Having spent a good amount of time on the tennis court, I couldn’t miss the battle of the Andy’s yesterday. It was a brilliant match between two tough competitors. Englishmen have rallied behind Andy Murray in the hope that he would bring the Wimbledon championship back to Britain. However, Andy Roddick would have nothing to do with it. Roddick has always been a bomber. His serve is ridiculous. Imagine a tennis ball coming at you at an average speed of 135 mph. I’ve experienced that type of speed in person and it is not pleasant. However, Roddick has never had the all around game to back up his massive serve. I’ve been saying for years that Roddick should develop a serve and volley game to take advantage of his brilliant serving. Pete Sampras showed us what serve and volley can look like with a serve in the 120’s (and great placement). Add 10 mph to his serve and imagine the possibilities.
Well…Roddick finally put it together. His coach, Larry Stefanki, changed some aspects of his game and it has paid off. Roddick looked great going to the net. His volleys were fairly smooth and he won a lot of points at the net. Honestly, I had never seen Roddick look this good. It was a long time coming. Had Roddick worked on this aspect of his game a long time ago, who knows what could have been. I think he could have given Federer a good challenge even in the prime years of Federer’s reign. Federer has not had to face a consistent serve and volley player like Pete Sampras since Pete retired (and Pete was on his last legs when they did play). Pete was one of the best to play the net and the game. Roddick can still win a lot of tournaments now that he has dedicated himself to following his serve into the net. It was beautiful to see.
Now…can Roddick finally beat Federer tomorrow morning and become Wimbledon champion? I think so although he has history working against him. He is 2-18 against Federer. Federer has beaten him twice already in the Wimbledon finals. And Federer is looking to make history by eclipsing the mark for the most major championships by a male, which is held by Sampras. It seems like destiny. But Roger has not seen this Andy Roddick. If Andy plays the same type of game against Roger that he did against Murray, I think it is highly possible. He has to press Federer by coming into the net, pick on his backhand a bit, and control the flow of the game. He has to expect Federer to hit amazing shots and remain composed when it happens. If he does these things, anything is possible. Here’s hoping Roddick pulls it off…for Andy’s sake and Pete’s sake.
“The idea of God, as the church fathers generally recognized, must be largely given over to mystery. Augustine said that we speak of the Trinity, not because we can explain this mystery, but only in order ‘not to be silent’ and allow greater error.” (41)
I found this statement by A.J. Conyers in A Basic Christian Theology to be quite fascinating. In one sense Conyers is exactly right. How do we explain three-in-one? It doesn’t even make logical sense that something could be both three things and one thing at the same time. The church fathers settled on the statement that God is of one ousia (substance) and three hypostasis (persons). One of the guys in my midweek study had a good illustration for this concept. He pointed out the different states of water and the parallel to our thinking on the Trinity. Water can take on the form of liquid, solid, or gas. Each form has distinctive features so that liquid is not the same as gas. However, they all carry the same basic substance: water. I think his illustration is a good parallel to the Trinity. God exists in three distinctions but all of these distinctions are comprised of one substance. As Conyers says, it is a great mystery. Yet the mystery of it all does not keep us from saying something about who God is. If it did, there would be no way to combat error or false teaching.
In another sense, Augustine’s quote is a bit narrow. We do not merely speak of the Trinity for the sake of combating false teaching (though this is important). We speak of a triune God because he has revealed himself in this manner. And God has revealed himself in this way because he exists in this manner. We must be careful not to make the same mistake that Sabellius made in thinking that God reveals himself by putting on three different masks though he is only one person. Scripture does not give us this picture of God. We also speak of the Trinity because God is actively working as each person though in different ways. The Spirit resides within us and guides us toward holiness. The Son intercedes on our behalf at the right hand of the Father who sits on the throne of righteousness.
Nevertheless, another one of the guys in my study said that this quote could also be representative of our pursuit of theology. There will never be a point when we will know exhaustively. There will always be some sense of mystery because there are things we do not understand. Yet we study theology so that we might be drawn closer to God, be transformed as a result, and learn to speak as representatives of His kingdom.
A little over a week ago Newsweek released an article discussing “the growing controversy over military chaplains using the armed forces to spread the Word.” I have heard that chaplaincy in the military has been forced to take on a more postmodern, pluralistic flavor (though I confess that I know little about military chaplains). Gone are the days when the chaplaincy’s sole convictions are Christian.
The U.S. military Central Command has established a rule called General Order Number One that forbids active-duty troops from “trying to convert people to any religion.” In spite of this rule, the military has encountered a growing “problem” among their chaplains. Some Christian chaplains have continued to be involved in evangelization through Bible initiatives. “The effort is an example of what critics call a growing culture of militarized Christianity in the armed forces.”
It should come to no one’s surprise that Christian ministers serving as chaplains would seek to share the truth of the gospel in the hopes that many would believe and be saved. If the gospel is true and Jesus is the Savior of humanity, doesn’t it make logical sense that people convinced by such things would naturally want to share this news? The impact and influence of the gospel in such desperate situations such as war and conflict should not be underestimated. What hope can a soldier, caught in the line of fire, have unless he believes in Jesus as deliverer from pain, suffering, conflict, and death?
On the flip side, some people would say that the mixing of religion and government via the military can be a dangerous thing. I see the implications of an amicable union to be detrimental to the church more than the government. State sponsored Christianity does not have a good track record. However, Kathryn Joyce also points to the negative aspects of Christian influence on public policy and military actions. The melding of both worlds raises the potential for holy war in the name of God’s will.
That leads me to my question for the week: How should Christian faith and secular government interact with one another? What type of relationship should they have?
This is an encouraging passage from Colossians on how we should live as representatives of the true gospel.
Colossians 4:2-6 (ESV)
2 Continue steadfastly in prayer, being watchful in it with thanksgiving. 3 At the same time, pray also for us, that God may open to us a door for the word, to declare the mystery of Christ, on account of which I am in prison— 4 that I may make it clear, which is how I ought to speak.
5 Walk in wisdom toward outsiders, making the best use of the time. 6 Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.
If you have $100, major renovating skills, and the will to take on a long term project then Detroit may be the place for you. Here’s a great story about a few couples who were able to purchase homes in run down areas of Detroit for ridiculously cheap amounts with the desire to not only rebuild their individual homes but to rejuvenate an entire community one house at a time.
It looks like my alma mater, Union University, is putting together another great conference. It will address key issues within the Southern Baptist Convention as well as broader evangelicalism. The lineup includes Duane Litfin, Michael Lindsay, Timothy George, Albert Mohler, Ed Stetzer, Danny Akin, Ray Van Neste, and many more. The cost is $85 and it should be worth every dollar. So start saving your allowance now.
I just started a study on Tuesday nights with some guys at my church reading through A Basic Christian Theology by A.J. Conyers. It has been encouraging to see the guys, some of whom had never really picked up a theology book of this nature, commit to building a theology of their own based upon the Scriptures. Tonight we wrestled with the reality of general and special revelation as well as the transcendence and condescension of God. It is important to flesh out the significance of both types of revelation on the life of a Christian. It is also important to recognize the tension between the transcendence and immanence of God. It seems to me that Christians today emphasize the immanence (nearness) of God at the expense of his transcendence (beyond the world). Here’s an example of that (though painfully funny):
Jesus is my friend and homeboy. God is my bald-headed grandfather who secretly gives me jelly beans whenever I come over to the house (ok…so that was my Grandpa Lash). Though such comments seem like overstatements, they are not too far from the truth. In the process, we run the great risk of trivializing our great and mighty God. Realizing God’s transcendence along with his immanence gives us a greater confidence in the God who has created the entire universe, revealed himself to humanity, and authored our salvation. As Conyers says:
Nevertheless, this very realization of God’s transcendence and his incomprehensibility is also the ground of the confidence with which we respond to God’s revelation. The hiddenness of God, once we acknowledge that fact, “is the confession of God’s revelation as the beginning of our cognizance of God.” Therefore, we stand in our confession of faith, not on the fallible and uncertain strength of human intellect and imagination, but upon the certainty that if God is made known to us at all, it is from God’s side that this becomes possible.
A transcendent God has seen fit to reveal himself to us. He pursues us by revealing himself. Thanks be to God.
Yesterday I posted Matthew 22:1-14 concerning the parable of the wedding feast. I recently heard someone interpret this passage in a way that I had never heard before. It was stated that free will is demonstrated here since the king’s invitation can be rejected. From here the invitation is given to all people, not just an elect. I find this interpretation difficult on several levels. First, the rejection mentioned refers to the Jews unfaithfulness to God that we see in the Old Testament. The good news of the coming Messiah was first given to them. Yet time and again they turned their backs on God and chased after other gods. The invitation is indeed extended to all people as Christ dies on the cross. The way of salvation is opened to Jews and Gentiles.
What I find most interesting is verses 11-14. The invitation is given and many are gathered to the hall, “both bad and good.” The king looks at the guests and notices a man who is not wearing the wedding garments. This man is thrown out of the hall where there is “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” And this statement wraps up this section: “For many are called, but few are chosen.” It was peculiarly left out of the discussion on this passage. I would invite correction if I am wrong, but it seems to me that this final sentence is crucial to understanding the parable. Many are called by virtue of this invitation that has now been extended to Jew and Gentile alike. However, only a few are chosen from among those whom are called. A person cannot choose and also be chosen. The passage does not present such a scenario. The idea of being chosen must come from outside of ourselves. So the invitation is given to all but only some are actually chosen or predestined to eternal life. In my estimation, this passage is actually a greater support to the doctrine of predestination than the belief in the free will of man as it relates to salvation.
What do you think? Does Matthew 22:1-14 better support predestination or free will in regards to salvation?
Here’s a passage that I have been thinking about quite a bit over the last two weeks. I won’t say any more right now since I have plans for this passage in our Monday Muse. In the meantime, chew on this.
Matthew 22:1-14 (ESV)
22:1 And again Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying, 2 “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son, 3 and sent his servants [1] to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come. 4 Again he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast.’ 5 But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, 6 while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. 7 The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. 8 Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. 9 Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.’ 10 And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests.
11 “But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. 12 And he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ 14 For many are called, but few are chosen.”
Wimbledon kicks off on Monday without a defending champion. Rafael Nadal announced today that he will be pulling out of Wimbledon because of tendinitis in his knees. I know how difficult it can be to try to play tennis with tendinitis having dealt with it in my elbow during my college days. Needless to say, Wimbledon will not be near as exciting without Rafa. I’m hoping someone can muster up enough game to knock off Federer. Though I’m always rooting for an American to win, it would be nice to see Andy Murray break the British slump. I always say that March Madness makes March the best month of year. However, June is not far behind with the French Open, NBA Finals, and Wimbledon.
Having spent a good amount of time on the tennis court, I couldn’t miss the battle of the Andy’s yesterday. It was a brilliant match between two tough competitors. Englishmen have rallied behind Andy Murray in the hope that he would bring the Wimbledon championship back to Britain. However, Andy Roddick would have nothing to do with it. Roddick has always been a bomber. His serve is ridiculous. Imagine a tennis ball coming at you at an average speed of 135 mph. I’ve experienced that type of speed in person and it is not pleasant. However, Roddick has never had the all around game to back up his massive serve. I’ve been saying for years that Roddick should develop a serve and volley game to take advantage of his brilliant serving. Pete Sampras showed us what serve and volley can look like with a serve in the 120’s (and great placement). Add 10 mph to his serve and imagine the possibilities. 
