“If you knew the Lord was returning tomorrow, how would that affect your passion for political and social issues?”

Actually, that is an important question the New Testament itself encourages us to ask. In I Cor. 7:31, the Apostle admonishes believers with the words, “let those who deal with the world deal as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away.“ Paul is not suggesting an escapism that fails to care for the world beyond evangelism. But he certainly warns us to be careful where our passions lie; to remember when dealing with issues of this temporary age, whether politics, social issues, or even marriage ( as is the context of I Cor 7), that we remember that the Lord could return any time, and all that will really matter will be that which matters for eternity; salvation or judgment. I recently told my congregation that to be angry over a non-Christian’s politics is like finding out your neighbor has prostate cancer and only two weeks to live, and then coming home and complaining to your wife that your neighbor with cancer is not taking care of his lawn like he should.

I would contend that in the face of transformationionalists’ constant accusation of escapism and gnosticism directed at A-mils, A-mil’s have become overly timid in declaring the possibility of the Lord’s return at any time. Yes, it doesn’t help that extreme dispensationalists misuse Revelation to turn the Second Coming into a religious side show of who can match the current news events to Revelation. And too often theonomists and post-mils pull out the “dispy” accusation when we proclaim the potential immediacy of the Lord’s return, again causing us to shrink back. We even have a new comfort phrase, “optimistic a-mil” to assure transformationalists that we are not the extreme escapists of their caricatures.

But the New Testament many times over directs us to consider our use and passion for this world in light of the impending return of the Lord (Matt 24:44, James 5:9, Rev. 20:20 to name just a few). A-mils need to recover their backbones in the face of post mil theonomy, which assures us confidently that the Lord *cannot* return until they see their dreams of a Christianized world fulfilled. We must boldly proclaim that the Lord may tarry one thousand years, or he may return tomorrow. But let the reality of his potential return temper your passions for the things of man’s passing kingdom, compared to the things of Christ’s eternal kingdom.

The Labor Day holiday is upon us, and that means it’s time for the Lapsed Episcopalian and me to make our second annual trek to Flushing Meadows, New York for the U.S. Open. Here is to hoping that Keller and crew have transformed the Big Apple enough that we don’t have to pay $7 a pop for Heineken’s and $5 for cookies in between matches. Now that would be a transformationalism I could buy into. Sort of. Now that I think of it, no.  But even if Arthur Ashe Stadium isn’t more wallet-friendly that won’t dampen my anticipation to watch arguably the ablest athlete presently on earth take apart his foes. All things being equal, Federer will face Nadal in the finals. I’d love to see that fight in person next Sunday, but since court-side seats would put me back upwards of $3,000 (to say nothing of a higher debt to the fourth commandment), that’s an easy Lenten sacrifice.
 

Happily, my copy of Dual Citizens has arrived in time for the trip. I told myself I wouldn’t peek until at least cruising altitude. But the blessed thing just kept staring at me from the kitchen counter, so I’m a few chapters in. Do I really have to finish it before plugging it here? But from what I have read so far, and from what I have read of Stellman the last few years, this book looks like the one to have for anyone who wants to understand not only the nuts and bolts of two-kingdom theology but also some of its real-world implications.

 
Remember, if you, like me, plan to be somewhere near upper-lower Michigan September 17-19, R. Scott Clark will be in Traverse City at Redeemer Presbyterian Church.

Here is a recycled post while I’m stomping Queensborough and Manhattan next week:

The Gospel of Law: The Brutalizing of Sinners

In the last post I reflected on how, like the wider culture they seem all too quick to accuse, mainstream Evangelicals seem to have slid easily into an age of religious comfort and ease themselves. There is a disconcerting coziness with God and His Law, a subsequent cheapening of grace and a “greasy familiarity” that produces dainty disciples who exude an easy piety and breezy spirituality. Typically indicated by such slogans as “let go and let God; just as I am; or give it all to God,” these pieties only help the watching world to scoff at Christian faith and the Church as it shrinks from lives marked by thoughtful consideration of both the sovereignty of God and human responsibility—or as one writer put it, “working out their salvation with fear and trembling.” 

But while it is true that some soft-peddle the doctrines of sin and grace, others brutalize sinners in misguided attempts to perhaps compensate. We may do well to take a lesson from history and consider that, “The Radical Anabaptists during the Reformation also challenged the Reformers for preaching a ‘sinful sweet Christ,’ while they preferred to follow a ‘bitter Christ.’” (“Christ the Lord,” p.52).

As W. Robert Godfrey of Westminster Seminary has said, this has been a temptation of the Church all throughout history: to make Jesus Christ the “new Moses,” the new Law-Giver. Medieval art depicts Christ cradling the Book of the Law whilst glowering at sinners. There is in such pieties a sense of a tortured sanctification, one in which sinful saints are compelled to live lives above and beyond, harassed on a regular basis to lesser or greater degrees, to attempt something that they should understand has already been done for them. Sinners today often are unnecessarily compelled vaguely to “be different from the rest of society” for the sake of “being different or counter-cultural,” naturally left to come up with their own set of rigid rules culled from Scripture but mainly man-made. Sinners feel bound to overly examine themselves, analyzing the “jots and tittles” of Scripture or their own sense of righteousness within. They then get caught up in every little detail of their lives, wondering if they can do this or should refrain from that. Legalism creeps in, first festering within the individual then manifesting outward within groups. Weighed down under heavy yokes, it asks modern equivalents of, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” or, “who sinned-this man or his parents that he is blind?” or like Eve who added her own human law to God’s commandment “not to eat of the tree,” saying, “God said to not eat of the tree or to touch it.”

Brutalizing, like the Just-As-I-Am syndrome in its coddling quest for a “personal relationship with God,” is completely un-mediated. Despite all the “Christ-centered” lingo which attends so much of them, the thing which seems common to these false gospels is that they are highly subjective rather than objective. They seek something within the sinner instead of pointing the sinner to that which is without him. Brutalizing seeks to deal with the sinner without mediation or insulation, the exact opposite of Christ-centeredness. In its human-centeredness, it naturally emphasizes sin and under-realizes the holiness of God, brow-beating sinners. This is because it wants them to feel as if there might be something they themselves can do about it. It is anymore quite popular to point out how sinners don’t like Law preached to them in order to make the point that we are natural enemies of it, placing onus off the Church and onto those “afar off.” While this is quite true, we do live in a context of religious history which suggests an equal, if not greater onus on the Church. With deep-seated memories of being burned over with “hellfire and brimstone,” it seems that sinners also instinctively know they are being postured to take matters into their own hands, even after being told “salvation is not by works.” In other words, total depravity is not only resisted because it is natural to do so, but also because sinners seem to know they simply cannot bear up under the anticipated call to fix themselves instead of simply gazing upon the serpent raised upon the rod.

But if sinners have learned how to resist more obvious forms of brutalizing, they also seem to have a blind spot for being killed softly. Usually sneaked in by way of relevant language to a populace used to seeing itself as both sovereign and entitled to the pursuit of happiness, one might hear the phrase “biblical principles” to any host of human interests. Mike Horton has routinely spoken of two versions of law, one “hard law” and the other “soft law”:

 “…the Law is reduced to practical tips. As a result, the bad news isn’t really that bad, and the good news isn’t really that good…So when people preach (or read) the Bible as a handbook of helpful tips or as a practical guide for happier living, they are not really encountering the Bible at all, despite their appeal to it. If one comes to the Bible always looking for the “practical,” that usually means that one will come looking for watered-down “Law.”  Remember, this is already our tendency, as Calvin’s successor, Theodore Beza, reminds us: “The Law is natural to man…But the gospel is a supernatural doctrine which our nature would never have been able to imagine nor able to approve without a special grace of God.”  (Modern Reformation magazine, 1999).

But Law is Law is Law, and it isn’t the Gospel.

There is a supreme difference between making sure we always remember the weightiness of our sin in the light of God’s holiness and simply battering sinners. One has it in mind to spring the Gospel on weighed down sinners with all hope, spurring gratitude and soberly obedient living couched in grace. The other, more brutal one, if it ever gets around to it at all, simply lays the Gospel before the sinner like a disgruntled Jonah. Sin here is rubbed in the sinner’s face again and Gospel becomes a deflated gift, if it can be called that at all. Sinners are compelled to be constantly thankful for a gift they are also constantly disallowed to enjoy.

It is famously told that exchange between Luther and Melanchthon in which the latter was prone to a self-examination that produced a raft of doubts and unnecessary angst with regard to his status before God. The anecdote suggests two things: first, and this correctly, that Melanchthon located the problem within himself; second, and this incorrectly and what may have accounted for so much gloom, that he seemed to locate the solution within as well. Again, inasmuch as they seek un-mediated and inward solutions to the problem, both coddler’s and batterers seem to make this same mistake. Luther’s advice, though, is some of the best going even if it strikes these false gospels as profane: “Go and sin boldly; the Gospel is completely outside you.” It may be that the category of “sin” doesn’t register (or is at least fuzzy) or that the suggestion to do so “boldly” is scandalous (or is at least a bit disconcerting).  If so, then it may be that despite whatever attending gospel-ese, the Gospel has been quite missed.

I still remember my first cup of Starbucks, how rich and smooth it was, beyond any cup of coffee I had ever had before. Compared to my previous attempts to soldier through black coffee, my impression at the time was, “The coffee itself actually tastes good — it’s like it’s got cream and sugar built in!” Now that first cup of Starbucks didn’t turn me into an addict; on the contrary, since then, I have remained at most an occasional (quarterly?) customer. My point is that, while I am aware that the question of whether the phenomenon of Starbucks is good or bad for coffee has fanatic advocates on both sides, I don’t have a dog in that fight; I am not part of the backlash, nor was I part of the original lash.  But my argument below rests on the axiom that Starbucks makes a good cup of black coffee.

Returning to my provocative title, let me put forward the thesis that the “gospel of Starbucks,” is coffee.  How did Starbucks become so successful in spreading their gospel (Filling the earth as the waters cover the grind)?  And what can the church learn from that?

The world that Starbucks entered was mostly used to coffee-flavored hot water. Remember when “International” used to be considered fancy? Or the old trick of swapping instant for 4-star restaurant coffee?  To my mind, that says more about the pre-Starbucks state of brewed coffee and customer discernment, than it does about the inherent quality of Folger’s Crystals.

Therefore, when Starbucks looked at the market, and looked at their gospel, did they decide, “Look, man, they’re just not ready.  We gotta water it down so we can at least get them in the door; then we can work on discipling them on the real stuff”?  No, they said “Coffee is coffee, and that’s what we’re going to sell.”  People came, and they learned new flavors.  (They also learned a new, technical vocabulary so they could discuss fine distinctions of this gospel of Starbucks.)

And how did Starbucks spread the word?  Because how can they love it unless they’ve tasted it?  And how can they taste it unless they come in?  And how can they come in unless they’ve heard?  And how are they to hear without someone preaching? Starbucks must have spent a brazillion dollars on clever marketing, carpet-bombing advertisements in all possible media outlets: TV, radio, print, billboards, bus stops, … wait a minute!  Stop and think — when’s the last time you saw an advertisement for Starbucks?  When have you ever seen an advertisement for Starbucks?  I’ve never seen one.  The amazing fact that spurred me to write this blog post is that Starbucks spends (relatively speaking) nothing on marketing. I rest my case with Exhibit A:

Starbucks spread their gospel simply by remaining true to their gospel. And this worked because their gospel was a substantive thing; a thing of excellence.  Like Spurgeon’s lion, it thrived: “who ever heard of defending a lion?  Just turn it loose; it will defend itself.”  And who did the preaching? Well, since it wasn’t hired guns, it must have been word-of-mouth — the gospel was spread by the members of the cult of Starbucks themselves.

To contrast, what is the gospel of McDonald’s? Because it’s certainly not food! Nobody has ever walked out of a McDonald’s, thinking, “So that’s what burgers are supposed to taste like!”  As evident from the chart above, the gospel of McDonald’s is the experience in, around and under the food — and that experience is wholly a creation of their marketing budget.  But man cannot live on experience alone (no more than he can live on McDonald’s alone).  It grows old, and fades away.  Kids love Happy Meals, but to grown-ups, McDonald’s is an occasional and unfortunate necessity of convenience.

So my message to the church from all of this is then: don’t be a McDonald’s, be a Starbucks.  Don’t water the gospel down into what the people want, just so you can have more customers.  Don’t be in the business of hooking the ignorant with Happy Meals (only for as long as they find them amusing). Let the Holy Spirit do his job as Marketing guru.  Your only job is to offer a stiff, rich, robust cup of gospel.  No cream or sugar.

Part 0, Part 3

From A. W. Pink’s Exposition of the Gospel of John:

From what has been said, it will be evident that when God told Moses to make a serpent of brass, fix it upon a pole, and bid the bitten Israelites look on it and they should live, that He was preaching to them the Gospel of His grace. We would now point out seven things which these Israelites were not bidden to do.

4. They were not told to make an offering to the serpent on the pole. God did not ask any payment from them in return for their healing. No, indeed. Grace ceases to be grace if any price is paid for what it brings. But how frequently is the Gospel perverted at this very point! Not long ago the writer preached on human depravity, addressing himself exclusively to the unsaved. He sought by God’s help to show the unbeliever the terribleness of his state and how desperate was his need of a Savior to deliver him from the wrath to come. As we took our seat, the pastor of the church rose and announced an irrelevant hymn and then urged everybody present to “re-consecrate themselves to God.” Poor man! That was the best he knew. But what pitiful blindness! Other preachers are asking their hearers to “Give their hearts to Jesus”- another miserable perversion. God does not ask the sinner to give anything, but to Receive HIS CHRIST.

Just as I am, without one plea, but that thy blood was shed for me!  We have nothing to bring.

I had a hard time understanding Pink’s harsh criticism of that pastor at first, but I guess Pink is seeing “re-consecrate” as “you do something to get back into God’s favor,” a.k.a. “Give your hearts to Jesus.”

Part 0, Part 2

From A. W. Pink’s Exposition of the Gospel of John:

From what has been said, it will be evident that when God told Moses to make a serpent of brass, fix it upon a pole, and bid the bitten Israelites look on it and they should live, that He was preaching to them the Gospel of His grace. We would now point out seven things which these Israelites were not bidden to do.

3. They were not told to fight the serpents. If some of our moderns had been present that day they would have urged Moses to organize a Society for the Extermination of Serpents! But of what use had that been to those who were already bitten and dying? Had each stricken one killed a thousand serpents they would still have died. And what does all this fighting sin amount to! True, it affords an outlet for the energy of the flesh; but all these crusades against intemperance, profanity and vice, have not improved society any, nor have they brought a single sinner one step nearer to Christ.

Wow — this quote alone, I think, is enough to earn Pink a nomination for Outhouse Sainthood.  Of course, nowadays we don’t crusade much against intemperance or profanity, but it’s not hard to find the Christian Crusades of our day.  The right have the gay marriage front, and the abortion wars — which (as Z notes) often become more about the vice of teen fornication than about homicide.  And the left would have the church crusading against poverty, climate change, and oppressive American imperialism.

Now I think we are probably able to look back at the early 20th century and agree with Pink that all of their “crusades against intemperance, profanity and vice, have not improved society any.”  And even though legislation against gay marriage is the right thing to do (Natural Law), I wouldn’t say that it would actually “improve society any”.  However, I can’t resist affirming that, if Roe v. Wade were overturned, then many states would ban many categories of abortions, and thus many babies would be saved.  And that I would call an improvement to society.

More importantly however, is Pink’s final point, that “all these crusades against intemperance, profanity and vice, have not … brought a single sinner one step nearer to Christ.”  So here at the Outhouse, we are in agreement with Pink that the Gospel is not aimed at the problems of society, and any solution for society is worthless when it comes to the problem the Gospel is aimed at, namely sin.

Since the Reformation, four chief theories, and these inclusive of all other theories of revealed theology, have currency in Christendom,–the Papal, the Zuinglian, the Lutheran, and the Calvinistic…The Papal theory of theology, like the ancient mythological theory of the universe, scarce pretended to have any foundation other than in mere human fancies and its general prevalence among more modern theory…The Zuinglian, taking as the central principle of its structure the truth that the word of God alone can be any authoritative rule to the conscience, developed from that point a true, in opposition to a counterfeit gospel’ yet a gospel too easily perverted by reason of its tendency to exalt the rational man of earth into a centre of the spiritual system…The Lutheran theory, taking as its central principle the justification of the sinner by grace alone through faith…as the centre, to whom the rational man of earth…is attracted, and around whom he revolves.  Calvin, whilst perceiving that the central truths of both Zuingle and Luther were indeed great truths…beheld not only the rational man revolving around the mediatorial Sun of righteousness as his true centre, but also that man and his Central Sun revolved again around a still profounder centre, even the Eternal Purpose of God, fixed in the counsels of eternity before the world begun.

Of this system of theology the eternal purpose of God is, ideally, the great central truth…The revelation of Himself experimentally to the souls of his people is but the manifestation of the love wherewith he loved them before the world began…so that the doctrine of the Decree and Predestination of God is not so much a doctrine of Calvinism—one distinct truth in a system of truth—as a mode of conceiving and setting forth all the doctrines which make up revealed theology.

Now, pursuing then hint already suggested touching the connection between the system of theology and the idea of the Church, and taking this theory of Calvin as correct, a sure and reliable central point will be found for the doctrine of the Church, likewise, in the eternal purpose of God…It is set forth as a distinguishing feature of the purpose of redemption, that it is to save not merely myriads of men as individual men, but myriads of sinners, as composing a Mediatorial body, of which the Mediator shall be the head; a Mediatorial Kingdom, whose government shall be upon His shoulders forever; a Church, the Lamb’s Bride, of which He shall be the Husband; a bride who beautiful portrait was graven upon the palms of his hands, and whose walls were continually before him, when in the counsels of eternity he undertook her redemption…

It will be perceived, therefore, that the primary and fundamental conception of the Church of God has its germinal source far back in the purpose of God, and that the Church naturally and necessarily grows out of the very form and mode of the scheme of redemption for sinners, as it lay in the Infinite Mind. As the purpose was to redeem not only elect sinners, but a body of elect sinners,–an organic body with all its parts related to each other, and the Mediator himself the head thereof—it is manifest that in that purpose is involved ideally the Church as an elect portion of the race under the Headship of the Messiah, and distinct from another and reprobate portion of the human family.

Stuart Robinson, The Church of God As An Essential Element of the Gospel

That’s pretty good stuff. But, seriously, we should take the gospel from its churchly contours and fill up football stadiums and big tops, or broadcast it on the radio and TV and inter-web. That is, if we really want to be effective. Now, where’d I put that blessed mirror? It was here a minute ago and I swear I saw my face in it.

Part 0, Part 1

From A. W. Pink’s Exposition of the Gospel of John:

From what has been said, it will be evident that when God told Moses to make a serpent of brass, fix it upon a pole, and bid the bitten Israelites look on it and they should live, that He was preaching to them the Gospel of His grace. We would now point out seven things which these Israelites were not bidden to do.

2. They were not told to minister to others who were wounded, in order to get relief for themselves. This, too, would have appealed to their sentiments as being more practical and more desirable than gazing at a pole, yet in fact it had been most impracticable. Of what use would it be for one to jump into deep water to rescue a drowning man if he could not swim a stroke himself! How then can one who is dying and unable to deliver himself, help others in a similar state. And yet there are many today engaged in works of charity with the vain expectation that giving relief to others will counteract the deadly virus of sin which is at work in their own souls.

Again, Pink hits on the unreasonableness, the impracticality (or in Z’s terminology, irrelevance) of the Gospel.

Part 0

From A. W. Pink’s Exposition of the Gospel of John:

From what has been said, it will be evident that when God told Moses to make a serpent of brass, fix it upon a pole, and bid the bitten Israelites look on it and they should live, that He was preaching to them the Gospel of His grace. We would now point out seven things which these Israelites were not bidden to do.

1. They were not told to manufacture some ointment as the means of healing their wounds. Doubtless, that would have seemed much more reasonable to them. But it would have destroyed the type. The religious doctors of the day are busy inventing spiritual lotions, but they effect no cures. Those who seek spiritual relief by such means are like the poor woman mentioned in the Gospel: she “suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse” (Mark 5:26).

Although Pink signed his Foreword with a date of 1923, this reads as if he were talking about today (much like Machen’s monumental Christianity and Liberalism).  What a great reminder:  if you’re hearing something called “the Gospel,” and it sounds reasonable, guess what – it’s not the Gospel!  But the foolishness of “Just look at the Cross!” — that’s the Gospel.

One of the reasons I haven’t been pulling my weight around here lately is that for the last quarter I’ve been teaching a Sunday School class.  Which means that I’ve had more time (made more time!) for reading.  Reading, of course, is just another name for “collecting quotes for blogging,” and now that my class is done, I will embark on a series of short posts based on some fantastic quotes.

First, let me back up, with a trick question: Who knows what verse this is: “That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life”?If you answered John 3:16, then you fell into my trap!  That quote is part of John 3:16, but what verse that quote is, is the whole verse John 3:15 (KJV).  Maybe it’s just me, but has that always been there?  ESV drops the perish clause, but in the textus receptus, all 12 greek words in John 3:15 are repeated verbatim as the end of John 3:16.  Thus, John 3:16 clearly exists for the purpose of further explaining the same thing that that John 3:15 is explaining, namely John 3:14!

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Seeing all of that together (not separated by a paragraph division or even an extrabiblical section heading) convinced me that the only way to properly understand 3:16 was to see it as Jesus intended, in analogue with Moses and the bronze serpent from Numbers 21.  For my study, I had checked out from the church library A. W. Pink’s Exposition of the Gospel of John — what a treasure trove!  Here is his cogent explanation of how Christ can be analagous to a serpent:

But how could a serpent fitly typify the Holy One of God? This is the very last thing of all we had supposed could, with any propriety, be a figure of Him. True, the “serpent” did not, could not, typify Him in His essential character, and perfect life. The brazen serpent only foreshadowed Christ as He was “lifted up.” The lifting up manifestly pointed to the Cross. What was the “serpent?” It was the reminder and emblem of the curse. It was through the agency of that old Serpent, the Devil, that our first parents were seduced, and brought under the curse of a Holy God. And on the cross, dear reader, the holy One of God, incarnate, was made a curse for us. We would not dare make such an assertion, did not Scripture itself expressly affirm it. In Galatians 3:13 we are told, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.” There was no flaw, then, in the type. The foreshadowing was perfect. A “serpent” was the only thing in all nature which could accurately prefigure the crucified Savior made a curse for us.

Now, in reading a little more Pink, I found that that boy likes to make him some lists!  In particular, lists of 7.  As far as I can tell, every single chapter begins by dividing the passage under consideration into 7 parts, and then within the chapters, he is constantly making points in groups of 7:  ”In John 3:16 there are seven things told us about God’s love.”  In expositing “born again”, he offers 7 points about the new birth, and within the seventh point itself, 7 ways in which the Spirit is like the wind.  And Pink also offers 7 points about the bronze serpent:

From what has been said, it will be evident that when God told Moses to make a serpent of brass, fix it upon a pole, and bid the bitten Israelites look on it and they should live, that He was preaching to them the Gospel of His grace. We would now point out seven things which these Israelites were not bidden to do.

Those seven things will be seven more posts, each of which will offer an analagous point about how we are to understand the gospel, and what it means to look to the cross.

This book came out a couple of weeks ago, but I haven’t seen a whole lot of buzz about it on the blogs so: buzz buzz buzz buzz.

Heralds of the King: Christ-Centered Sermons in the Tradition of Edmund P. Clowney
Edited by Dennis E. Johnson

Buy from Here
Preview Here

Here’s the Chapter list

Part 1. The Law

1. Living with a Gap: Genesis 17:1–14
Joseph V. Novenson

2. The Girl Nobody Wanted: Genesis 29:15–35
Timothy J. Keller

3. Lord and Servant: Genesis 43
Brian Vos

4. Rock of Ages: Exodus 17:1–7
Julius J. Kim

Part 2. The Prophets

5. Surprising Love: 2 Samuel 9
Charles D. Drew

6. Thorns and Fir Trees: Isaiah 55:13
Harvie M. Conn

7. No Condemnation: Zechariah 3
Iain M. Duguid

Part 3. The Psalms

8. Beauty in the Sand: Psalm 90
William Edgar

Part 4. The New Covenant

9. When God Promises the Impossible: Luke 1:5–25
Dennis E. Johnson

10. Soul-Ravishing Sightings: Luke 9:28–36
Joseph F. Ryan

11. The Greatness of God’s Ultimate Word: Hebrews 1:1–3
Arturo G. Azurdia III

See, the Conqueror mounts in triumph;
See the King in royal state,
Riding on the clouds, His chariot,
To His heavenly palace gate!
Hark, the choirs of angel voices
Joyful alleluias sing,
And the portals high are lifted
To receive their heavenly King.

Who is this that comes in glory
With the trump of jubilee?
Lord of battles, God of armies,–
He hath gained the victory.
He who on the cross did suffer,
He who from the grave arose,
He hath vanquished sin and Satan;
He by death hath spoiled His foes.

While He lifts His hands in blessing,
He is parted from His friends;
While their eager eyes behold Him,
He upon the clouds ascends.
He who walked with God and pleased Him,
Preaching truth and doom to come,
He, our Enoch, is translated
To His everlasting home.

Now our heavenly Aaron enters
With His blood within the veil;
Joshua now is come to Canaan,
And the kings before Him quail.
Now He plants the tribes of Israel
In their promised resting-place;
Now our great Elijah offers
Double portion of His grace.

Thou hast raised our human nature
On the clouds to God’s right hand;
There we sit in heavenly places,
There with Thee in glory stand.
Jesus reigns, adored by angels;
Man with God is on the throne.
Mighty Lord, in Thine ascension
We by faith behold our own.

Glory be to God the Father;
Glory be to God the Son,
Dying, risen, ascending for us,
Who the heavenly realm hath won.
Glory to the Holy Spirit!
To One God in Persons Three
Glory both in earth and heaven,
Glory, endless glory, be.

“See, the Conqueror Mounts in Triumph”
by Christopher Wordsworth, 1807-1885
Text From: THE HANDBOOK TO THE LUTHERAN HYMNAL
(St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1942)p.163

People who say that Bono bugs them bug me. And it’s not only because they undermine the greatest rock band in history (behind the Beatles). It’s also because they seem relatively unable to distinguish between the things of art, politics and religious propaganda. And nine-and-a-half times out of ten what they mean is that that they don’t like the man’s politics. Just as often these are the very same folks who have plenty of room in their hearts for cultural and political activism whose contents are different politics. On rare bad days, when Bono bugs me, it’s only because of his employment of activism, which I find generally obnoxious and contrary to an obedient institutionalism, no matter who is being active or why. But his politics are completely legitimate, just as legitimate as those who have different politics. (If you don’t grasp this, don’t worry, it takes a confessionally Reformed non-politico to see it. And if you are a western religionist chances are you aren’t a confessionally Reformed non-politico but come by it honestly enough, assuming that politics and religion are close cousins for some reason. On top of that you have accepted the modern notion that civil disobedience is a virtue, depsite the greater NT ethic of obedience. Am I buggin’ you?)

But be all that as it may, in Michael Assayas’ book Bono the author records this interview with the famous singer and activist:

Bono: You see, at the center of all religions is the idea of Karma. You know, what you put out comes back to you: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, or in physics—in physical laws—every action is met by an equal or an opposite one. It’s clear to me that Karma is at the very heart of the universe. I’m absolutely sure of it. And yet, along comes this idea called Grace to upend all that “as you reap, so you will sow” stuff. Grace defies reason and logic. Love interrupts, if you like, the consequences of your actions, which in my case is very good news indeed, because I’ve done a lot of stupid stuff.

Assayas: I’d be interested to hear that.

Bono: That’s between me and God. But I’d be in big trouble if Karma was going to finally be my judge. I’d be in deep s—. It doesn’t excuse my mistakes, but I’m holding out for Grace. I’m holding out that Jesus took my sins onto the Cross, because I know who I am, and I hope I don’t have to depend on my own religiosity.

Assayas: The Son of God who takes away the sins of the world. I wish I could believe in that.

Bono: But I love the idea of the Sacrificial Lamb. I love the idea that God says: Look, you cretins, there are certain results to the way we are, to selfishness, and there’s a mortality as part of your very sinful nature, and, let’s face it, you’re not living a very good life, are you? There are consequences to actions. The point of the death of Christ is that Christ took on the sins of the world, so that what we put out did not come back to us, and that our sinful nature does not reap the obvious death. That’s the point. It should keep us humbled … It’s not our own good works that get us through the gates of heaven.

Love him, hate him or bugged by him for his politics or activism, Paul Hewson more or less gets the gospel.