It Is Always Good to Repent and Seek God’s Face, But That Doesn’t Mean You’ll Get Baseball and Toilet Paper Back

Mike Leake

photo-1584458290237-181c65bf6647In times such as these passages of Scripture can provide a great source of comfort. That is good and right. But we also need to be sure that we’re properly using those passages—otherwise the comfort is only a mirage. We’ll claim promises that either aren’t our own or which don’t go far enough in their glorious fulfillment. One of these particular passages is 2 Chronicles 7:13-14.

13 When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command the locust to devour the land, or send pestilence among my people, 14 if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

The Immediate Context

2 Chronicles 7 is God’s response to Solomon’s prayer. In 2 Chronicles 6:26-28 Solomon asked God to hear from heaven and to bless the temple. This section is a response to that prayer. 13 years have passed between 7:10 and 7:11. Once the temple is completed the LORD appeared to Solomon at night. This speech to Solomon is an acceptance of the temple dedication and it’s couched in covenantal language. It reads very similarly to Deuteronomy. If you do this (walk in obedience) then I will do this (bless you). But if you do this (rebel) then I will (curse you).

This is a specific promise to a specific people. So in what way does it apply to those of us around the globe who are dealing with the pestilence of COVID-19?

2 Chronicles in God’s Story

It’s important to note here that 2 Chronicles would have actually been the end of the Hebrew Bible. (See here for more information on that). This book was written around 400BC when the exiles returned to the land. That’s significant because all this talk about the temple serves a purpose. There is a reason why the 1 Kings 9 telling of this story doesn’t include 2 Chronicles 7:13-15. Stephen Dempster says it well:

After the judgment of the exile, the command to rebuild the temple is nothing less than a catalyst for the fulfillment of the prophetic hopes…The goal of the canon is clearly the great house of God, which is as inclusive as the globe…But this has to be understood in the dual sense of ‘house’, meaning ‘dwelling’ and ‘dynasty’…The [Hebrew Bible] orients its readers to the future. As such the Story is unfinished. The long, dark night of exile awaits a sequel—the dawning of a new light that will radiate to the ends of the earth. (Dempster, 227)

The people of Israel rightly desired the presence of God but they slowly began equating that with the physical temple. This is why when Jesus comes on the scene the Pharisees are accusing him of blasphemy for talking about the temple destruction. They’ve equated the temple with God Himself. But the temple was always meant to point to something greater—the presence of God with man. This is already fulfilled in the incarnation and will be completely fulfilled in the new heavens and the new earth.

But this is important for the way we read and apply 2 Chronicles 7:13-15. We cannot grab ahold of this promise and say, “If America repents then God will absolutely heal our land.” We cannot claim this promise in that way because that’s no longer the function of that promise. America does not equal the people of God. The church does. And the land doesn’t equal the nation you reside within. It’s pointing to something greater.

But there is a principle in here which I think we can see and use in this time. When sin brings disaster repentance brings healing. That doesn’t mean that if you repent and turn to God that you’ll be immediately healed of COVID-19 and we can start watching baseball again. That’s not what healing of the land is about anyways. It’s about shalom. And that’s only ever going to be fully found in the New Jerusalem. And the only means to having access to this unshakeable city is the shed blood of Jesus Christ. So again—repentance brings healing.

It’s always a good and biblical thing to repent, humble ourselves, and seek God’s face. But we need to be careful that we’re not making that a means to an end that God never promised. In other words, I repent, humble myself, and seek God’s face because He is worthy of it and not because I think doing this will allow us to watch baseball games again and buy toilet paper.

If you want a better model for repentance connected with the promise of God look to the king in Nineveh.

6 The word reached[c] the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, removed his robe, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. 7 And he issued a proclamation and published through Nineveh, “By the decree of the king and his nobles: Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything. Let them not feed or drink water, 8 but let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and let them call out mightily to God. Let everyone turn from his evil way and from the violence that is in his hands. 9 Who knows? God may turn and relent and turn from his fierce anger, so that we may not perish.”

So, we must be careful not to claim promises that either aren’t our own or which don’t go far enough in their glorious fulfillment. Because doing this will disappoint our hope and cause us to think God hasn’t come through, when in fact He has come through even more than what we had hoped and imagined. The promise of a healed land is far greater than the soil you place your foot upon. Part of our repentance probably needs to be our contentedness with mud pies.

—

Photo source: here

Are We Disobeying Hebrews 10:25 by Canceling Services Because of COVID-19?

Mike Leake 2 Comments

photo-1498811008858-d95a730b2ffcMany churches across the globe will not gather together this Sunday. And it’s possible that here in the US this will be the case for Easter Sunday. The government has not yet mandated that we not gather—but many are deciding that love for neighbor means we should not gather.

We are called in Scripture to submit to our authorities. (Romans 13:1) Right now, in the midst of a pandemic, we ought to submit to the directives of organizations like the CDC. When our governing authorities aim to do us good then our submission to that authority is clear. But this submission is not absolute. Our ultimate authority is God. And so the Christian position has always been to obey the governing authorities unless they require you to go against the will of God (and this expressly outlined in Scripture).

Some have balked at this idea. Isn’t Hebrews 10:25 clear that we are to not neglect meeting together? So then doesn’t Hebrews 10:25 override the call to submit to our governing authorities? I suppose it would if Hebrews 10:25 taught that we MUST gather together in a church building on a Sunday morning. But does it mean that?

“not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.” –Hebrews 10:25

In this section of Hebrews the author is reminding us that we have been given, through Jesus, unfettered access to God (10:19-21). This truth motivates certain actions. First we are to draw near (22), secondly we are to hold fast our confession (23) and lastly we are to consider how to stir up one another to love and good works (24).

If you took grabbed a marker and decided to go all Thomas Jefferson on your Bible and blotted out “not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some” what you would have is a simple encouragement to stir up one another. It’s a basic call similar to all the other “one another’s” throughout the New Testament.

But the Spirit of God put that little section about not neglecting to meet together there for a reason. So what is it doing in this passage? It’s connected to the phrase “but encouraging one another”. They are alternatives. One way of living is to encourage one another to continue grabbing ahold of Christ. The other is to neglect one another.

The word for neglect is a very strong word. It means far more than just skipping a Sunday or two. It’s the same word that Jesus cried from the Cross (Matthew 27:46) when he felt forsaken by God. It’s the same word used in 2 Timothy 4:10 of Demas who deserted prisoner Paul. It’s not a word of “oops, I’ve kind of let this discipline slip in my life”. No, it’s a word of “I am intentionally abandoning you.”

So when we find ourselves in a pandemic we aren’t disobeying Hebrews 10:25 by not gathering together for a season out of love and concern for one another. In fact, not gathering together is probably more in keeping with the spirit of Hebrews 10:25.

But there would be a way to disobey Hebrews 10:25 during a pandemic and that would be to go completely underground. Hebrews 10:25 calls us in this season to continue to check on one another and to continue to find creative ways to “encourage one another daily” even if we cannot be in physical proximity. It should be our deep desire to gather together in an assembly with other believers. We were made to worship together. But there are seasons in which this grace is not given to us. This is one of those seasons. And so let us heed the instruction of Hebrews 10:25 and love one another deeply in this trying season.

—

Photo source: here

Mourning What You Cannot Replace, Longing For What Cannot Be Taken Away

Mike Leake

photo-1518112689693-0572667836b2

And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. –Matthew 24:31

I don’t think I’ve ever felt this verse as I should. I’ve always focused on the sounds of the trumpet and I’ve missed it’s functioning; namely, the gathering together of all Christians. And I’ve missed that verse because I’ve never had to feel the ache. I’ve always been able to “go to church”. I have taken the gathered assembly for granted. These words of Bonhoeffer have been true of me:

It is true, of course, that what is an unspeakable gift of God for the lonely individual is easily disregarded and trodden under foot by those who have the gift every day. It is easily forgotten that the fellowship of Christian brethren is a gift of grace, a gift of the Kingdom of God that any day may be taken from us, that the time that still separates us from utter loneliness may be brief indeed.

Bonhoeffer goes on to say that it is “grace, nothing but grace, that we are allowed to live in community with Christian brethren”. I will confess, I have not treasured this grace as I ought. And if it ends up being eight more weeks before we can once again gather together as a full assembly I am certain that these feelings will only deepen.

Bonhoeffer himself would experience this “scattered loneliness” as he was arrested and lived out his days in Nazi imprisonment—eventually being hanged. So he knew something of this deep longing of wanting to gather with other believers. But this also, I believe, helped him to rightly understand the great promise found in Matthew 24:31. Our longing for togetherness is a call to “seize upon by faith” that which is denied us in actual experience. 

I think these words from Mark Dever are also really important as we think through how to still “kind of meet” together—even if its in online gatherings. When Capitol Hill closed and did not offer live streaming I asked Mark Dever if there was a practical or theological reason for this. This was his response:

Yep. A providential time of abstinence could have good, chastening soul benefits. More useful than a part of a service people may mistake for a substitute. Many benefits of the assembly could usefully be mourned over, appreciated & longed for. (Here)

I believer Dever is saying something similar to Bonhoeffer. We are not Gnostics. We cannot live entirely in a disembodied internet world. Yes, we can hear a sermon. Yes, we can gather funds. Yes, we can hear the music. But we cannot “greet one another with a holy kiss”. We cannot touch. And we were made for touch. There is a reason why the resurrected Christ made such a big deal about touching his physical body. The resurrection is physical. Touch is eternal.

And so it’s not wrong for us to mourn the fact that we cannot for a season physically gather. In fact it is right for us to mourn. Bonhoeffer is correct:

“The believer feels no shame, as though he were still living too much in the flesh, when he yearns for the physical presence of other Christians…The prisoner, the sick person, the Christian in exile, sees in the companionship of a fellow Christian a physical sign of the gracious presence of the triune God…But if there is so much blessing and joy even in a single encounter of brother with brother, how inexhaustible are the riches that open up for those who by God’s will are privileged to live in the daily fellowship of life with other Christians! (9-10)

My hope is that this will have “good, chastening soul benefits”. May this help us to once again deeply appreciate this grace of meeting together. And may this push us towards hoping for that great gathering, when the truth that “nothing will separate us from the love of Christ” spills over into the truth that nothing will now separate us from one another.

Though we may try to replace elements of our gathered assembly we ultimately cannot. And so no matter how we attempt to gather together as much as possible let us be certain that a part of our “gathering” is to mourn that which cannot be replaced but will some day be fully enjoyed.

—

Photo source: here

The Sufficiency of Scripture and Resolution 9

Mike Leake

19789999There is a phrase I see tossed around frequently in our discussions about critical-race theory, same-sex attraction, and other issues of social justice. The phrase is even one which has become a hallmark of the recently launched Conservative Baptist Network (CBN). And you can see it in their tag line on Twitter is “Sufficiency. The Bible, alone.” That precious doctrine which is being propelled to the front line of battle is the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture. But I do not believe that phrase or the doctrine is being properly represented.

The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith explains it this way:

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men (1.6).

Wayne Grudem’s definition falls in line with the historic understanding of the doctrine:

The sufficiency of Scripture means that Scripture contained all the words of God he intended his people to have at each stage of redemptive history, and that it now contains everything we need God to tell us for salvation, for trusting him perfectly, and for obeying him perfectly. (Grudem, 127)

Note in particular that this doctrine concerns all matters of faith and practice. Tom Ascol gives a helpful caveat when he says:

“…does affirming the sufficiency of Scripture mean that we believe it contains everything that we need for every aspect of our lives? Not at all. If your roof springs a leak do not expect to find steps to repair it in Nehemiah or any of the other 65 books of the Bible”. (here)

John Piper also gives an important caveat and shows how this doctrine has been used historically:

In other words, the Scriptures are sufficient in the sense that they are the only (“once for all”) inspired and (therefore) inerrant words of God that we need, in order to know the way of salvation (“make you wise unto salvation”) and the way of obedience (“equipped for every good work”). The sufficiency of Scripture does not mean that the Scripture is all we need to live obediently. (here)

In sum if you want to know the way to please God then the Scriptures are sufficient. The lion’s share of this doctrine relates to not adding to Scripture and not putting other things on equal value with Scripture. Scripture alone is our authority. But it also helps us to see that we cannot call something sin which the Bible doesn’t call sin nor can we say that something is required of us which the Bible does not require. Men like John Calvin used this doctrine to encourage folks not to fly off into wild speculations where the Bible doesn’t speak.

The Widening of the Doctrine

But in our day it seems that some have extended this doctrine to mean that you cannot use other sources without denying the sufficiency of Scripture. And I think one of the first places where we saw this extension was in the area of biblical counseling.

I’ll be the first to admit that I would consider myself in agreement with ACBC and CCEF in most of these matters. I do believe that when I am pastorally counseling someone the Bible is sufficient to help them find substantial hope and healing and to live obediently before the Lord. But I also believe we are whole beings. And there may be some healing which comes through biological means. And that position is NOT denying the historical doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture. If I said I really believe that in order for this person to tackle this temptation to pornography they MUST find healing in their past and to do this they must go through a rigorous process of EMDR in order to be obedient to God. Now, THAT would be denying the sufficiency of Scripture.

Resolution 9

Now let’s consider for a moment what resolution 9 says about CRT/I. One particularly offending phrase is this one:

Critical race theory and intersectionality alone are insufficient to diagnose and redress the root causes of the social ills that they identify, which result from sin, yet these analytical tools can aid in evaluating a variety of human experiences (emphasis mine)

And:

Resolved, That critical race theory and intersectionality should only be employed as analytical tools subordinate to Scripture—not as transcendent ideological frameworks

And:

RESOLVED, That Southern Baptists will carefully analyze how the information gleaned from these tools are employed to address social dynamics

It is said that these statements are dangerous because they are denying the sufficiency of Scripture. We do not NEED these analytical tools. But you’ll also note that nowhere does resolution 9 say we “need” these tools. But rather that they can be used as analytical tools to learn about human interactions. The framers of this document were putting CRT/I into a sociological category and NOT putting it into a “faith and practice” category.

Conclusion

Would anyone have a problem with a statement like this:

“Resolved, that MRI machines be used only as a diagnostic tool to understand internal organs and not the actual spiritual condition of the human heart. And any findings are subordinate to the Scriptures.”

I realize the absurdity of this. I also realize it’s not apples to oranges because few people are embracing MRI’s as their worldview. But wait…didn’t resolution 9 ALSO reject the use of CRT/I as a “transcendent ideological framework”? So they actually did put CRT/I on the level of an MRI just within the realm of sociology and not biology.

This is NOT denying the sufficiency of Scripture. And frankly, much of what people are shouting about isn’t touching on this particular doctrine. Call it something else if you must. Say that it’s unwise. Say that things are denying actual tenets of the faith, fine. But let’s be more thoughtful about throwing out the accusation of someone denying the sufficiency of Scripture. That doctrine has a historical reference and it has had a pretty specific meaning.

In the words of Inigo Montoya, “You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means”.