The Westminster Confession also teaches, rightly, that one of the purposes of the sacraments is to "solemnly engage" us "to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word."

When we are "engaged" in this way it means that we are bound to Him by means of an oath. When we are baptized, we either take an oath, or an oath is taken on our behalf—that we will live for the service of God in Christ, according to His Word. Baptism is the oath that inaugurates the relationship—much like the oaths that a bride and groom take on their wedding day. That is the fundamental oath, that is the oath that is foundational to all others.

But our confession is talking this way, about our "solemn engagement" in its section on the sacraments, and so this means that it applies to the Lord’s Supper as well. Every time we come to this Table, we are coming to be renewed, and on that basis to renew our commitments, to renew our solemn engagements, to make our vows, to honor our promises.

Now this practice of "solemn engagement," if we are not careful, can easily drift away from grace, and we will discover ourselves neck deep in moralistic scruples and vows, and no clear way out. But when we do this, it is not because we are keeping our vows, it is because we are not. What is the work that God requires of us? It is for us to believe.

We keep our promises by trusting in the only man who ever kept all His promises—the Lord Jesus. We remember our vows when we pray in Jesus’ name, the one who fulfilled all our vows for us. We obey God when we turn to the one who obeyed God perfectly on our behalf. We offer up recompense for our sins when we plead the blood of Jesus.

Look at the cup here. That is not your blood. Look at the broken body. That is not your body. You are not the promise keeper.

But there is something else, and this is the glorious part. That blood, which is not yours, in just a few moments, will be given to you. And when it is given to you, it will be yours. This broken body, which is not yours, is shortly going to be given to you. And when it is given to you, it will be yours.

This year, as it happens, the church holiday of Pentecost and our cultural holiday of Mothers Day, happen to fall on the same day. There is no deep spiritual significance to this, but it is suggestive of a few things that we ought to consider. Mothers Day is one day a year on which we honor the sacrifices and love of our mothers. Pentecost is the anniversary of the Day on which the Church was given her wedding garment, established as the bride of Christ, and honored as the mother of all who believe.

The Bible teaches us that the structure of the family is important, and that it is to be used by us to establish certain patterns of behavior that are important in our relationship to Jesus Christ and to His Church. Honor your father and mother is the first commandment with a promise, that our lives might go well with us in the earth, and it is a command that is urged upon us within the Church. In the book of Galatians, Paul tells us that the Church is our mother, and of course, how you think of and treat your human mother will be a powerful indicator of what kind of church member you will be. Your treatment of your mother reveals a lot. It is a powerful statement of how you believe mothers are to be treated. If you are record stinker in the home, the chances are good that you will be the same in the Church. If you were a record stinker growing up, years ago, and you have never gone back to put that right, that same attitude will carry over to the Church. For some of you, what better gift could your long-suffering mother receive for Mothers Day than a sincere, heart-felt apology? You were, after all, that way for years.

But to return the celebration of Pentecost, we want to place ourselves rightly in the analogies of Scripture. We sometimes limit our understanding by adopting one scriptural picture to the exclusion of all others. For example, we think of God the Father as our Father in heaven, which is right and proper. That is what we are taught to do. But Isaiah also calls the Son the one who will be called everlasting Father, and He is also the last Adam—a father of a new race.

And, as the father of a new race, He of course has taken a bride, which is the Christian Church. We collectively are the bride of Christ. None of us individually are the bride of Christ, and we ought not to think of ourselves that way. Individually, the picture ought to be that of children. Christ is our Father, the Church our Mother, and we, individually, are the children.

As you honor your mothers today, as you ought to do, remember also to honor your Mother, the one whom Jesus determined to love forever. If He, the eternal Son of God, has honored her so highly, what should our attitude be? These things are all interrelated. As we honor the Church, we will grow in our understanding of how we are to honor our human mothers. As we honor our human mothers rightly, we will grow in our understanding of what our relationship to the Church should be.

I recently started reading Rodney Clapp's latest book, Johnny Cash and the Great American Contradiction. It promises to be, in turns, exilarating and exasperating.

Clapp is pointing out the contradictions of the whole American set-up, as embodied in Johnny Cash himself, and so I think I will begin by noting the contradiction that is going to drive me through this book, cheering and yelling alternatively.

If the early pages are any indication, Clapp is a social critic who understands America very, very well. He does not fall into the trap of demonizing America, or lionizing her. The whole gnarly thing is put out there -- good, bad, and indifferent. Acknowledging that America is "noble and brave," he also sees that the American Experiment is "threatening as well as inspiring, frustrating as well as fascinating" and that we have a "series of contradictions" at the ... Continue Reading

Posted by Douglas Wilson - 5/11/2008 12:06:05 AM | Link to this post | Print this post | 0 Responses

If the ethics taught to us in the parable of the Good Samaritan transfer from the individual level to the global level, without any significant adjustments, then certain things follow. If my obligation to give a guy a sandwich transfers without adjustment to our obligation to give food to an entire nation, then other obligations transfer as well.

Not only do I have an obligation to feed the starving, I also have an individual obligation to protect someone who is being assaulted. This can be readily illustrated by adjusting the timing of the parable of the Good Samaritan. What would the obligations of the priest, Levite, and Samaritan have been had they showed up while the mugging was under way? They would have had a straightforward obligation to step in to defend the man being attacked. Right? Glad we agree.

Now where does that leave us with regard to Burma? The cyclone there has killed perhaps 100,000 people. The junta there is not allowing relief workers in. Some people have begun talking about a humanitarian invasion. Seriously.

Now it seems to me that the foundation for global ethics put forward by N.T. Wright requires that he add his voice to those who are calling for an invasion of Burma. If he is, I would like to hear it. If he is not, I would like to hear his reasons for abandoning the application of "Good Samaritan" ethics to the global situation. He can't say that it is more complicated than an individual situation calling for mercy, because that is what I have been arguing.

For those who are interested and somewhere close enough, Nate is doing a mini-book tour early this next week.

Portland: 10:30am, Monday, May 12th/A Children's Place/4807 NE Fremont St.

Beaverton: 7 pm, Monday, May 12th/Barnes and Noble/18300 NW Evergreen Pkwy

Spokane: 7:30pm, Wednesday, May 14th/Auntie's Bookstore/402 W Main.

Hamartia in James is used six times. James begins by describing the genesis and destination of sin. Sin is born from desire (1:15), and death is born from sin (1:15).

James tells us that if we show partiality -- specifically with regard to rich and poor -- we are guilty of sin (2:9). This is a sin that is actually quite popular in Christian fund-raising circles -- the guy with money is sought out, asked for his "wisdom" or "prayers," elected to the session of elders, asked to sit on advisory boards, and all the rest of the drill. Or he is given the seat of honor, the preferred technique mentioned by James. Now if it is really wisdom or prayer that you are after, great. And if he is qualified to be elder, that's great too. And if the godly shrewdness that got him his pile is the kind of shrewdness that you think you need to learn, that's not partiality -- that's the beginning of your own shrewdness. But if his chief qualification is his potential in the field of check-writing abilities, and the other qualifications don't matter, then James nails the problem to the wall for us. Whenever there is money around, James encourages us to be checking our motives every fifteen minutes. You know it is actually a fund-raising letter if "first and foremost" the writer "covets your prayers." That's code, people.

James also provides us with a good definition of sins of omission (4:17). The person who knows the good thing to do, and who yet declines to do it, that man is guilty of a sin. And when the elders pray for someone who is sick -- assuming a context of humble confession -- if sins were connected to the illness, they will be forgiven (5:15).

The work of evangelism and pastoral persusion -- calling someone away from the abyss of error -- is a work that covers a multitude of sins (5:20).

"A system which cannot touch the outside world, but must leave arousing and converting work to others, whom it judges to be unsound, writes its own condemnation" (Charles Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students, p. 343).

"Modern statism is the soured remnant of the Enlightenment idea of inevitable progress. This miserable wreckage, which once heralded joyfully the coming of the secular version of the kingdom of God, now hoarsely wheezes that if we worship it we shall receive salvation from extinction. The danger is not to be taken lightly. Woebegone as it is, with a record of fatuous incompetence, dishonesty, irrationality, and bloody repression almost beyond description, statism nevertheless boasts a hoard of fanatical adherents. Ignorant devotees or cunning and cynical hypocrites, they give it power and, equipped with modern technologies, make it a fierce and implacable enemy" (Herbert Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction, p. 231).

"Few things are more terrible in human society than the humorless reformer . . . a man who cannot see what he most needs to see, which his own contribution to the problem. In this vain and fallen world, a man who cannot laugh has no business undertaking to cure the world's ills, because he is chief among them" (For Kirk and Covenant, pp. 125-126).

We may be induced to throw our money away in any number of ways. Here we need to consider some of the ways we lose money through the sensual snares which wait for us. Typically, when such sins are mentioned, it is so that God’s people will know that they are bad. This is of course true, but the more limited point here is that they are expensive.

First we should consider the appetites generally. "The righteous eats to the satisfying of his soul, but the stomach of the wicked shall be in want" (Prov. 13:25). Both the righteous and the wicked have a stomach and an appetite. But the righteous can eat and be satisfied, while the wicked are driven by an appetite which is out of control. In any of the areas we will consider here, the issue is generally not the thing being considered in itself, i.e. sleep, sex, etc., but rather whether or not God’s law is honored, and whether or not self-control is in evidence.

Continue Reading

Posted by Douglas Wilson - 5/8/2008 4:34:28 PM | Link to this post | Print this post | 3 Responses

The word hamartia occurs very frequently in the book of Hebrews (25 times), and 10 of these uses are found in chapter 10 alone. Not surprisingly, most of the references have to do with the sacrificial system, which was set up because of sin.

The Son of God, when He came to earth, did so in order to purge our sins (1:3). He was made a merciful and faithful high priest, in order to make reconciliation for the sins of the people (2:17). We have a high priest who knows what it is like to be tempted, even though He was tempted without sin (4:15). This is something that a high priest does, it is part of their calling -- sacrificing for sin (5:1), not only for the people but also for his own sin (5:3; 7:27). But Christ, as high priest, has really dealt with sin by His sacrifice of Himself (9:26). Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many (9:28), and at His second coming He will appear without sin for final salvation ... Continue Reading

Posted by Douglas Wilson - 5/8/2008 4:14:43 PM | Link to this post | Print this post | 0 Responses

"They require not so much reasoning as heart-argument -- which is logic set on fire . . . argument must be quickened into persuasion by the living warmth of love. Cold logic has its force, but when made red hot with affection the power of tender argument is inconceivable . . . When passionate zeal has carried the man himself away his speech becomes an irresistible torrent, sweeping all before it" (Charles Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students, p. 341).

"The entire ‘exhaustion-of-resources’ syndrome is one huge apology for totalitarian control over the citizens" (Herbert Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction, p. 224).

I have been asked what I think of An Evangelical Manifesto, and so I read through it this evening. A short twenty pages, it was mostly magnificent. I read into it for sixteen pages without reading anything I differed with, and I was reading much that was weighty, solid, good, and desperately needed.

But if this manifesto were a twenty-days-to-a-smoke-free-tomorrow, the arm patch worked just great for sixteen days. Couldn't have worked better. But then Joe Evangelical lit up three cigars all at the same time. On page sixteen, I began to encounter clouds of smoke like the following:

In short, in this manifesto, there is a clear desire for religious liberty in the public square, but no religious law over the public square. But that leads to the obvious question, what law is over the public square?

According to this manifesto, the law over the public square must be faithless, and this faithless source of law must faithfully guarantee liberty and freedom of conscience for all. But why would it want to do that?

While we are all of us down in the new civil public square, jostling around, visiting, talking, sampling one another's spicy foods, and the Evangelicals are busy witnessing, some of us find ourselves talking to a Muslim and a Buddhist. We tell them, rightly, that Jesus is Lord and that we all must believe in Him, and follow Him. The Buddhist points to the fellow, a big guy with a square jaw, arms folded, standing at the entry way to the public square. He is the guy maintaining order in the civil public square. "What about him?" the Buddhist asks. "Does he have to follow Jesus too?" "Yeah," the Muslim wonders. "Does he?"

"Um, no," the manifesto says. "Actually . . . and I know this must sound a little strange to you guys . . . especially to you, Muhammad, but that one is actually required not to believe. It's a theological thing. Or, rather, its not a theological thing. We're not sure what it is, frankly. Let's just hope he behaves."

My lovely daughter Bekah has had quite a saga of Internet woes with regard to her web site, the one that sells Skirties, a story which she briefly explains here. While you are there, scroll down one and read what my wife wrote about her days with InterVarsity. Good stuff.

Anyhow, Bekah's new web site can be found here.

One of the classes we offer the covenant kids here at Christ Church is a course in memorizing the Heidelberg Catechism. I know, say what you will, but we FVers can be pretty audacious at times. We even pretend to ourselves that we believe this stuff.

Anyhoo, one of my parishioners emailed me because he works through the questions with his daughter, using G.I. Williamson's commentary as an aid. And he came across something that seemed to resemble what he has heard from the pulpit here on the nature of living faith -- but which is hotly disputed by certain members of the Internet Airedales for Truth Brigade. Thought I should share it, with many thanks for the living eye illustration.

Really good stuff.

When someone proposes good deeds on a grand scale, one of the assumptions that goes into it is the idea that, if implemented, nothing can go wrong. Since nothing can go wrong, then we never have to worry about who bears the costs if it goes wrong. Since we never have to worry about who bears the costs, we can press for our solution to the crisis we are in. We are eating in the Restaurant of Good Intentions, where no one ever has to pick up the tab.

That word solution is important in this, as is the word crisis. As Thomas Sowell points out in his admirable book The Vision of the Anointed, progressives like to think in terms of "solutions." Those who do not share the progressive vision think in terms of "trade-offs." A problem arises, or is assumed to have arisen, and because we want to generate a panicked sense of the need to "act now," we call it a crisis.

"Global warming is a crisis, I tell you, and no, we can't study it for a hundred... Continue Reading

Posted by Douglas Wilson - 5/7/2008 10:10:36 AM | Link to this post | Print this post | 2 Responses

"At thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore" (Ps. 16: 11)

Growing Dominion, Part 141

“Be not thou one of them that strike hands, or of them that are sureties for debts. If thou hast nothing to pay, why should he take away thy bed from under thee” (Prov. 22:26-27).

It is commonly assumed that the book of Proverbs outlaws the practice of co-signing for a note absolutely, and this passage is why. But verse 27 appears to be indicating that you ought not to be signing away (in principle) what you cannot afford to lose. The situation appears to one in which some young bucks, let us call them musketeers, say, “all for one, and one for all!” And all of them get taken to the cleaners. But suppose a different situation—retired parents who co-sign a note so that their kids can buy a house. What they are signing for is something they are willing to give. Is that prohibited here? Given the context, I don’t think so.

"The best way to preach sinners to Christ is to preach Christ to sinners. Exhortations, entreaties, and beseechings, if not accompanied with sound instruction, are like firing off powder without shot." (Charles Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students, p. 341).

"Conservatives of practically all types, like Wills and Will, fall all over each other exalting the prerogatives of the idol state. That is why when they take power from avowed social democratic parties—as in Sweden, Britain and the United States—there are no fundamental changes. They go with the tide; an electorate that demands the property of other people will get it from their government no matter what party in power calls itself. Hayek was right, and his critics wrong, in continually denying that he was ever a conservative" (Herbert Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction, p. 220).

[Archives]

Weekly Sermons

other books in this category

In the Time of Noah

other books in this category

The Dragon and the Garden

other books in this category

100 Cupboards

other books in this category

Leepike Ridge

other books in this category