Friday, September 28, 2012
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Monday, September 24, 2012
What Is Morality Other than Harm?
An interesting video of individualism, morality, etc from the GC site:
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Friday, September 21, 2012
Most of the Work of Ministry Is Done by Christians Who Work Secular Jobs
Encouraging article to be the salt&light of the world in our work place.
(http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/most-of-the-work-of-ministry-is-done-by-christians-who-work-secular-jobs)
But God draws no such distinctions. He does call some of his saints (a relative few) to serve the church vocationally in a variety of ways. But these folks are not the spiritual elite or some kind of Christianized Brahmin caste who get to do holy work while everyone else must soil their hands in the profane. Rather, God assigns them to serve and equip the vast majority of his saints who he deploys in the world to carry out “the work of ministry” (Ephesians 4:12).
In other words, Christians who work secular jobs do most of the work of ministry and it’s the job of vocational ministers to equip these folks so they can do this effectively.
According to 1 Corinthians 7:17–24, your job (assuming it’s not inherently unethical or immoral) is an assignment from God. That doesn’t mean it’s a permanent assignment, but it’s today’s assignment. And God wants you to carry out that assignment with dependent faith, diligence, and excellence.
In chapter eight of Don’t Waste Your Life, titled “Making Much of Christ from 8 to 5,” John Piper explains why secular work is designed to be God-like work:
God may call you someday as a vocational minister. He may not. But wherever he assigns you, “remain with God” (1 Corinthians 7:24). And make it your mission “to take what God has made and shape it and use it to make him look great.”
(http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/most-of-the-work-of-ministry-is-done-by-christians-who-work-secular-jobs)
Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him… in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God. (1 Corinthians 7:17, 24)Most Christians struggle at some point with the sense that ministry jobs are just more sacred than other jobs. You can see this reflected in our terminology: we tend to call non-ministry jobs “secular jobs.” It can be hard not to see them as “unspiritual” or “less spiritual” jobs.
But God draws no such distinctions. He does call some of his saints (a relative few) to serve the church vocationally in a variety of ways. But these folks are not the spiritual elite or some kind of Christianized Brahmin caste who get to do holy work while everyone else must soil their hands in the profane. Rather, God assigns them to serve and equip the vast majority of his saints who he deploys in the world to carry out “the work of ministry” (Ephesians 4:12).
In other words, Christians who work secular jobs do most of the work of ministry and it’s the job of vocational ministers to equip these folks so they can do this effectively.
According to 1 Corinthians 7:17–24, your job (assuming it’s not inherently unethical or immoral) is an assignment from God. That doesn’t mean it’s a permanent assignment, but it’s today’s assignment. And God wants you to carry out that assignment with dependent faith, diligence, and excellence.
In chapter eight of Don’t Waste Your Life, titled “Making Much of Christ from 8 to 5,” John Piper explains why secular work is designed to be God-like work:
So if you go all the way back, before the origin of sin, there are no negative connotations about secular work. According to Genesis 2:2, God himself rested from his work of creation, implying that work is a good, God-like thing. And the capstone of that divine work was man, a creature in God’s own image designed to carry on the work of ruling and shaping and designing creation. Therefore, at the heart of the meaning of work is creativity. If you are God, your work is to create out of nothing. If you are not God, but like God — that is, if you are human — your work is to take what God has made and shape it and use it to make him look great.John told me once that he thought this chapter might be the most important one in the book. It might be for you. Or it might be for those in your church or small group or Bible study. And if so, we’re making cases of this book available at a very low cost. Who knows what God might do through a handful of Christians who catch a new vision and passion for their work?
God may call you someday as a vocational minister. He may not. But wherever he assigns you, “remain with God” (1 Corinthians 7:24). And make it your mission “to take what God has made and shape it and use it to make him look great.”
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
The Far Less Sensational Truth about Jesus' 'Wife'
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/09/19/the-far-less-sensational-truth-about-jesus-wife/
Since the discovery of the "Gnostic Gospels" at Nag Hammadi in 1945, scholars and the general public cannot seem to get enough of alternative versions of the life of Jesus. The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Mary, and most recently, the Gospel of Judas, have all raised provocative questions about Christianity. Were stories of Jesus intentionally left out of the New Testament? Were these alternative versions of Christianity suppressed (or oppressed)? And do the canonical gospels really give us an accurate picture of Jesus?
Just as the dust had settled from the discovery of the Gospel of Judas,
a new discovery has now reopened all these questions. During my class
break yesterday (ironically just before I began my lectures on
apocryphal gospels), I received news that a new manuscript that portrays
Jesus as having a wife. This is noteworthy because---despite the claims
of The Da Vinci Code---we have no text within all of Christianity that explicitly says Jesus was married.
This new manuscript---aptly titled the Gospel of Jesus' Wife---is a fragment of a fourth-century codex written in Coptic (Sahidic) that in one place reads, "Jesus said to them, 'My wife . . . she will be able to be my disciple.'" The fragment is quite small (4 x 8 cm), with faded writing on the back. The main text is written in a cramped, semi-literate hand. Most notably, Karen King of Harvard University has suggested that while the manuscript is fourth century, the original composition should be dated back to the middle of the second century.
So what shall we make of this new discovery? Here are several considerations.
However, according to Karen King's forthcoming paper, this manuscript was examined by Roger Bagnall and AnnMarie Luijendijk, two reputable scholars, who both found it to be authentic and attributed the odd style to the blunt pen of the scribe. Other indications of authenticity are the use of the nomina sacra (abbreviations of certain words) and the faded ink on the back of the page (something that would have required considerable time). But my friend and Coptic scholar, Christian Askeland, is skeptical of its authenticity due to, among other things, the odd formation of some of its letters (particularly the epsilon) and omissions in the Coptic text. Other scholars have also expressed skepticism about the fragment.
At this point, there is no way to know whether it is genuine or a forgery. We cannot be certain until more scholars have an opportunity to examine it.
Another question pertains to the date of the story this fragment contains. When was this story first composed? King argues that it was composed in the middle of the second century based largely on the broad similarities with the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Phillip, which both existed during this timeframe. This is certainly a possibility, particularly given that we know a number of other apocryphal gospels were composed in the second century (e.g., Gospel of Peter, P. Egerton 2, P.Oxy. 840). However, this argument does not require a second-century date. This story could have been written in the third century and may have simply drawn upon writings like the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Phillip.
Most important, there is nothing that would indicate that the composition of this gospel should be dated to the first century. It was produced long after the time of the apostles, along with all other known apocryphal gospels.
Moreover---and this is critical---we do not have a single historical source in all of early Christianity that suggests Jesus was married. None. There is nothing about Jesus being married in the canonical gospels, in apocryphal gospels, in the church fathers, or anywhere else. Even if this new gospel claims that Jesus was married, it is out of step with all the other credible historical evidence we have about his life. As King herself noted, "This is the only extant ancient text which explicitly portrays Jesus as referring to a wife. It does not, however, provide evidence that the historical Jesus was married" (p. 1 here).
When it comes to these sorts of questions I like to remind my students of a simple---but often overlooked---fact: of all the gospels in early Christianity, only Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are dated to the first century. Sure, there are minority attempts to put books like the Gospel of Thomas in the first century---but such attempts have not been well received by biblical scholars. Thus, if we really want to know what Jesus was like, our best bet is to rely on books that were at least written during the time period when eyewitnesses were still alive. And only four gospels meet that standard.
Since the discovery of the "Gnostic Gospels" at Nag Hammadi in 1945, scholars and the general public cannot seem to get enough of alternative versions of the life of Jesus. The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Mary, and most recently, the Gospel of Judas, have all raised provocative questions about Christianity. Were stories of Jesus intentionally left out of the New Testament? Were these alternative versions of Christianity suppressed (or oppressed)? And do the canonical gospels really give us an accurate picture of Jesus?
This new manuscript---aptly titled the Gospel of Jesus' Wife---is a fragment of a fourth-century codex written in Coptic (Sahidic) that in one place reads, "Jesus said to them, 'My wife . . . she will be able to be my disciple.'" The fragment is quite small (4 x 8 cm), with faded writing on the back. The main text is written in a cramped, semi-literate hand. Most notably, Karen King of Harvard University has suggested that while the manuscript is fourth century, the original composition should be dated back to the middle of the second century.
So what shall we make of this new discovery? Here are several considerations.
Authenticity
Forgery is not uncommon in the antiquities market. I am not an expert in Coptic palaeography (my work is in Greek manuscripts), but I had concerns about the initial appearance of the manuscript. In particular, the sloppy nature of the scribal hand, and the wide and undifferentiated strokes of the pen seemed problematic. In addition, the color of the ink seems off---it's too dark, almost as if it were painted. Ancient inks tend to be lighter in color, though there are exceptions. This scenario is exacerbated by the ambiguity about the place of its discovery and the identity of its anonymous owner.However, according to Karen King's forthcoming paper, this manuscript was examined by Roger Bagnall and AnnMarie Luijendijk, two reputable scholars, who both found it to be authentic and attributed the odd style to the blunt pen of the scribe. Other indications of authenticity are the use of the nomina sacra (abbreviations of certain words) and the faded ink on the back of the page (something that would have required considerable time). But my friend and Coptic scholar, Christian Askeland, is skeptical of its authenticity due to, among other things, the odd formation of some of its letters (particularly the epsilon) and omissions in the Coptic text. Other scholars have also expressed skepticism about the fragment.
At this point, there is no way to know whether it is genuine or a forgery. We cannot be certain until more scholars have an opportunity to examine it.
Composition
Assuming for the moment that the manuscript is genuine, questions remain about its composition. First, what kind of document are we dealing with here? At first glance, the document appears to be composed as a gospel-like text that contained stories and sayings of Jesus. In fact, Jesus seems to be doing what he often does in other gospel texts: he is having a conversation with his disciples. Some scholars have suggested this fragment may be a magical text like an amulet, particularly given its small size. However, amulets normally did not have writing on the back of the page (the verso). If the writing on the back of this fragment is continuous with the front (which is unknown at this point) then it may simply be a miniature codex. Miniature codices were popular in early Christianity and often contained apocryphal texts. For more on this subject, see my article here.Another question pertains to the date of the story this fragment contains. When was this story first composed? King argues that it was composed in the middle of the second century based largely on the broad similarities with the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Phillip, which both existed during this timeframe. This is certainly a possibility, particularly given that we know a number of other apocryphal gospels were composed in the second century (e.g., Gospel of Peter, P. Egerton 2, P.Oxy. 840). However, this argument does not require a second-century date. This story could have been written in the third century and may have simply drawn upon writings like the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Phillip.
Most important, there is nothing that would indicate that the composition of this gospel should be dated to the first century. It was produced long after the time of the apostles, along with all other known apocryphal gospels.
Historical Value
The key question is whether this particular gospel account can tell us anything about what Jesus was really like. Does this text prove that Jesus had a wife? Does this gospel provide reliable historical information? No and no. There is no reason to think this gospel retains authentic tradition about Jesus. It is a late production, not based on eyewitness testimony, and likely draws on other apocryphal works like Thomas and Phillip.Moreover---and this is critical---we do not have a single historical source in all of early Christianity that suggests Jesus was married. None. There is nothing about Jesus being married in the canonical gospels, in apocryphal gospels, in the church fathers, or anywhere else. Even if this new gospel claims that Jesus was married, it is out of step with all the other credible historical evidence we have about his life. As King herself noted, "This is the only extant ancient text which explicitly portrays Jesus as referring to a wife. It does not, however, provide evidence that the historical Jesus was married" (p. 1 here).
Conspiracies and the Canonical Gospels
Everybody loves a good conspiracy theory. It would certainly be far more entertaining for our culture if one could show that apocryphal books were really the Scripture of the early church and that they have been suppressed by the political machinations of the later church (e.g., Constantine). But the truth is far less sensational. While apocryphal books were given some scriptural status from time to time, the overwhelming majority of early Christians preferred the books now in our New Testament canon. Thus, we are reminded again that the canon was not arbitrarily "created" by the church in the fourth or fifth century. The affirmations of the later church simply reflected what had already been the case for many, many years.When it comes to these sorts of questions I like to remind my students of a simple---but often overlooked---fact: of all the gospels in early Christianity, only Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are dated to the first century. Sure, there are minority attempts to put books like the Gospel of Thomas in the first century---but such attempts have not been well received by biblical scholars. Thus, if we really want to know what Jesus was like, our best bet is to rely on books that were at least written during the time period when eyewitnesses were still alive. And only four gospels meet that standard.
Monday, September 17, 2012
Quote of the day: What pleases you?
HAPPY MONDAY!! :)
"Someone confronted Martin Luther, upon the Reformer's rediscovery of the biblical doctrine of justification, with the remark, 'If this is true, a person could simply live as he pleased!' 'Indeed!' answered Luther. 'Now, what pleases you?' Augustine was the great preacher of grace during the fourth and fifth centuries. Although his understanding of the doctrine of justification did not have the fine-tuned precision of the Reformers, Augustine's response on this point was similar to Luther's. He said that the doctrine of justification led to the maxim, "Love God and do as you please." Because we have misunderstood one of the gospel's most basic themes, Augustine's statement looks to many like a license to indulge one's sinful nature, but in reality it touches upon the motivation the Christian has for his actions. The person who has been justified by God's grace has a new, higher, and nobler motivation for holiness than the shallow, hypocritical self-righteousness or fear that seems to motivate so many religious people today."
(Michael Horton, The Agony of Deceit, Moody Press, 1990, pp. 143-144).
"Someone confronted Martin Luther, upon the Reformer's rediscovery of the biblical doctrine of justification, with the remark, 'If this is true, a person could simply live as he pleased!' 'Indeed!' answered Luther. 'Now, what pleases you?' Augustine was the great preacher of grace during the fourth and fifth centuries. Although his understanding of the doctrine of justification did not have the fine-tuned precision of the Reformers, Augustine's response on this point was similar to Luther's. He said that the doctrine of justification led to the maxim, "Love God and do as you please." Because we have misunderstood one of the gospel's most basic themes, Augustine's statement looks to many like a license to indulge one's sinful nature, but in reality it touches upon the motivation the Christian has for his actions. The person who has been justified by God's grace has a new, higher, and nobler motivation for holiness than the shallow, hypocritical self-righteousness or fear that seems to motivate so many religious people today."
(Michael Horton, The Agony of Deceit, Moody Press, 1990, pp. 143-144).
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Quote of the day
"Aslan," said Lucy, "you're bigger."
"That is because you are older, little one," answered he.
"Not because you are?"
"I am not. But ever year you grow, you will find me bigger."
(C.S. Lewis, Prince Caspian: The Return to Narnia)
Let us continue to grow deeper in our relationship with God through our daily devotionals because there is no end to God's greatness!
Monday, September 10, 2012
counterfeit gods
Since we recently read Counterfeits gods by Tim Keller, I thought this video was interesting and relevant. This video was inspired by that book.
What do you guys think of the video?
Sunday, September 9, 2012
An awesome article on singleness
by Paige Benton Brown (I would say that she's like the female version of Tim Keller).
Although it is written from a female's perspective, it is still a good read to remind us that God is good all the time and all the time God is good!
http://www.pcpc.org/ministries/singles/singledout.php/
(For those who feel lazy to click on the link, I copied/pasted the article. You're welcome!)
Although it is written from a female's perspective, it is still a good read to remind us that God is good all the time and all the time God is good!
http://www.pcpc.org/ministries/singles/singledout.php/
(For those who feel lazy to click on the link, I copied/pasted the article. You're welcome!)
Singled Out by God for Good
by Paige Benton Brown
Had I any vague premonition of my present plight when I was six, I would have demanded that Stephen Herbison (incontestably the catch of the second grade) put his marriage proposal into writing and have it notarized. I do want this piece to be practical, so to all you first-graders: CARPE DIEM.
Over the past several years I have perfected the artistry of escape regarding any singles functions—cookouts, conferences, Sunday school classes, and my personal favorite, putt-putt. My avoidance mechanism is triggered not so much by a lack of patience with such activities as it is by a lack of stomach for the pervasive attitudes. Thoreau insists that most men lead lives of quiet desperation; I insist that many singles lead lives of loud aggravation. Being immersed in singles can be like finding yourself in the midst of "The Whiners" of 1980's Saturday Night Live—it gives a whole new meaning to "pity party."
Much has been written in Christian circles about singleness. The objective is usually either to chide the married population for their misunderstanding and segregationism or to empathize with the unmarried population as they bear the cross of “Plan B” for the Christian life, bolstered only by the consolation prizes of innumerable sermons on I Corinthians 7 and the fact that you can cut your toenails in bed. Yet singles, like all believers, need scriptural critique and instruction seasoned by sober grace, not condolences and putt-putt accompanied with pious platitudes.
John Calvin’s secret to sanctification is the interaction of the knowledge of God and knowledge of self. Singles, like all other sinners, typically dismiss the first element of the formula, and therein lies the root of all identity crises. It is not that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, but that life has no tragedy like our God ignored. Every problem is a theological problem, and the habitual discontent of us singles is no exception.
Can God be any less good to me on the average Tuesday morning than he was on that monumental Friday afternoon when he hung on a cross in my place? The answer is a resounding NO. God will not be less good to me tomorrow either, because God cannot be less good to me. His goodness is not the effect of his disposition but the essence of his person—not an attitude but an attribute.
I long to be married. My younger sister got married two months ago. She now has an adoring husband, a beautiful home, a whirlpool bathtub, and all-new Corningware. Is God being any less good to me than he is to her? The answer is a resounding NO. God will not be less good to me because God cannot be less good to me. It is a cosmic impossibility for God to shortchange any of his children. God can no more live in me apart from the perfect fullness of his goodness and grace than I can live in Nashville and not be white. If he fluctuated one quark in his goodness, he would cease to be God.
Warped theology is at the heart of attempts to "explain" singleness:
by Paige Benton Brown
Had I any vague premonition of my present plight when I was six, I would have demanded that Stephen Herbison (incontestably the catch of the second grade) put his marriage proposal into writing and have it notarized. I do want this piece to be practical, so to all you first-graders: CARPE DIEM.
Over the past several years I have perfected the artistry of escape regarding any singles functions—cookouts, conferences, Sunday school classes, and my personal favorite, putt-putt. My avoidance mechanism is triggered not so much by a lack of patience with such activities as it is by a lack of stomach for the pervasive attitudes. Thoreau insists that most men lead lives of quiet desperation; I insist that many singles lead lives of loud aggravation. Being immersed in singles can be like finding yourself in the midst of "The Whiners" of 1980's Saturday Night Live—it gives a whole new meaning to "pity party."
Much has been written in Christian circles about singleness. The objective is usually either to chide the married population for their misunderstanding and segregationism or to empathize with the unmarried population as they bear the cross of “Plan B” for the Christian life, bolstered only by the consolation prizes of innumerable sermons on I Corinthians 7 and the fact that you can cut your toenails in bed. Yet singles, like all believers, need scriptural critique and instruction seasoned by sober grace, not condolences and putt-putt accompanied with pious platitudes.
John Calvin’s secret to sanctification is the interaction of the knowledge of God and knowledge of self. Singles, like all other sinners, typically dismiss the first element of the formula, and therein lies the root of all identity crises. It is not that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, but that life has no tragedy like our God ignored. Every problem is a theological problem, and the habitual discontent of us singles is no exception.
Can God be any less good to me on the average Tuesday morning than he was on that monumental Friday afternoon when he hung on a cross in my place? The answer is a resounding NO. God will not be less good to me tomorrow either, because God cannot be less good to me. His goodness is not the effect of his disposition but the essence of his person—not an attitude but an attribute.
I long to be married. My younger sister got married two months ago. She now has an adoring husband, a beautiful home, a whirlpool bathtub, and all-new Corningware. Is God being any less good to me than he is to her? The answer is a resounding NO. God will not be less good to me because God cannot be less good to me. It is a cosmic impossibility for God to shortchange any of his children. God can no more live in me apart from the perfect fullness of his goodness and grace than I can live in Nashville and not be white. If he fluctuated one quark in his goodness, he would cease to be God.
Warped theology is at the heart of attempts to "explain" singleness:
- "As soon as you’re satisfied with God alone, he’ll bring someone special into your life”—as though God’s blessings are ever earned by our contentment.
- "You’re too picky”—as though God is frustrated by our fickle whims and needs broader parameters in which to work.
- "As a single you can commit yourself wholeheartedly to the Lord’s work”—as though God requires emotional martyrs to do his work, of which marriage must be no part.
- "Before you can marry someone wonderful, the Lord has to make you someone wonderful"—as though God grants marriage as a second blessing to the satisfactorily sanctified.
Accepting singleness, whether temporary or permanent, does not hinge on speculation about answers God has not given to our list of whys, but rather on celebration of the life he has given. I am not single because I am too spiritually unstable to possibly deserve a husband, nor because I am too spiritually mature to possibly need one. I am single because God is so abundantly good to me, because this is his best for me. It is a cosmic impossibility that anything could be better for me right now than being single, The psalmists confirm that I should not want, I shall not want, because no good thing will God withhold from me.
Such knowledge of God must transform subsequent knowledge of self-theological readjustment is always the catalyst for renewed self-awareness. This keeps identity right-side-up with nouns and modifiers in their correct place. Am I a Christian single or am I a single Christian? The discrepancy in grammatical construction may be somewhat subtle, but the difference in mindset is profound. Which word is determinative and which is descriptive? You see, we singles are chronic amnesiacs—we forget who we are, we forget whose we are. I am a single Christian. My identity is not found in my marital status but in my redemptive status. I 'm one of the "haves," not one of the "have-nots."
Have you ever wondered at what age one is officially single? Perhaps a sliding scale is in order: 38 for a Wall Street tycoon; 21 for a Mississippi sorority girl; 14 for a Zulu princess; and five years older than I am for me. It is a relevant question because at some point we see ourselves as “single,” and that point is a place of greater danger than despair. Singleness can be a mere euphemism for self-absorption—now is the "you time." No wife to support? No husband to pamper? Well, then, by all means join three different golf courses, get a weekly pedicure, raise emus, subscribe to People.
Singleness is never carte blanche for selfishness. A spouse is not a sufficient countermeasure for self. The gospel is the only antidote for egocentricity. Christ did not come simply to save us from our sins, he came to save us from our selves. And he most often rescues us from us through relationships, all kinds of relationships.
"Are you seeing anyone special?" a young matron in my home church asked patronizingly. "Sure," I smiled. "I see you and you’re special."
OK, my sentiment was a little less than kind, but the message is true.
To be single is not to be alone. If someone asks if you are in a relationship right now, your immediate response should be that you are in dozens. Our range of relational options is not limited to getting married or to living in the sound-proof, isolated booth of Miss America pageants. Christian growth mandates relational richness.
The only time folks talk about human covenants is in premarital counseling. How anemic. If our God is a covenantal God, then all of our relationships are covenantal. The gospel is not about how much I love God (I typically love him very little); it is about how much God loves me. My relationships are not about how much friends should love me, they are about how much I get to love them. No single should ever expect relational impoverishment by virtue of being single. We should covenant to love people— to initiate, to serve, to commit.
Many of my Vanderbilt girls have been reading Lady in Waiting, a popular book for Christian women struggling with singleness. That’s all fine and dandy, but what about a subtitle: And Meanwhile, Lady, Get Working. It is a cosmic impossibility for God to require less of me in my relationships than he does of the mother of four whose office is next door. Obedience knows no ages or stages.
Let’s face it: singleness is not an inherently inferior state of affairs. If it were, heaven would be inferior to this world for the majority of Christians (Mom is reconciled to being unmarried in glory as long as she can be Daddy’s roommate). But I want to be married. I pray to that end every day. I may meet someone and walk down the aisle in the next couple of years because God is so good to me. I may never have another date and die an old maid at 93 because God is so good to me. Not my will but his be done. Until then I am claiming as my theme verse, “If any man would come after me, let him. . . "
Such knowledge of God must transform subsequent knowledge of self-theological readjustment is always the catalyst for renewed self-awareness. This keeps identity right-side-up with nouns and modifiers in their correct place. Am I a Christian single or am I a single Christian? The discrepancy in grammatical construction may be somewhat subtle, but the difference in mindset is profound. Which word is determinative and which is descriptive? You see, we singles are chronic amnesiacs—we forget who we are, we forget whose we are. I am a single Christian. My identity is not found in my marital status but in my redemptive status. I 'm one of the "haves," not one of the "have-nots."
Have you ever wondered at what age one is officially single? Perhaps a sliding scale is in order: 38 for a Wall Street tycoon; 21 for a Mississippi sorority girl; 14 for a Zulu princess; and five years older than I am for me. It is a relevant question because at some point we see ourselves as “single,” and that point is a place of greater danger than despair. Singleness can be a mere euphemism for self-absorption—now is the "you time." No wife to support? No husband to pamper? Well, then, by all means join three different golf courses, get a weekly pedicure, raise emus, subscribe to People.
Singleness is never carte blanche for selfishness. A spouse is not a sufficient countermeasure for self. The gospel is the only antidote for egocentricity. Christ did not come simply to save us from our sins, he came to save us from our selves. And he most often rescues us from us through relationships, all kinds of relationships.
"Are you seeing anyone special?" a young matron in my home church asked patronizingly. "Sure," I smiled. "I see you and you’re special."
OK, my sentiment was a little less than kind, but the message is true.
To be single is not to be alone. If someone asks if you are in a relationship right now, your immediate response should be that you are in dozens. Our range of relational options is not limited to getting married or to living in the sound-proof, isolated booth of Miss America pageants. Christian growth mandates relational richness.
The only time folks talk about human covenants is in premarital counseling. How anemic. If our God is a covenantal God, then all of our relationships are covenantal. The gospel is not about how much I love God (I typically love him very little); it is about how much God loves me. My relationships are not about how much friends should love me, they are about how much I get to love them. No single should ever expect relational impoverishment by virtue of being single. We should covenant to love people— to initiate, to serve, to commit.
Many of my Vanderbilt girls have been reading Lady in Waiting, a popular book for Christian women struggling with singleness. That’s all fine and dandy, but what about a subtitle: And Meanwhile, Lady, Get Working. It is a cosmic impossibility for God to require less of me in my relationships than he does of the mother of four whose office is next door. Obedience knows no ages or stages.
Let’s face it: singleness is not an inherently inferior state of affairs. If it were, heaven would be inferior to this world for the majority of Christians (Mom is reconciled to being unmarried in glory as long as she can be Daddy’s roommate). But I want to be married. I pray to that end every day. I may meet someone and walk down the aisle in the next couple of years because God is so good to me. I may never have another date and die an old maid at 93 because God is so good to me. Not my will but his be done. Until then I am claiming as my theme verse, “If any man would come after me, let him. . . "
In the Temple: The Glorious and Forgiving God
by Paige Benton Brown speaking at Women's Gospel Coalition
In the Temple: The Glorious and Forgiving God from The Gospel Coalition on Vimeo.
In the Temple: The Glorious and Forgiving God from The Gospel Coalition on Vimeo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)