El día miércoles veía yo al Secretario de Estado de los Estados Unidos, Marco Rubio, en una entrevista en la televisión mostrando como católico romano la cruz en su frente, señal recibida el miércoles de ceniza. Y recordaba aquellos momentos de mi niñez en los que recibía tal señal en mi propia frente. Recuerdo las palabras del sacerdote siempre haciéndome sentir insignificante y pequeño. Yo recuerdo que en mi adolescencia yo ya deseaba evitar estos encuentros con el sacerdote cada cuaresma. No me gustaba. Cada vez que iba ahí al altar me decía: “Recuerda que polvo eres y en polvo te convertirás”.
Yo era joven, quería ser rico y salir de mi tierra a ser alguien grande. El último mensaje que yo quería recibir era que todo lo que iba a hacer no importaría porque me convertiría igual en polvo.
Mensajes así llenan la vida de la religión tradicional, rituales casi sin sentido para la persona que participa pero momentos y eventos culturales que se vuelven parte de la vida de uno y que lo marcan. Escuchar estas palabras anualmente marca a la persona, quiera o no que lo marquen.
En aquellos años de juventud rebelde, lo último que yo quería era pensar en que me podía morir. Y así somos los seres humanos. Le tememos a la muerte. Pero Jesucristo vino al mundo a salvarnos del pecado. El autor de la carta a los hebreos nos recuerda que parte de esta salvación es liberarnos del temor a la muerte y por medio de esta liberación, erradicar en nosotros estas adicciones de por vida que nos creamos por querer tapar el temor a la muerte: “Así que, por cuanto los hijos participan de carne y sangre, también Jesús participó de lo mismo, para anular mediante la muerte el poder de aquel que tenía el poder de la muerte, es decir, el diablo, y librar a los que por el temor a la muerte, estaban sujetos a esclavitud durante toda la vida“. El temor a la muerte esclaviza porque pasaremos toda la vida tratando de evitar lo inevitable o tratando de escondernos de lo inevitable y eso nos genera una vasta gama de emociones que sin Jesucristo vamos a tratar de manejar o tapar o esconder o medicar de muchas maneras.
Entonces, esta frase confronta a la persona con la realidad de que la muerte le espera.
Pero, y aquí viene lo que espero que sea una contribución a este tema, la frase que viene supuestamente de Génesis 3:19 no dice lo que nos dice el sacerdote que dice. Y en esto, a mí me parece que se pierde el evangelio, por eso es que esto se queda como un simple ritual, porque nunca nos quita la vista de la muerte y nos muestra al Salvador, al Redentor, a quien ya resucitó.
Me explico. El texto en hebreo dice: וְאֶל־עָפָ֖ר תָּשֽׁוּב que yo traduciría como “y al polvo regresarás“. Mi punto es que hay una diferencia muy grande entre “te convertirás” y “regresarás” y en esta diferencia perdemos el evangelio. ¿Por qué digo esto? Porque en Génesis 3:19 estamos en el contexto de enfrentar las consecuencias muy reales del pecado que se cometió en este capítulo, la entrada del pecado al mundo. Dios recuerda al hombre que vino del polvo (כִּ֥י מִמֶּ֖נָּה לֻקָּ֑חְתָּ), que es polvo (כִּֽי־עָפָ֣ר אַ֔תָּה) y que al polvo regresará.
La primera definición de la palabra convertir según la RAE es “Hacer que alguien o algo se transforme en algo distinto de lo que era”. Y el segundo ejemplo que da es: “La piedra se ha convertido en polvo”. Es decir, es algo que cambia de naturaleza. Se vuelve algo que no era. Y en este caso, esto es contrario a lo que se trata de comunicar, el texto dice que el hombre siempre ha sido polvo, que Dios le ha dado la vida, el soplo de la vida.
En hebreo no existe la palabra arrepentimiento. En los textos en los que usted ve la palabra arrepentirse en el Antiguo Testamento en español se usa la misma palabra que en Génesis 3:19, shub. Por ejemplo, en Ezekiel 14:6 leemos: «Por tanto, dile a la casa de Israel: “Así dice el Señor Dios: ‘Arrepiéntansey apártense de sus ídolos, y de todas sus abominaciones aparten sus rostros'”». En hebreo esto también usa la palabra que vemos en Génesis 3:19 (שׁ֣וּבוּ וְהָשִׁ֔יבוּ). Por tanto, literalmente, el Señor Dios dice, Regresen y regresen de sus ídolos…
Esta palabra shub significa regresar, dar la vuelta. Puede ser que remotamente el segundo significado de la palabra convertir según la RAE en algo apunte a esto: “Ganar a alguien para que profese una religión o la practique”. Pero como el evangelio no está tratando de ganar a alguien a una religión, es mejor pensar de manera hebrea y usar la palabra regresar.
La mente hebrea, pues, no tiene este concepto de arrepentirse. Tiene el concepto de regresar. Esto significa que en nuestro andar, o andamos hacia Dios o andamos hacia el pecado. Y andar hacia el pecado requiere que en algún momento regresemos a Dios, nos demos la vuelta, cambiemos de dirección. Escucho de vez en cuando a algún genio por ahí que dice que quiere dar un giro de 360 grados a algo y me río, porque un giro de 360 grados nos deja exactamente donde empezamos. Un giro de 180 grados nos cambia completamente la dirección, eso es shub.
Entonces, si queremos recordar Génesis 3:19 al iniciar la cuaresma, es importante ver que la consecuencia natural del pecado es que regresemos al polvo, pero la promesa del evangelio es que si confesamos con nuestra boca que el Señor Jesús Mesías es nuestro Señor, Salvador y Redentor ya no regresaremos al polvo para siempre sino que regresaremos a Él, a nuestro Señor, Salvador y Redentor por siempre.
La cruz está vacía. Jesucristo ya resucitó. Hay vida después de la muerte. Hay esperanza certera para quien ha confesado con su boca que Jesucristo es el Señor. Pero esto requiere que regresemos. No hay atajo. Debemos dar la vuelta completa y abandonar nuestro pecado, nuestros ídolos, nuestra esclavitud al temor a la muerte que nos esclaviza a otras cosas. Es por eso que el Señor Jesús enseñó en Juan 14:6: “«Yo soy elcamino, la verdad y la vida; nadie viene al Padre sino por Mí”. No hay otro camino.
Se siente la Navidad. Las canastas navideñas ya han sido distribuidas y hasta devoradas. Los aguinaldos y décimos, gastados. Los pavos, comprados o recibidos. Las calles y casas, adornadas. La Unidad de Control Operativa de Tránsito brilla por su eficiencia en mantener a la urbe en movimiento. El Banco de Loja ha colocado su árbol, este año sin luces por la crisis energética. Cafrilosa puso gorrito de Papá Noel al obelisco del Redondel Isidro Ayora y luces iluminadas con paneles solares. Los concursos gastronómicos en las novenas ya están acabando. Los bailes seguirán. Las fundas de caramelos, compradas y distribuidas.
Pudiera criticar la Navidad de Benjamín Carrión y de Salvador Bustamante Celi: la Navidad de claveles y rosas, el Niñito bonito llorando por los pecadores, jugando entre flores, temblando de frío.
O pudiera simplemente unirme al coro angelical, porque los demás lojanos que no tienen voz de tarro como yo sí tienen voz angelical, y cantar a toda voz, “Pero mira como beben los peces el río, pero mira como beben al ver al Dios nacido, beben y beben y vuelven a beber, los peces en el río al ver al Dios nacido”.
Pero, ¿qué profeta que valga en realidad cinco centavos puede hacer eso?
Me recordaban el otro día que el predicador no solo debe exhortar sino también animar. Y Hebreos 10:24-25 nos llama a eso, y no solo al predicador sino a todo cristiano: nos llama a congregarnos, exhortándonos los unos a los otros, sí, y también considerando cómo estimularnos los unos a los otros al amor y a las buenas obras.
Y se me ocurrió que la Navidad cultural lojana que celebramos en estas fechas pues es uno de los pocos momentos en los que un gran segmento de la población está dispuesto para dedicarse a buenas obras y muchos lo hacen de corazón aunque creo que muchos lo hacen al menos para aparentar. Pero como también nos recordaría Pablo en Romanos 14:23, “Todo lo que no procede de fe, es pecado”.
Es decir, que esmerarnos para preparar y degustar de una cena maravillosa es pecado si no se origina en un corazón que tiene fe en la realidad que el Jesús que creó el universo dejó su gloria en los cielos para hacerse hombre como nosotros y vivir una vida como la nuestra, enfrentando todo tipo de tentación, excepto que al contrario de nosotros, Él nunca pecó. Siempre fue y ha sido inocente.
Comernos aunque sea un pollito si no hay para pavo es pecado si en nuestro corazón la envidia o la frustración de no comer como las propagandas o la tradición nos dicen que debe ser una cena toma un lugar prevalente en nuestros pensamientos y acciones.
Gastarnos hasta lo que no tenemos para comprar aquel deseado juguete o prenda de vestir o perfume o flores es pecado si no se origina en un deseo generoso de amar como Cristo nos amó, sacrificándose hasta lo sumo para vivir la vida perfecta que nosotros jamás hubiéramos podido vivir y pasar los insultos, heridas, ofensas y calumnias que lo llevaron a la cruz, a morir por nuestros pecados.
Sacrificarnos para lo que sea, viajes, comidas, cenas navideñas, reuniones, es pecado si no es un sacrificio verdadero en respuesta a la obra de Cristo para nuestra salvación.
Buenos deseos de Año Nuevo y prosperidad son pecado si no se originan en un corazón agradecido por la resurrección, un corazón transformado por el nuevo nacimiento, un corazón que tiene gozo verdadero porque la esperanza de la resurrección ya está viva allí y todo mundo puede ver que la persona ya no es lo que era antes pero que Cristo cambió su vida de una vez para siempre y no hay vuelta atrás.
En todo evento nos dicen estas frasecitas que suenan como que motivacionales. Uno de los empleadores más grandes de la ciudad nos invita a detenernos un momento y reflexionar sobre lo vivido, a llenarnos de gratitud por cada enseñanza, desafío e instante que ha tocado el corazón, a que miremos al futuro con esperanza sabiendo que a pesar de las dificultades, siempre hay un camino lleno de luz.
Y como ustedes pueden ver, toda cena navideña y agasajo nos comunica ese mismo mensaje.
Una Navidad sin Jesús. No nos llaman a reflexionar en el milagro de la encarnación, en el precio que Jesús pagó por los pecados que estamos cometiendo esta misma Navidad. En el barrio, el cura se escapó con la rapidez de Jeannie de Mi Bella Genio en cuanto acabó de cobrar por la misa que dio. Y ¡qué mensajecito que nos dejó! Sean buenos vecinos, aguántense, no desprecien lo que les regalan… cero Cristo. Y en cuanto se fue, empezaron a pasar el traguito mientras esperábamos a los que venían a bailar, danzas tradicionales glorificando el beber en exceso. Feliz Navidad a todos.
Estos mensajes nos llaman a buscar dentro de nosotros lo que sabemos muy bien que no podemos encontrar ahí: el combustible para el agradecimiento y la esperanza de un futuro mejor.
Para verdaderamente ser agradecidos, necesitamos entender la obra de Jesucristo. Necesitamos entender su encarnación y su crucifixión, su resurrección y su ascensión. Para ser agradecidos no tenemos que ver las cosas que nos rodean, sino de dónde nos rescata Jesús. Jesús, el que nos rescata del orgullo con el que podemos pecar en la cena navideña del Hotel Sonesta.
Para tener esperanza certera de que el futuro es mucho mejor de lo que podemos imaginarnos o soñar debemos reconciliarnos con Jesús. Él debe ser nuestro Señor, nuestro Salvador, nuestro Redentor, nuestro ejemplo a imitar. Solamente en Él hay un camino lleno de luz.
No hay otro camino, no hay otro Dios, no hay otra salvación.
Y no es hoy un Niñito bonito, manojo de flores, pequeñito por siempre pero listo para hacer milagros. Es el glorificado Creador del universo, sentado a la derecha del Padre en este momento intercediendo ante Él por sus hermanos, reconciliados al Padre en la fe.
La mayor decisión que tenemos por delante en esta Nochebuena es, ¿vamos a seguir a Jesús, al verdadero Jesús, a dondequiera que nos lleve, sin importar lo que nos cueste?
Solamente en Él podemos y podremos siempre tener una Feliz Navidad. No pida que el Niño Jesús nazca en su corazón como nos piden las novenas. Pida al glorificado Jesucristo que reine en su vida, que sea su Señor. Confiese con su boca que Jesucristo y solamente Él es el Señor.
One of the words that arose the deepest responses from inside of my soul during this election cycle is the word disqualified. And two specific questions about it: (1) Where does the concept of being disqualified come from? (2) Why does it not seem to matter one bit to people (in general)?
Vice President Harris might have thought she was delivering a major blow to former President Trump’s campaign by calling him disqualified. The rhetoric used by him as he spoke of former Rep. Liz Cheney seemed to be the last straw.
But it didn’t seem to change much in people’s decision making process.
Once upon a time, my piano professor and friend of more than two decades challenged me about making comments like the one I’m bringing before you now on account of the Dunning–Kruger effect, a cognitive bias that, put simply, means people who have no expertise in something, or who have a very limited competence in a particular area, think of themselves as experts, going well beyond their actual abilities and knowledge. On this particular subject, I ask you to trust me, for I know a thing or two about the effect the word disqualified has in people. To tell you what these experiences are in detail would distract from the point.
I ask you the first question because the American experiment has reached the point where pluralism has gone from being a foundational ideal of American democracy and public discourse to being an impossibility. We have been pretending for quite a number of years that there is no absolute truth. Never mind that to say that is in itself a statement of absolute truth. But then, President Trump comes into our little screens in our pockets, and all of a sudden, time and time again his lies become something that can’t be avoided. There is, after all, such a thing as absolute truth. And there is something inside of us, even in the deepest levels of our perversion, if we haven’t repented of our sins and turned to Jesus in holiness, that cries out for justice and vindication. Trump challenges this false post-modern premise of supposed neutrality as it comes to the truth. The idea that I have “my truth” and you have yours seems to work great when we are talking about “private things,” but it clearly fails at moments like the one before the United States today.
This moral compass, or these faint remains of a conscience point us to the fact that God truly does exist and that He is truth and love and justice and mercy. Our souls are in great disarray these days because we want truth so long as it doesn’t expose the lies we like to live out, we want love so long as it doesn’t require us to look at the cross of Jesus Christ and find there that true love requires death to ourselves and to our most precious passions, we want justice so long as the other gets what he deserves, we want mercy so long as it is in a virtual signaling sort of presentation and puts me in the best possible light.
Where would Vice President Harris get the idea that President Trump is disqualified? From somewhere in the depths of her heart where she knows that God is life and the author of life and that we must not kill, where she knows what Jesus taught: that even to insult my neighbor is as if I had already murdered him.
When the human soul truly beholds the spectacle that Trumps brings forth, it cries out for mercy, for God to make this right, to somehow sort out this contradiction.
And now we come to the second question, why does it seem to not matter one bit. Well, first of all, technically, as any sinful narcissist has demonstrated in the history of the world, it is possible to show a list of qualifications and say that the person in question is eminently qualified, largely ignoring the concerns that resulted in the accusation of disqualification. Narcissists are excellent at coming out of accusations clean as a whistle in their own eyes and making the person raising the concern to think that she is crazy or deceived or confused or just wrong. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution requires that Mr. Trump be a natural-born citizen, at least thirty-five years-old, and a resident of the United States for at least fourteen years. Those are the technical qualifications. He meets them all. He is not disqualified.
When the human mind is trying to sort out that conflict between what our eyes are seeing/our ears are hearing and what we want to do, cognitive dissonances “help,” and that’s why this word carries no impact. To say someone is disqualified puts into question the moral and intellectual decision-making process of the person making the choice to affirm the qualification, in this case, to vote for President Trump. How can I be the “good person” that I know I am and still vote for this man that I know to be [insert here the revelation of Trump’s heart in display now, as it always changes]? So, I must end up affirming the qualification because there is no way that I can remain in my own eyes a thinking, moral being and still do that. Sure, I must affirm that a pastor must be above reproach and faithful to his wife while I ignore the sexual immorality that has characterized Mr. Trump’s life. We deny the evidence in front of us, and we tell ourselves that we are doing the right thing, the honorable thing, the thing that will bring the best success to the nation, the thing that will expand the Kingdom of God.
I only speak of Trump for brevity and to not obscure the point, not out of a sense of endorsement of the Vice President, nor to fake fairness.
My point here is quite simple: today’s election will reflect many things about your heart. What do you believe in? What do you hope for? What makes you angry? What do you worship? Pluralism is breaking down because now that everyone is more open about the fact that we are our own gods, these gods are in conflict in a lot more visible and profound ways than ever before when we all pretended to have the same basic morality. I appreciate the memes and publications that clearly say that we are past “agreeing to disagreeing” but that we are facing dueling moralities.
The challenge for the United States, whoever wins, is to answer honestly and truthfully who we are. I think that a lot of people need to admit the truth that America has never been a Christian nation, and others need to admit that they really are becoming a new inquisition of thought and practice. The nation cannot continue like this. Trump didn’t create the division. It was already there. His gross immorality was just the event that forced us to have to find a way to deal with it. And we are failing. We are justifying ourselves and carrying on the idea that everything is going to be alright. It won’t be. Not until we truly acknowledge what it is that we worship and act like it.
Americans are very committed evangelists. Things are going to get uglier, I am afraid, since these competing gospels are coming at each other and not bending the knee to the One who rules over all.
For I will pour water on the thirsty land,
and streams on the dry ground;
I will pour my Spirit upon your offspring,
and my blessing on your descendants.
They shall spring up among the grass
like willows by flowing streams. (Isaiah 44:3-4 ESV)
Ecuador está atravesando una sequía muy seria que ha resultado en apagones del servicio de electricidad de hasta 14 horas diarias. Esto significa pérdidas millonarias a nivel nacional y en el corazón humano desempleo, hambre y desesperación. Resulta que el texto del domingo era Marcos 6:30-44. ¿Qué podemos aprender de este texto en tales circunstancias?
I. JESÚS, EL BUEN PASTOR, DA DESCANSO A QUIENES ENVÍA A CUMPLIR LA MISIÓN
El Salmo 23 describe a YHWH, a Dios, como mi pastor. Presenta certeza de que en Dios, nada me faltará. La poesía del salmo nos lleva a pastos verdes. Mostraba Ecuavisa esta semana un reportaje desde el área de las hidroeléctricas del Paute. La tierra donde solía estar el agua que ahora falta ya hasta se ha secado y se ha agrietado de la sequía. El salmo nos lleva a lugares de verdes pastos donde Dios nos hace descansar. ¿Cómo nos hace descansar en el medio de un estiaje en el que la tierra está seca? ¿Cómo nos conduce junto a aguas de reposo? ¿Cómo nos restaura el alma y nos guía por senderos de justicia?
En Marcos 6:30-31, leemos que 30 Los apóstoles se reunieron con Jesús, y le informaron sobre todo lo que habían hecho y enseñado. 31 Y Él les dijo: «Vengan, apártense de los demás a un lugar solitario y descansen un poco». Porque había muchos que iban y venían, y ellos no tenían tiempo ni siquiera para comer.
En el versículo 7 Jesús llamó a los doce para enviarlos de dos en dos con autoridad para la misión, pero sin nada para el camino. Ahora en el versículo 30, regresan y vuelven a reunirse con Jesús. Y le contaron todo, todo lo que habían hecho y todo lo que habían enseñado. Imagino que le estaban contando historias de momentos en los que no había qué comer pero Dios proveyó o tal vez momentos sin descanso. Jesús les dice, “Vengan, apártense de los demás a un lugar solitario y descansen un poco”.
Jesús aquí les dice a estos hermanos que acaban de llegar de ver a Dios obrar y proveer, que han predicado y defendido la fe, que lo sigan, se hagan a un lado de los demás y se vayan al lugar desolado, al desierto. Al principio de Marcos, Juan el Bautista apareció en el desierto (1:4), voz del que clama en el desierto, “Preparen el camino del Señor, hagan derechas sus sendas”. La predicación del arrepentimiento empezó en el desierto. Aquí a donde Jesús quiere llevar a los discípulos a descansar. A Jesús mismo, el Espíritu lo impulsó a ir al desierto (1:12) y estuvo ahí, en el desierto, cuarenta días siendo tentado por Satanás (1:13). En 1:35, Jesús se levantó muy temprano después de obrar muchos milagros, y salió y se fue a un lugar solitario, y allí oraba. Una vez que la fama de Jesús se empezó a propagar por las señales y prodigios que hacía, se quedaba fuera en lugares despoblados (1:45), y ocurre en Marcos 6 nuevamente.
Jesús, aquí, da descanso a quienes envió. Se los lleva al desierto y les hace descansar. Necesitan descansar, dice el texto, porque “había muchos que iban y venían y ellos no tenían tiempo ni siquiera para comer”. Los discípulos se están transformando a la imagen de Jesús. Jesús en el capítulo 3 ministraba así mismo, versículo 20: “Jesús llegó a una casa y la multitud se juntó de nuevo, a tal punto que ellos ni siquiera podían comer”. La labor es intensa, la oportunidad es insaciable, el ministerio es abrumador. Jesús les dice: pausemos, vamos a descansar.
El Buen Pastor lleva a sus discípulos a los verdes campos, a las aguas de reposo en el desierto. Jesús no siempre le va a dar pasto verde o agua abundante, pero le va a dar Su presencia y ésta se puede apreciar mejor en el silencio, en la soledad, en el desierto, en aquellos momentos y lugares en los que solamente Dios nos puede llenar.
Catorce horas de apagones diarios. Aunque quiera perder tiempo en internet, ¿puede? Y aún así para nuestra condenación seguimos nosotros sin abrir mucho la Fuente de Vida que no tiene batería que se acabe. Nos quedamos sin orar en los momentos de silencio forzado. Nos dormimos nomás.
¿De qué necesitamos descanso? Agustín de Hipona dijo alguna vez que hemos sido hechos para Dios y que nuestro corazón estará inquieto hasta que encuentre descanso en Él.
Versículo 32: “Y se fueron en la barca a un lugar solitario, apartado”.
II. JESÚS, EL BUEN PASTOR, TIENE COMPASIÓN DE SU CREACIÓN
Versículos 33-34: Pero la gentelos vio salir, y muchos los reconocieron y juntos corrieron allá a pie de todas las ciudades, y llegaron antes que ellos. 34 Al desembarcar, Jesús vio una gran multitud, y tuvo compasión de ellos, porque eran como ovejas sin pastor; y comenzó a enseñarles muchas cosas.
La gente los alcanzó a ver saliendo por el agua y se alborotaron y llegaron antes que ellos, corriendo por la orilla. Y se armó la gran multitud. Jesús entonces se bajó con los discípulos y los vio. El Buen Pastor Jesús vio a todos los que estaban allí y la reacción, la emoción en lo más profundo de su ser, fue compasión. Jesús vio a una muchedumbre “como ovejas sin pastor”. Los vio perdidos.
Se puede apreciar en textos del Antiguo Testamento como Is 56:11, Jer 10:21, Eze 34:2-6, Zac 10:2-3 y 11:17 que es el fracaso del pastor en su pecado que hace que las ovejas estén sin pastor. Y Dios es muy claro en esto: cuidar del pastor significa amarlo lo suficiente para servir con corrección cuando sea necesario.
En nuestro texto, Jesús mira con compasión a estas ovejas perdidas, ovejas de las que se han aprovechado, a las que han ignorado, a las que les han enseñado mal o no les han enseñado nada. Y ¿qué es lo que hace Jesús? ¿Les dice que hagan cola para hacerles a todos un milagro?
No. Versículo 34: comenzó a enseñarles muchas cosas. La compasión de Jesús como Buen Pastor le lleva a enseñar, a ayudarle a la ovejita a que ya no ande perdida, a que sepa reconocer al pastor verdadero, a que pueda recibir consuelo y ayuda de verdad, a que sienta compasión y no dureza y severidad, a que sienta el amor de Dios y no el abuso de hombres envanecidos. Juan 8:32: “y conocerán laverdad, y laverdadlosharálibres».
III. JESÚS, EL BUEN PASTOR, DA DE COMER HASTA LA SACIEDAD
El Salmo 23 nos recuerda que Dios pastorea en lo que se siente como muerte, en el temor, en los momentos de disciplina, delante de enemigos: ante quienes prepara una mesa, unge con aceite. Y llena la copa de tal manera que rebosa.
El bien y la misericordia de Dios que siguen todos los días de la vida no son una falsa promesa de prosperidad y de una vida sin problemas, sino que en el medio de las dificultades, Dios nos dará su presencia.
Veamos lo que vienen a decirle los discípulos a Jesús:
35 Y cuando ya era muy tarde, Sus discípulos se acercaron a Él, diciendo: «El lugar está desierto y ya es muy tarde; 36 despídelos para que vayan a los campos y aldeas de alrededor, y se compren algo de comer».
Jesús ahí ha estado enseña y enseña y enseña. Los discípulos se le acercan y como que le dicen, ya, maestro, ya es de noche y estamos lejos de todo, despídete ya para que la pobre gente pueda ir a encontrar y comprar algo de comer. Pareciera que tienen una gran compasión de esta pobre gente: Jesús, ya, por favor, la gente está con hambre. Ya párale.
Y aunque suena como algo muy lleno de compasión lo que los discípulos están diciendo, en realidad no lo es. Quieren que ya cada uno se vaya por su propia cuenta y busque qué comer. Muchos van a quedar con hambre. Muchos no han de tener dinero. Estos discípulos que regresaban de ver a Dios proveer lo suficiente para ellos, como que se olvidaron de eso. Y Jesús, en su manera característica de amar y enseñar, como Buen Pastor, les dice:
37 «Denles ustedes de comer»
¿Y ahora, esto? Jesús está loco. Mire cómo responden los discípulos: Y ellos le dijeron: «¿Quieres que vayamos y compremos 200 denarios de pan y les demos de comer?»
Se dice que un trabajador ganaba un denario al día. Para nuestra referencia, el año actual tiene aproximadamente 260 días laborables. Los discípulos esencialmente le dijeron a Jesús, ¿Qué? Aunque saquemos el sueldo de casi un año entero y no nos gastemos en nada más, no nos alcanzaría jamás. Quienes salieron con las instrucciones de 6:7-11 y vieron la mano poderosa de Dios obrando maravillas se olvidaron de ello y piensan que Dios no puede hacer lo imposible.
No pueden concebir lo que Jesús va a hacer:
38 Jesús les dijo: «¿Cuántos panes tienen ustedes? Vayan y vean». Y cuando se cercioraron le dijeron*: «Cinco panes y dos peces». 39 Y les mandó que todos se recostaran por grupos sobre la hierba verde. 40 Y se recostaron por grupos de cien y de cincuenta. 41 Entonces Él tomó los cinco panes y los dos peces, y levantando los ojos al cielo, los bendijo; partió los panes y los iba dando a los discípulos para que se los sirvieran; también repartió los dos peces entre todos.
Jesús como Buen Pastor les da de comer de manera milagrosa, como el pan del cielo que recibieron los israelitas, Jesús el verdadero Pan del Cielo da abundantemente.
42 Todos comieron y se saciaron. 43 Recogieron doce cestas llenas de los pedazos, y también de los peces. 44 Los que comieron los panes eran 5,000 hombres.
El Buen Pastor nos lleva a aguas de descanso, a reposar sobre la hierba verde. Pero esto solamente cuenta para quienes son sus ovejas. La gran pregunta aquí es: ¿soy una oveja del Señor?
I was preaching on Sunday from Philippians chapter 4, verses 1-3. What does that have to do with David? Hang on with me.
I argue from the text that the admonition that Paul gives to Euodia and that Paul gives to Syntyche to agree in the Lord could really be the reason that he wrote the letter to the church at Philippi. Furthermore, in line with some of the arguments presented by Dr. Jeannine Brown, I am inclined to hear her out and entertain the idea that Paul’s ask for help for these two women was made to the church at Philippi and not to an individual (for more on the interpretation of “true companion” in verse 3, please refer to her TNTC commentary on Philippians). I say this because the admonition to stand firm mirrors chapter 1 and the call to “agree in the Lord” is the same call to have the same mind from chapter 2. I am persuaded to think that Paul taught all the wonders of the high Christology of Philippians in order to force us into the theological lab: now that you’ve seen the humility, majesty, and centrality of Jesus Christ, please have the same mind that he exemplified for you, and go help these two women to be of the same mind. You’d also notice something weird with my grammar there, “that Paul gives to Euodia and that Paul gives to Syntyche,” which I did because he is explicit in the text to address both equally, without favoritism or partiality. I want to echo that.
One of the things that came to mind while I was in the middle of my exegetical work was the question, “How did Paul know about Euodia and Syntyche?” I then realized, that somebody, just like the people of Chloe in 1 Corinthians, could have found a way to let Paul know this was happening. Obviously, it is also possible that such a visible issue with the leadership of the church was so obvious that the news traveled far and wide. Maybe somebody wrote to Epaphroditus about it, and he told Paul. Who knows.
A lot of chatter has been going on this week about a very public sin from a fairly famous man. Some people have said that such matters must be handled quietly and in-house to avoid gossip and to not bring disgrace to the church of the Lord.
Others have also expressed a lack of agreement with the action taken by the church and the ministries where this man had worked to delete his messages and content.
I want to advance the discussion on these two areas since we seem to be perpetually stuck in these two general issues. These things keep happening in the Church, and we keep coming back to the same and the same and more of the same.
On Talking about Steve Lawson as Gossip
Well, that’s enough for some of you to stop reading right there. I said this person’s name. Trust me when I say that I understand this. I lived in that way for many years. You believe that the world needs to see the church as a spotless bride, and you want to fight for the reputation of Christ’s bride on earth. You are also very gullible because of that predisposition to fall for characters of ill repute that mask themselves as knights of the light, or as Jesus called them, wolves. And you start to believe the tall tale that unbelievers would be harmed if they saw the truth of what happens when a wolf “pastors” a church. How will they believe if they see the church like this? So, we start to hide the sin and rename it and mask it and polish it, and before we realize it, we are covering it up.
Don’t read what I am not saying. I don’t know this man personally, and anything that I might say about any details about his life would be gossip, spreading untruths. I simply don’t know.
What I do know from public information, from public statements from the ministries where he worked or collaborated, is that this man was engaged in adultery for at least five years, that he did not repent but only spoke up about what he had been doing afterthe father of the young woman threatened to expose him. Lawson ended what would be his last sermon saying how much he was looking forward to seeing the church the following Sunday for communion. He did not expect to be going anywhere.
This is a man that has written many books, spoken at many conferences, was a teaching fellow at Ligonier, and worked as the Dean of the D.Min. program at The Master’s Seminary. That’s a lot of eyes on his work.
And we are people of the truth. We harm the reputation of the church of Christ when we use lies (that we tell ourselves are euphemisms) to clean things up. We are not called to be spin doctors. Our Master did not call the Pharisees “people with great intentions but with inappropriate conduct and deficient theology.” He called them hypocrites and whitewashed tombs. When we call something an “inappropriate relationship,” we plaster nasty wallpaper over sin. We flatten people and their complexity. We have the truth at stake, and as the big letters in one of Lawson’s books read, “It Will Cost You Everything.” Following Jesus is a call to die. It’s a call to die to the idea of having a nice reputation. A true believer is despicable to a world that hates his Master.
So, to publicly respond to public, grievous sin like this, given the public platform that this man profited from, is not gossip. If you want to see who brought disgrace upon the church living a lie and preaching a gospel contrary to the one he was living, look at Dr. Steven Lawson. He did it. Don’t take it on those you think that are gossiping. How did Paul find out about the Corinthians and the Philippians? How many verses in those two letters do you see him reprimanding those who let him know about the sin that was taking place in those churches?
Our Brother Steve
Next to it is the response that calls him our brother. Again, I understand the disposition to want to do that. But the evidence before our eyes is clear. This man (at least the way things stand right now, based on the evidence our eyes can see) is not our brother. I find it quite tragic to see how many “Calvinists” become “Arminians” under pressure. Why exactly are we calling this man a brother? Because he prayed a prayer? I know he preached a lot against “false conversions,” a popular subject amongst Southern Reformed preachers, but aren’t we just calling him a brother because of the things we believe we’ve seen him do for the Kingdom? Why? Because he wrote “good books”? Because he preached exegetically-accurate sermons? Because he taught you how to preach, even from a distance? Because he was “the Lloyd-Jones of our times”? James had a word about this: “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!” (2:19).
[18] Beware lest there be among you a man or woman or clan or tribe whose heart is turning away today from the LORD our God to go and serve the gods of those nations. Beware lest there be among you a root bearing poisonous and bitter fruit, [19] one who, when he hears the words of this sworn covenant, blesses himself in his heart, saying, ‘I shall be safe, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart.’ This will lead to the sweeping away of moist and dry alike. [20] The LORD will not be willing to forgive him, but rather the anger of the LORD and his jealousy will smoke against that man, and the curses written in this book will settle upon him, and the LORD will blot out his name from under heaven. (ESV) Deuteronomy 29:18–20
It is tragic to me that when we see things like what we are seeing unfold, this is not the passage that comes to our mind before we go on showing favoritism and crying out for our “BROTHER.” He might be our brother in the end. He might repent and truly believe and persevere through the end, far away from speaking from any pulpits. But what we see now is this: A man whose heart is turning away from the LORD to serve the gods of the nations, the very gods he had so seemingly passionately preached against; a root bearing poisonous and bitter fruit, one who blesses himself in his heart saying that everything is gonna be alright even though he walks in the stubbornness of his heart. For five years. Without a peep. Without a word. Teaching people to live pure and holy lives unto the Lord. Calling them to believe in a Jesus he was mocking with his actions.
Should We Rip Out David’s Psalms from the Bible?
And we land into our big question. David failed. You don’t see the pages written by David ripped out of the Bible by the hand of God himself. So, why should we obliterate Mr. Lawson’s messages from the internet?
I want to respond that even a broken watch is right twice a day. And there might be plenty in these books that points to the truth of the Word. But I just can’t read it the same way. When I opened the Church Planting book that my former pastor wrote, after he was found out in his sin and dismissed from his pastorate, it just didn’t read the same to me. I was looking at the words in those pages that I had heard repeatedly from his mouth, even as distant as we were. You see, he was a speaker, not a pastor to me. I learned from what he said from the pulpit. I never walked with him. We did not disciple one another. I don’t see what good can come from dwelling too much on this question. You can show any abuser or wolf or criminal or atheist or secularist or anyone, really, to have said at least something that is true. That doesn’t mean that it is to be a standard of excellence or godliness.
But I want to reflect more on the fact that we willingly make significant category mistakes when the emotions are high, and when our desire to defend Christ’s church is mixed up with the self-preservation of a wolf and our own self-preservation of comfort.
First of all, David was guilty of terrible sin. And he also went on carrying on being a king, though without really fulfilling his kingly responsibilities–requiring the privileges but not going into the battlefield. Nathan had to come and confront him. His confession, though, was not the result of coercion: “Hey, David, if you don’t tell, I will go right now and tell this sin to everyone at the gates of the city.” Nathan prompted repentance, and David repented. There is a massive difference between David’s response and Mr. Lawson’s.
Also, David persevered through the end. We are yet to see what Mr. Lawson does. And his repentance is something that I pray we see. But far away from microphones and the conference circuit. Repentance comes with humility and brokenness. Tim Keller waited a long time before publishing. I think there was some wisdom in that. For many years, he was not in what we now see as the cycle of sermon series or conferences turned into books that feed our modern evangelical publishing machine. I think that our worldly hunger for more predisposes us to make heroes of wolves and to rush everyone into the glory that yet awaits for us.
So, to equate “David failed” or “David was imperfect” with the active unrepentance of a wolf is not a particularly good argument to make about the permanence of the words written by “fallen men.” We love to call them fallen, to say that they fell. Doing that is very dangerous. It misrepresents the truth. This is not a man who fell on a banana peel and cursed when his head hit the ground but then cried in repentance at seeing the depths of his depravity come out of his mouth. This is a man who got up into the pulpit at his church and whatever other platforms to which he had access to and Sunday after Sunday, commitment after commitment, speaking engagement after speaking engagement, book after book preached of a gospel he did not really believe in, with his Southern gentleman look, suit and tie, and the “right” words.
James reminds us, “So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead” (2:17).
Brothers and sisters, let’s have the same mind, which is ours in Christ Jesus. Go, please, read Philippians. Look at what the bar is. It is far more precious and worth fighting for than any worldly platform even if we have baptized it as Christian. And let’s get on this business of truly being of the same mind which is ours in Christ Jesus who though he is God, he did not count equality with God as a privilege to grasp. He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death on a cross. For us, sinners.
I could say more, especially on the subject of “we are all two steps away from falling like this,” but let the reader grab on to his Reformed hat more tightly, if those words are in your head. Before you blinked, you turned into the Arminian you claim to oppose. God is bigger than you or I. Holier than you or I. More merciful than you or I. And more just than you or I. His persevering holiness is what we are called to imitate.
I have not made time to write. Perhaps it is because people don’t read. Perhaps it is because I don’t know how to write.
The world burns. I’ve been watching forest fires from a distance for several weeks. A fireman is powerless against the rapid and devastating advance of a line of fire. But it doesn’t mean that he gets to quit. And the fireman is faced with a big question: will he call for help or will he give up? And, while he waits for help, will he fight with all he has?
Four years ago, I am reminded by Facebook, I made a big mistake. I made a decision that changed my family’s trajectory. What was that decision? What I can tell you is that I was tired. A lot of bad choices start with that. I chose to be lazy. I said, I have reasons to trust this one person, so I am going to check out my brain at the door and just go with the flow. I was tired of fighting evil, and I just wanted to sit back and rest. I wanted somebody else to do the fighting for a while. I wanted to follow.
That was a terrible thing to do.
That is most definitely not Great Commission thinking. The Kingdom of heaven is not like that, a man who felt secure in the world but spiritually beaten up, gave up on the idea of doing what His Lord called him to do: make disciples. He checked out his brain at the door and embracing pragmatism and his own fleshly desire for convenience did what the others were doing.
What is Great Commission following and thinking?
[18] And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. [19] Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, [20] teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:18-20).
It means that we follow Jesus and not man. It means that all authority is His, not man’s. It means that all authority is derivative. If it doesn’t find its origin, purpose, calling, and empowerment in Christ, it is not legitimate authority. It means that His authority is over everything. That I am not the Lord of my choices and my calling. It means that making disciples is the goal, not studying the Lord and His Word as if it were an intellectual hobby or merely as an academic pursuit. It means reflecting on how to help disciples know the Lord, not just turn on the firehose of an expository sermon at them without regard for whether they are living and loving the Word and the Lord revealed in that Word. It means not equating “healthy doctrine” with healthy discipleship. You can say the right words but be in great sin. It means that we actually have to evangelize and proclaim the truth of the gospel, not manipulate emotions and desires to produce baptisms as if changing the heart is something we can do with the right prayer or the right argument. It means actually going. How much of Christianity today is about staying put, using the Word as an excuse and reason to not obey the Great Commission. About seeking our on comfort and goals, our own interests and pleasures. About not being uncomfortable. It means teaching all that Jesus taught us. And to teach without hypocrisy, we actually have to do these things ourselves. It means resting in the Lord who has promised the gift of His presence with the believer. Who else is going to be with you when persecution comes, when things get harder instead of easier, when loss for His name strikes.
[15] And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation” (Mark 16:15).
It means that going into all the world is not a question. It means we are not to shelter in the safety of our homes, groups, or church buildings. It means we cannot be ingrown, using Jack Miller’s accurate description of many churches. It means that we go out with a message: the gospel. In Mark that message is taken back to 1:15. The Kingdom of heaven has come near to us. What do we do with that? We repent and believe the gospel. It means we must live repentance. Repentance is the tune of the life of the believer. Imagine if our churches would smell like repentance.
[46] and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, [47] and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. [48] You are witnesses of these things (Luke 24:46-48).
It means that suffering is in store for us. Our Savior suffered to give us eternal life. Why do we treat the Christian life as the preservation of comfort and the delusion of our security? It means that it is resurrection life. We were bought back from the dead. We were dead in our sins of trespasses. We want others to also be free. And we must never subject ourselves to slavery to sin again. It means not only that our lives are to be constantly full of repentance but that we proclaim this repentance to the world. This would go a long way in destroying these cultures of permissiveness and secrecy, self-protection and deceit, that we talk ourselves into saying that we are protecting the reputation of Christ when we are actually protecting our own. It means that we are witnesses of Christ. It means I must tell the truth. It means I must tell you that even as I was writing this, I needed to repent of sin and ask for forgiveness.
Nothing incendiary here. Or at least not purposefully so. But I’ve been slowly reading through the Old Testament over the last several weeks. A story caught my attention. Nothing new. Nothing that I have not read before. A lesson from our forefathers in the faith.
We meet some friends in Numbers 32, the Reubenites and the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manasseh, who promise to go fight with Israel until the end before returning to the land that they asked to be their possession. They all crossed the Jordan and did what they promised they would do. These men of integrity kept their word.
In Joshua 22, we read of their return trip. These people received a great commendation: “You have not forsaken your brothers these many days, down to this day, but have been careful to keep the charge of the LORD your God” (3). They kept their promise and did not forsake the rest of Israel. The historical precedent to this episode is, then, one of faithfulness. This truly is what they did. They did what they said they would do.
Joshua blesses them and before sending them on their way, he charges them to “only be very careful to observe the commandment and the law that Moses the servant of the LORD commanded you, to love the LORD your God, and to walk in all his ways and to keep his commandments and to cling to him and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul” (5).
The charge is clear. Despite their display of faithfulness, they are blessed with/through a reminder of their need and calling to holiness, to obey Yahweh, to cling to Him, an impossible task without the pursuit of holiness. Joshua doesn’t assume they know. Joshua doesn’t assume that their past faithfulness will necessarily result in holiness once they return to their land.
Grace does not mean we are to strive to always see the best in others. This story would have turned out very differently if our friends would have turned on Joshua and said, “Why are you not seeing us with the eyes of grace? Are you accusing us of something? Don’t you see we have been faithful at great personal cost? Maybe your connection to Achan (cf. Joshua 7:10-26) has poisoned everything you see? Perhaps you are acting like this Achan thing is a hammer and so, everything you see is a nail? Maybe you are harboring bitterness over Achan?” Grace is not ignorant of the reality that we must always be watchful and actively working out our salvation with fear and trembling. Grace is not ignorant of temptation. Grace is not ignorant of the reality that there is sin that must be warned against and called out, proactively and reactively pursuing holiness.
They received the blessing, the warning, the exhortation. And they went home.
The text then tells us what happened after they got back: “And when they came to the region of the Jordan that is in the land of Canaan, the people of Reuben and the people of Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh built there an altar by the Jordan, an altar of imposing size” (10).
That is simply a fact. They built an altar.
What happened next? When Israel heard about this, their first reaction was to go make war with them. This is far from the false grace we have come to expect in our days: trust unquestionably, see the best in people, affirm the evidences of grace in them. Of course, there is a time under the sun to trust, to overlook minor offenses and mistakes, to affirm the work of God in a person. But it is not always the time for such responses.
Were the people of Israel vengeful? Was that why their first possible response was war? Let’s answer that from the text:
Then the people of Israel sent to the people of Reuben and the people of Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh, in the land of Gilead, Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, and with him ten chiefs, one from each of the tribal families of Israel, every one of them the head of a family among the clans of Israel. And they came to the people of Reuben, the people of Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh, in the land of Gilead, and they said to them, “Thus says the whole congregation of the Lord, ‘What is this breach of faith that you have committed against the God of Israel in turning away this day from following the Lord by building yourselves an altar this day in rebellion against the Lord? Have we not had enough of the sin at Peor from which even yet we have not cleansed ourselves, and for which there came a plague upon the congregation of the Lord, that you too must turn away this day from following the Lord? And if you too rebel against the Lord today then tomorrow he will be angry with the whole congregation of Israel. But now, if the land of your possession is unclean, pass over into the Lord’s land where the Lord’s tabernacle stands, and take for yourselves a possession among us. Only do not rebel against the Lord or make us as rebels by building for yourselves an altar other than the altar of the Lord our God. Did not Achan the son of Zerah break faith in the matter of the devoted things, and wrath fell upon all the congregation of Israel? And he did not perish alone for his iniquity.’”
Joshua 22:13-20 (ESV)
The sin of Achan is still fresh in their minds. They remember the wrath that fell upon them as a result of this sin. They recall the loss and consequences due to this breach of faith. They fear the Lord and do not desire for this to happen again. This kind of sin, as they have realized, is possible to prevent. They even had a fresh memory to which they can appeal in their plea for repentance.
You may want to ask, why did they jump to conclusions so fast? Why are they assuming sin? I would ask back, have you read the Old Testament? Up to this point in the biblical narrative we have had sufficient evidence that Israel can and will build altars for idolatrous purposes (Aaron built an altar for the golden calf, for example). They actually did not assume the best in this situation. They actually assume the very worst. They see Aaron all over again. They see Achan all over again. There is a pattern, and this sure looks like it.
So, they assembled a delegation on behalf of the whole congregation of Yahweh and sent them to make a diligent inquiry of the matter and to explicitly call for repentance. And they went and asked hard questions, not the kind of tentative insinuations we are accustomed to in our modern days “maybe, perhaps, I don’t know if you are seeing this, I think…”
Did these questions sound like accusations? Or better said, were these questions accusations? These questions show the tribes that the whole congregation of Israel believes that the tribes have committed a breach of faith, that they have sinned, and that have rebelled against the Lord. They are being called to repent. A better question to ask is, what kind of a heart did the questions reveal? A broken and contrite heart? A defensive and evasive heart? A bitter heart?—“One who, when he hears the words of this sworn covenant, blesses himself in his heart, saying, ‘I shall be safe, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart’” (Deuteronomy 29:19 ESV).
What happens in the text? What is the way that the tribes respond to these questions?
Then the people of Reuben, the people of Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh said in answer to the heads of the families of Israel, “The Mighty One, God, the Lord! The Mighty One, God, the Lord! He knows; and let Israel itself know! If it was in rebellion or in breach of faith against the Lord, do not spare us today for building an altar to turn away from following the Lord. Or if we did so to offer burnt offerings or grain offerings or peace offerings on it, may the Lord himself take vengeance. No, but we did it from fear that in time to come your children might say to our children, ‘What have you to do with the Lord, the God of Israel? For the Lord has made the Jordan a boundary between us and you, you people of Reuben and people of Gad. You have no portion in the Lord.’ So your children might make our children cease to worship the Lord. Therefore we said, ‘Let us now build an altar, not for burnt offering, nor for sacrifice, but to be a witness between us and you, and between our generations after us, that we do perform the service of the Lord in his presence with our burnt offerings and sacrifices and peace offerings, so your children will not say to our children in time to come, “You have no portion in the Lord.”’ And we thought, ‘If this should be said to us or to our descendants in time to come, we should say, “Behold, the copy of the altar of the Lord, which our fathers made, not for burnt offerings, nor for sacrifice, but to be a witness between us and you.”’ Far be it from us that we should rebel against the Lord and turn away this day from following the Lord by building an altar for burnt offering, grain offering, or sacrifice, other than the altar of the Lord our God that stands before his tabernacle!”
Joshua 22:21-29 ESV
They did not resent the questions. They were not defensive. Their intentions and actions clearly show they are pursuing holiness. Not just in what they did in the past but also in how they are going through the process of being called to repentance.
When Phinehas the priest and the chiefs of the congregation, the heads of the families of Israel who were with him, heard the words that the people of Reuben and the people of Gad and the people of Manasseh spoke, it was good in their eyes. And Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest said to the people of Reuben and the people of Gad and the people of Manasseh, “Today we know that the Lord is in our midst, because you have not committed this breach of faith against the Lord. Now you have delivered the people of Israel from the hand of the Lord.” Then Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, and the chiefs, returned from the people of Reuben and the people of Gad in the land of Gilead to the land of Canaan, to the people of Israel, and brought back word to them. And the report was good in the eyes of the people of Israel. And the people of Israel blessed God and spoke no more of making war against them to destroy the land where the people of Reuben and the people of Gad were settled. The people of Reuben and the people of Gad called the altar Witness, “For,” they said, “it is a witness between us that the Lord is God.”
Joshua 22:30-34 ESV
That was it. There you have it. Unity was preserved. It was not because they hard questions were avoided, or because people were assumed to be in the right despite seeming evidence to the contrary, or because the events were put in their best possible light. Unity was preserved precisely because people on both sides were willing to follow the Lord and do their job, calling for accountability and repentance, showing truth and submitting to God in responding.
Let us not miss these lessons from our forefathers in the faith. There may be a thing or two out there that we very well may be called to put into practice today.
Well, Encanto finally hit Disney+ close enough to Christmas that I decided I should watch it before the kids got around to asking me about it. The baby woke up super early, so I watched it at about 4 AM or so.
I was left an emotional wreck after it.
There are dozens of things I could write about regarding this movie. It is that thick with things that merit a thorough theological discussion.
But, at the end of the day, since you and I don’t have a lot of time, I am going to focus on Bruno.
Honestly, I do not understand how can people possibly be enjoying this song. It is perplexing to me. But it wouldn’t be the first or the last time.
Musicology
The song is masterfully catchy.
As a musician, I know what the talented Lin-Manuel Miranda has done here, and it is remarkable. Layering and beat, harmony and melody. Outstanding. Simply high quality. Add the wonders of the animation to it, and it is mesmerizing.
But, did you spend a moment thinking about what is coming in this packaging?
Redimi2, a Christian urban musician presented a musical project titled Trapstorno. He managed to use trap, a music style of incredibly dark and worldly roots, to present the message of Christ to many who are walking in darkness.
He says in that song,
Ningún género musical es malo, dime quién eres tú para condenarlo La música es el papel de regalo, pero ese regalo hay que revisarlo Si tiene música, voy a usarlo, el Evangelio voy a anunciarlo Si este código no puedes descifrarlo, es por estar consumiendo Conejo Malo
Let’s attempt to explain that in English: “No musical genre is bad in itself; tell me, who are you to condemn it? Music is the gift wrapping paper, but the gift must be thoroughly examined. If it is music, I’m going to use it–the gospel I’m going to announce. If you don’t understand this, it may be because you’re taking in so much Bad Bunny.”
Quite a bit there to argue about theologically, but the idea of thoroughly examining the gift inside the wrapping is one that we must take seriously. Latin beats are wonderful. Like my dear friend, one of the pastors who married Ang and I, also an Ecuadorian like me, joked at our wedding, “Spanish is heaven’s language.” There is just something about Latin beats that just grab you and won’t let go. Our music is catchy and reaches in deeply. I remember that long summer where it didn’t matter where I went, Despacito would be in the air: London, Barcelona, Paris, even Buffalo, NY! Hardly anybody knew what it said! Don’t try to go there and seek to understand what Luis Fonsi and Daddy Yankee managed to squeeze into those almost 5 minutes. It is just not good for your soul.
So, Come Back to Us, What About Bruno?
Miranda himself describes this song as “the family gossip song.” Everybody is in it, behind Abuelita’s back, that is. This song is the outworking of collaborative cover up. Everybody knows not to talk about Bruno, but they just cannot be quiet. The song starts when the clouds take over the pretension of ever present sunshine, when the nightmare is acknowledged, when the pressure to put on a good face to the outside world fails.
I don’t know how else to say it, but Bruno was right all along. Everything he saw came to pass, but he did not make these things come to pass. Bruno saw what others in their fear couldn’t as they sought to protect what mattered most to them. And it also mattered the most to Bruno. Otherwise, Bruno would not have gone on a self-imposed exile deep inside the walls of Casita. He quietly covered up the cracks and spent his life doing so amongst the rats. The family erased Bruno from existence. But, they actually didn’t. The mere mention of his name was enough to jumpstart this song. There was no peace, no shalom, in Casita. There was no love in Casita, despite the pretty flowers, the mighty works of apparent charity to the townspeople, the songs, and the excitement. The magic was fading long before the cracks were obvious. So was the love.
But It Is Such a Cute and Catchy Song
Let me paint with a different brush. Let’s pretend that Bruno is a member of a church led by an abusive pastor. Well, that doesn’t really require much pretending. We are plagued with allegations and confirmations of spiritual abuse throughout churches, parachurches, schools, homes. It is a mess!
Bruno ends up being abused by this pastor. To acknowledge Bruno’s existence, pain, and story requires the church to act. After all, “faith apart from works is dead” (James 2:26). Actions have consequences. Abusive actions have catastrophic consequences.
If the church, like Abuelita, is telling the world outside that the magic is still strong, that there is nothing to see here, that they should have a strong drink and dance to music played in a piano that couldn’t even be pushed anymore by a languishing Luisa, cracking under the pressure to keep up with the appearances, well, is it a surprise to us that our churches have been effectively singing We Don’t Talk About Bruno, no, no, no as part of their corporate liturgies, so to speak, for quite some time now?
What?
If we speak about Bruno, we have to acknowledge that there is sin inside of the church. We have to acknowledge that some have not repented of that sin, and that a hardheartedness is growing in the church because, if what ultimately matters to us is the appearance of godliness, e.g., to (1) not close our church, (2) not fire our pastor, (3) give an appearance to the world that all is well within when it isn’t, well, we need to reconsider our obedience to Christ’s calling.
We cannot, as Christ’s church just take a horrific situation, throw some good Latin beats to it, some nice chords, some good overlapping vocals, nice animation, timely comic relief. And there you go, we can keep pretending that Ichabod Bible Church is a healthy, growing, Great-Commission-advancing, missional, Reformed church, light of the world, salt of the earth, city on a hill.
Because it isn’t. The glory has departed. It is Ichabod.
And Where Is Bruno?
Some Brunos end up deconstructing. Some Brunos never open a Bible again. Some Brunos can’t trust anyone again. Some Brunos crack under the pressure. Some Brunos end up taking their own lives. Some Brunos fight. Some Brunos remember with nostalgia what seemed to be good times. Some Brunos do carve a little hiding place that allows them to be somewhat close and watch those loved ones who reject them. Some Brunos wait for the Lord, but not in that passive, let go and let God sort of fashion they were always taught by their abusers. Some Brunos do just that and regret it all the time. Some Brunos do just that and can’t yet regret it at this time. Some Brunos need sometime to get their bearings back. Some Brunos can’t get up and keep moving. Some Brunos live in sadness and darkness. Some Brunos end up chronicling the evils that affect the church. Some Brunos just have no idea what to do next. Some Brunos are suffering deeply and alone. Some Brunos are being told their suffering is a result of their exposing of the sin committed against them.
And meanwhile, the one thing they do very clearly hear from the church is: “We don’t talk about Bruno, no, no, no.” Bruno wants to destroy us. Bruno hurt us. Bruno is bitter as all he speaks about is this. Bruno has a flair for the dramatic. Bruno is a gossiper. Bruno is a slanderer. We just don’t talk about Bruno.
If we talk about Bruno, we have to deal with the fact that Bruno is made in the image of God and is a human being. Someone we are called to love.
Talking about Bruno (and not just gossip about Bruno saying he is a gossip) would require us to surrender before the Lord, acknowledge our corruption, and cry out for mercy. It would require us to look at Bruno in the eye, clearly acknowledge what we have done, what we have not done, what we have done half-heartedly. It would require us to listen to Bruno and not overpower him with the narrative we would prefer to hear. Doing so would require us to repent. And repentance of this kind is costly.
Does Bruno have things he must repent of? Absolutely. But we are experts at only blaming the abused and protecting the abuser. That’s the sad reality at Ichabod Bible Church.
Everybody pretends they are better off without Bruno.
Goodbye, Casita
But there is a whole town watching Casita collapse in the meantime, and they will be best served by being told the truth, by watching true repentance and reconciliation take place before their eyes. In times of canceling one another, we are hungry for redemption. And our present cultural norms don’t make room for redemption. After all, how in the world did Casita get rebuilt, folks? How can anyone truly come to be saved these days if they don’t see examples of redemption, real redemption, not false grace?
One of my favorite analogies from Scripture about the church comes from Peter. He describes the church as “living stones” that “are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5). The ending we know is true is far better than Encanto‘s: the townspeople don’t just come to repair the house. As they come to the Lord in true repentance, they become the spiritual house. After all, the same Peter reminds us that “it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God” (1 Peter 4:17a). Everything truly does work together for good, for those who love God, for those who are called according to his purpose (Romans 8:28).
We cannot ignore the Great Commission impact of being truthful and humble about our sin.
Loving Bruno
I think if we haven’t acknowledged it yet, we are just being dense or hardhearted. Or perhaps just a little naive or distracted. After all, the music is pretty good. But every time we push Bruno aside, we ostracize him from the very community that Christ died to redeem. We leave Bruno hopeless, excluded from the only place where Justice is supposedly magnified. We leave the adopted Bruno thinking he is alone, that his Father has left him behind. We leave Bruno hiding, ashamed, believing lies about himself and his identity. We leave Bruno doubting the Word of God, the true word of prophecy. We leave him. And we move on. We replace the floors, we paint the walls, we platform our guy, we convince ourselves that we are right, we talk ourselves into thinking that Bruno is just nuts, a tool of the devil, snared by the devil, if not the devil himself.
Is that what God calls us to do? To complain that our dirty laundry gets aired while completely ignoring the putrid smell coming out of the hamper? This doesn’t require Febreze to cover up the smell. It requires to actually wash the laundry, to clean the source of the foul smell. And for that we have the blood of the Lamb who was slain for it all.
Is that the witness that we are to give to the town outside of the walls of the church? We get on these militant campaigns about love, but we don’t really love our Brunos.
The people outside our walls are watching. They always have been watching. They act like they don’t want what we have, but they do. We shouldn’t be surprised that they are not enticed by our invitations when they see what is lacking inside.
Let’s be frank, own our junk, confess our sin thoroughly and sincerely. Let’s display humility that images Christ to the watching world. Let’s obliterate “We Don’t Talk About Bruno” from our churches’ practical liturgies.
Every time we act as if nothing happened, we make the problem worse.
And there is no amount of singing and dancing, mesmerizing distractions, and major chords that can pierce through the darkness and point to the ascended, resurrected, crucified Messiah. For that, we need the Word of God, not edited, not adulterated, not slanted.
When we don’t talk about Bruno, let’s not beat around the bush anymore, we exchange the truth of God for a lie and worship and serve the creature rather than the Creator who is blessed forever. Amen (Romans 1:25). And from there, we are on the fast lane, singing and dancing along to denying the Name by which all must be saved: “So they called them and charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus” (Acts 4:18). Today, we don’t even need to be threatened into silence. We just remain quiet on our own.
My thanks to Disney and Lin-Manuel Miranda for this wonderful opportunity to reflect about our need for Christ. And yet, I also leave certainly aware that I might just be Bruno here, effectively making your fish die, turning your excitement about this movie into a discussion about spiritual abuse. Well, Bruno actually didn’t make the bad things happen. He was given sight to see them. But we can almost get ourselves into portraying him as the bad guy, as the one that brings the misfortune upon the family. This is a dangerous narrative, all too common–we focus on Bruno and blame him for the rightful consequences of the sin of those who abused Bruno. So, yes, I might have turned a happy hour and half of your life into a difficult discussion. But, if we really piece the magical green puzzle plates together, this is what it shows. We would rather pretend our house has no cracks and the magic is still strong. We truly are Abuelita. And that’s not very Christlike.
Yet also, I don’t want to be harsh to my dear brothers and sisters that are singing this song and quite happily. I am thankful for you. I am thankful that you have not had to face darkness like Bruno’s. Perhaps you have, and you have been healed by our Maker in a truly marvelous and complete way, and for that I am also thankful. Yet, one thing I see time and time again is that in our graciousness and kindness, we end up setting ourselves up for wolves to enter our flock and really harm us. So, if nothing else, just be aware. There are ways in which we can predispose ourselves to be complicit in systems that obliterate Brunos.
Durante mi preparación para un sermón reciente, estaba buscando noticias que utilicen la palabra Éxodo en el título. Uno de los primeros resultados fue un artículo del Dallas Morning News en español Al Día. Se titulaba “Un éxodo desgarrador: más personas de Ecuador se sienten obligadas a emigrar a Estados Unidos”. De acuerdo al artículo la Patrulla Fronteriza encontró 17.314 ecuatorianos en el mes de julio en la frontera entre los Estados Unidos y México. Eso sería el equivalente de qué, del número de personas que podrían asistir a unas cien a cuatrocientas iglesias. Y este número solamente incluye a quienes fueron encontrados por la Patrulla Fronteriza. Es mayor.
No escribo para el público en general. Sino específicamente a quienes han sido redimidos por Cristo y han sido adoptados a Su familia. Estoy escribiendo al cristiano que está considerando emigrar. Este es un artículo para la familia ecuatoriana de Cristo. Si aún no conoce a Cristo usted, si por cualquier razón no considera que Cristo es el Señor, anhelo que lo pueda llegar a conocer muy pronto y obviamente puede seguir leyendo. Sería un gran honor para mí que lo hiciera. Pero el objetivo de este artículo es tener una conversación franca acerca de la complejidad de la migración para el cristiano ecuatoriano.
No podremos abarcar todo en este momento, así que esta será la primera entrega de una serie de preguntas respecto al tema.
Ya hemos vivido momentos de crisis. Ya hemos visto las complejidades de la migración. Pero aquí tenemos otra ola de salidas. Mi pregunta general para usted mientras escribo es la siguiente: “¿Le ha llamado Dios a migrar?”
Nada de cuentos, ni mentiras
Recuerdo siempre la propaganda en la radio durante el fútbol. Prometía nada de cuentos ni mentiras al decirnos quién era el que más barato vendía en la ciudad de Loja. La mercadotecnia se especializa en ayudarnos a percibir algo que no es necesario como que fuera una necesidad apremiante. Como algo urgente, crítico. Nos obsesionamos.
Recuerdo estar sentado en el aeropuerto Mariscal Sucre escuchando los cuentos de la gente: que tenían pisos en España, casas en Queens, carros de lujo, viajes por Europa, visitas a Disney World.
Lo que yo no sabía es qué era un piso en Europa o una casa en Queens. Ver un baño compartido por al menos una docena de migrantes en una casa pobre. Ver al migrante sufrir por no tener acceso a una vida en la luz, sin esconderse. Ver al migrante trabajando sin cesar llevado no por un llamado de Dios sino por la codicia. Ver al migrante traicionando a la mujer que dejó. Ver al migrante no poder cumplir sus obligaciones financieras y decepcionar a quienes confiaban en él. Ver al migrante adicto a comida chatarra, a la bebida, a las drogas, a la aprobación de la gente.
Y al pensar acerca del artículo en mi preparación para predicar me puse a pensar acerca de cómo mis propias publicaciones en las redes sociales pueden dar la impresión de que vivo en la Tierra Prometida y crear esta falsa impresión de prosperidad que puede contribuir a corroborar el impulso a migrar. Todo se ve tan bonito.
Algo que siempre comento con mis colegas es que tenemos la tendencia a simplificar la complejidad de la vida cuando ya hemos decidido hacer algo. No escuchamos los consejos. Nos sentimos inmortales. Nos sentimos como que somos la excepción a la regla. Lo malo no nos pasará.
Mi primera pregunta práctica para usted para ayudarle a responder a la pregunta general de que si esto es el llamado de Dios para su vida es esta: ¿está viendo y describiendo correctamente tanto su situación actual como su situación soñada?
Yo hubiera querido saber que a pesar de que iba a vivir en un país con cuidado médico de calidad increíble, que hasta le salvó la vida a mi amada hermana, iba a pasar veinte años de una u otra forma mendigando al sistema médico por rebajas y acuerdos de pago para cancelar deudas exhorbitantes por atención de salud. De una forma u otra, he pasado los últimos veinte años pagando cuentas médicas. Y eso es adicional a los pagos de seguro médico que he realizado mensualmente y que mi compañía paga juntamente conmigo. No tengo recuerdos de mi vida en los Estados Unidos sin deberle algo a algún médico u hospital o proveedor de servicios.
Si le llevo a mi hija a emergencia, deberé mínimo mil dólares y eso con seguro. Mejor ni le cuento a cuánto asciende el costo del nacimiento del lindo bebé de las fotos en el Facebook. Y esto es con seguro, con trabajo legal, siendo ciudadano estadounidense. El inmigrante indocumentado no tiene este lujo. Muchos no reciben cuidado médico por esta razón. Muchos tienen temor a ir al hospital incluso cuando tienen accidentes laborales por temor a la deportación y eso es adicional al costo de salud.
Yo hubiera querido saber que iba a pasar quince años pagando al gobierno y a abogados de pacotilla, aprovechadores de la desgracia ajena, para ayudarme a hacer los trámites de migración. Al final me cansé de regalar plata a gente que no compartía mis intereses y yo mismo me representé legalmente al final. Pero cuando uno está con temor y no quiere que algo salga mal, uno va y cae con gente abusiva. Una vez cuando era estudiante recuerdo haber pedido un préstamo a un amigo para ir a ver a un abogado en North Kansas City. El aprovechador este me cobró para decirme que busque novia. Eso me dijo. Que el único camino legal que tenia para vivir en los Estados Unidos era casarme. Una vez una señora me robó en la avenida Amazonas a pesar de mi aplicación de las reglas de Mamita y del Mayor Murgueytio para protegerme de dichos atracos. Este robo de este abogado se sintió peor. Y yo he pasado de lujo con los abogados. Las historias de terror de otros inmigrantes llenarían este artículo. Gracias a Dios, no fue siguiendo el gran consejo legal de este ladrón que pude obtener mi ciudadanía sino con quince años de esfuerzo y trabajo.
Yo hubiera querido saber que iba a pasar mucho tiempo sin poder explicar a mi familia por qué no progresaba económicamente. Hubiera querido saber que ser hombre menor de 25 años iba a tener que trabajar muy duro simplemente para pagar el seguro del vehículo para poder manejarlo en una ciudad que no fue diseñada para peatones y en la cual es imposible movilizarse sin carro. Yo tenía un trabajo solamente para pagar el seguro del carro. Muchos inmigrantes no pagan este seguro y ponen a la colectividad y a sí mismos en graves peligros. Hubiera querido saber que iba a tener que entregar los primeros dólares que pude ahorrar cuando compré mi chatarrita linda que solamente pude pagar porque me lo vendió una prima. Y después no tenía ni para la matrícula.
Hubiera querido saber que el sistema educativo no es tan maravilloso como lo vendemos al mundo. Hubiera querido saber que con lo que aprendí en el Colegio Militar me iba a poder casi hasta graduar de ingeniero con mínimo esfuerzo. Hubiera querido saber que la idea de anhelar estudiar acá especialmente en el nivel básico y secundario no es el sueño de todo padre tiene para sus hijos. Simplemente no es bueno, por ponerlo de forma simple. Un artículo entero no sería suficiente para explicar las razones. Si el cuento es aprender inglés, hay otras maneras de hacerlo que usar las escuelas públicas de los Estados Unidos. Y gracias a la globalización de las redes sociales, los mismos problemas de acá se exportan para allá y viceversa. No es que mágicamente las escuelas se vuelven maravillosas al cruzar el río. Y no nos olvidemos de la tristeza de los tiroteos que han ocurrido y siguen ocurriendo.
Y recuerde que estas son experiencias de alguien que entró por la vía legal y nunca sufrió los engaños de coyotes y aprovechadores, que nunca sufrió el dolor de vivir en la oscuridad.
¿Le ha llamado Dios a migrar?
Pues, mi llamado a usted en este artículo es a preguntarse con toda la sobriedad del caso cuál mismo es su situación actual. Y vea que yo mismo debo hacerme la misma pregunta.
El grupo musical Jah Love escribió una canción que empieza con estas palabras: “Quiero cumplir Tus sueños, los que un día Tú creaste para mí”. A mis hijas les encanta esa cancioncita, estilo reggae. A mí me gusta que ellos toman el lenguaje que todos hablamos de los sueños porque siempre estamos pensando en los sueños. Y lo lleva a su lugar correcto para el cristiano.
“Porque somos hechura Suya, creados en Cristo Jesús para hacer buenas obras, las cuales Dios preparó de antemano para que anduviéramos en ellas.”
Efesios 2:10 NBLA
Debemos preguntar en nuestras oraciones, cuáles son las buenas obras (los sueños de Jah Love) que Dios ha preparado para nosotros de antemano. Cuáles son Sus sueños para nosotros.
Porque si estamos respondiendo a problemas y buscando oportunidades apartados de la voluntad de Dios para nuestras vidas, lamento informarnos que los problemas nos esperan de todas formas. Y son problemas graves y serios. No subestime el calor de un abrazo de su madre o el sabor de un tamalito.
Obviamente, la necesidad acá es grande, faltan muchos obreros para la obra del Reino. La iglesia es pequeña en comparación a la multitud de latinoamericanos que vivimos en los Estados Unidos. Puede ser que Dios le esté llamando a ser misionero acá, a buscar su sustento mientras obra para ministrar a quienes hanvenido a este país y aún no reconocen que su necesidad más grande es Cristo.
Pero le recuerdo que la santidad es un requisito indispensable del llamado al ministerio. No podemos predicar el evangelio si nuestra vida es una mentira, si estamos más enamorados de los sueños y del dinero que de Dios, y si andamos divagando sin rumbo certero en las buenas obras que Dios ha preparado para nosotros.
La migración es un tema muy complejo y no quiero parecer indiferente a sus necesidades, que son reales y duras. Seguiremos en el diálogo, Dios mediante, mientras buscamos juntos el camino a la Nueva Jerusalén. Y no olvidemos que la pregunta de la migración necesariamente nos lleva a reflexionar en por qué anhelamos migrar:
“Pero en realidad, anhelan una patria mejor, es decir, la celestial. Por lo cual, Dios no se avergüenza de ser llamado Dios de ellos, pues les ha preparado una ciudad.”
I argued previously that two things Dr. Kevin DeYoung did in his review of Dr. Beth Allison Barr’s book The Making of Biblical Womanhood were highly concerning and could be taken by readers to ignore Dr. Barr’s entire argument primarily because of her emotional portrayal of her stories and the trauma she has experienced. Also, there were implications of doubt planted regarding her telling of both her experiences and history as a whole.
Today I do not want to write about the more superficial kinds of controversy that have come with the book’s publication. Instead, I commend Dr. Barr’s work to you to be read soberly (thoughtfully, critically) and prayerfully. Her voice and arguments must be engaged fairly and thoroughly. She is associate professor of history and associate dean of the Graduate School at Baylor University, a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and a professing sister in Christ. She is no history aficionado as I am.
She writes,
I have found it useful in my work as a historian—what if I am wrong about my conclusions? Am I willing to reconsider the evidence? I have found it useful as a teacher, especially when a student presents me with a different idea. The question “What if I’m wrong?” helps me listen to others better. It keeps me humble. It makes me a better scholar.
Barr, The Making of Biblical Womanhood, 41
I have always found that reading in that spirit is very important. Without endorsing him, I want to point out something Doug Wilson said in Heaven Misplaced, as he asks the reader to consider postmillennialism,
Someone can really enjoy The Lord of the Rings and agree to temporarily set aside his knowledge that orcs and elves are not exactly real. But once the reader is in story grip, the story comes alive and is made real to him because of that willing suspension of disbelief. Even if the reader does not really “believe in it” after he has closed the book, he still knows the story far better than he would have if he had been saying, “yeah, right” every other page. He knows the story “from within,” even if he cannot accept it at the last.
Wilson, Heaven Misplaced, 10
Willing suspension of disbelief. I argue for that today. I want you to read Dr. Barr’s work as a charitable Christian ought to read it. And to ask yourself and Dr. Barr the questions that need to be asked.
I should make a quick note about my presuppositions and convictions in the interest of fairness. I confess complementarianism as an appropriate framework to synthesize the Bible’s teaching about men and women in Christ, in God’s image, on mission in the world for the Kingdom as co-heirs of the promise of a new heavens and a new earth after the return of Jesus Christ, our Lord. I confess it with a couple of important caveats: 1) I strongly believe there is a hyper-complementarianism that is as devastating as in Spurgeon’s times hyper-Calvinism was to Calvinism, leaving caricatures and devastation behind that can turn anyone away easily–who wants to cause pain and abuse?, and 2) abuse does happen in any and every context in a fallen creation, but the abuse of complementarianism does help breed cultures, churches, families, and institutions where the subjugation of women, the silencing of women, and the dehumanization of women are very real. This is not me having itchy ears or going with the spirit of the age. This is just reality. Also, in the interest of fairness, I should state that Dr. Barr has not persuaded me of an egalitarian reading of Scripture or of history in her work. Willing suspension of disbelief and all.
As I’ve read the book, I have noted the following areas and questions that I believe any thoughtful reader of this book and the Church at large must be willing to ask and seek to answer and research thoroughly. We will all be better off from it:
The first words of the book will turn off many and will help facilitate confirmation bias for Dr. DeYoung’s tone on his review: “I never meant to be an activist,” she writes. Dr. Barr’s story certainly is full of emotion–how could you not leave a church so dear to you under such difficult circumstances and not show any emotion about it? How could you go through what she reveals at the end of the book and not be affected by it at your core? So, the key question here for the Christian reader is this, what can we do better as the Church and as individual Christians to help those who have experienced abuse and to grow mutually through doctrinal disagreement rather than rush to institutional protection mode? Not just Dr. Barr’s testimony but the testimony of so many is that at minimum the perception of institutional protection and, at worst, actual institutional protection come to the forefront over and above the well-being of the person, of the image bearer of God, who incidentally is going through what very likely is the worst time of her life. Let us not rush to discount truth and to call out falsehood because a person has been through the emotional wringer. Our God is truth.
Dr. Barr reports multiple times, “I stayed silent.” In what ways are we, as individual Christians and as the Church, directly and indirectly silencing women? Are we communicating clearly and unequivocally, even if indirectly, that women have no place in theological discourse, mutual discipleship, the sharpening of the saints, or to raise up concerns or suggestions to the leadership of the church? Where can women go when things do go wrong because they will? What have we built so that suspicion is not our natural reflex or the charge of usurping of authority is not our initial reaction to valid concerns or legitimate charges? Have we built just structures and procedures? Is our discipleship and participation in corporate worship one that testifies to the whole truth of Scripture? Our God is justice.
Dr. Barr assumes that complementarian theology necessarily will result in this concept of biblical womanhood as we observe it in complementarian churches and institutions today, as taught and advanced by the CBMW, the Gospel Coalition, Desiring God, etc. She says, “I knew that it was based on a handful of verses read apart from their historical context and used as a lens to interpret the rest of the Bible. The tail wags the dog […] cultural assumptions and practices regarding womanhood are read into the biblical text, rather than the biblical text being read within its own historical and cultural context” (6). She argues, then, that proponents of complementarianism are misreading Scripture. This is a serious charge that needs to be considered thoroughly. So, is she right? Is complementarianism the reading into Scripture of American mid-twentieth-century preferences or the reading into Scripture of a Victorian worldview? Is complementarianism based on a handful of verses? A good start to this question can be found in Matthew Barrett’s Simply Trinity. I point out to you his discussion of the role of hermeneutics in questions like these starting on page 238 of chapter 8 Is the Son Eternally Subordinate to the Father? Eternal subordination does play an important part of this argument, and Barrett asks, by whose rules are you reading Scripture? His discussion is not about complementarianism and egalitarianism, but I think that frame of thinking and way to address a related subject can be helpful for further discussion about Dr. Barr’s statement. Our God is our Triune Creator.
Dr. Barr joins complementarianism with patriarchy very tightly, and in her defense, she has citations from Dr. Russell Moore to do it. I believe that mixing these concepts can cause unnecessary distraction. I believe we need to discuss fairly what patriarchy is and is not, what abuses of patriarchy are and are not, and that we don’t go past the boundaries that Scripture has for headship. It is not fair to conflate categories on both sides. After some discussion on The Epic of Gilgamesh, Dr. Barr presents what is in my opinion, the most significant claim of her book: “Patriarchy wasn’t what God wanted; patriarchy was a result of human sin” (29ff). Dr. Barr argues, then, that complementarianism is a theology of Genesis 3 and not of Genesis 1-2. I happen to disagree with that. If complementarianism were a theology of Genesis 3, that is, a result of the Fall, I would be fully standing by Dr. Barr’s side on this. But it isn’t. In his article Gendered Exegesis of Creation in Philo (De Opificio Mundi) and Paul (1 Corinthians) in Paul and the Greco-Roman Philosophical Tradition, Dr. Jonathan Worthington presents exegetical work that is substantial that Dr. Barr ought to consider in her analysis not only in her chapter about the Beginning of Patriarchy but also on her proposed reading of 1 Corinthians. Complementarian theologians, how can we show exegetically and practically that complementarianism is not a result of the Fall, that it is rooted in creation? I think Dr. Worthington has given us all a good example to go deeper.
The second heaviest argument presented by Dr. Barr in her book is her chapter 2, What if Biblical Womanhood Doesn’t Come from Paul? In this chapter, she argues for a reading of 1 Corinthians and the rest of the Pauline epistles that is different than the complementarian reading. The thoughtful reader will want to know why this is and how to scrutinize both readings to reach a Scriptural conclusion in the Spirit. Not because we can read Paul differently (42), it means that we must read Paul differently. Is there warrant to do so? Dr. Barr does present her case, but please do not ignore that she is intellectually honest here. Yes, she inflects certain words in 1 Corinthians 14 (What! Did the Word of God originate with you?), but she also says, “While I cannot guarantee this is what Paul was doing, it makes a lot of (historical) sense” (62). What we need to ask is, is she correct? Do we have exegetical and historical warrant to say that Paul was quoting a bad practice common to the cultural context of the day that he is rejecting? Is Dr. Barr right in saying that all the household code sections of Paul mean the complete opposite of what the complementarian reading says they do? Can we take the medieval sermons cited as evidence that the reading is wrong or not? If so, why? If not, why not? What does it mean for the complementarian to affirm that there is both mutual submission and individual wifely submission in Ephesians 5? Can we also make clear that Paul nowhere calls a woman to submit herself to all men? Can we also make clear that none of these readings should make a way for the subjugation of women? Can we also be honest that sometimes the egalitarian writings on Romans 16 seem to be stronger than the complementarian arguments and deal with those cases fairly? Our God does not support favoritism. There is no room for insults or fearmongering in our interaction with these arguments. Sometimes it feels that we are more afraid of being called an egalitarian than we are about missing the truth of God.
How can the historical charges that Dr. Barr make be properly assessed? Are our history books that slanted? I do have to admit that it is rare to find references to women in them. DeYoung’s review is the most extensive in this area. He charges Dr. Barr with ambiguous language and selective information. I want to point out that history is an area that the Christian has to be willing to engage with all the way–our historical heroes are rarely as clean as they’ve been cleaned up by time and distance and by our own idolatry of them, at times. My encouragement to the reader is to engage the historical positions presented by Professor Barr, a professional historian, again, willing to hear them and consider them thoroughly. Then, feel free to ask if anything is missing, and if it is, point it out. We all need to ask, once all the historical evidence is on the table what the role of history/tradition and Scripture are. R. C. Sproul was fond of saying that salvation was not by statistics. I can’t just poll the sermons in America today and argue that because 80% of them say something about a given subject that such a thing is gospel truth or that it is biblically solid. The Church is always in need of reformation. Just because a whole bunch of preachers are preaching the same thing, it doesn’t make it true. But it should alert us to look at it comprehensively. That is a long way of saying, let’s make sure we do understand the medieval Church, what it thought and taught and the reasons why. Then, we can engage in processing that information in the light of Scripture and moving forward without ignoring the saints of the past.
On the subject of Bible translation, can we all be intellectually honest and accept that our favorite translation has made translation and meaning choices that even if well-intentioned can slant our reading of the text? The ESV’s changes to Genesis 3:16 are not neutral! They communicate something. We should be willing to enter chapter 5 of that book with that reality in mind. Bible translators have to make choices for defining meaning and for communicating meaning. Those choices cannot always be isolated from one’s most dearest convictions.
All the these seven areas will impact how we apply these concepts to our lives. Our interaction with chapters 6 through 8 will be marked by whether we listen or not. We all ought to desire complete freedom in Christ for every creature breathing today. There is no distinction. The gospel is the most liberal in its call to every creature to proclaim and confess Jesus Christ as Lord. The gospel is the most progressive in truly advancing humankind by renewing the person who believes in Christ to the core, renewing her mind through the gospel truth, and in humility from the Spirit helping her to find a greater degree of Christlikeness every day through every circumstance.
My sincere thanks to Dr. Barr for taking the time and the massive effort to put all of this into published words. The weight of the footnotes pains me to not be able to go and read every single one of those sources for myself. Yet, that’s why we don’t read in isolation. That’s why we are the Body of Christ, or at least, we are supposed to be. Can we give it a good read? Can we really immerse ourselves in the Word of God so that it sweetness would permeate through Word-based arguments? Can we truly love charitably? We have a lot to learn from Dr. Barr and from one another.
All of Life. Happily. Under the Sovereign. 