The Word of God: How Should I Read It?

Think with me for a moment about when you started learning to read. After you had listened to your parents reading to you for several years, you started learning the letter sounds yourself. Then you started to learn to sound out two- and three-letter words. Then you learned to read those words in a short sentence. And then after a time of doing that, you learned to understand what you were reading. Reading really is amazing. What’s most amazing about it is that God has spoken to us in such a way that we get to read His words. Step by step, as God’s little children, we need to learn how to read the Word, beginning the process from learning letter sounds to understanding what we are reading.

In Deuteronomy 4, the Lord exhorts His dear children to hear, to know, and to do His Word. He exhorts them to “listen to [His] statutes and [His] rules” (v. 1) and not to “add to the word … that you may keep [His] commandments” (v. 2). He exhorts them to remember, “I have taught you statutes and rules” so that they would “do them” (vv. 5, 6). And by doing them the nations would say, “What great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous?” (v. 8). The practical benefit of this is “that they may learn to fear me all the days that they live on the earth, and that they may teach their children so” (v. 10).

To fear the Lord who speaks, you must understand what the Lord is speaking. Consider with me the question, how should I read the Word? To do this, I will be following an outline from the Westminster Larger Catechism, Q&A 157:

The holy Scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very Word of God, and that he only can enable us to understand them; with desire to know, believe, and obey the will of God revealed in them; with diligence, and attention to the matter and scope of them; with meditation, application, self-denial, and prayer.

With Reverence

I should read the Word with reverence: “with an high and reverent esteem of them.” Let me put it to you like this: if we love reading our favorite author’s books, how much more so should we have a love of the words of God himself? If we love the letters, the sentences, the prose and poetry of human authors, how much more should we love those words that were inscribed with the finger of God and breathed out of His mouth?

In Deuteronomy 4, the Lord says, “Gather the people to me, that I may let them hear my words, so that they may learn to fear me” (v. 10, emphasis mine). To hear the Word is to hear God Himself. And while we distinguish between the Word of God written and the living Word of God spoken, these two have one thing in common: God. To hear the Word written is to hear the Word spoken by God. Therefore, Thomas Watson once said, “Think every line you read God is speaking to you.” As you read your Bible with reverence, consciously know that you are listening to the voice of God Himself. Because the Word is the Holy Spirit’s love letter to us, we should be humbled to the core and be in awe of the fact that of the billions of people in the world, you—I—have been given the Word.

With Persuasiveness

We should read the Word with persuasiveness: “with a firm persuasion that they are the very Word of God, and that he only can enable us to understand them.” We turn to the Scripture because, as Gregory the Great (AD 540–604) said, we “learn the heart of God in the words of God” (Letter to Theodorus). Since we are persuaded that we are reading God’s words, we should be persuaded that only He can make His words known to us. In the Psalms, we read again and again lines like this: “Open my eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law… . Make me understand the way of your precepts… . Give me understanding that I may learn your commandments” (Ps. 119:18, 27, 73). In theological terms, we call this the illumination of the Holy Spirit.

We believe in the Holy Spirit’s inspiration of the Word and also in His illumination. Because inspiration is true, illumination is necessary, regardless of our intellect and ability to read a text. Thomas Ridgeley (AD 1667–1674) said it like this: “If God is not pleased to succeed our endeavours, we shall remain destitute of the experimental knowledge of divine truths, which is absolutely necessary to salvation.” This means that reading the Word is not just understanding with our heads the words on the page, but knowing by the work of the Spirit on our hearts the meaning of those words for me. Like a child needs help understanding a book he is reading and therefore goes to a parent or teacher for that help, so too we need to go to God in prayer and ask Him to help us know what He is saying.

With Earnestness

I should read the Word with earnestness: “with desire to know, believe, and obey the will of God revealed in them.” When Moses called the Israelites to assemble to hear the words of the Lord, it was so that they would “do them” (Deut. 4:1).

This is vital for us to meditate upon. It’s so easy for us to read the Word looking for doctrine, looking for the theological argument the Apostles make, and looking for the proofs we need to persuade others to believe in Christ. We so often focus on the word Word when we speak of the “Word of God.” But don’t forget that it is the Word of God. The Word is the means that God has chosen to reveal Himself to us. When you sit down to read it, then, you are coming not to an it, but to a Him. This should make us earnest and desirous to read because we are having fellowship with the Lord in the reading and in the doing.

With Diligence

I should read the Word with diligence: “with diligence, and attention to the matter and scope of them.” You may not like learning English grammar—what’s a subject, what’s an object, what’s a pronoun, or what’s a noun. It can be tedious. Here in Southern California, a regular sight on the beach is a person with headphones waving a metal detector back and forth over the sand. When a person first starts doing this, every little sound makes them think they have found something valuable, so they bend down and dig it up. Over time, though, they learn to listen diligently to the distinct sounds of different kinds of metals. We need to learn how to read the Word with such diligence.

The ancient prophets “searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories” (1 Peter 1:10–11). We need to read the Word with such diligence and careful inquiry. As Thomas Watson said, “If one go over the scripture cursorily there is little good to be got by it; but if he be serious in reading of it, it is the ‘savour of life.’”

With Personalness

I should read the Word with personalness: “with meditation, application, self-denial, and prayer.” Moses spoke to a generation of Israelites who were not present at Mount Horeb, yet he said they were to teach their children and grandchildren “how on the day that you stood before the LORD your God” (Deut. 4:10). How could they do that? The point was not that they were actually there, but that as they learned the words of God, they were personally to appropriate and to identify themselves with the Word.

The Word, then, is not some abstract thing “out there.” As Paul says, it is to dwell deeply within us (Col. 3:16). We are to meditate on the Word—that is, to think intently and intensely about it. We are to do this more than we meditate on our fantasy football stats, the latest political polls, or our Christmas shopping list. If reading the Word gets God’s truth into our heads, then meditating on it gets it into our hearts.

By reading the Word in such a way, we will not only be informed, but inflamed. The more we learn about God, the more we should love God. And the more we love God, the more we should become living epistles of His love for the world.

John Piper on Why You Should Read John Owen

From John Piper’s foreword to an unabridged edition of John Owen’s Overcoming Sin and Temptation, which I edited with Kelly Kapic:

As I look across the Christian landscape, I think it is fair to say concerning sin, “They have healed the wound of my people lightly” (Jer. 6:14; 8:11, ESV). I take this to refer to leaders who should be helping the church know and feel the seriousness of indwelling sin (Rom. 7:20), and how to fight it and kill it (Rom. 8:13). Instead the depth and complexity and ugliness and danger of sin in professing Christians is either minimized—since we are already justified—or psychologized as a symptom of woundedness rather than corruption.

This is a tragically light healing. I call it a tragedy because by making life easier for ourselves in minimizing the nature and seriousness of our sin, we become greater victims of it. We are in fact not healing ourselves. Those who say that they already feel bad enough without being told about the corruptions of indwelling sin misread the path to peace. When our people have not been taught well about the real nature of sin and how it works and how to put it to death, most of the miseries people report are not owing to the disease but its symptoms. They feel a general malaise and don’t know why, their marriages are at the breaking point, they feel weak in their spiritual witness and devotion, their workplace is embattled, their church is tense with unrest, their fuse is short with the children, etc. They report these miseries as if they were the disease. And they want the symptoms removed.

We proceed to heal the wound of the people lightly. We look first and mainly for circumstantial causes for the misery—present or past. If we’re good at it, we can find partial causes and give some relief. But the healing is light. We have not done the kind of soul surgery that is possible only when the soul doctor knows the kind of things Owen talks about in these books, and when the patient is willing to let the doctor’s scalpel go deep.

What Owen offers is not quick relief, but long-term, deep growth in grace that can make strong, healthy trees where there was once a fragile sapling. I pray that thousands—especially teachers and pastors and other leaders—will choose the harder, long-term path of growth, not the easier, short-term path of circumstantial relief.

The two dead pastor-theologians of the English-speaking world who have nourished and taught me most are Jonathan Edwards and John Owen. Some will say Edwards is unsurpassed. Some say Owen was the greater. We don’t need to decide. We have the privilege of knowing them both as our friends and teachers. What an amazing gift of God’s providence that these brothers were raised up and that hundreds of years after they have died we may sit at their feet. We cannot properly estimate the blessing of soaking our minds in the Bible-saturated thinking of the likes of John Owen. What he was able to see in the Bible and preserve for us in writing is simply magnificent. It is so sad—a travesty, I want to say—how many Christian leaders of our day do not strive to penetrate the wisdom of John Owen, but instead read books and magazines that are superficial in their grasp of the Bible.

We act as though there was nothing extraordinary about John Owen’s vision of biblical truth—that he was not a rare gift to the church. But he was rare. There are very few people like this whom God raises up in the history of the church. Why does God do this? Why does he give an Owen or an Edwards to the church and then ordain that what they saw of God should be preserved in books? Is it not because he loves us? Is it not because he would share Owen’s vision with his church? Great trees that are covered with the richest life-giving fruit are not for museums. God preserves them and their fruit for the health of his church.

I know that all Christians cannot read all such giants. Even one mountain is too high to climb for most of us. But we can pick one or two, and then ask God to teach us what he taught them. The really great writers are not valuable for their cleverness but for their straightforward and astonishing insight into what the Bible really says about great realities. This is what we need.

The Bible is God’s word. Therefore, it is profound. How could it not be? God inspired it. He understands himself and the human heart infinitely. He is not playing games with us. He really means to communicate the profoundest things about sin and hell and heaven and Christ and faith and salvation and holiness and death. Paul does not sing out in vain, “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” (Rom. 11:33, ESV). No. He summons us to stop settling for pop culture and to learn what the Bible really has to say about the imponderable depths of sin and grace.

Owen is especially worthy of our attention because he is shocking in his insights. That is my impression again and again. He shocks me out of my platitudinous ways of thinking about God and man. Here are a few random recollections from what you are (I hope) about to read. You will find others on your own.

“There is no death of sin without the death of Christ” (Of the Mortification of Sin in Believers, chapter 7). Owen loves the cross and knows what happened there better than anyone I have read. The battle with sin that you are about to read about is no superficial technique of behavior modification. It is a profound dealing with what was accomplished on the cross in relation to the supernatural working of the Holy Spirit through the deep and wonderful mysteries of faith.

“To kill sin is the work of living men; where men are dead (as all unbelievers, the best of them, are dead), sin is alive, and will live” (chapter 7). Oh, the pastoral insights that emerge from Owen! As here: If you are fighting sin, you are alive. Take heart. But if sin holds sway unopposed, you are dead no matter how lively this sin makes you feel. Take heart, embattled saint!

“God says, ‘Here is one, if he could be rid of this lust I should never hear of him more; let him wrestle with this, or he is lost’” (chapter 8). Astonishing! God ordains to leave a lust with me till I become the sort of warrior who will still seek his aid when this victory is won. God knows when we can bear the triumphs of his grace.

“Is there the guilt of any great sin lying upon you unrepented of? A new sin may be permitted, as well as a new affliction sent, to bring an old sin to remembrance” (chapter 9). What? God ordains that we be tested by another sin so that an old one might be better known and fought? Sin is one of God’s weapons against sin?

“The difference between believers and unbelievers as to knowledge is not so much in the matter of their knowledge as in the manner of knowing. Unbelievers, some of them, may know more and be able to say more of God, his perfections, and his will, than many believers; but they know nothing as they ought, nothing in a right manner, nothing spiritually and savingly, nothing with a holy, heavenly light. The excellency of a believer is, not that he has a large apprehension of things, but that what he does apprehend, which perhaps may be very little, he sees it in the light of the Spirit of God, in a saving, soul-transforming light; and this is that which gives us communion with God, and not prying thoughts or curious-raised notions” (chapter 12). How then will we labor to help people know much and know it “in a right manner”? What is that?

“[Christ] is the head from whence the new man must have influences of life and strength, or it will decay every day” (chapter 14). Oh, that our people would feel the urgency of daily supplies of grace because “grace decays.” Do they know this? Is it a category in their mind—that grace decays? How many try to live their lives on automatic pilot with no sense of urgency that means of grace are given so that the riches of Christ may daily be obtained with fresh supplies of grace.

The list could go on and on. For me, to read Owen is to wake up to ways of seeing that are so clearly biblical that I wonder how I could have been so blind. May that be your joyful experience as well.

Copyright © 2014 by the author listed above. Used by permission.

C.S. Lewis’s Argument Against the Strange Idea that You Should Read Only Modern Books

From C. S. Lewis’s introduction to a new translation of Athanasisus’ On the Incarnation (originally written in the fourth century):

There is a strange idea abroad that in every subject the ancient books should be read only by the professionals, and that the amateur should content himself with the modern books. Thus I have found as a tutor in English Literature that if the average student wants to find out something about Platonism, the very last thing he thinks of doing is to take a translation of Plato off the library shelf and read the Symposium. He would rather read some dreary modern book ten times as long, all about “isms” and influences and only once in twelve pages telling him what Plato actually said. The error is rather an amiable one, for it springs from humility. The student is half afraid to meet one of the great philosophers face to face. He feels himself inadequate and thinks he will not understand him. But if he only knew, the great man, just because of his greatness, is much more intelligible than his modern commentator. The simplest student will be able to understand, if not all, yet a very great deal of what Plato said; but hardly anyone can understand some modern books on Platonism. It has always therefore been one of my main endeavours as a teacher to persuade the young that firsthand knowledge is not only more worth acquiring than secondhand knowledge, but is usually much easier and more delightful to acquire.

This mistaken preference for the modern books and this shyness of the old ones is nowhere more rampant than in theology. . . .

Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old. And I would give him this advice precisely because he is an amateur and therefore much less protected than the expert against the dangers of an exclusive contemporary diet. A new book is still on its trial and the amateur is not in a position to judge it. It has to be tested against the great body of Christian thought down the ages, and all its hidden implications (often unsuspected by the author himself) have to be brought to light. Often it cannot be fully understood without the knowledge of a good many other modern books. If you join at eleven o’clock a conversation which began at eight you will often not see the real bearing of what is said. Remarks which seem to you very ordinary will produce laughter or irritation and you will not see why—the reason, of course, being that the earlier stages of the conversation have given them a special point. In the same way sentences in a modern book which look quite ordinary may be directed at some other book; in this way you may be led to accept what you would have indignantly rejected if you knew its real significance. The only safety is to have a standard of plain, central Christianity (“mere Christianity” as Baxter called it) which puts the controversies of the moment in their proper perspective. Such a standard can be acquired only from the old books. It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones.

Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books. All contemporary writers share to some extent the contemporary outlook—even those, like myself, who seem most opposed to it. Nothing strikes me more when I read the controversies of past ages than the fact that both sides were usually assuming without question a good deal which we should now absolutely deny. They thought that they were as completely opposed as two sides could be, but in fact they were all the time secretly united—united with each other and against earlier and later ages—by a great mass of common assumptions. We may be sure that the characteristic blindness of the twentieth century—the blindness about which posterity will ask, “But how could they have thought that?”—lies where we have never suspected it, and concerns something about which there is untroubled agreement between Hitler and President Roosevelt or between Mr. H. G. Wells and Karl Barth. None of us can fully escape this blindness, but we shall certainly increase it, and weaken our guard against it, if we read only modern books. Where they are true they will give us truths which we half knew already. Where they are false they will aggravate the error with which we are already dangerously ill. The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books. Not, of course, that there is any magic about the past. People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes. They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing; and their own errors, being now open and palpable, will not endanger us. Two heads are better than one, not because either is infallible, but because they are unlikely to go wrong in the same direction. To be sure, the books of the future would be just as good a corrective as the books of the past, but unfortunately we cannot get at them.

Should We as Christians Celebrate the Jewish Feasts of the Old Testament?

Without question the most vexing challenge faced by the early church was understanding how believing Jews and believing Gentiles ought to relate to one another. The theme gets major play in Galatians, Hebrews, Acts, and is even the root of the issue that led to Paul’s stern and public rebuke of Peter. That so much time and attention was paid to this issue might incline us to believe it was settled. Or it just may prove how deep runs the temptation to botch this up.

Let’s start here—we have peace with God by trusting in the finished work of Christ alone. Add anything to that and you have fallen into a false gospel. You do not have peace with God by trusting in Christ and by being circumcised, or by trusting in Christ and keeping the Feast of Weeks. Add anything to the work of Christ, and you lose the work of Christ.

God gave the feasts to point our spiritual fathers toward Christ. They were shadows and He the real thing. The author of Hebrews warns his audience, professing believers who were tempted to go back to the Temple and the Old Covenant shadows, that to go back is to deny that Christ has come.

If we grasp that these were types, shadows that pointed to Christ, we will reach two conclusions. First, they were not bad things. Too often some treat the Old Covenant like it was flawed, something to be thrown aside. But God Himself ordained these feasts, for the good of His people. Second, however, Christ is greater than the shadows. We do not keep the feasts by keeping the feast. Instead we keep the feasts by clinging to Christ. He is our feast.

So should we celebrate these feasts? Not if by “should” we mean we have an obligation to do so. May we? Well, that certainly depends on where our hearts are. The Bible prescribes liberty, Paul telling us:

One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks (Romans 14:5-6).

I have no quarrel with a person celebrating these feasts. Instead I have a caution. My concern about some who celebrate these feasts is that while they profess their dependence on the finished work of Christ alone, some seem to believe that feast keeping somehow elevates their Christian walk. All of our sub-culture convictions within the church carry this danger. Whether it be speaking in tongues, observing feasts, modesty, or reciting the prayer of Jabez we are inveterate second blessing seekers. We want to be superior Christians who have glommed on to the secret way. Then we go out with all the zeal of an Amway salesman trying to get our friends all on board.

Paul, however, is far more easy-going. He described his Hebrew roots as dung (Philippians 3:1-8). What matters is that we know Him, and the power of His resurrection.

Should You Live in Abu Dhabi?

Abu Dhabi is the capital of the United Arab Emirates in the Arabian Peninsula. It is virtually an island because of the way the inland waterways from the Persian Gulf weave around it. The population is just under a million. It’s a 90 minute drive southwest from Dubai.

As with the other major cities in the UAE, about 80% of the population of Abu Dhabi is expatriate. This includes the lowest paid laborers who live in camps outside the city, and the highest paid executives and managers who may live in luxury. It strikes me as a fragile arrangement for the Emiratis. If, for some reason, the foreign labor force and industrial leadership left the country, the economy would be crippled.

This contributes to a relatively cordial relationship between the Sunni Muslim government and the expatriates, including the large Christian presence. Land has been given to the Christians for a cluster of Christian church buildings. In the Evangelical Community Church of Abu Dhabi where I spoke, there are 67 nationalities. This was probably the most ethnically diverse group I have ever spoken to. In addition to ECC, 61 other churches meet in this building — every day of the week.

Another evidence of the cordial connection between Muslim leaders and the Christian church is that Christians were allowed to rent the National Theater for an event so long as the advertising included “Christians from all denominations are invited.” The advertised topic was: “Why Does Jesus Want Us to Worship Him?” I spoke freely about Jesus as the Son of God, explaining what that does and does not mean, and about his substitutionary death and resurrection and about the necessity of faith in him for salvation among all the peoples of the world. Muslims were not excluded. The authorities were present to make sure we crossed no proselytizing lines.

It is against the law to proselytize in the UAE. But this does not mean the Christian faith cannot be explained and heralded as the truth. It means you do it in the places and the ways that are tolerated. If that sounds ambiguous, it is. And probably intentionally. This is a benevolent Muslim dictatorship. They retain the right to deport whom they regard as a problem. From what I have seen this ambiguity about what proselytizing is results in a good deal of freedom and boldness among Christians to respond to Muslims at work and in the neighborhood with clear gospel explanations, when they want to discuss religion.

I have been told by more than one person here that they have spoken more about their Christian faith with interested Emiratis than they did for 20 years in the States. One reason is that unlike America, virtually everyone here is religious. It is natural to talk about religion. Those kinds of conversations are not regarded as awkward.

One implication of this situation is that the UAE is an astonishingly strategic place for Christians to be. Not only are there 23 unengaged peoples indigenous to the country, but hundreds of ever-changing peoples visit and work here. One church leader told me that 60% of the expatriates who are in the churches came to Christ here. They came to the UAE looking for money, and what they found was Jesus.

The global significance of filling this region with gospel-focused, God-centered, Christ-exalting, Bible-saturated churches seems immeasurable. I spoke to expatriates in high positions who said there is always need for skilled professionals in education and industry. If you have five years of successful experience in your vocation and a passion to be part of spreading a passion for the supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples through Jesus Christ, consider sending your CV to a company in the UAE.

Interestingly, the pervasive surveillance here is not because Christians are here. The Emiratis have a high trust level for the Christians. They are hard-working, competent contributors to the economy. What is feared is radical Islam. The destabilization of the country through groups like the Muslim Brotherhood is the main threat. The Emiratis enjoy their partnerships with the West, and this would be undone by a move toward isolation and Sharia law.

One of the reasons the UAE has escaped the violence of the Arab Spring is that the enormous oil wealth here is shared liberally with the Emirati citizens. The UAE can produce three million barrels of oil a day, each worth $100. They say the reserves are good for a hundred years. A typical policeman, I am told, makes the equivalent of $20,000 a month (month is not a misprint). This kind of prosperity among the indigenous people has been a successful deterrent to revolution.

Ironically, the most common topic I have been confronted with is the prosperity gospel. Not from the Emiratis, but from church members who have come from lands where it is pervasive — which includes most countries in the developing world. I made a point to touch on this in most of the messages I brought. Romans 8:17 was the focus several times: “If we are children of God, then heirs — heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.” Virtually all of Romans 8:17–39 is meant to prepare the children of God to suffer with a spirit of triumph.

One Indian man told me that he had not heard the kind of things I was saying about the necessity of suffering and how God ordains to use it for our good. In his church back home they had only been taught the promise of prosperity in this life.

Surely this means that we must give ourselves all the more to simply telling the whole truth everywhere. People are kept in the dark even as believers when their leaders give them distorted fragments of the Bible. I have found people around the world eager to listen and learn about the biblical teachings on suffering and how God’s sovereign goodness provides a massive foundation for joyful living in this painful world.

The sum of the matter is: For many reasons you may be of great use in the UAE. Pray about it.

Barton and Copeland: The Bible Says Soldiers Should Not Suffer from PTSD

The Story: On a Veterans Day broadcast program, televangelist Kenneth Copeland and controversial historian David Barton told listeners that soldiers should never experience guilt or post-traumatic stress disorder after returning from war.

The Background: As Religion New Service reports, Copeland read from Numbers 32:20-22, saying, "So this is a promise — if you do this thing, if you arm yourselves before the Lord for the war ... you shall return, you're coming back, and be guiltless before the Lord and before the nation."

"Any of you suffering from PTSD right now, you listen to me," Copeland said as Barton affirmed him. "You get rid of that right now. You don't take drugs to get rid of it. It doesn't take psychology. That promise right there will get rid of it."

Barton added that many biblical warriors "took so many people out in battle," but did so in the name of God.

"You're on an elevated platform up here. You're a hero, you're put in the faith hall of fame," Barton said. "... When you do it God's way, not only are you guiltless for having done that, you're esteemed."

You can watch the full video here.

Why It Matters:  "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes." Proverbs gives us two approaches and expects us to use wisdom in knowing when they should be applied.

How then should we answer the fools Copeland and Barton? While it is tempting to ignore them completely, I believe that would be a mistake. Had they merely proffered another laughably inept reading of the Bible, it would have hardly been worthy of notice. Throughout his career, Copeland has been accused of various heresies, most of which he created through his inept handling of Scripture. And though Barton is still, inexplicably, trusted by many conservative evangelicals, he has himself built his reputation on twisting and misrepresenting historical documents for ideological and propagandist purposes. They are, in other words, among the last people who could be relied on to intelligently interpret a text.

Yet many people will erroneously believe that Copeland and Barton speak as experts on the Bible and that their interpretation is the natural result of a literal or inerrant view of Scripture.

To those who are unclear on that point, let me express what I believe is the shared opinion of Biblical scholars, intelligent laymen, and just about anyone else who has ever bothered to read the Bible: Copeland and Barton's application of Numbers 32:21-22 to modern veterans suffering from PTSD is one of the most profoundly stupid interpretations ever uttered.

When those verses are read in the context of the chapter, and in the context of book of Numbers, and in the context of the Old Testament, and in the context of the entire Bible, it becomes almost impossible to imagine how anyone with an elementary school level of reading comprehension could have come up with such an interpretation.

Yet this type of misreading is sadly common. In his book Scripture Twisting: 20 Ways the Cults Misread the Bible, James W. Sire lists 20 popular ways people twist Scripture to mean something orthodox Christians have never believed it to mean in two thousand years. Barton and Copeland appear to be using what Sire would call a "Biblical Hook":

BIBLICAL HOOK: A text of Scripture is quoted primarily as a device to grasp the attention of readers or listeners and then followed by a teaching which is so nonbiblical that it would appear far more dubious to most people had it not been preceded by a reference to Scripture. Example: Mormon missionaries quote James 1:5 which promises God's wisdom to those who ask him and, then, follow this by explaining that when Joseph Smith did this he was given a revelation from which he concluded that God the Father has a body.

Their mishandling of Scripture is inexcusable, but what makes it unconscionable is they use God's Word to shame and berate veterans with PTSD. Barton and Copeland imply that PTSD is due to guilt over actions carried out in wartime that leads to self-condemnation. This is a profoundly ignorant view of both the causes of combat-induced PTSD and the motivations behind medical and psychological based treatment.

PTSD is psychological trauma that can change how the brain and mental processes function. While in combat, veterans are exposed to the stresses of hyper-violence while living in a near constant state of hyper-vigilance. As psychiatrist Jonathan Shay explains in Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character:

A human enemy strikes not only at the body but also at the most basic functions of the human mind. The Vietnamese enemy defeated the soldier's perception by concealment and his ability to understand what he saw by camouflage. The basic mental state of intention and will was attacked by ambush, deception, surprise, and anticipation . . . . The cumulative effect of prolonged attacks on mental function is to undermine the soldier's trust in his own perceptions.

On returning from combat, the veteran is no longer exposed to violence, yet the reflex for hyper-vigilance -- whether conscious or subconscious -- may remain intact and beyond the person's control. "Exposed to continuous threats of warfare," says Shay, "the body remains mobilized for battle indefinitely." Veterans suffering from PTSD can lose some of the authority over mental processes, such as perception and memory, which civilians take for granted.

Throughout most modern wars, from World War I to Vietnam, both the military and civilian worlds denied or downplayed the existence of this form of psychological trauma. It wasn't until the post-Vietnam era that the medical community began to recognize that experiences of PTSD sufferers were not only real, but also that the causes were likely rooted in genes and brain chemistry, rather than a defect in the veteran's character.

For Copeland and Barton to resurrect this "blame the victim" trope and coat it with the veneer of Biblical warrant is Satanic. Christians need to counter this demonic, gospel-destroying message by letting the men and women who are suffering from combat related PTSD know what the Bible really says about hope, healing, and deliverance through Christ Jesus.

When the Sex Should Stop

Sometimes sex should stop in marriage.

The sometimes is really important. Not all the time. It’s not what is normative or typical. It’s sometimes. And, at the same time, be sure that sometimes really means sometimes. Real times. These are actual moments, or seasons, that never present themselves as the anomaly they should prove to be in the long run. We’re talking about a tangible pause from sex, however brief and limited the stopping may be.

The biblical text on this topic is 1 Corinthians 7:1–5, and though the meaning is pretty straightforward, the way this text plays itself out in the life of the church can run askew in two different directions. One error is to use this passage to support a pattern of self-fulfilling sexual demands; the other is to use this passage to fuel a culture of fear in the marriage relationship — and both combine to produce damaging implications.

Let’s expose these misuses and then chart a course for the gospel-empowered sometimes of sexual abstinence in marriage.

First, here’s verses 3–5 of 1 Corinthians 7:

The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

As mentioned above, this is pretty straightforward. Sex between a husband and a wife should be common. That doesn’t necessarily mean every single day, but it should be prevalent. Often, not seldom. Sex is integral to the marriage relationship. It is due, Paul explains in verse 3, a right, happily owed by one another to one another. Verse 4 tells us the husband’s body is under the authority of his wife, and the wife’s under her husband, and, as verse 5 says, the two should not deprive one another.

There is an exception to this command, but one that is heavily qualified. A husband and wife should abstain from sex when 1) they both agree to abstain; 2) it is for a limited time; and 3) it is for the purpose of prayer and the eventual resuming of intercourse. This exception should be rare — so rare, as one commentator observes, that in verse 6 Paul takes another step to highlight its infrequency by calling it a concession, not a command (Anthony Thiselton, NIGTC, The Epistle to the First Corinthians).

So if this is the case, why should we even talk about sexual abstinence in marriage? If Paul is so clear on how rare it should be, why bother discussing it?

Most of us don’t. When we look at these verses isolated from the meaning of sex and a theology of the body, the apostle seems to be saying to Christian couples: “More sex! More sex! More sex!” But this is not the only thing he says. The sexual abstinence part comes into play, not so much by Paul’s exception in verse 5, but by what he means in verse 4, when he explains who has authority over our bodies in marriage. We’ll see this more vividly when contrasted with the main misuses of the text, but first the two misuses.

A truncated explanation of 1 Corinthians 7:5 inevitability leads to this rationale. But whether it’s the husband or the wife pleading this case, it turns into trouble as soon as the other spouse isn’t on board.

If the husband quotes this verse, trying to convince his wife into sex when she doesn’t want to, he is opposing the very theology that’s foundational to it. He is making a self-fulfilling demand — something Paul has eliminated in 1 Corinthians 7:4. How? Because the husband’s body is under the authority of his wife.

The husband, whose body belongs to Christ (1 Corinthians 6:16, 19–20), and is under the authority of his wife, does not have the authority over his body to make demands out of mere self-interest. He relinquished that right in marriage. The wife has authority over his body now, and he has authority over her body — which means that his sexual desires should be consistent with what is in the best interest of her body, not his.

The Christian husband doesn’t make demands that his wife’s sexual desire be adapted to match his own. One application of this text might be more sex for some couples, but the text is betrayed when it becomes the basis for berating our spouse for sex. Denny Burk captures it concisely, “This text is not about coercing one’s spouse to do what he or she does not want to do” (What Is the Meaning of Sex? 114).

The first misuse happens behind closed doors, but this one is often public advice, whether in conversation or from the platform. “Or-else sex” is out there online and in women’s Bible studies near you, and the results are extremely sad. While it circulates among women, perhaps primarily from an aging generation, men are probably at fault.

And though it’s poor logic, we can see how the error occurs. Paul twice mentions the temptation to sexual immorality as one motive, among others, to keep the marriage bed active (1 Corinthians 7:2, 5). But the issue is complex. Sexual satisfaction may dissuade a man or his wife from falling into sexual temptation, but Paul doesn’t mean that it’s sin-proof, especially when the meaning of sex is misunderstood.

Pleasure is a part of the meaning of sex, along with the purposes of affirming the marriage covenant, procreation, love, and more. Let’s be thrilled that pleasure is part of the picture, but always remember that sex is about more than pleasure. By misunderstanding this one purpose and letting it eclipse the others, pleasure can easily morph into sexual greed. The good-intentioned wife who never says “no” may be feeding in her husband an idolatry that will not be content to stay at home. The husband who threatens an extramarital affair if the sex dries up is not acting like a Christian.

It is tragic that there are women in Bible-believing churches who have sex with their husbands out of fear. Ultimatum intimacy. Blackmail love. If I don’t please my husband sexually, he will have an affair. This is a culture of fear, not faithfulness. Could there be anything more distant from what a Christian marriage should be? This relationship should be the model of unwavering love, and instead the wife is pressured with the need to manipulate her husband’s devotion.

I ache for the women in our churches about this misuse, for this terrible burden, for the thought that you must secure your husband’s commitment by giving him sex. This is not the path of marital intimacy, and it emphatically is not the Christian vision.

Both of these misuses undermine the wonder of sex. The first makes it all about the individual, the other makes it a pawn. But at the heart, the one-flesh relationship between a husband and a wife, says Dennis Hollinger, “points beyond the physical to the spiritual, emotional, and social oneness of the marriage covenant” (The Meaning of Sex, 101). Truly, sex is magical. It is an up-close drama that uniquely taps into the depths of marriage’s mystery — the mystery once hidden, and now out in the open, picturing Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:32). The meaning of sex, and this passage in 1 Corinthians 7, is about a husband and wife serving one another — and that’s the only way we can understand the gospel-empowered sometimes of sexual abstinence.

The Christian husband wants to serve his wife; the Christian wife wants to serve her husband. Both want to outdo one another in showing honor (Romans 12:10). Both count the other more significant than themselves (Philippians 2:3). And when this dance is at its best, it will, at times, give rise to, and graciously overcome, what John Piper calls “the stalemate.” He writes, “[The wife] wants to please [her husband], and so is prone to give what he desires. He wants to please her, and so is prone not to demand what she finds unpleasant to give. And vice versa” (Sexual Intimacy). Burk explains, “It is not about insisting on one’s autonomy and authority but about being a servant to one’s spouse” (115).

The mutuality of sex seen in 1 Corinthians 7:1–5 is clear. The husband’s authority over his wife’s body is no greater than her authority over his. It is a terrible mistake to apply the pattern of gender roles to this issue of sex in such a way that the husband, by virtue of his headship, requires the wife to submit to him sexually. This is absolutely not the case. In fact, the influence of the husband’s role is precisely what makes him defer to abstinence. Husbands are to love their wives as “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:25). Husbands, then, are to lay down their lives, not make sexual demands according to selfish pleasure. Piper writes, “The predominant resolution of the sexual paradox is that the husband gently and tenderly takes the lead in seeking to maximize his wife’s pleasure, taking her longings deeply into account, rather than pressuring her to adapt to his.”

It really is about being a servant — which is why sometimes the sex should stop.

Speaking specifically to men, sometimes the best way you can serve your wife sexually is by not seeking it. Sometimes the abstinence route is the masculine thing to do. In these cases, choosing to abstain from sexual intimacy for the good of your wife is the “glad assumption of sacrificial responsibility” — which is an apt description of true manhood.

There seems to be a disconnect on this point in our day. There has been a simultaneous rise in Christian literature of both books on manhood and books on sex, but very little has been said about how to be a godly man in the bedroom. The typical advice seems to play right into our sex-crazed world, as if Christians are going to impress the world by proving that we have sex, too. It doesn’t matter what mainstream media outlet picks up the story, or what the polls suggest, any notion that Christians having good sex is a greater witness to the world than a laying-down-your-life type of love just reveals how deeply misguided we are. The message that turned the world upside was not that Christians enjoy monogamous sexual pleasure, but that Jesus loved us to the uttermost by giving up his life for our good. And that’s the love Christian husbands are called to emulate, especially in bed (with its glorious monogamous sexual pleasure).

The church doesn’t need Christian gigolos, but men who willingly lay down their lives, and when called for, their sexual desires, for their wives.

This is for real-life. This call to serve — and sometimes abstain — goes for both spouses. The effects are felt the moment a husband or wife walks into the bedroom and finds their spouse, whose body is under their authority, not feeling up to par. Maybe this is a surprise, perhaps an unforeseen end to an earlier expectation. Or maybe it’s the 100th night in a row of a debilitating illness.

Maybe it’s the wife who had a long day with the kids, or maybe she is in the middle of a nine-month pregnancy, or in the six-week span of recovering from pregnancy, or maybe the husband is battling a serious illness, or is encumbered by an unusual amount of stress at work — it could be a hundred things. And whatever it could be, when Christian spouses encounter this scenario, they consider first what is in the best interest of the other’s body.

Speaking again to men, when this is our wife’s circumstance, whether by doctor’s order or by that vibe we can intuit, it is our privilege to lead in laying aside our sexual desires for her good. Maybe just for a few nights, or maybe many months, depending on the situation, the sex should stop and we should pray. We should lead our wives in prayer that our marriage reflect the glory of Christ and his gospel, that God transpose the unfulfilled passion for sex into an enjoyment of his sufficiency, and that, as much as possible, the circumstance that made the sex stop stay a sometimes.

Because it’s sometimes that sex should stop in marriage.

Church should be high on fun, relevance and low on doctrine; then there’s Hebrews 5

Many churches consider expository preaching (preaching systematically through whole books of the bible) and/or doctrinal preaching to be too boring, too irrelevant, too divisive, too unappealing for modern men.  Believers and unbelievers alike, they reason, just don’t have the interest or patience for it.  Better to let preachers pick topics themselves so the bible (if it is used much) can be picked through, pulling out only  a verse here and there that folks today might find helpful in their worldly pursuits, interesting, entertaining, and so forth.  But sermons that spend careful time wrestling with biblical doctrine and theology, no matter how theo-centric they may be, just do not work anymore.  Too much bible, too much doctrine, makes Jack tune out after all.  Right?

The author of Hebrews knew just such a sentiment well.  He spends the first four chapters presenting us with the bible’s most developed and highest degree of Christology.  Drawing from revelation from OT prophets and new revelation from Christ and His apostles, we are told of Christ’s supremacy, deity, sufficiency.  We are told of his activity, his revelation, his mission.  We are told of his rule, his servant-hood, his intercession.  We are told of his place in history, his relationship to Moses, Melchizedek, the angels, men, the Father, the High Priest.

But suddenly the author takes a break from this theological steak dinner to comment on human nature.  He knows that this kind of study, this kind of theological analysis, this mysterious revelation from God, is likely to fascinate very few worldly believers, walking more by the flesh than by the Spirit.  He says of all this Christology (chapter 5),

11 About this we have much [more] to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. 12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, 13 for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. 14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.

So what does the author lament?  It pains him, as it does a tender-hearted pastor, that his flock will not be able or willing to handle serious theological truth, and they must receive, indeed they prefer, milk to solid food.  They prefer to remain easily satisfied and entertained babes than fully mature adults.  I wonder what the author Hebrews would say to churches that, with good intentions no doubt, seek to organize church around the spiritually simple-minded?  A church that is prone to preaching lofty spiritually-minded sermons is seen by many to be a great turnoff.  People in a modern materialistic world can’t be spiritual-minded, but are given to material concerns almost exclusively, so church must follow suit if it wants to win friends and influence people.  Church, sermons, lessons, had better be this-worldly, of practical use, not boring by any means.  High lofty mysterious other-worldly truths just can’t be part of modern man’s diet.  But it seems rather clear, does it not, that the author of Hebrews would never celebrate a church that organizes itself this way, around the wants of immature carnal minded Christians, let alone the unchurched.

Now we might just say, well things change.  Different cultures you know.  But the author of Hebrews was writing about something far more ominous than fluff sermon topics.  He was writing about how to avoid apostasy.

How Then Should We Love?

Here’s an excerpt from How Then Should We Love?, Kelly Kapic’s contribution to the October issue of Tabletalk:

Has it ever struck you how strange it sounds to be commanded to love? Say you are a devoted Pittsburgh Steelers fan and someone told you to love the Dallas Cowboys. This would not sound like a joyful invitation, but rather a cruel joke. How can I love what I do not even like?

Scripture does not merely invite us to love God and neighbor; we are commanded to do so. And this is where it gets a bit tricky. How can we be commanded to love? Sometimes in reaction to our culture, which often confuses love with sappy sentimentality, Christians are tempted to let the pendulum swing too far in the other direction. We say things such as “love is not a feeling—it is a commitment.” While I am sympathetic with the concerns of well-meaning Christians, I have to admit that concept of love is depressing if it exhausts one’s definition of love. Commitment is vital, certainly, but is that really all we mean by love? I am happy if my wife is committed to me, but I sure hope she feels something good, too. Marriages based on contractual obligation alone and not nourished by the waters of affection, tenderness, and grace lead us to the cool of winter, not the warmth of spring.

Continue reading How Then Should We Love?, or begin receiving Tabletalk magazine by signing up for a free 3 month trial.

View the original article here

Should Christians Refuse to Pay Taxes When They Are Used to Finance Abortions?

It is one of my great passions, the desire to see me, and the evangelical church take the evil of abortion more seriously, to have our hearts more deeply broken, and our actions more faithful. We have all, I fear, come to accept the status quo. We are content to vote for Republicans hoping they will give us justices that will slow down the horror. What we are generally unwilling to do is go through any kind of hardship to stop abortion. When I am asked about this, should we stop paying taxes, I am at least heartened to know that there are some willing to pay dearly to win this battle. Not paying taxes rarely ends up comfortably for those who won’t pay.

That said I can say with confidence that Christians should in fact pay whatever taxes they owe even when that money ends up financing abortions. The Christian who pays such taxes has no need to feel guilty, while the Christian that refuses to pay, however well intentioned, ought to feel guilty.

Theologians have long understood the principle that must be applied here- we are responsible for our own actions, not the actions of others. In this instance, the Bible is quite clear about our obligation to pay our taxes (Mark 12:17). It is also clear that the proper function of the state is not to finance evil, but to punish it (Romans 13). Their failure to do what God calls them to do, however, does not mean I am free to not do what I am commanded to do. That they have so horribly misused the taxes that I have paid doesn’t mean I am guilty of what they have done. I have been taxed, and when those taxes are paid, they are no longer mine. What the state does with them may be something I should speak against. It may be something I should condemn. But I am not guilty.

Remember that the same Caesar to whom Jesus commanded taxes be paid used those taxes for what may be the only thing worse than abortion. Those tax moneys financed the judgment of Pilate. They paid the salaries of the Roman soldiers. They purchased the nails that held our Lord on the cross. Those taxes crucified the Lord of Glory.

More close to home, suppose the more a husband loves his wife the less she respects him, or the more the wife respects her husband the less he loves her. In either instance we are not to try to guess the result of our behavior. We are supposed to do what God commands. We are not responsible for the results of what we do. We are responsible to obey whatsoever God commands. We are called not to success, but to obedience.

The state should repent for all misuses of taxes paid. Christians should prophesy against the state when they do evil, including financing evil. We should all be on our knees imploring God to stop the horror. But we should pay our taxes. March on Washington. Preach outside your local mill. Write your congressman. Support your local crisis pregnancy center. And, as painful as it may be, trusting in His providence, render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars, our taxes, and unto God the things that are God’s- obedience.

What Every Husband Should Know About Stay-at-Home Moms

A leadership guru aired his podcast online on how to increase productivity in your work.

He said that one of the keys to productivity is to know when to stop working. He said that if you’re working more than 55 hours per week then you’re probably losing effectiveness. After this point of working past maximum effectiveness, your work will start to unravel. The demands of a long workweek can even devolve into chaos!

Being a stay-at-home mom (SAHM) is far more than a long workweek. It’s life; we can’t just clock out after 55 hours of work.

Every husband should know that stay-at-home moms wage epic battles against chaos.

Epic battles against chaos can come in the form of sibling squabbles, maintenance emergencies, drama at school, competing budget items, scheduling hiccups, relational tension, and more. But these things are easily dealt with.

SAHMs are resourceful, creative problem-solvers. We have the capacity to dominate over even the most harrowing multitasking nightmare. When a SAHM's hope is in the God who raises the dead then she smiles at the future. She knows her Redeemer lives and she is working joyfully for his glory even in the midst of outer chaos.

But there is another other kind of chaos — inner chaos. No SAHM should dare to deal with inner chaos on her own.

She needs to be surrounded by other godly women whose hope is in the Lord. And she needs your help, too!

The harrowing, inner chaos in the soul of a SAHM can drive a woman to do things she never wanted to do. A woman driven by inner chaos will do things like give her children the silent treatment, manipulate her friends, get an ulcer over the budget, or belittle her husband’s hard work.

The manageable outer chaos is aggravated by the inner chaos in our soul. Outer chaos all of a sudden becomes unmanageable. Competent, confident homemakers lose their nerves of steel. Even though it’s “just” a hiccup in the schedule, or a setback with a child’s discipline, or a burned piece of garlic bread, it becomes so much bigger in our hearts.

Then the elusive “peace like a river” is more like a category five hurricane of anxiety, bitterness, discouragement, or discontent.

Husbands, when you can, please step into the outer chaos and help your wife put out a few fires. Then, when the smoke has cleared (or even as it is still lingering), let the Spirit lead you to step into her inner chaos as well.

Husbands, encourage your wife!

Ask your wife good questions to gain understanding. Identify with her; empathize.

With Spirit-led timing, speak the truth in love. Remind her that there is an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for her. Point out how in Christ God is reconciling the world to himself. In Christ he will not count her sins against her. If God doesn’t count her sins against her she can begin boasting in her weaknesses for Christ’s sake.

The most durable hope you can give your wife is glorying in the one Mediator between God and man. Your wife needs your help to remember the future grace that is guaranteed her by the precious blood of Jesus.

Glory in the love that covers a multitude of sins and redeems all of our inner chaos.

Marveling together at how Jesus died to make you holy will lift her soul higher than your praise for the meal she made (but don’t forget to compliment the garlic bread).

Gospel, garlic bread, then more gospel.

 

What Every Husband Should Know About Stay-at-Home Moms

A leadership guru aired his podcast online on how to increase productivity in your work.

He said that one of the keys to productivity is to know when to stop working. He said that if you’re working more than 55 hours per week then you’re probably losing effectiveness. After this point of working past maximum effectiveness, your work will start to unravel. The demands of a long workweek can even devolve into chaos!

Being a stay-at-home mom (SAHM) is far more than a long workweek. It’s life; we can’t just clock out after 55 hours of work.

Every husband should know that stay-at-home moms wage epic battles against chaos.

Epic battles against chaos can come in the form of sibling squabbles, maintenance emergencies, drama at school, competing budget items, scheduling hiccups, relational tension, and more. But these things are easily dealt with.

SAHMs are resourceful, creative problem-solvers. We have the capacity to dominate over even the most harrowing multitasking nightmare. When a SAHM's hope is in the God who raises the dead then she smiles at the future. She knows her Redeemer lives and she is working joyfully for his glory even in the midst of outer chaos.

But there is another other kind of chaos — inner chaos. No SAHM should dare to deal with inner chaos on her own.

She needs to be surrounded by other godly women whose hope is in the Lord. And she needs your help, too!

The harrowing, inner chaos in the soul of a SAHM can drive a woman to do things she never wanted to do. A woman driven by inner chaos will do things like give her children the silent treatment, manipulate her friends, get an ulcer over the budget, or belittle her husband’s hard work.

The manageable outer chaos is aggravated by the inner chaos in our soul. Outer chaos all of a sudden becomes unmanageable. Competent, confident homemakers lose their nerves of steel. Even though it’s “just” a hiccup in the schedule, or a setback with a child’s discipline, or a burned piece of garlic bread, it becomes so much bigger in our hearts.

Then the elusive “peace like a river” is more like a category five hurricane of anxiety, bitterness, discouragement, or discontent.

Husbands, when you can, please step into the outer chaos and help your wife put out a few fires. Then, when the smoke has cleared (or even as it is still lingering), let the Spirit lead you to step into her inner chaos as well.

Husbands, encourage your wife!

Ask your wife good questions to gain understanding. Identify with her; empathize.

With Spirit-led timing, speak the truth in love. Remind her that there is an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for her. Point out how in Christ God is reconciling the world to himself. In Christ he will not count her sins against her. If God doesn’t count her sins against her she can begin boasting in her weaknesses for Christ’s sake.

The most durable hope you can give your wife is glorying in the one Mediator between God and man. Your wife needs your help to remember the future grace that is guaranteed her by the precious blood of Jesus.

Glory in the love that covers a multitude of sins and redeems all of our inner chaos.

Marveling together at how Jesus died to make you holy will lift her soul higher than your praise for the meal she made (but don’t forget to compliment the garlic bread).

Gospel, garlic bread, then more gospel.

____________