living as new creation… in old creation (3)

Col 3:1-3 (ESV)
If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.

This short series has reflected on the most fundamental reality we need to grasp when as Christians we consider our relationship between the world and the Christian, or, if you like, between creation and new creation.  The basic controlling reality the Bible stresses when we think of creation, the first creation, is that we have died to it.

This final post reflects on the tension Christians face living in the old creation yet living for the new creation.  Our focus is not the tension created by sin.  Sinful things are just plainly wrong and our duty as Christians is to put sin to death.  The more complex issue is the tension between what is God-given and good in the old creation which is ours even as ‘strangers’ to enjoy (1 Tim 6:17) and the responsibilities, rewards and greater riches of the  new creation to which we are called.  Some believe there is no such tension but that is to ignore the plain teaching of Scripture.   Jesus speaks of the tension when he juxtaposes life in this world and ‘seeking first the Kingdom of God’ (Matt 6:33).  It should be beyond dispute that Kingdom (or new creation) living makes demands that may cost us dearly in this life.  That is why Jesus says

Matt 10:34-39 (ESV)
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

again

Luke 14:26-27 (ESV)
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.

and again

Matt 19:29 (ESV)
And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life.

Loyalty to Christ and his Kingdom is costly.  It means putting new creation priorities before family and friends and many of the apparently legitimate things of life.  Jesus teaches those who follow him that the cost is not simply our sin but involves legitimate things too.

One Scripture that makes this tension plain is Matt 19.  Note carefully his argument.

Matt 19:3-12 (ESV)
And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?”

He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”

Jesus is asked his view on divorce.  He makes it clear that divorce is an accommodation to a fallen creation and is not God’s primary will.  He further forbids any breaking of the marriage bond by divorce except where it has already been broken by fornication.  In terms of our above definition Christians living in new creation eschew what is fallen and sinful in old creation (in this case improper divorce). However, whatever the wrongs of divorce,  Jesus makes plain that marriage is a good thing by sourcing it in creation.

Christ (and so Christians) recognises and respects  the good creation order.  Yet it is just here an important qualification must be added.  The disciples, dismayed at his strict limiting of divorce, say, ‘If such is the case it is better for a man not to marry‘.  Observe carefully Jesus’ reply,

“Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given…. there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”

A very important principle is drawn out here.  It is that what is good and legitimate for Christians in creation they may well forego for the sake of the higher good of the Kingdom of God; old creation gifts may be trumped by new creation priorities.   The example here is marriage.  Some Christians with the faith and gifting from God to do so will remain unmarried for the sake of more effective service in the Kingdom of God.

Now it is important to emphasize there is no rule here.  It is not wrong to marry.   Indeed we can go further, it is good to marry.  Yet some choose to remain unmarried because they believe that they will more effectively serve Christ if free from family commitments.  What is ‘good’ is sacrificed for a greater ‘good’.

Paul  echos this teaching of Jesus in 1 Cor 7.  In his view, those who can remain single should do so.  He believes this will mean less ‘worldly cares’ and better facilitate service for God.

1Cor 7:25-39(ESV)
Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that…

I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband…

I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.  If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry-it is no sin. But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better.  A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. Yet in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I too have the Spirit of God.

Notice the fine line Paul wishes to walk.  He thinks singleness is better but he is careful not to insist upon it; there is no command.  To marry is no sin, not at all.  He recognises singleness is not for everyone.  Each has his own calling and gifting from the Lord (cf. Matt 19:12).   Married believers are not second-class Christians.  Yet, he thinks, on balance, singleness is preferable.  Here Paul is grappling with this tension between the good and the better, between the permitted in this creation and the pressing of the new creation, of the Kingdom.

Jesus in Matt 19 and Paul in 1 Cor 7 both discuss this tension in terms of marriage and foregoing marriage for Kingdom ends.  But of course marriage is only one of many areas to which this applies.  Indeed Paul widens the issue out in 1 Cor 7 when he writes,

1Cor 7:29-31 (ESV)
This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away.

Here is the tension again.  The priorities of the Kingdom and the urgency of the hour mean that we live with constant tension.  We find that the  possibilities of the first creation must always be weighed against the prerogatives of the second .  We are new creation people living in an age that is passing and the life of the age to come presses its concerns upon us; the future impinges on the present and the eternal eclipses the temporal.

As Christians we are always balancing creation and new creation living.  How much time do I give to my marriage, my family, my career, my hobbies and so on?  What comes first my family or my faith?  When do I put down a good book and read my Bible or pray to nourish and feed my spiritual life?  Do I put a night in relaxing before the prayer meeting?  Is my free time sacrosanct or do I share it with others in need?  How much of my salary do I spend on myself and how much do I  give to the Lord for the good of others?   The examples are endless.

How are we to decide?  In many ways this comes down to a personal decision as we are guided by the Spirit..  However, there are a few principles that seem to particularly govern the big picture if not the details.

• We must weigh is whether we have the gifting or grace for whichever Kingdom-sacrifice we are considering making.  Paul does not wish those who will function better if married to choose a life of singleness.  Singleness for the sake of the Kingdom of God is not given to all, it is only for those who can ‘receive it’ (Matt 19).  Virtually enforced celibacy has brought great disgrace to the name of Christ as many who have embarked on it were never suited to it and fall into sin.  Christians are not called to embrace that for which they have not been equipped by grace.  Gifting, grace and faith play an important role in determining what our service and sacrifices for the Kingdom should be (Roms 12:6).

• All sacrifice flows from a faith that produces love for Christ and his Kingdom.  We are considering here what in the OT was a free-will offering.  The only constraint upon the offerer was faith-love for his God.   There is no explicit sin here to be forsaken.  No rule saying you must do such and such.  We give up the legitimate in this world not out of duty or a law but because of the pearl of great price we wish to purchase (Matt 13:45,46).  Christ becomes the treasure we will sell all that we have to own (Matt 13:44).  Treasure in heaven captures our heart  and enables us to turn away from treasure on earth (Matt 6:20,21).  Love for Christ will motivate us to leave our comfort zone and walk on stormy water (Matt 14:29), just as love for Christ will break a very expensive box of alabaster  over his head (Mk 14:3).  There is no duty or rule can provoke devotion, only love.   That’s why I get so frustrated by those who try to frame Christianity in terms of law-keeping.  It is so impoverished a view of Christian devotion.  Only a heart that loves Christ is willing for his sake to lose his life (and possessions) in this world (Matt 10:39).  To any heart where love is nor pulsating the idea of sacrifice doesn’t even make sense.  Judas considered the burst perfume a waste.  He could not understand it because he did not love Christ.  Laws, morality, ethical codes don’t guide these decisions only love.

• Paul considered whatever he once valued as acceptable loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, he counted everything as loss because ‘of  the surpassing worth of  knowing Christ Jesus his Lord. For his sake he suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that he may gain Christ… and know him ‘(Phil 3:7-10).  Make no mistake, love for Christ is what guides our creation/new creation life balance.  It is it that will enable us to make the sacrificial choices, the giving up of the good now for the better to come.  The Christian life is faith working through love (Gals 5:6).  The motives of the heart are everything here.  Nothing less than love for Christ will constrain us to Kingdom cross-bearing (2 Cor 5:14) and in any case nothing other than this love has value to God. ‘Elder brother’ devotion is of no value to God (Lk 15).  The question is always to us as it was to Peter, ‘Do you love me more than these’?

• Christian love grows as we feed our hearts on Christ in the gospel.   Jesus says the person who realises he has been forgiven much will love much (Lk 7:47).  As we reflect ever more deeply on the love of God in the gospel, fill our hearts with the fullness of all God’s love towards us in Christ, and dwell on the dimensions of all God’s plans for us in Christ, the overflow is love.  We will live the new creational life God wants when our hearts grasp the great realities of the gospel.  As Paul says,

Col 3:1-4 (ESV)
If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.

living as new creation… in old creation (2)

Col 3:3 (RSV)
For you have died, and your life is hid with Christ in God.

In a previous post I argued that the fundamental reality that shapes our attitude as believers in this world is that we have died to it.   Our new creation status teaches us that through death to the old creation (age, world) we are free from the enslaving forces that rule in it.

But what of the features of that old world that we may call ‘creational’?  We understand that belonging to new creation means I need not lie or cheat or embrace sensualism or drunkenness but am I therefore free to ignore God’s initial ordering of the original creation?  Am I free to ignore for example the old creation’s structures for marriage?  After all in the full realisation of new creation there will be neither marriage nor giving in marriage.  Such questioning and reasoning is perhaps not as outlandish and improbable as it may first seem.  It was precisely this kind of reasoning that led to some of the bizarre behaviour of the C1 Corinthian Church.

Th Corinthian Church recognised they were new creation.  They knew that new creation was a creation profoundly different  from the old.  They rightly grasped new creation was based not on ‘flesh’ but ‘Spirit’.  They knew that in the ultimate new creation there would be no marriage and so they reasoned that they should not marry in the present, nor should they have sexual relations within marriage.  Indeed married couples, eager to live ‘spiritually’ in the full realization of new creation ,they argued, would be better divorcing.  Read 1 Cor 7 for a more complete grasp of their thinking.

In fact, many of the other problems of Corinth stem from their new creation deductions; an over-confidence in how wise and spiritual they were (1-3); living as kings and not under the cross (4); as new creation people they believed the authorities of the old no longer applied and so all things were permissible – a view Paul does not so much contradict as qualify (6);  sexual immorality didn’t really matter because physical things like sexuality were part of the old order not the new creation which was spiritual (6-8); an obsession with spiritual gifts, especially those that seemed most ‘spiritual’(12-14); women discarding symbols of male authority and taking a leading role in churches (11,14); no need for a physical resurrection for they were already ‘spiritual’ and living in the eschaton (15).  In fact, they suffered from what some call ‘over-realized eschatology’, that is, they thought new creation had arrived in its fulness not simply in a first phase.  Furthermore, they seemed to have a Greek idea of ‘spiritual’ where spiritual means immaterial.whereas in the Hebrew biblical world spiritual is not opposed to the ‘material’ but to the ‘natural’.

It is of course not only the Corinthians that struggled with understanding the implications of new creation, so too do modern Christians.  Some point to Scriptures like Galatians 3

Gal 3:28 (ESV)
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

and ask why we uphold hierarchical creational distinctions within marriage and the church which belong to the old creation.  We, they say, are new creation and these no longer apply.

So how do we grapple with this issue?  If a controlling paradigm in Scripture is that we are new creation people living out the implications of new creation in the midst of the old creation how does this work?  If being dead to the world means no longer viewed as living in at and thus no longer bound by its authorities and codes then what about male and female roles, the place of marriage, attitudes to authority etc.   Am I free in some areas but not others?  Does the Bible teach that some aspects of the old creation may (must) be discarded but others upheld?

In fact that is exactly what it does.  It argues that as new creation people we uphold all that God intended for creation before the fall and are free from all that is added to creation after the fall.  Some say this is because new creation (grace) is simply Eden (nature) restored.  But that is clearly not so.  As egalitarians point out there is no hierarchy based on gender in the final new creation.  In fact, as we noted earlier,  there is no marriage in the new creation.  In the old creation Adam was given Eve as a wife – a valuable companion and help – but in the final form of the new creation there is neither marriage or giving in marriage.  New creation is not simply old creation restored.

Although there are continuities between the old creation prior to the fall and new creation in its final reality there are significant discontinuities above and beyond marriage.   In the first creation before the fall man was innocent; he had no knowledge of good and evil.  This is not so in new creation.  In new creation humanity there is no such naïve innocence, a knowledge of good and evil is intrinsic (think of Christ as the prototype of new creation).  New creation is holy (abhorred by sin) not innocent (ignorant of sin).    Mortality was possible in the first creation (and happened after sin entered) but new creation in its fulness is life and immortality (2 Tim 1:10).  So great are the differences that Paul (speaking of the body specifically but which we may probably regard as a metonymy for the whole)  could refer to the first creation as corruptible and the new creation as incorruptible, the first ‘natural’ the new ‘spiritual’, the first ‘weakness’ the  new ‘power’, the first ‘humiliation’ and the new ‘glory’ (though some of these may refer specifically to fallen creation).   In other words it simply won’t do to frame  new creation as little more than a return to Eden, however beguilingly simple a soundbite it is to describe grace as nature restored.

The relationship is more complex.

Let me suggest a way of thinking about the  relationship of new creational believers living in old creation that, although it doesn’t quite satisfy either, seems much nearer  the mark.

New creation  believers living in an old creation recognize and respect its God-given realities, regulations, and rationale while being free from them.

It is more complex, I know, and  we don’t like complexity but sometimes answers are not as simple as we would like.  Let me try to unpack it a little.

It is a mistake to think we have died only to the sinful and fallen.  We have died to the whole creation as a controlling paradigm.  Paul insists we see our true identity not in terms of our role in the old creation but our place in the new.   Our obligations flow now from our new position in Christ.  The springboard for our behaviour and our responsibilities is who we now are ‘in Christ’. Although we live in this world and respect and ratify its God-ordained structures, we do so out of honour to God who created it and not because we belong to it and so are obligated to it.  All that God created was good and we uphold and honour it while here out of honour to God.  Thus we obey authorities because they are appointed by God (Roms 13).  We submit, as Peter writes,  ‘for the Lord’s sake’ to every human institution (1 Pet 2:13).  In fact, this text in 1 Peter helps us understand our relationship (as new creation people) to the old creation to which we no longer belong but in which we still live.

1Pet 2:11-25 (ESV)
Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.

Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God.

Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.  Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly…

Peter establishes our true relationship to the world: we are sojourners and exiles (pilgrims and strangers) and live separate from the passions that belong the world we are passing through.    In reality, as new creation aliens, we are not properly subject to old creation authorities.   We are ‘free’.  However, we do not use our freedom to rebel, instead we subject ourselves to human institutions ‘for the Lord’s sake’ and because we are ‘servants of the Lord’ who recognise he has appointed them for good.  We recognise we are serving and submitting to the Lord and not to men (Col 3:23).   Thus Peter defines new creation identity and our dynamic for living in the world, in the old creation.

Paul does the same in 1 Cor 7.  There Christian slaves are reminded that they are  the Lord’s freemen and Christian masters that they are the Lord’s slaves (1 Cor 7:22)   Christians are to think and function in terms of their new creation identity and dignity not their identity in the old.  Elsewhere in Scripture Christians are said to be the judge of angels and so should be able to judge (1 Cor 6) and should be judged by no-one (1 Cor 2:15).  As new creation heirs together with Christ we are to remember that we are not subservient to anything or anyone for everything belongs to us (1 Cor 3:21).  We share in the reign of Christ.  We are sons of God.  This is our identity and destiny. Paul recognises even when he is destitute his true position in Christ – he is someone ‘having nothing yet possessing all things’ (2 Cor 6:10).

Yet Peter calls for submission to authorities.  Why? For the Lord’s sake.  It honours God when we subject ourselves to what God has ordained in creation.  Thus wives submit to their husbands (good or bad) not simply as obliged by creation or even convention but as ‘as unto the Lord’ (Eph 5) and, ‘children, obey [their] parents (good or bad) in everything, for this pleases the Lord’ (Col 3:20), and, ‘slaves, obey [their] earthly masters… as [they] would Christ…  as servants of Christ’ (Eph 6).  Old creation hierarchies are honoured while we live here as strangers and pilgrims (1 Cor 11:1-10; 1 Tim 2:12-14)

The true model of this tension is of course Jesus himself.  He was new creation living in old creation.  He was the heir living as a servant.  He came to be about his Father’s business yet returned to Nazareth and was subject to his parents (Lk 2:51).   As the Son he could have commanded stones to become bread to alleviate his hunger (as Satan suggests) but he chose rather to live as a man depending upon God.  He truly had nothing (birds of air have nests… son of man nowhere… show me a penny…) yet possessed all things (Peter sent to find coin in the fish’s mouth… multiplied loaves and fishes…).  Authority was rightly his but he submitted himself to the authority of others (Jn 5:26; Matt 26:53).  His submission to authorities was really a submission to God.

1Pet 2:18-25 (ESV)
Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly.

Christ was ‘the Son’.  He was ‘the Lord’.  All the powers of the universe were rightly his.   Yet knowing this he did not exploit this right rather he was content to remain unknown and unrecognised and suffer what ever indignities came his way as in faith he waited God’s time to ‘act justly’.  He had come to live out all the relationships of everyday life in this world as an act of devotion to God and was content to wait for God’s day of vindication when who he really was would be revealed and every knee would bow.

As Christians, we are like Christ, sons of God and new creation living incognito in the old .  We live with our true life and identity hidden (Col 3:3).  We are free from all things but subject ourselves to all.  We are poor but possess everything.   We await by faith the day when we will be vindicated and revealed for who we really are to the whole of creation (Roms 8).

The final blog in this series will consider the tension between living in the old creation while living for the new creation.

why gay marriage is not a good idea

Over at Storied Theology is a post that has some helpful discussion on the merits and justice, or otherwise, of imposing a ‘Christian ethic’ on society.  I did not find the post itself particularly illuminating (in this occasion)  but did find some of the comments instructive, particularly some opposing gay marriage ( I confess my own comments were by far the weakest).  Below is a comment  by ‘Alastair’ that I found very helpful.  He has a number of others well worth reading.

I raised the case of abortion for two reasons. First, it is a case where it seems quite clear that ethics, grounded in large measure upon Christian convictions about life, are being imposed upon people in society. Second, it is an example of a case where a zoom lens view can be quite misleading. We need to expand our vision to include within it parties that are habitually excluded. For instance, in the case of abortion we need to look at the effect that it has on unborn children, on our concept of children more generally, on fathers and partners, on past and future generations, on communities and society more generally.

It is precisely such a ‘wide-angle lens’ approach that leads me to believe that gay marriage is oppressive and that an approach that sees it purely in terms of not getting in the way of individuals who wish to marry the person of their choice is hopelessly and dangerously myopic.

The institution of marriage is about far more than the granting of social approval and recognition to committed sexual partnerships. The institution of marriage protects and marks out a realm where we negotiate and experience some of the deepest realities of our human nature – sexual difference, procreation, kinship and blood relations, and the movement between the generations.

The institution of marriage protects the interests of children, their right to a lineage and a stable home, the norm and ideal of a relationship with one’s biological parents. By restricting sex to something to be undertaken within the lifelong commitment of the bonds of matrimony, the institution of marriage provides for the interests of children, presenting sex as a responsible act that needs to be open to potential consequences. This openness to the gift of children stands opposed to the sterile ideal represented by gay marriage, where sex is detached from consequences, where no child is unwanted or unchosen, where no child can make uninvited demands upon our lives.

Marriage expresses the value and importance of relationships that traverse the realm of sexual difference, bringing the two halves of humanity together in a union that transcends, negotiates, and creates a loving compromise of sexual differences. It recognizes the distinct phenomenology of human bodies, whereby male and female sexed bodies bear a natural relationship to each other, and the bodies of children bear a natural relationship to those of their parents.

Marriage protects the interests of society more generally and of past and future generations in the passing on of the social capital, which is a further reason why the openness of marriage to procreation and protecting the norm of biological kinship is important to it.

Marriage has traditionally functioned as a norm to which relationships are expected to conform, and as a participation in a larger transgenerational social project. Its norms and ideals are not merely placed upon married couples, but on society more generally (the expectation that people will be sexually abstinent outside of it, for instance). Gay marriage is merely another step in reorienting marriage to primarily serve the interests of individual couples and their bespoke lifestyle choices. The reduction of marriage from a norm to a lifestyle choice (is the argument for gay marriage really about expecting the gay community to conform to the norms of marriage or about validating a lifestyle choice?) has large social effects, most especially among the poorest.

GC comments on the effect that the change in the functional definition of marriage will have on Christians. Although this is a valid concern, I believe that the social dangers are far greater than this, reinforcing trends that have been ongoing for some time.

As for your claim about equality, you are just begging the question. ‘Equality’ is an empty word, unless it can be demonstrated that, relative to a particular standard, people are in fact equal. No one argues for the equality of blind and sighted drivers.

The issue here is whether, relative to the ends served by the institution of marriage and its grammar, committed gay partnerships (not, note, gay persons) are equal to heterosexual ones. This has to be demonstrated, not merely assumed.

I would argue that gay marriage is profoundly inequitable. Gay marriages would receive the privilege and status enjoyed by heterosexual marriages, while being incapable of serving or being open to the same ends. This isn’t justice at all.

living as new creation… in old creation (1)

How do people who are new creation live in an old creation?  Or to put it more popularly, how should Christians relate the world?

What a huge question?  In a sense the whole of the NT is an answer to it.  In a few posts I want to tease out some of the implications of the fundamental point the Bible makes concerning the Christian and the world.  What, you might ask, is that?

The main point the gospel burns into Christian minds regarding the world is – we have died to it.

Let me say it again – we have died to it.

And again – we have died to it.

What is that you just said?

I said – we have died to it.

And just in case the point has slipped your attention, let me repeat it again – we have died to it.

There is nothing that is more significant for us as we think of our relationship to the world than to recognize that we have died to it.  We have died to the whole order of the old creation.  We are no longer ‘alive’ in this world (Col 2:20).  Christians are a new creation.   In the death of Christ we died to the old order or creation and in his resurrection we find ourselves with him raised to live in a new order a new creation.  We no longer belong to (we have died to) the old creation of which Adam was the head but belong to (now live as) the new creation of which Christ is the head.  We live in the present world but are not really part of it.  We are like expats, or, resident aliens (Phil 3:20).  We live and function on foreign soil; in a country but not of a country.

What does this mean?  What are the implications of this for life?

The Bible spells out a number.  We discover that the various destructive forces that control the people of the present world, no longer control us.  The old fallen creation is controlled by various powers:  the world itself (Eph 1:1);  Satan (1 Jn 5:19; Eph 1:1); sin (Roms 6:6); rebellious flesh (Eph 2:3; Gals 2:24); God’s Law (Roms 7:1-6) and so on.  As people dead to this world we are free from them.  They have no rights or authority over us.  We need not listen to them or be intimidated by them.  The world’s allure is broken, Satan’s vice-like grip is unprised, sin is no longer a tyrant to be obeyed, the flesh is no longer the power on the throne of our hearts, the law (Mosaic)  is no longer an authority that accuses and to which we answer, death no longer has holding rights,  and God’s wrath is no longer a reality we need fear.  All are gone.   They are forces that have rights and threaten only in a world to which we are dead.  If we allow any to gain control it is because we choose to not because we must.  To be intimidated by any is a lack of faith.  It means we do not really believe we have died to this world.  As Paul says to the Colossians,

Col 2:16-23 (ESV)
Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.  If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations- “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)-according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

Mere pseudo-spiritual taboos and legalistic ascetic practices for their own sake (such as belong to many man-made religions and even the God-given faith of Judaism) are of no value in promoting spiritual life.  They are all examples of ‘flesh-religion’.  They have not grappled with the one radical truth that truly liberates, the truth that believers have died with Christ and are no longer ‘alive in the world’.  Once we grasp this and see that the source of our life, our joy, our satisfaction our holiness and all else is in heaven the superficiality and futility of these ‘recommended’ routes to holiness are seen for what they are.

It is wonderfully liberating to understand that death broke all debilitating relationships  and new creation means I may live free from them.  If I live for a time in another country they may have all sorts of habits, customs, histories, philosophies and cultural trappings that shape them.  I am shaped by none of these.  I come from another country.  I have been shaped by a different history and a different culture.  I am not a prisoner of the culture of my temporarily adopted country.  I am here only as a short-stay resident. I exist on a visa.   I am  passing through on my way home.  I am a pilgrim. To all that fashions and controls the world in which I live, I am as one dead.

creation and new creation

I like have not yet read VanDruren’s book ‘Living in God’s Two Kingdoms’ but I do like a distinction that he apparently makes in it.  He says, according to Bobbie Jamieson’s review, that redemption is not ‘creation regained’ but ‘re-creation gained’ (Pg 26).   This I believe is absolutely right and puts the emphasis firmly where the Bible does.

‘Creation regained’ argues that redemption simply takes us back to the original creation.  This in turn opens the door to the view that the ‘mission’ of the Chrurch is to ‘redeem culture’.  However, neither view is correct.  It is not God’s plan to take us back to first creation, neither is it his purpose to redeem culture.

Taking the second first.  ‘Culture’ is simply a contemporary word for ‘the world’, the human order as it now is in opposition to God.  The Bible reveals no plans to  ‘redeem’ this culture or world.  Indeed we are explicitly told the world is condemned and under judgement (Jn 16:8; 1 Cor 11:32); it is ‘passing away’ (1 Cor 7:32; 1 John 2:17).  Thus Jesus does not pray for the world but those God has given him out of the world (Jn 17:6).  Christians should show the grace and kindness of God to those in society in all the ways they can but they should have no illusions about Christianizing culture.  The gospel redeems people not structures; it saves them, in union with their risen Lord, ‘out of the world’ (Jn 13:1;15:19;17:6).

VanDrunen is right, God’s intention is ‘re-creation’ or ‘new creation‘.  And new creation is much more than Eden restored.  It is a new world born out of death.  It is entered now through death with Christ and will be realized fully at Christ’s Second Coming when the whole of the old creation will go through the convolution of death and resurrection.   In the language of Hebrews,

Heb 1:10-12 (ESV)
And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;  ​​​​​​​​they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,  ​​​​​​​​like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.”

and 2 Peter

2Pet 3:10-13 (ESV)
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.  Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

New creation metamorphs the initial creation.  There is, for example, no marriage in the final new creation.  Nor will there be any possibility of death; Adam could die, in the new age death is not possible.  It is a creation energized not simply by ‘flesh’ (although it will be physical) but by ‘the Holy Spirit’.    New creation in the final analysis is glorification.  Let’s avoid losing the gospel in mistaken notions that ‘missional’ means redeeming and transforming culture.   I intend to read VanDrunen’s book.  I hope you do too.

too many rules

An extract from an article by Mike Horton on the church’s call in the world.

‘Pastors aren’t authorized to create their own blueprint for transformation, but are servants of the Word. Where Scripture has clearly spoken, he must speak. Where it is silent, he must keep his personal opinions and perhaps even learned conclusions to himself. Of course, pastors are called to preach the whole council of God… That’s enough to occupy our prayerful action in the world, without piling up commands that God never gave. We’re never called to transform the world (or even our neighborhood). We’re never called even to bring millions to Jesus Christ. We’re called to be faithful in our vocations at work, at home, in our neighborhoods and in our witness to those individuals whom God brings across our path in ordinary ways every day.’

Amen!

flesh and spirit in romans, and beyond (6) ‘dead to the world’

In previous blogs on this thread we have seen that key to understanding the Christian life is grasping that God, through the death of Christ, has translated us from this world of ‘flesh’ into the world of ‘the Spirit’.  This translation lies at the heart of the gospel.  Christians are not ‘in Adam’ but ‘in Christ’.  We are not ‘old creation’ but ‘new creation’.

We must be clear that the flesh/Spirit divide of which Scripture is not a platonic dichotomy.  It is not material versus the immaterial.  No, both worlds in the Bible, whether of flesh or spirit, are physical and material.  Matter is not evil.  Yet at the same time we must remember that ‘flesh’ and ‘spirit’ do represent two different worlds; the world/age that now is and the world/age to come.  We belong, as Christians, not to this world (old creation, this passing age, earthly, Adamic, weak, and of the flesh) but to the new world (new creation, the age to come, heavenly, Christic, powerful, and of the Spirit).  This works itself out in all sorts of ways.

To be no longer ‘of the flesh’ is to be no longer ‘of the world’.  Speaking to the Father concerning his disciples (and himself) Jesus says:

John 17:14 … they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. ESV

Paul says to the Colossians

Col 2:19-20 (ESV)
If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations…

In this blog I want to explore more fully what it means to be ‘not of this world’ (Jn 17:14) or in Paul’s language to be no longer ‘alive in the world’.

not of this world…

A fundamental reality the Christian must grasp is that as far as this world is concerned he is to consider himself ‘dead’..  We have ‘died with Christ’.  That is the declaration of our baptism (Roms 6).   Our death with Christ underlies and informs all the NT teaching of what it means to be a Christian, especially that of Paul.  Indeed, we can really only make sense of Paul and of the Christian life when we grasp this critical truth.  It is in grasping the implications of our death with Christ that we begin to grasp the shape our life as a Christian ought to take.

Previously we explored two conclusions Paul draws in Romans from no longer being ‘in the flesh’ or being ‘dead’; to have ‘died with Christ’ means we are no longer under the control of sin  (Roms 6) and no longer under the authority of the Mosaic Law (Roms 7).  However, the implications are much more wide-reaching.

Sin and Law are just two ‘powers’ in the world that have no rights over us.  The world is a ‘power’ that has no rights over us either. Clearly we must define a little more closely what we mean by ‘the world’.  The Bible defines the world in three senses: the world as physical creation; the world as a human culture since the fall opposed to God (corporate flesh); and the world simply of people, of humanity.  It is not always easy to decide to which of these a biblical writer is referring and there are probably overlaps.  Paul, speaking of the present age and its human culture opposed to God writes this in Ephesians 2.

Eph 2:1-3 (ESV)
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience- among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

Unconverted people, all part of a culture opposed to God are enslaved various to values, attitudes, idolatries, and  evil forces that are opposed to God.  That is what ‘flesh’ is in a fallen world.  The Christian has died to this world.  He is no longer part of this humanity, this culture opposed to God, this present age.  He lives in this world as part of a new humanity in Christ not Adam, in the Spirit and not the flesh, an ambassador of  the age or world to come rather than the world and age that now is.

We said earlier that believers are no longer under the Law of Moses.  The Law of Moses applied to people who were living in this world.  It had no power over people who died.  We could just as easily say that believers are not really under the law of the land.  What right has the law of the land have over dead people?  As believers, we subject ourselves to the law of the land as we do to every  God-appointed authority in this world, but we do so, not because of we are citizens and have a duty to do so (for we are dead).  Rather we submit ourselves ‘for the Lord’s sake’.

Peter writes,

1Pet 2:13-16 (ESV)
Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God.

Note carefully the reason we are to ‘subject ourselves’.  It is ‘for the Lord’s sake‘.  Peter has just pointed out that here in this world believers are exiles and strangers (like modern day travelling people)  .  We don’t really really belong.  In a sense, we are ‘outside’ the culture.  We are ‘people who are free’.  We are not ‘alive in this world’ and subject to its rules.  It has no real claim on us (dead people are beyond the world’s claims and the claims of any in it).  Yet we subject ourselves to the various authorities that God has placed in this world (as did Christ, who even on earth subjected himself to authorities over which he rightly ruled) for this pleases God and glorifies him.

Paul urges us not to view ourselves in terms of our position in this age but in terms of the age to come.

1Cor 7:21-22 (ESV)
Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ.

or again

1Cor 9:19 (ESV)
For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them.

Whatever may appear to be our position in life, in the world, it is not the reality about us.  The reality is our new identity in Christ.  It is who we are in the world to come that really defines us.  It is our status in that world that is the real truth about us even now.  We live, for the moment, in paradox.  Paul grasps this when he writes:

2Cor 6:9-10
As unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and, behold, we live…  as having nothing, and yet possessing all things.

In this world we are unknown, in the one to come, well known.  In this world we may like Paul (and Abraham travelling through Canaan) possess little but as heirs of God all things are ours.  Just as the risen Christ is exalted and the possesor of all things, so we who are united to the risen Christ and our true life is in him there so Paul can say to the Corinthians

1Cor 3:21-23 (ESV)
So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future-all are yours, and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

Thus, Paul and Scripture, invite us to judge everything as though we were no longer ‘alive’ in this world (someone part and parcel of this present culture, living in it, like it, and for it).  For, in truth, we are not.

Gal 6:14-16 (ESV)
But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.

Now this is by no means a full discussion of this topic.  It is only a snippet.  Much more needs to be said to do it justice.  In fact it is a topic I feel I only understand a little.  I do want to add that being crucified to the world does not mean that we should not participate in everyday life.  Nor does it mean we should not enjoy many of the good gifts of life God has given us.  The created order is God-given and good.  Much that society creates is good and morally neutral.  Paul expressly says God has given us all things (non-sinful things) richly to enjoy.    Yet we will not live for these or be controlled by them.  We will use them gladly and thankfully, appropriately and wisely as gifts from God as we serve him as new creatures in Christ Jesus in a fallen world.  But we will not lose our hearts to them.  We will use them remembering that the things seen are temporary and the things unseen are eternal.  We will remember as Paul said

1Cor 7:29-31 (ESV)
This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away.

co-belligerency

A helpful blog on this topic is to be found over at ‘Contrast’.  Below is a chunk from the blog.  Brandon quotes from John W Robbins, someone with experience of political life in N America.

‘If you’re going to take political action that is going to compromise the gospel, then you are sealing your own doom. Over the past 50 years, conservatives have spent tens of billions of dollars lobbying, trying to elect candidates, trying to organize in various ways. When I was a kid, I was out passing out literature for Barry Goldwater, back in 1964.

And what has it gained? Are we any better off, to borrow a campaign slogan – are we better off today than we were 50 years ago? What have all those conservatives and libertarians done with those billions of dollars that has shown any improvement in the political or the moral climate of the country?

Now, if that money had been put into the preaching of the gospel – the uncompromised, unvarnished, pure gospel, perhaps there would be something completely different to show for it. But it was put into compromised political action, and there’s nothing to show for it. Absolutely nothing. Tens of billions of dollars – when you think of all the campaigns, all the organizations.

And I’ve been involved – my [PhD] degree’s in political theory, political philosophy. I’ve been interested in politics all my life and have been involved from time to time, working on Capitol Hill. And I learned a very good lesson on Capitol Hill – that what happens there is of little consequence. That if one is interested in changing society, you don’t go to Capitol Hill, you preach the gospel.

If anybody is operating under the illusion that political action is going to make a significant change in society apart from a sea change in the beliefs in the American people, then they’re condemned to futility. They will waste their lives.’

ambassadors of a disputed king

Bill Kyles has an excellent article on the hidden glory of the church in Themelios.  Below is an appetizer.

Ambassadors of a Disputed King

As pastors there is much to discourage us. We can feel insignificant compared to the powerful and influential people of our age. We are engaged in what has been called a “perplexed profession” in our modern world, and many are seeking to make it more professional as a result. It is tempting to seek the recognition and validation of the culture around us.

Richard Neuhaus compares our present situation to that of being the ambassadors of a disputed king. Compared with other members of the diplomatic corps at the courts of the world, an ambassador for Christ is in an awkward position. Most ambassadors bear the authority of and are legitimated by the sovereignties that they represent. But the sovereignty of the one we claim to represent is itself in question. The claim is under the shadow of a history shadowed by powerful evidence against his sovereignty. The shadow will not be dispelled, the question will not be answered, until he returns in glory.

The temptation, Neuhaus suggests, is one of relieving the awkwardness of our position by accepting a lesser authority from another kingdom. In other words, we are tempted to play by their rules. We are tempted to use some power of this age—the power of money, academic reputation, political clout, or something else—to make the other members at the world’s court listen to us. But that is just what we must not do, for until he comes, our King is enthroned upon a cross; and he has called us to claim no authority but that of his sovereign, suffering love for the world. We are called to hold on to that mystery of faith.

iao and probation

One of the concerns that some have who argue for IAO is that without it we are left in a probationary state.  The death of Christ clears us of our guilt, however, without ‘active obedience’ imputed we are left like a new Adam still in a state of probation, or so the argument goes.  Actually the reality is the opposite.   It is IAO that leaves us in a state of probation, for it links us to Christ’s humanity on earth and not to the heavenly Christ.  In IAO we find ourselves still in need of eschatological vindication (justification) and eschatological life; we still require New Age righteousness.

However, it is not an earthly Christ to whom we are united but a resurrected Christ.  Our standing and life is a resurrection standing and life, Christ’s resurrection standing and life.   We are ‘accepted in him’ (Eph 1:6).  Our life is hid with Christ in God (Col 3:3).  As he is (totally vindicated and accepted) so are we in this world (1 Jn 4:17).  Our position before God is in the now risen and reigning Christ and so beyond probation.  God’s righteousness is expressed in the enthronement of Christ, that is his verdict and vindication of Jesus.  In our union with this eschatological Christ we receive our verdict and vindication as righteous.

I feel a failure to fully grasp this radical new creation colours reformed (and other evangelical thinking) in a number of areas. Let me give two examples.

Firstly, the reason that many reformed believers cling to the Law in one way or another as essential to a believer’s life is because they have not grasped that eschatological living is in a realm where the Mosaic Law has no authority; the law belongs to ‘this world’ but we belong to ‘the world to come’ where the Law has no jurisdiction.  This is Paul’s argument in Romans 7.

Another example lies in the approach of many to culture.  The view that the calling of the church is to redeem culture fails to grasp how decisive the break is between the Present Age and the Age to Come (the Eschatological Age).  God has no intention of redeeming culture.  This culture, this universe, is all ‘Adam’.  It is a universe dominated by sin.  God’s intention is not to renovate it, or reform it but wrap it up like old clothes and start again (Hebs 1).  The old world must die.  The universe will be consumed by fire and from its death another born (2 Pet 3).  The OT flood is the story of the old creation and new creation in type.  God  intends to obliterate the old creation in an act of cosmic judgement and create anew, and the only those in the ark (Christ) will survive the transition.   Christ was alive in this sin-dominated world once, however he died to it, and in resurrection lives to God as the first of a new creation (Roms 6:8-10).  Thus the the real hope for people lies in trusting in Christ and the real focus of the church is tp preach the gospel.  Of course, this is not to say that Christians shouldn’t work to further justice and mercy in society but we shouldn’t confuse this with futile goals of redeeming society.

These are just two ways that grasping the implications of what it means to belong to the eschatological age in the risen Christ will educate our theology.

whose world?

Consider these two hymns: ‘This world is not my home’ and ‘This is my Father’s world’.  Both apparently present a different view of the world.  Which is biblically right? Are both right?  Are both wrong?  Is one more right than the other?  Are both partially right or/and partially wrong?

Your response to these songs is not unimportant.  In fact it is far-reaching. For the question these songs ask us to consider is, ‘what is our response to culture’.  Or, to put the question more generally, what is the proper biblical relationship between Christ and Culture?  How, in other words, should a Christian relate to the world.

If you find that question difficult to answer in a sentence or two then you are probably thinking at least roughly on the right lines.  The answer, fully considered, is not trite.

Anyway, you may be interested in contributing pointers to the answer.  Please do so.