The Church Militant

Kirk Wellum reminded us in class today that the living church is a church at war.

Ever wonder why church people are so lazy? In Kirk's words, they've got all the time and energy to "go, go, go" all week for all kinds of things, but when it comes time to pray or to read their Bibles or do any spiritual task, they're dead. Tired, too busy, etc., etc., etc.

Our battle is not against flesh and blood. I think too often I forget that we are at war with an enemy that hates us being involved in spiritual tasks. Too often I give in and think, "yeah... I am too tired to pray right now" and give no thought to why I wasn't tired five minutes ago.

We don't understand our enemy. The less seriously we take the battle and the enemy, the more we'll lose and the less we'll notice.

The Gospel and Postmodernity

Dr. Glendon G. Thompson preached a fabulous message in chapel today on dangers of living as a Christian in a postmodern context. Ironically enough, the temptations that he brought out are not really particular to our epistemological or cultural contexts so much as they are simply a plight of humanity in a fallen world. The wonderful thing about the message was it applied these universal temptations to contexts and tendencies particular to a postmodern world.

This all got me thinking some more about postmodernity.

My good friend Rielly loves to point out to me (and I think rightfully so) that modernity was no more friendly to Christianity or to biblical Christian thought than postmodernity is. Both are inherently secular philosophies with positives and negatives which must be sorted through and accordingly either accepted or rejected.

Even with Rielly's voice floating around in the back of my head, I started thinking... perhaps postmodernity is more inherently opposed to Christianity. Off the top of my head I came up with four reasons to think this is so:

1. Declaration of ethical absolutes. Scripture declares moral absolutes based on the character and revealed will of God. These are true regardless of time and / or culture. North American postmodernity, based on existentialism, rejects this notion out of hand.
   
2. The centrality of metanarrative. Central to Christianity is the God of Christianity. He is one who transcends time and all creation. He has providentially ordered all things according to his good and perfect will. All of history, then, is one story, centred on the revelation of his Son--the image of his glory--who redeems his people for himself. Metanarrative is what holds our whole worldview together.
3. The necessity of truth and intent contained in words and phrases. If there is no objective meaning contained within a text which can be determined through proper hermeneutical method, then again, our whole worldview crashes. Biblical Christianity cannot be sustained if it is impossible to derive meaning from a text apart from the biases of the reader.
4. The concept of truth and its 'knowability.' This is the element of postmodernity that most Christians love to write about and pick on, so I'll leave it with only one comment here. The person of Jesus Christ is Truth Incarnate. Truth is knowable, because Truth became man. If we cannot accept that proposition, the whole faith is meaningless.
   

Continuing on my love for the Church

As if I hadn't been thinking about reasons why I love the Church enough lately, Dr Haykin comes to our church and preaches on "THE Church"!

Fantastic stuff!

Check out the sermon for free, here.

He preached that in our evening service. In the morning, I preached on divorce in the kingdom of God.

A Tale of Two Churches -- Part 2

About five or so years ago now, I was involved in a church plant here in Toronto. We started with about five of us meeting together for a weekly Bible study and for prayer. Over time, we found another family or two interested in helping to establish the work and so we began to hold Sunday morning services in a home.

Now we meet in the gym of a school. We meet Sunday morning and Sunday night for worship. Wednesday evenings are ‘Grace Night’, where the adults meet for prayer and the kids have games time and classes. We’re up over a hundred people now, and we are a very close family of believers.

That’s it. No big purpose-drivel programs, no singles clubs, no Sunday school, and no youth pastors. Our kids (ages 2 and over) sit through the services, and the pastor preaches to them. Our sermons are typically 45 minutes to an hour on Sunday mornings and our pastor intentionally preaches through the Word of God book-by-book.

On Sunday nights the services are more interactive, but still centred on the Word. We encourage people to talk and ask questions and we all ‘improve the message’ by talking about it corporately. Kids too. We make sure they hear the gospel, because they are little sinners with eternal souls that need to be saved.

On Wednesday nights we begin by worshipping God through song and then break up into age appropriate groups. Kids have their classes and adults (everyone over grade 12) gather for prayer. That’s it. We pray. For a good 45 minutes to an hour. We never run out of things to pray about. We are intentional in making sure that prayer is always central to everything we do.

We’re not perfect, but we’re a group of sinners seeking earnestly to redeem church, and I love it. It’s authentic, gospel-centred, and soaked in prayer. I couldn’t ask for more. Who could?

Why do people make church so much more complicated than it needs to be? Focus on the gospel; be intentional in preaching to everyone and praying for everyone. If that is genuinely your focus, I truly believe the Lord will make the rest clear.

Venture much on God—if he is in it, he’ll bless your work. If not, then great! Rejoice! He’s made it clear to you that he has another plan for building his church.

If we truly believe that our Lord Jesus will build his church on his word, through the prayers of his saints, then why do we sell ourselves out to so many specialization fads and programs that promise to bring in a crowd or build ‘genuine community’ (as if any but the Holy Spirit could produce true unity)? Why not commit ourselves to prayer and the study of the Word and trust God to do the rest?

A Tale of Two Churches -- Part 1

Rielly’s comments to my last outbreak of praise of Christ’s church got me to thinking. Do I love the ‘C’hurch or the ‘c’hurch? Which is it that holds my affections? As I’ve reflected on the reasons why so many people seem so eager to ‘re-invent’ church these days, I’ve discovered that I have much in common with them.

My first exposure to church was through my childhood. Raised in a ‘Sunday school’ generation, I spent years hearing stories of Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Samson, Gideon, et al. Typically these stories were truncated, leaving out the real point of the story. To think… it wasn’t until I got to Bible College that I realized that David and Goliath really wasn’t about David and Goliath!

The church I grew up in was ineffective in reaching its surrounding area. It was made up of older people who had known each other a long time. They liked to sing the good old hymns, keep up with whose kids are getting married, and whose arthritis is kicking up this week. The preacher had to make sure the service was done by 12 noon, even if it started late, and there’d be trouble if he wasn’t.

I can remember, the only two times excitement I saw out of anyone there was when they made it legal for stores to open on Sunday (how could a 'Christian nation' turn its back on the 'Sabbath 'like that?) and when I played with the lights in the hallway one time (this wasted electricity, I quickly learned).

A dear old man I know spent years in the church serving in any number of roles of leadership and in various capacities on countless committees. He’s not even a believer. You think anyone ever took the time to ask him about his soul? Why would anyone expect any spiritual life out of a church that willingly and carelessly puts unregenerate people in roles of leadership?

Well, that same old man now has cancer and is facing death. He’s terribly afraid of it, and he’s in denial that it will ever even happen to him. He outright rejects the faith. But he still goes to that church and week after week people still say hi, ask how the chemo’s going, and what about his grandkids. Like that’s important.

That’s the ‘church’ I grew up with. If I had never left that church, I never would have heard the gospel. Funny how that works. I hold that pastor and that church responsible for the blood of countless souls who have come faithfully, week after week after week, never hearing the gospel, and never having anyone inquire into the state of their soul.

If anyone has reason to ‘go emergent’ and bash the church, it’s me. But I won’t. I love Christ’s church. If there is one thing I’ve learned, it’s that church can be done so as to violently oppose the cause of Christ’s kingdom, or it can work to vigorously advance the cause of Christ’s kingdom. Simply put, ‘church’ has to be redeemed.

But that is for part two.

A 'Fulfillment' Devotion

By his power he stilled the sea; by his understanding he shattered Rahab.
By his wind the heavens were made fair; his hand pierced the fleeing serpent.
Behold, these are but the outskirts of his ways, and how small a whisper do we hear of him!
But the thunder of his power who can understand?
-- Job 26:12-14

By incredible power, our Lord and our Christ stilled the sea with a word. All of creation bows in obedience to our Master and our God. While the disciples were afraid, Jesus was in control, and the seas in submission.

By Christ, the breath of God created the heavens and the earth. He was in the beginning; he was with God and was God from eternity past. By him were all things created, for his glory; in him all things live and move and have their being; in him all things are being held together, and are working together for our good, that we might be conformed to his own image. By his goodness, the creation is indeed made fair.

His hand was not only pierced, but inasmuch as he has our names engraved on his heart and hands, so also he was stricken, smitten and betrayed. He willingly took on our transgressions, in order that he might exercise his great power over Hades for us, whom he has loved. In so conquering he has sent death, our greatest enemy, and the serpent who wielded its power fleeing. That man has done what no man could do; he did not believe the lie, but in truth and power, sent the serpent fleeing.

Behold, Christian, these are but the outskirts of his ways. Imagine! How small a whisper do you hear of him! Behold him in creation! Behold his power over all things! Behold his victory over death! Behold… these are but the outskirts of his ways. And now, how small a whisper…

The thunder of his power, who can understand? His thoughts are not like our thoughts, nor are his ways like our ways; inasmuch as his thoughts are higher than our thoughts, so his ways are higher than our ways. In an infinite, qualitative manner, God stands over against humanity and all created things, in such a way as he could never, ever be compared with anything our eyes may see, our ears may hear, or our minds may conceive. Now we see but the outskirts of his ways, and hear but a whisper of his voice.

In much the same way as Job could not yet see the full revelation of Christ, but spoke of him better than he knew, so now, we too speak of God Almighty, Sovereign Creator of all the earth, and all things below, and all things above. How our minds should long for that day when we will see him! How our hearts should cry out in a desperate voice, “Lord, let me know you! Let me hear you!”

Yet we are here on earth, and my heart is sinful, I know. Behold, this life and this mind knows only of the outskirts of his ways. This sinful soul may only now hear but a small whisper of him. How my heart and flesh yearn and long, cry out and moan, “Even so, Lord Jesus, come!”

Oh, how I love church!

It may seem funny, but I've been thinking a lot about the church lately: what it is and what it's purpose is... or, what it should be and what's it's purpose should be. Kirk Wellum is my professor of systematics at school and he's been teaching us about the church as an "outpost of heaven" here on earth.

Now that got me to thinking...

How do I think about the church? In listening to many of my friends and in reading many of the books put out in the past little while, it seems that there is a very negative / cynical view of the church out there. We tend to view the church more as "Israel all over again" than we do as an "inbreaking" of the kingdom of heaven.

The church is the bride of Christ, indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Sure there are problems in the church as it exists, but the truth of the matter is that the church is a people foreknown and foreloved by God, redeemed and made alive by God, being sustained and purified by God, in order that she might one day be presented pure and spotless to God, to the great glory of God!

All that to say, think good things of the church! She is not lost. She is not yours. She is Christ's bride and he loves her. She is his great treasure! As one who hopes to be an undershepherd for my Lord one day, may it never be said of me that I underestimated the power and value of the Holy Spirit's ability to work in the Son's bride.

If someone had nothing but bad things to say about my bride, I'd have some serious issues to take up with them.

The Primacy of the Love of God

Recently I was convicted again of my prayerlessness. "How could a seminarian like me, who studies great things of God all day, go without praying, and be okay with that?" It seems I just grow dull to prayer... and I know I'm not alone on this one.

But then, it seems God brings me through great seasons of prayer and I realize again the importance of praying. Just today I was thinking, "Why do I need to learn these lessons so many times? Why can't I just learn it once?"

And then it hit me.

I don't have to learn lessons on prayer. I don't have to learn lessons about reading my Bible. I don't have to learn lessons on the benefits of the other spiritual disciplines. I just need to grow in my love for God. Period.

If I know God, then I will love God. If I love God then it will be the constant desire of my heart to be in his presence and seeking his favour; so I will pray. It will be the passion of my life to know him and be known by him; so I will read his word with desperation and longing.

I don't need to learn to pray. I need to love my God more.

And how can I love him more? Only by knowing him better. But how can I know him better? I can't open my eyes and see him... I can't reach out and touch him... I can't taste or smell him... I can't hear his voice...

To know God, I am entirely dependent on him. Like Jesus told Peter, only the Spirit of God can reveal the nature of God to men. And like Paul wrote to the church in Corinth, the natural man cannot understand things which are spiritually discerned.

Even if I tried to obey on my own strength, without the love of God, my works would count for nothing. I would be a hopeless pharisee.

So I am dependent on God to reveal himself to me, so that I will know him, which will lead to increased love of him, which will lead to prayer and obedience. So I must pray that God would reveal himself to me!

And in all this where is my pride? It is telling me that I can live on my own strength. Satan knows that if I am prayerless, I cannot know God. If I don't know God I won't love God. If I don't love God I won't pray and I won't obey.

How desperately dependent I am! And that is the one lesson I need to learn.

Is Evangelicalism Fundamentally Flawed?

* This is a repost from a while ago, at my old blog. It created good discussion then, so I'm wondering if it will again. I'm also wondering if anyone who participated in the conversation then has changed their opinions since then... to that end, I'll also repost the original comments so we can see where we've all come since that time. *

The Enlightenment. Modernism. Deconstructionism. Postmodernism. Post-postmodernism. What does the Church believe? What are the essentials that do not change and what is culturally relevant?

While it may be an oversimplification, it seems that in a broad stroke, what separates “Evangelicalism” from “Fundamentalism” is how to handle the Enlightenment… and everything post-elightenment, really. Fundamentalism unrelentingly holds fast to the “fundamentals,” without any regard for what the modern sciences have to say about things. “Evangelicals,” on the other hand, are eager to interact with all that advanced human learning can teach us. Rather than writing off evolution by insisting that the Bible teaches a literal 6 day creation, Evangelicals are willing to roll with whatever it is in vogue for scientists. After all, why would we want to remain out of the loop? Does anyone have any respect for the Roman church’s response to poor old Galileo?

In contrast, Fundamentalists could care less what the rest of the world has to say, they insist that since the Bible teaches a literal 6 day creation, we have no need for further inquiry into the matter. Why, they bravely ask, does it even matter what a modern scientist might be able to find, when we have the Bible?

An Evangelical might quickly counter, “What are we afraid of?” All truth is God’s truth! If what we believe is truly true, then there is no truth that can disprove what we believe!

Call me a sceptic or whatever you want (okay, maybe not anything you want), but I see a problem here. I am not, strictly speaking, a Fundamentalist. I think it is a fundamentally wrong assumption for one to hold his beliefs with such little regard for what is demonstable truth. I would be an idiot to believe that pigs can fly when that is simply, patently (and demonstrably) untrue. If I believe something that has no grounding in reality, then it doesn’t matter how hard I believe, I’m still a fool for believing it.

So I can’t ignore what the sciences have to say…

But then why not be Evangelical (if my dichotomy may be allowed to stand for now)? Why not simply engage with all that the world can determine to be true? Without delving too deep into theories on the nature of truth, it must be acknowledged at least in some sense, that much of the “truth” we find empirically is fluid.

For example, not too long ago smoking was not the taboo it has become today. It wasn’t bad for your health, and was socially accepted. Now, however, we have determined that it is horrible for the human body and can cause any number of diseases. A few generations ago, the “truth” about smoking was different. It was knowledge based on a changing and evolving science.

Again, we could look at the different theories that have been held with regard to homosexuality or even alcoholism. What was once known by any number of societies to be “sin” (however that community defined it) has now in many circles become simply a genetic difference. Alcoholism is something that, regrettably, some people will have to deal with because of genes. Homosexuality is something to be celebrated as a normal part of a person’s genetic makeup.

So what do we do with knowledge gained through the sciences? Bill Webb argues that modern science can demonstrate that certain traits once thought to be tied to gender can now be shown to be more from genetic makeup than gender.

Many liberals within the Church of England argue that homo- sexuality is a part of genetic makeup, and can therefore not be wrong. The homosexuality Paul condemned was that of the pagan cultic worship rituals of his day. What Paul condemned was perversion, not personality. This is not to say that either Webb or the Anglicans are right or wrong, but rather to pose the question, what do we do with science?

Do we base doctrine on it? So what if we compromise on the creation issue and argue rather for a “theistic evolution,” but then the evidence tips back the other way again? Do we then turn and argue for a 6 day creation like it was the year 1589 all over again?

What if we could demonstrably prove scientifically that men are actually more gullible than women? Would that mean that we should take 1 Timothy 2 mean that only women should be elders in our churches?

And what if it is in fact proven that homosexuality has nothing to do with genetics, but everything to do with how someone is raised and socialized? Will the Anglican church have an about-face?

Or are our methods of using the “impartial” sciences really quite partial after all? Why is it that CNN reports all the time of skulls being researched which are millions of years old, while at the same time millions of more copies of “A Case For Creation” are sold in Christian bookstores?

If Evangelicals intend to use the modern sciences to inform their interpretation of the Scriptures, ought they not to define better what role these sciences should play? And what do they do when the science “changes”? Does truth change?

If Fundamentalists intend to hold unswervingly the timeless truths of the Bible, how in the world will they gain credibility in a society that is swamped with “facts” that disprove the “fundamentals”?

Is Evangelicalism destined for a future of fluidity–always trying to balance acceptance in scholarly and popular circles with attempts to remain faithful in some sense to the biblical witness?

Is Fundamentalism destined for a demise into infamy as it distances itself from all things relevant with ever-increasing speed?

Is there a middle ground? Is that even what we need? Do we look for further defintion or faster departure from these classical categories of modern Christendom?

Shrewd as Serpents?

Please understand that I know the whole Augustinian / Pelagian (Calvinism / Arminianism) debate has been running its course for 16 centuries or so now, so I don't intend to solve it here. That being said, I'm a little frustrated this evening at the "non-logic" employed by many Christians when it comes to working through these thoughts.

Augustine (and subsequently Calvin, Luther, Edwards, et al.) taught the freedom of the will. This surprises many, but it's true. The will is free to choose whatever it should so desire. The biblical picture, however, is that the unregenerate heart will always choose evil; hence the "bondage of the will" (ie. it can only choose evil, therefore, it knows nothing of true freedom). God's grace, according to Augustine, is his active changing of our hearts, so that we delight in him above all else, so that we freely choose him over everything else (thus God is, to Augustine, his sovereign joy) and every other false pleasure.

I believe firmly that this is a concept firmly rooted in the biblical portrait of man and God's redemptive work and would be prepared to argue that at length. That's not what I'm hoping to discuss here, however.

My problem is when I get into discussions like one I had recently with a brother (whom I love dearly) who refuses to acknowledge God's sovereign grace for patently unbiblical reasons. He made no attempt to argue from Scripture, exept to cite a single verse from 1 Tim 2 without rooting his argument in context. He then based his whole theology of grace around the idea that he created from that one verse. His argument went something like this:

1. God elects some to salvation.

2. This necessarily implies that he has willfully, actively chosen to create some, make them sinful, and send them to hell.

3. This is unacceptable.

4. Therefore, God does not elect unto salvation.

The problem, of course, with this syllogism is that 2 does not follow from 1.

The problem in the grander scheme of things, however, is that he has worked himself into a tough corner when it comes to actually dealing with the biblical texts which clearly delineate God's electing in salvation. What does one do with Ephesians 1 when he has already decided in his mind that God's greatest desire is for every single person to be saved?

The simple fact of the matter is that the Bible places the blame for the damnation of sinners on sinners. Out of a fallen race of humanity, God elects a people unto salvation. God is responsible for salvation, because his grace has to change our hearts so that we can delight in him. God is not responsible for the damnation of a sinner, that sinner chose what he desired.

Some may well ask "how can God judge me when he didn't elect me?" To that we'd have to answer with Paul, "Who are you, o man, to answer back to God?" Or with Moses, "The revealed things belong to man, but the hidden things belong to God." Or with Isaiah, "His thoughts are not our thoughts, nor his ways our ways. As high as the heavens are above the earth, so are his thoughts above our thoughts and his ways above our ways."

It frustrates me to no end how Christians are willing to take certain things by faith, but then when the Bible doesn't answer every question they have, they reject what the Bible does teach for their own ideas of what it should teach.

Deal with the text and let that frame your thoughts and questions. Be willing to submit to whatever it teaches... it is the word of God. Be willing to accept "foolishness" when it presents itself. This type of humility usually leads to the greatest insights of wisdom.

Assume I know nothing...

... and you'll probably be right!

It's just hit me lately that a big part of mentoring is knowing what to share. This semester I'm taking a course in pastoral theology and another one on prayer. Needless to say, they're both very straight-forward, hands-on type courses. We spend time walking through the Scriptures and the professors take time to apply the principles to our lives in very practical ways...

Basically we're learning things that you would probably assume we could figure out. But we haven't. Dr Haykin noted today that he can't recall ever hearing a pastor openly questioned about his prayer life in an ordination council, or when he speaks of his call to ministry. There is great danger in assuming.

So... what did we talk about? In pastoral theology, kerux began by teaching us about how to set up and run your study, schedule your time, file your notes, etc., etc. In prayer, we talked about physical posture (for one thing) and how important it is and what precedent there is for prayer-posture in Scripture.

Things like this seem so mundane that they generally don't get taught. I can't remember ever hearing someone say that their mentor sat with them and talked about how to setup a day-timer and how to make it effective. These are things that take 10 minutes to learn about from someone else, or 10 years to figure out on your own (with who knows how many dumb mistakes along the way).

And then there's sex. Now that's something you'd think people would know about, but as Tim Challies has pointed out recently (see Tim's comments after the post) even in our sex-crazed society, there is still much godly, practical wisdom that needs to be passed on in our churches if we are to glorify Christ by delighting in God-pleasing sex.

So... what's the point? When you're mentoring, think about the things you'd never think to talk about. Don't be afraid to go over the mundane things that you figured out on your own... these are often the most valuable, practical lessons that can be learned in a mentoring relationship. And if you're the one being mentored, just keep your eyes open. Learn to watch carefully so you'll pick up from osmosis things that no-one would ever think to stop and teach.

Well... he's done it again

For anyone who has ever read Brian McLaren... funny stuff indeed.

that is not my blog: Be afraid. Be very afraid…

May I have an autograph, please?

Today in Greek class at TBS we got to talking about text-criticism because we're learning to use the apparatus in our Greek NT. Anyway, as he always does, the Cowboy got me thinking. The question was raised about the earliest extant NT manuscripts, and whether there are any remaining autographs or not. Of course the answer is no, and as Clint said, it displays the wisdom of God. We'd probably end up worshipping the pieces of paper themselves, if such a thing was in existence. In his wisdom, God has decreed that he would remove this temptation from our lives.

Of course, the seeming "down-side" of this is that there's no hard case to be made for the argument that the Bible remains in tact, exactly as it was written. As text-criticism has shown, there are some tough questions to be asked in places of the Greek NT as we have it.

But this is really not a down-side at all. In fact, I don't know why we'd find it the least bit surprising. As with all things of any importance, God desires and requires faith. Think about it: his existence, creation of the world, the historicity of the OT narratives and genealogies, the written records of Jesus' life and teachings, his death and resurrection, the salvation message, the promise of coming again in judgment... everything of any importance is always designed so that we must have faith.

That's the way God works. Always has been, always will be; or at least until the consummation of all things when faith shall be made sight.

And so it is with the text of the Greek NT, and really, the formation of the canon as a whole. God has provided evidence (just like the creation, resurrection, etc.), but he has also provided what seems to be "counter-evidence".

Don't be ashamed of a "foolishly conservative" faith. Don't be tempted to think that when you struggle with doubt over issues like this it's because you don't know enough... chances are, you just need more faith. After all, Christ himself, in his very person was "a stumbling stone" and "foolishness." Wisdom is justified by all her children, and God will shame the wisdom of this world.

Did you make any New Year's Resolutions?

Do you want to borrow some? Ah, satire... how I love thee.

If you want a chuckle, check out Call me Ishmael's "that is not my blog." In particular, this post on New Year's Resolutions is very funny.

Are you more just than God?

In our Bible-reading, my wife and I read three psalms each week in order to be in the Psalms all year. So, at the end of three weeks, we've finished the first nine psalms. There are too many benefits to always reading the Psalms to list here, but one of them is that you start to pick up on themes. What was David consistently praying about? How did he pray? What are the images of God that he keeps coming back to over and over again. I don't think biblical worship ended at Psalm 150, but I do believe this helps us orient ourselves with God's desire for our worship.

One theme that I've noticed over and over again in the Psalms is that David is a man consumed with God: his causes and his glory. He loves his God more than he loves himself--even more than he loves other men! Sometimes I wonder if we haven't subconsciously inverted the greatest two commandments. It seems to me that's why so many Christians struggle with the problem of evil, or the concept of eternal punishment, or God's righteousness which involves him working all things to his own glory.

We don't see how that is God loving us or others, so we can't get by it. And we have Scripture to back us up: God is love, after all, and merciful and gracious. And we're commanded to love our neigbour as ourself, so we struggle with this tension in God.

The problem, as I've said, is that we invert the commandments. The first commandment is to love God. Above all else. That means that I love all that he loves. That means that I love to see his causes and his purposes accomplished. That means that I love to see his righteousness displayed. I love what he determines is best.

In short, it means I trust him. When he declares that he is doing something, I know that it must be good because he is good. When God says he will condemn the unjust and unbelieving, I rejoice, because that is his purpose and it is good. Because of his righteousness, he has said this will be, and that it will be to his glory.

I may not understand, but I trust... because I love him. To eternally lament over those lost to judgment is to mourn over something God has deemed righteous; my heart would not be in line with his eternal purposes. To secretly hope that God will do something other than what he has revealed in his word is to think that I am somehow more just than God and my desires are more righteous than his. That is not loving God first. That's loving me and my fellow man before God.

Arise, O LORD! Let not man prevail;
Let the nations be judged before you!
Put them in fear, O LORD!
Let the nations know that they are but men! Selah