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.

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.

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 heart.

I would only modify this by saying that we are a nation of exceptional innocence, and that we are exceptionally violent and deadly. That's a contradiction with real tension, and the way Clapp phrased it here sounded more like straight up hypocrisy, and I don't think it is that simple. And since I think Clapp is driving toward contradiction, not hypocrisy, I am modifying his point, not refuting it. He names the contradictions better in another place:

Clapp sees that, for all intents and purposes, the South, defeated militarily in 1865, nevertheless won the long war. Southern culture has largely become American culture. Flip around Gramsci's long march through the institutions, and you might be surprised at what is actually going on. The popularity of NASCAR (America's most popular sport) doesn't really register at National Proletariat Radio. The proletariat are out racing cars, or watching people race them, and not listening to their station.

And check this out:

And country music faithfully reflects all this turmoil, all these contradictions. Clapp quotes one gentleman who points out that it is these conflicting tensions that make country music durable and lasting, and not its "alleged simplicity." As Rosanne Cash once put it, "God, love, murder."

And so I am really looking forward to what Clapp as social critic has to say here. He starts out strong. But unfortunately, somebody left some old theology lying around and Clapp trips over it. First, the set up:

I actually think this is true, and not in the panicked sense that European secularists fear. There are great opportunities for the Church ahead of us. But the people who make America a Christian nation again will be Texas Baptists, charismatics who go to Bible theme parks, and the stalwart members of Tishbite Presbytery. They will not be Christian academics and social critics. Which leads to the next quote:

No, we must not be ignored. We insist that somebody pat us on the head.

So here we are in that naked public square again, trying to figure out what to do with the damned thing. Again. Now this is a simple argument, and I am not tired of making it. We need to make it, again and again. And every time we make it, we need to stop for a minute and listen to the sound of crickets and frogs in the quiet evening that surrounds us. Silence. No counter-arguments. No answers. This is because, given Christian premises, there are no answers to the stumpers that get posed whenever this issue comes up.

The way Christians are to behave in the public square has to be in submission to the Lord Jesus. And if Jesus gets to tell us how to behave in the public square, He must be the Lord over it. If this is not the case, then we have no obligation to listen to what anybody else says, and so we can make America a Christian nation whether Jesus wants us to or not. I know, go ahead and read that again. Think about it.

When Clapp says that America should not be a Christian nation, what is his authority for saying this? If Jesus agrees with him, then this really is a theocracy, but we are all commanded not to let on. If Jesus differs with this (hint: disciple all the nations), then we should go with what Jesus said. If Jesus doesn't care, then I am going to go for a Christian America anyway -- I'd rather have that than than Sharia law.

Clapp holds that America should not be a Christian nation, but that it should have lots of Christians in it. Doing what? Oh, I don't know. Creating tensions in country music maybe? One impulse is what lands me in the jail house, and the other is why momma tried.

If Christ is not the source of law for the public square, then what is? And the central point, for Christians at any rate, is why does that source of law, if it rejects the authority of the king of kings, and lord or lords, have anything authority to bind our conscience, or to bind it whenever I go out in public?

There are different kinds of contradictions. One is the kind that I think this book will do an outstanding job of highlighting -- the contradictions and tensions in a forgiven sinner, who knows that Christ is Lord of all, and yet struggles to realize that in every aspect of life. Johnny Cash said somewhere that he was a Christian -- "a C minus one, but I am one." That is the kind of contradiction that tells the kind of story that Cash was so good at telling.

But the other kind of contradiction is what theologians come up with when, to avoid dualism, they have to say that Jesus is the Lord of all, and then, because they cannot actually afford to give up their dualism, say that Jesus is actually not the Lord of the public square. It has all the tension involved in squaring the circle -- "bow to your partner!"This would not even make a very interesting song.

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.

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).

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.

So luxury is the first problem. "Luxury is not fitting for a fool, much less for a servant to rule over princes" (Prov. 19:10). Luxurious display is inappropriate for a fool, that is, a fool shouldn't have it. And if he does get it, he won't have it for long. The fool thinks, "If only . . ." "If only I could get that nice of a car, if only I could get those expensive clothes, if only I could get that wonderful food." But it is not fitting.

Then there is frivolity. "He who tills his land will have plenty of bread, but he who follows frivolity will have poverty enough! A faithful man will abound with blessings, but he who hastens to be rich will not go unpunished. To show partiality is not good, because for a piece of bread a man will transgress. A man with an evil eye hastens after riches, and does not consider that poverty will come upon him" (Prov. 28:19-22). A number of issues are addressed in this passage -- trying to get rich quickly, showing favoritism, miserliness -- but the warning presented first is against frivolity. The Hebrew can mean either frivolity and vanity, or frivolous and empty fellows. The contrast is with one who tills his land, so the meaning is apparently referring to one who follows vain and pleasurable pursuits instead of working. What he follows may have the appearance of work or not -- but it consistently comes up empty.

An obvious snare is sensualism. "Do not let your heart envy sinners, but be zealous for the fear of the Lord all the day; for surely there is a hereafter, and your hope will not be cut off. Hear, my son, and be wise; and guide your heart in the way. Do not mix with winebibbers, or with gluttonous eaters of meat; for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty, and drowsiness will clothe a man with rags" (Prov. 23:17-21). Gluttony is Scripture does not refer to someone having a second helping of the mashed potatoes. Rather it refers to the sensualist -- the drunkard of food. Scripturally, the glutton is a "riotous eater." For example, the ancient Romans had special rooms, "vomitoria," where guests could go prepare for the "second course." This sensual pursuit of food leads to poverty. Remember Apicius and Vitellius. "He who loves pleasure will be a poor man; he who loves wine and oil will not be rich" (Prov. 21:17). The issue is not the pleasure involved, but rather the inordinate love of it. What the foolish man loves (sensual experience), he winds up losing. "There is desirable treasure, and oil in the dwelling of the wise, but a foolish man squanders it" (Prov. 21:20). The wise man doesn't serve the pleasure, and winds up possessing it.

Another sensual experience is that of sleep. This is obviously connected to the sin of laziness, which will be considered at length in another place. But the love of sleep needs to be mentioned here as well. "Do not love sleep, lest you come to poverty; open your eyes, and you will be satisfied with bread" (Prov. 20:13). A lazy man is not necessarily apathetic. "The desire of the lazy man kills him, for his hands refuse to labor. He covets greedily all day long, but the righteous gives and does not spare" (Prov. 21:25-26).

And last we consider the expenses of sex. When Solomon warns his son against the loose woman, he connects this warning: "Lest aliens be filled with your wealth, and your labors go to the house of a foreigner . . ." (Prov. 5:10). "For by means of a harlot a man is reduced to a crust of bread; and an adulteress will prey upon his precious life" (Prov. 6:26). The economic consequences of immorality are not tiny. "Whoever loves wisdom makes his father rejoice, but a companion of harlots wastes his wealth" (Prov. 29:3).

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 (9:28).

We are told to exhort one another, as long as it is called today, that we not be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin (3:13). We are promised that one of the terms of the New Covenant is that God will no longer remember our sins (8:12). The promise is repeated again in the tenth chapter (10:17).

In the Old Covenant, the repeated sacrifices meant that the worshippers were not really being cleansed from sin in any final way (10:2). In every sacrifice there is a remembrance that sin is still around (10:3). It is not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin (10:4). God had no pleasure in the sacrifices for sin found in the Old Testament (10:6). God did not want such sacrifices for sin (10:8). The priests of that time offered up repeated sacrfices, which could never take away sin (10:11). But Christ dealt with sin once for all, and then sat down at God's right hand (10:12).

Whenever real remission occurs, there is not more need for offerings for sin (10:18). If we return to the Old Covenant forms after being told of Christ -- the once for all sacrifice -- we are returning to a system that has no efficacy, no sacrifice for sin remains (10:26).

Moses choose to be with God's people rather than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a time (11:25). And since we are surrounded by the great witnesses spoken of in chapter 11, we must lay aside every sin that besets us (12:1). We have not yet resisted against sin to the point of shedding our blood (12:4), and this is something we should be prepared for.

The bodies of animals slain in the sacrificial system, whose blood as for sin (13:11), were burned outside the camp. And Christ Himself was slain -- outside the camp so that we might be allowed into the city.