How Worship Affects Everything

(Photo by Bryan Minear on Unsplash)

I recently finished Paul Tripp’s Parenting: 14 Gospel Principles That Can Radically Change Your Family. While I hope to provide a more in depth review of the book, today I want to focus our attention on one principle that jumped out to me. With the recent emphasis in the discussion of transgenderism, Teen Vogue’s article on anal sex, and the confusion surrounding human sexuality in general, I was again impressed with the relevancy of Scripture.

In the eleventh chapter, Tripp discusses the principle of ‘false gods.’ (Tripp, 2016) The principle is, ‘You are parenting a worshiper, so it’s important to remember that what rules your child’s heart will control his behavior.’ (Tripp, 2016)

The chapter develops how this principle fleshes out in our children. Tripp touches on a point that has profound implications: worship. He states, ‘Worship is a tricky word for most of us, because when we think of worship we tend to think of formal religion….But worship is not just a religious function; it is a human function. Worship is something everyone does every day.’ (Tripp, 2016)

Applying to our children, this enables us to understand why they do the things they do. Branching out from the focus on children, and this enables us to understand the state in which we find our country.

Think about it: we were made to be and are worshipers. Tripp wisely writes, ‘It’s the fact that we always live in service of something or that we always live in control of something.’ (Tripp, 2016) Why are individuals confused about their gender? (Let me state that there are some genuine issues underlying some instances of gender confusion and identity. I am discussing the willful abandonment of a gender at birth for the opposite gender.) Why are people desiring to be with the same gender, sexually? Why are magazines proving teenagers ages 12-17 how-to guides for anal sex? Because we are worshipers.

Paul, in his masterful work of the book of Romans, captures this truth exquisitely:

 ‘For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;  and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.’ (ESV, 2007)

There are several points worth noting.

  • Rather than creation impressing God’s truth upon their hearts, their unrighteous acts suppress the truth.
  • These individuals knew God but rejected Him.
  • Because we are worshiping beings, our need to worship something still exists.
  • Our rejection of the worship of God results in the worship of creation, including humanity.

Our need to worship something does not dissolve with our failure to believe in God. As a result, we worship something or someone. How does this look like in our society?

We are confused about sexuality. We are worshiping ourselves, our good, our pleasure, when we step outside the God-ordained boundaries for sexual gratification. You see, sex is a good thing. God created it for our enjoyment as well as the natural means of increasing the population of the earth (see Genesis 1:28, 31; 2:24; Proverbs 5:15-19; and Hebrews 13:4). However, when we forsake worshiping the one true God, our worship moves to another, and in our society, sexual gratification is near the top.

We have “exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25, ESV). We have forsaken the worship of our Creator for us, the creature. If I choose to be another sex, then I change it, because my desire overrules even nature itself.

How does this understanding help us? In several ways:

  • It should cause us to have an enormous amount of grace with each other.

    If God made us to worship Him, and by our nature we avoid Him (see Romans 1:18-25 and 3:10-20), then it is only the incredible grace of Jesus that changes us (see Ephesians 2:8-9). Those who receive grace should be the most gracious, as we know the depths of our sin and the absolute wonders of His grace. That means we should be patient, kind, and loving. 1 Corinthians 13, the ‘love chapter’, details how the grace of Jesus should look in our lives. Are we sharing grace with one another?

  • It should help us understand why people do the things they do.

    I have heard people say, ‘How can they do that? What are they thinking?’ They (and we too) do it because they were meant to worship! They (and we too) were created by a gracious Father to spend our lives in awe and service to Him. By the fall, they (and we too) ignored the truth of creation that should lead us to the Creator and instead place ourselves on the throne of sovereign rule. They (and we too) seek to serve their god, themselves. Whether that means we change our sexual identity, our sexual orientation, or even the ages when we offer advice for sexual acts, we worship something. In our interactions with others, knowing why they do certain things can help us minister from a position of knowledge rather than stupidity.

  • It should help us understand our own false worship.

    Sexual sins are not the only expression of our need to worship. Our jobs, positions, titles, money, rest, people, television, mobiles, and much more are all expressions of our need to worship. The question is not, “Do I worship sex? (or insert any other thing)” The question is, “Do I worship God and God alone (see Deuteronomy 6:4-5)?” It is so easy to see the splinter in our brothers and sisters eyes and completely ignore the telephone pole in our own (see Matthew 7:1-5).

  • It should help us to pray.

    God desires to restore Creation (see Romans 8:18-25 and Revelation 21-22). In fact, it was the motivation for Jesus’ incarnation (see Ephesians 1:3-10 and Colossians 1:15-20). Jesus came to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10). It is God’s desire to restore everything so that it will once again be ‘very good’ (see Genesis 1:31). We, as recipients of this incredible grace, should pray for others. We, who experienced the bondage of sin and Satan, should zealously pray for those within it and his grasp. Our hearts should ache with a desire to be tools to help place the God who deserves all worship into the hearts of those who are failing to worship their Creator.

It always amazes me, though it should not, just how relevant the Scriptures are. It also amazes me just how depraved we (I am in the list too!) are. Finally, I am overwhelmed at the grace of our Lord, who ‘shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.’ (Romans 5:8, ESV)

There are several good resources that are available if you wish to discuss this matter further.

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary provides a good article discussing Teen Vogue’s deplorable post.

For a good discussion on the topic of transgender, see Samuel James’ article on the Gospel Coalition.

Finally, check on the Christian Post’s article. You’ll find some helpful discussion there as well.

 

Advertisements

Complementarianism Revisited

Families are essential part of society, and even more so of the Church. God created the family and uses it to teach the Gospel. We begin on the foundation of these two truths:

  • God created families- see Genesis 2:15-25
  • God uses the husband and wife relationship to teach the Gospel- see Ephesians 5:22-33

I love to study. Whether it is theology or not, I enjoy learning new things. I love contemplating deep thoughts as well. But one of the aspects of my personality is a drive for practicality. How will this change my life? And as a follower of Jesus, I want to know how this can help me love God more and love my fellow neighbors more?

With this background understanding, I studied the different viewpoints on the husband-wife relationship. In my studies, specifically of the family, I came across a different viewpoint from which I was taught. I attended a small Bible college, and though the name complementarian was not used, a form of it was taught. I think, in general, the view held by this institution and churches associated with it, it was more a radical approach. Perhaps an illustration will be helpful. The husband comes home after a long day at the office. He is tired, wearied by the day’s work. As a result, he desires to come home, sit down in his favorite rocking chair, and eat in silence while he watches the television. Thus his wife is to prepare the meal, have everything prepared for him, and keep the children quiet while the husband unwinds. Whenever the husband desires to have sex, the wife is not to deny him on the basis of 1 Corinthians 7:1-5. This king-of-the-castle approach to marriage is how I was taught the roles of marriage. During my time at this institution (as well as my interactions with other churches) I saw both positive marriages and marriages that functioned to the illustration above.

One thing I came to believe is that there had to be a better way. Why? Because the verse often left out was Ephesians 5:25, “Husbands, love your wives, as Chris loved the church and game himself up for her.” There was this lack of self-sacrificing love from the views of marriage taught by the institution and accompanying churches. As a result, and much to my own blame, I began to seek the opposite view: egalitarianism.

Egalitarianism is the belief of equality in marriage. The husband does not have any specific role to play, nor does the wife. If the wife decides to be the leader, she can be. Likewise with the husband. There are several passages of Scripture that those who teach egalitarianism utilize. Perhaps the most significant one is Galatians 3:28, “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.”

So, I was taught a radical form of complementarianism, moved to egalitarianism, and am slowly making my way back to a biblical view of complementarianism.

How in the world did this happen?

To begin with, I love to study! You may be thinking, “Didn’t I just read that?” Yes, you did. But it is a matter of importance, the significance of which cannot be overstated. Because I desire to study and seek what Scripture states, I desire to be accurate, to achieve truth. Scripture is an open book, given by God for His glory and our good (see Deuteronomy 29:29). In the effort to be brief, I will provide bullet-points of the most significant reasons for this new transition.

  • Complementarianism pictures the Gospel in Marriage in a way that Egalitarianism cannot.
    aaron-burden-233840

    unsplash.com

     

    The role of husband and wife has the specific purpose of illustrating the love Jesus has for His Church (see Ephesians 5:29, 32). Complementarianism allows for the unique beauty, worth, and significance of both the husband and wife. Simultaneously, it also allows the headship of the husband (a picture of the headship of Christ) and the submission of the wife (a picture of the submission of the Church to Christ) without debasing either. Certainly, an abuse of the roles is contrary to Scripture as well as a distortion of the Gospel. Egalitarianism, however, is unable to paint the same picture. Mutual submission, yes. And this can be seen in Ephesians 5:21. But mutual submission cannot be a picture of the Gospel, and therefor complementarianism lends itself to the more biblical view.

  • Complementarianism, when properly practiced, is a picture of the Gospel in your home, community, and church.

    Because God ordained marriage between husband and wife to be the living picture of His incredible grace, it is used by God to reach others. I think about my children and hope that the love my wife and I share lead them to God. Our communities, constantly debating what marriage is or how one should define a family, need the rock of certainty found within the family as the Gospel. The Church, the “pillar and buttress of the truth” ( 1 Timothy 3:15), is to be the body of Christ (Romans 12:5, 1 Corinthians 12:12-27). That is, the Church is the Gospel Living. Egalitarianism is a reflection of our society more than of the Gospel. Certain aspects of it are appealing. That is why I was and still drawn to it. I love the teamwork atmosphere. However, Egalitarianism does not picture the Gospel in the way that Complementarianism does.

  • Complementarianism enjoys the breadth of Scriptural support.

    This one is a little more difficult, and one that I am in the process of working through. Scripture is written to individuals in specific places at specific times. The world of Scripture was a heavily male-dominated society. Today we enjoy more equality, with women enjoying many aspects of life previously unattainable. However, something must be said that it is within those times that God decided to provide His truth. From Genesis to Revelation, Scripture consistently places the husband as the head (please note head and not king) of the home. The issues faced by many who object to complementarianism (myself included) are not issues with God’s views, but mankind’s execution of it. The fact that Scripture solely functions within the complementarian view is astounding and must weigh heavily in our understanding.

So where does this leave us? Perhaps I will put together a small series on the topic. Either way, I am constantly thinking, constantly searching the Scriptures. Let us, as we search the Scriptures, seek God’s wisdom on every issue. Likewise, let us seek to practice the Scripture as God intended.

 

A Comparison of Genesis 2:17 and 3:4 in light of the understanding of the Creation of Man and Woman

In my studies of the New Testament book of Hebrews I have come across some incredibly interesting information. Today, as I am working through Hebrews 2:14-18, I was puzzled at the phrase used in verse 14. We read, “…the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil.” (ESV) This led me on a journey. I am looking at an overview of the devil’s work throughout Scripture.
In keeping with the typical evangelical understanding of the devil, I went straight to Genesis 3. Now, in my reading of Scripture, in both the creation story of humanity (Genesis 1:26-31) and in the fall of humanity (Genesis 3:1-6) man and woman were given the same command to avoid eating the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The consequences would be death.

However, in Genesis 2, we see a parenthetical view of the creation of man. In this account, man was formed first, given the commands concerning paradise, and then after naming animals God drew woman from one of his ribs. Below you will find a comparison of the command given to man (Genesis 2:17) and that of the statement made by the serpent to woman (Genesis 3:4).

 

Genesis 2:17

Hebrew Gen 2 14

 

“But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (ESV)

 

Genesis 3:4

Hebrew Gen 3 4

But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die.” (ESV)

 

I have color-coded our words for ease of reference. The first word found in the almost identical statements by God and the serpent is Maveth.PNG. This word is a Qal infinitive absolute. Arnold and Choi describe this as “both ‘atemporal’ and ‘apersonal,’ meaning that only the context determines the time/aspect features of the action, as well as the subject of the action itself.” (Arnold and Choi, 2003) The word means natural death, and the scope of death in Scripture ranges from human beings to animals and plants. The structure of the Hebrew text, then, offers us further clarification as to who will die and when (relatively speaking).

The next word TMaveth (in Genesis 2:17) and Tmavethn. (in Genesis 3:4) are practically identical.  The only difference (besides the paragogic nun) is the ending. The word in Genesis 2:17 is a Qal Imperfect, 2nd person, masculine, singular. In the context, God is giving man the command that should he eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of God and evil “dying he would die” (author’s translation). The word in Genesis 3:4 is a Qal Imperfect, 2nd person, masculine, plural. The difference is found in the number. God, in Genesis chapter two, speaks to man, singular. In Genesis chapter three, the serpent speaks to woman and man, plural.

This may seem to be an insignificant point, but to me it has great implications. Here are a few:

  • When God created humanity, he created both male and female. This is stressed in Genesis 1:27. When it says that “God created man in his own image” (ESV) the word used for the collective of humanity is the singular word Adam.PNG , from which we derive the proper name Adam. When we look at Genesis 3:9, shortly after woman and man ate the fruit God addresses man (Adam.PNG) and asks him (singular), where he was. It is not until man blames his wife (Genesis 3:12) that God begins to address them individually. Thus, according to the beginning account of humanity, man and woman were so combined as to be seen as one.
  • While it may appear, on the surface of the text, that God only gave the commands to man, this is not the case. Some theologians and scholars use this to prove a complementary view of the male-female relationship. For example, see Andreas Köstenberger, God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundations, 24-26; David Lee Talley, “Gender and Sanctification: From Creation to Transformation A Comparative Look at Genesis 1-3, the Creation and Fall of the Man and the Woman, and Ephesians 5, the Sanctification of the Man and the Woman in a Redemptive Marriage Context”, in Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Spring 2003, 6-16. However, the Hebrew reveals that man and woman were oneNow, it is easy to simply take the definition of one and apply it in an incorrect manner. The Hebrew word can mean one in number or a collective of a group. For our understanding of the male-female relationship, it is quite helpful. The man and woman, one, were issued the commands regarding the keeping of the garden.
  • This has further implications for marriage roles today. Rather than seeing the husband as the king of his castle, or wives as subservient, the original Edenic nature of the male-female relationship is equality. Certainly there are physical differences between the sexes, but at creation when “God saw everything that he had made…it was very good.” (Genesis 1:31, ESV)

If you would like more information for an egalitarian point of view, check out this excellent resource: Christians for Biblical Equality.

What are your thoughts? How do you see the creation account’s implications for today?

Sexual Abstinence and the Christian

Recently I read an article that addressed a huge but unspoken need in evangelical, Christian churches: sexual abstinence. This is not to say that the Church has failed to preach and teach it, or that Her leaders have forsaken the opportunity to provide the means and various methods to achieve abstinence until marriage. However, our churches have failed to provide young (and old) believers the right perspectives about marriage.

The reasons for this are many, I am sure. Many people find it awkward to discuss the topic, in mixed company or in individual groups. Pastors may feel inadequate to talk about it from the pulpit (and here care should be observed. When pastors get in bed in public view, though their intentions be pure, you have to ask some serious questions.) The challenge of the age gap is another issue many pastors and teachers of God’s Word face. For example, you wouldn’t really be comfortable having a youth pastor discuss sex and its effects to the youth group, divided or not.

Of course there are other examples, but the challenge remains for the Church to find out how to biblical discuss the topic and help educate believers to deal with the issues from premarital times to intra- and post marital occasions.

IMG_1736.JPG