A Theology of Dependency

When was the last time you downed a refreshing glass of water, grabbed a bite to eat, drew a breath? I'm sure the latter was sometime during the reading of the last sentence. To be human is to be contingent, to be dependent, to rely on something external to us to sustain us. Such is physical life. Yet when it comes to the relational and spiritual realm, especially in Western culture, we like to envision ourselves as mighty individuals. We have believed the American myth of "rugged individualism," with devastating effect. I'll show my hand early: Individualism is a myth that drives us to self-worship and pride. How so?

Individual or Community?

Cultures generally fall into one of two categories, with varying degrees of intensity--individualistic or communal. In more traditional cultures the mores, values and taboos of the community tend to exert greater influence. Individual identity is subsumed under the tribal or corporate identity so that the needs and wants and good of the group outweigh or even replace those of the individual. In more modernistic, secular and Western cultures, self-expression, personal preference and personal ambition hold sway. Corporate identity is subordinate to individual identity and relational connections are formed and dissolved freely as they benefit or hinder an individual's pursuit of self-actualization.

A Gospel for Jews and Greeks

One of the myriad beauties of the gospel is that it deconstructs and redeems every culture. The gospel must redeem the traditional, communal, Eastern (Jewish) culture so that one finds identity in Jesus, not the community. It must also redeem the individualistic, Western (Greek) culture so that one finds identity in Jesus, not the self. God is ransoming individuals who place their trust in Jesus and God is calling out a people for himself. The gospel is the glorious truth of both realities.

A Third Path

Whether believers or unbelievers, we tend to err in one of two ways; either we are individualistic or codependent. Both errors are a reduction of the gospel and both are forms of idolatry. We can worship the acceptance of our group or our own will. But there is another way, a way the Bible models for us--gospel community. In this model Jesus is worshiped by a community of believers who are increasingly finding their identity in him, not affirmation or self-expression. How does this make a difference in a Christian community? Let's take the example of fighting sin.

Individualism: "I can handle this."

When the individual struggles with sin, he resolves to do better and tries to modify his behavior. Because he sees sanctification as primarily a personal battle with evil, something between him and God, he does not confess his sin in the context of community and will end up either in denial about sin or despair of change. His motto is: "I can handle this."

Codependency: "They can handle this."

When a codependent person struggles with sin, she runs to her accountability partner as if to the confession booth. There she lays the burden down, expecting the community to fix her through encouraging words or admonishment. Her motto is: "They can handle this."

Gospel Community: "Christ can handle this."

In the context of gospel community, the believer is free to confess his sin because he knows he is fully accepted already in Jesus. She knows that it is prideful to think she can fix herself and lazy to expect others to do so. Rather than the church being a collection of saved individuals, it is a blood-bought community, the body of Christ, of which Christ is the Head, and which he uses as a means to sanctify his people. So the Christian does not fight sin alone; neither does he rely on the accountability of others for change. Together, the community of believers run to Jesus, by the power of the Holy Spirit for change.

The gospel reminds us that we are far more dependent than we like to imagine. 

The Essence of Maturity

Staring into the deceptively bright eyes of my newborn baby girl, Wren Elizabeth, I cannot help but notice the stark contrast between her dependent helplessness and the new-found frenetic independence of my toddler, Grace Haven. Though cliche, it is no less true to say they grow up quickly. This is indisputably obvious. A thought occurred--what is the essence of maturity? I think my natural inclination is to answer, "progressive independence." In other words, the more a child (or adult) matures, the more independent they become; or to put it another way, maturity is synonymous with independence.

But my presupposition was challenged on this occasion by a curious interlocutor--the very beautiful blue eyes that elicited my thoughts in the first place. I say they are deceptively bright eyes because a newborn child cannot clearly see anything more than a foot from her face, and full color vision is not developed until three or four months of age. Even more striking than this is the total narcissism of a newborn, his utter inability to distinguish himself from his environment, to posit the existence of anything beyond the self. So my newborn sucks her wrist or any object placed within reach of her mouth as though she would be instantly nourished and satisfied by virtue of her desire alone. All things exist for her well being, if indeed she is cognizant of anything outside of herself. How does this threaten my assumption? Perhaps maturity is not primarily increased independence. Perhaps the essence of maturity is a growing knowledge or awareness of the "other."

As a child grows and develops, she becomes more aware of the objects and people around her. He learns more and more how to relate to others and the physical world. Where this development does not occur or is retarded in some way, there is immaturity. In childhood and adulthood we are perpetually learning to navigate the labyrinth of relationships that is life. The better we learn to relate to others, the more mature we are.

If we assume the doxological Christian worldview--that we were created to know God, glorify him and enjoy him forever--then to know God more (experimentally) is to grow up more fully (mature) into the purpose for which we were created. In redemptive history through the biblical narrative God has chosen to relate to us in myriad ways. He is Maker, Father, Shepherd, King, Husband, Gardener, Counselor, Master, Servant, Friend, Brother, etc. The inanimate and conceptual metaphors include Rock, Shield, Fortress, Light, Bread, Life, Way, Truth, etc. All believers understand that these metaphors teach us something of how God relates to us. But perhaps this is an understatement. What if these things and relationships all exist to point us to God? What if the narrative of our lives, the narrative of history is but the shadow, and God's metanarrative of Creation, Fall, Redemption and Consummation is the substance? What if life is the type and God's story the antitype? If this were so, then God doesn't just relate to us as a perfect Father; fathers exist to point us to the Father. God is not just our Solid Rock of immutable reliability; rocks exist so that we can know him. Sheep and shepherds exist to portray our reliance on the Good Shepherd. Marital intimacy exists to illustrate the incomparable intimacy of Christ and his Church, etc.

Those tiny bright eyes that still see so little remind me that maturity is not so much about gaining independence as it is about becoming aware of others, which in turn enables us to know the ultimate Other.

The Problem With Preaching Church Attendance

Among the cardinal doctrines of Christian fundamentalism is church attendance. Second only to Bible reading and prayer, and evangelizing the lost, church attendance is firmly ensconced on the shelf of fundamentalist virtue. The "Go to church" sermon is a favorite hot spot of the purely topical preacher, with Hebrews 10:25 getting almost as many hits as John 3:16 and Romans 3:23. But is the frequent call to attend church biblically balanced, logically necessary and gospel-centered?

Let me preface this by saying that I gather regularly (weekly) to worship with my church as a whole. I firmly believe that Hebrews 10:25 is true, inspired and authoritative. Believers should not forsake the assembly of themselves together (as the manner of some definitely is). An individual cannot be the church (or "do church" if you prefer) isolated from the church community and violates the "one another" commands of the New Testament if he/she does not regularly meet with brothers and sisters in Christ. Nor can this be accomplished by just meeting with one or two other believers because our spiritual gifts are given for "the building up of the body." My contention is not that church attendance is unnecessary (it is vital), but that preaching church attendance is a misplacement of emphasis. Here is why:

1. It is not biblically balanced.
I believe this is one of the greatest weaknesses of purely topical preaching. It imposes the preacher's biases on the text, so that certain themes are given greater emphasis, regardless of their actual emphasis on the pages of Scripture. One verse is the linchpin of attendanceology: Hebrews 10:25 "not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near." Interestingly, Hebrews was not written to an individual church like many other epistles, but to Jewish Christians suffering persecution. One of the major themes is perseverance, "holding fast" to Christ, enduring suffering knowing we have a High Priest who can sympathize. This verse's command (a mini sermon in itself) makes complete sense in light of their persecution. Meeting together for worship in this context could carry serious, even deadly consequences. With this is mind, the call not to forsake gathering makes perfect sense. I note the historical context not to imply the command does not apply to today, but to make sense of why it is not repeated elsewhere in the New Testament. If we let the New Testament authors (and more importantly the New Testament Author) dictate the emphasis of preaching by their themes, then church attendance might get a casual mention once a year.

2. It is not logically necessary.
Speech 101 teaches us that one of the primary tasks of a communicator is to consider the audience. In the "go to church" topical sermon, who is the targeted audience? Is it committed growing, repentant, missional believers? Is it the lost? Is it the seeker? Is it the skeptic? Is it the backslidden? Is it immature believers or new Christians? It is easy to rule out the committed believer. We have all heard the cliche, "preaching to the choir." Why preach church attendance to those who are already regularly attending? (unless you are afraid they will stop attending) What about the skeptic? It seems unlikely that someone turned off to Christianity already would find "God wants you here" very compelling. How about the lost? The "go to church" sermon is a great way to reinforce American cultural Christianity--that all God wants is 1 hour a week and 10% of your income. Surely the "go to church" sermon is not for seekers. No one disputes that Hebrews 10:25 was written to believers. We would not want to get the cart before the horse. (Speaking of cliches). So what about those believers? Is the "go to church" sermon for new/immature believers or backsliders? If these people are not attending regularly, the most natural question is why? Is it because they have not been told God wants them to attend? Is it because the church is boring or irrelevant? Or is it because the gospel is not central in their lives? We've arrived at the crux of the matter (pun intended). How does preaching church attendance relate to the cross, to the gospel. This is the heart of the problem.

3. It is not gospel-centered.
If a believer must be cajoled to go to church, then there is a greater problem than absence. Preaching church attendance misses the point; because, if the gospel is preached in a compelling way through the power of the Holy Spirit, and the gospel is taking root and growing in the lives of believers, they don't have to be told to attend. Preaching attendance focuses on behavior modification, whereas the gospel changes the heart, which changes patterns of behavior. Even if the "go to church" sermon achieves the desired end, that is believers attend more regularly, it has only succeeded in changing behavior, not changing the heart.

This, I believe, is why the New Testament authors only gave attendance a casual mention; the changed hearts that result from gospel preaching inevitably lead people to attend corporate worship, not out of obligation, but out of devotion.

The Freedom of Slavery: A Meditation on 1 Peter 2:16

What a blessed paradox and yet a stern warning!

"By doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of fools, as free people, not freedom as a pretext for clinging to your wickedness, but rather as bondslaves of God." (My translation)

The command is to live as free people and to live as slaves of God. This seems paradoxical to my mind, probably because I am an America, greatly influenced by a culture that values "liberty" above all else. But our American understanding of freedom is skewed; freedom is confused with autonomy. When the text speaks of free persons, it means citizens in the Roman society who were not subject to slavery. But even these citizens were subject to the emperor and his governors and to various human institutions (1 Pet. 2:13) The freedom Peter has in mind is not autonomy from any authority, but the freedom of self-control and submission, freedom from a harsh and unbearable master (our sin) and freedom to serve a benevolent Master.

Peter warns against using this freedom as a pretext, a cover-up for hanging on to evil. Rather it should be the freedom exercised by the slaves of a benevolent Master. Once again he emphasizes the essentiality of santification. In the first chapter, the reasons for sanctification are:

1. God is your Father. Emulate Him. He is holy; be holy. (1:14-15)
2. God is a just Judge; He judges according to each one's deeds. (1:17)

In chapter 2 the reasons are:

1. God is a benevolent Master. Enjoy the freedom of serving Him. (2:16)
2. Christ is a perfect example. Follow in His footsteps. (2:21)
3. Christ is a suffering Savior. He died, not to purchase a get-out-of-hell free card, but "that we might die to sin and live to righteousness." He didn't just pay the doctor's bill; He "healed" us by His wounds. Healing implies change. (2:24)

The paradox is: live free like the slave you are! The implications? Only by living as the slave of a benevolent Master can I experience true freedom from bondage to selfishness, the pursuit of acceptance, the need to be liked and valued. In valuing my Master's agenda, I am freed to "count it all joy" when mine falls through. Only be submitting to my benevolent Master am I freed to submit to poor and imperfect human authorities in my life.

Simple Desperation and Salvation as Satisfaction: A meditation on 1 Peter 2:1-3

When David writes, "Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good!" (Ps. 34:8), I tend to think of this taste-testing as an expert appreciation of subtle excellencies, like wine-tasting or savoring a well-aged cheese. It takes a refined palate, a certain sophisticated expertise to appreciate what is tasted. I don't think this is the tasting David had in mind...nor Peter.

1 Peter 2:1-3 "So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation--if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good."

I think this tasting that the Lord is good is more like the desperate nursing of an infant than the casual critiquing of an epicurean. Why does this matter? My natural inclination is to sip, to nibble, instead of hungrily devouring. I want Christ for my intellect, but I don't want the gospel to intersect every aspect of the messy reality of my daily life.

It is significant that Peter uses the metaphor of taste to picture salvation. He could have easily written, "if indeed you have truly believed (been converted, repented, been born again)." But he chose "if indeed you have tasted." Faith is more than an intellectual assent to a system of belief. It is a savoring of Christ as infinitely desirable. Faith does not merely assent to the idea of a Savior, redemption, the gospel. It desperately hungers and thirsts for that Savior and has tasted and seen that the Lord is good! No wonder Jesus said, "This is the bread that came down from heaven, not as the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever." (Jn. 6:58)

A Fearful Hope: A Meditation on 1 Pet. 1:13-25

1 Peter 1:13-25 Therefore, preparing your minds for action, and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, "You shall be holy, for I am holy."And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one's deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for your sake, who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God. Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart, since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; for "All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord remains forever." And this word is the good news that was preached to you.

It's difficult for me to mentally and practically escape the culture of easybelievism, so ingrained in evangelical Christianity, in which the following, though often not explicitly stated, is tacitly affirmed.

1. The gospel is about regeneration and justification. Sanctification is a function of the "Christian life" or "Christian walk."

2. Holiness is an optional add-on to salvation, a sort of super-sized Christianity, which while unneccesary for final salvation, is encouraged for all Christians. It is not necessary to "see the Lord." (Heb. 12:14) It just means more lollipops (read: "crowns") in heaven.

3. Salvation is mediated through faith, while sanctification is accomplished by works.

4. For the Christian, the biblical commands to fear God are merely commands to respect Him.

5. Assurance of salvation comes by remembering a past decision.

While I know these assertions are wrong, I struggle to live contrary to them. If the above assumptions are held, the passage in 1 Peter 1 becomes utterly confusing. The text asserts:

1. Believers are to "hope fully on the grace that will be brought to...[us]...at the revelation of Jesus Christ."

2. Yet we are to "conduct...[ourselves]...with fear throughout the time of ...[our]...exile.

3. The rational basis of our fear is the knowledge that we "were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from...[our]...forefathers...with the precious blood of Christ."

4. God the Father foreknew the Son, raised Him from the dead and gave him glory, so that our "faith and hope are in God."

5. We have purified our souls by "obeying the truth through the Spirit" (KJV)

6. This obedience produces a sincere and pure love for other Christians.

7. We are to love one another, because we have been born again supernaturally by the eternal Word of God.

8. This entire message "is the good news".

So back to deconstructing my internal struggle against easybelievism...

The whole thing seems paradoxical. If I "hope fully," how can I be fearful? If my "faith and hope are in God," how have I purified my soul by obeying the truth? (yes, the believer is doing the action of purifying in v.22) How is it "good news" that I am called to spend a life of exile in fear?

How does this command to fear align with 1 John 4:18 and 2 Timothy 1:7?

"There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love."

"For God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control."

Second Timothy 1:7 refers to a fear of witnessing, not a fear of God.

First John 4:18 concerns doubting the love of God. We are not to fear that God does not love us.

So why this fear in our life of exile and how does it align with a full hope in the grace of God?

I think a key lies in verse 18. "Knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers...with the precious blood of Christ." The basis of this fear is the knowledge of the imperishable ransom paid by Christ. This is completely counterintuitive to easybelievism. If Christ paid the ransom (and it is not paid by perishable things like silver or gold, but with His precious blood) then I have no need to fear. On the surface it seems as if Peter says, "Christ has forever secured your salvation, so live in fear!" But the key is there, in the nature of the ransom itself. "You were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers." The plea of the entire passage is to live a holy life: "preparing your minds...being sober-minded...set your hope fully...do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance...be holy in all your conduct...you shall be holy...conduct yourselves with fear...love one another earnestly from a pure heart." I am ransomed from my ways, not just my punishment. "This word is the good news." This is the gospel, that I am saved not merely from eternal punishment for my sins, but from enslavement to my "futile ways," that is, my own patterns of sin. Still, why the fear? Verse 17: "And if you call on him as Father (if you address the Father in prayer) who judges impartially according to each one's deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile." Why the fear?

1. God is our Father. The implication is that He lovingly cares for us and protects us, but also exercises parental authority over us.

2. God is also our Judge. Yes, God judges Christians.

3. His judgement is impartial and "according to each one's deeds." This sends up a red flag of concern for easybelievism. It sounds dangerously close to salvation by works, or at least works-based acceptance/sanctification.

Scripture teaches that salvation is through faith, apart from works. (Rom. 3:28) Yet faith without works is dead. (Jas. 2:17) The implication is that salvation is by faith, not works, but the faith that saves always works. So God judges each person's works, not to determine whether salvation has been earned, but to reveal whether salvation has been authentic. This is what Peter meant earlier in the chapter: "so that the tested genuineness of your faith...may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ."

So why fear? The ultimate answer must be Philippians 2:10-13:

"At the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure."

Why fear? Perhaps because:

1. The awesome reality of the future exaltation of Christ as Lord and Judge of all the Earth should cause me to fear and tremble.

2. My ransom from "futile ways" was purchased "with the precious blood of Christ." As a believer my sin is a tacit rejection, a tacit despising of Christ's sacrifice for sin. I should fear dishonoring Him.

3. The great mystery is that holiness is pursued by obedience, through the Spirit, (1 Pet. 1:22) and that this work of the Spirit is a manifestation of the genuiness of my faith. Assurance comes by examing fruit, not remembering decisions. (Matt. 7:20)

How does 1 Peter 1:13-25 deconstruct the five aforementioned assertions of easybelievism?

1. The gospel is as much about sanctification as regeneration and justification. They are inseperable. "Be ye holy...this word is the good news."

2. If we call the impartial Judge-God our Father, in some sense, we must live our exiled lives in fear.

3. We are purified, sanctified "in obeying the truth through the Spirit." (v.22 KJV)

4. Fearing a judge implies more than respect for the person on trial. It implies a serious thoughtful contemplation of His judgment.

5. Assurance comes through knowing the work of God in salvation (from start to finish) and recognizing the fruits of it in one's life.

Kissing Calves: A Meditation on Hosea 13:2

ESV Hosea 13:2 And now they sin more and more, and make for themselves metal images, idols skillfully made of their silver, all of them the work of craftsmen. It is said of them, "Those who offer human sacrifice kiss calves!"

The Hebrew says literally "sacrificers of men," which could be understood as "those among men who sacrifice" or "those who sacrifice men," i.e. offer human sacrifice.

The human sacrifice translation makes sense in light of what we know about the idolatrous practises of the Canaanites (whom the Israelites loved to emulate). It also makes sense in the context of God's indictment of Israel's idolatry in which the verse is found. It is as if the charge is, "You are so corrupt that instead of kissing your fellow man and slaughtering calves, you do the opposite; you slaughter men and kiss calves (the metal images you make)."

What a timely reprimand for our day in which human life is so devalued and animal life so cherished!

Which leads me to ask, "Are the slaughter of the unborn and leniancy to murderers in modern courts just byproducts of sinful society? Is the culture of death just one more way that sin plays out in our generation?

I think it is more. I think it is a deliberate and strategic assault by the god of this world on imago dei. I think that the devaluation of human life is the Devil's deliberate attempt to stamp out the image of God, that is human life. It is not so much humans that he hates (though he is our adversary) but the One in whose image we were created. I think that abortion and hand-slap sentences for murderers are evidence of 2 Cor. 4:4.

ESV 2 Cor. 4:4 "the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."

This really helps me make sense of how even an unbeliever can value a bottle-nosed dolphin's life over that of a person or treat an unborn child like nothing more than cell tissue to be discarded. The issue is blindness. The "god of this world" blinds the eyes of unbelievers to "the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." Because they are blinded to the light of the gospel, they cannot see the glory of Christ. Because they cannot see the glory of Christ, they do not know what the image of God looks like. Therefore they cannot see the image of God in their fellow men and value it as God does. So "those who offer human sacrifice kiss calves!"