not tearing down the culture by embracing the guilt and victimhood based on the Satanic Marxist lies of Critical Theory. To make common cause with Critical Theorists is to throw fuel on an arsonists fire; exactly what they want.
Richard Loper is a member of Chapelgate Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Ellicott City, Md.