My pastor was talking last night about Christ washing His disciples feet. I never really saw the symbol of Christ’s substitutionary atonement in it before. Usually when it’s preached, all I hear about is service, but God impressed the atonement on my heart yesterday. I mean, what did Christ mean when He told Peter “you don’t know what I’m doing now, but you will hereafter”? How do you preach that as simply service when it’s obvious that “later” refers to His sacrifice on the cross? Sure, Christ’s example here could be applied to every-day service, but only, in context, through the example of Christ taking upon Himself the form of a servant, and taking our place on the cross, becoming sin for man that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. The foot-washing was not just gross. It was lowly. Just like His going to the cross for us. He took our lowly state upon Himself. If Christ does not wash our feet, we have no part in Him. In that sense, Christ tells Peter “if you don’t know what I’m doing here, then you don’t know me.” And Peter understood many more things after Christ ascended. Namely, that Christ took our shame upon Himself that He might nail it to the cross, and we bare it no more. One only needs his feet washed, that is, his shame. His filth. Christ took responsibility for our sin as our head; He took our responsibility as His own. We are no longer bound to the wages of our sin! Tullian Tchividjian said, “The Gospel frees you from the pressure of having to make something of yourself.” Truly, we are all we need to be in Christ. Our shame was already substituted. If you don’t believe this, you might as well believe in purgatory or some other means of after-the-fact purification. If you don’t believe in something like this, then why suffer guilt and shame? Even the law given to Levi to minister to the people of Israel was a law of peace. How much more then is the law of Christ a covenant of peace? Look to Jesus, not your shame or lowly estate! That which makes us lowly has been substituted with the righteousness of Christ! Take heart, buck up, and move on in your glorious estate.

This post is the product of something I've been thinking heavily on for the past few days. I'm going to try to articulate my feelings, which is not always easy. This has to do with being a husband and a father, both of which I am a novice at. First I will deal with being a father:
Malachi 4:4-6: "Remember the law of my servant Moses, the statutes and rule that I commanded him at Horeb for all Israel. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes. And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction."

Many would take this reference to fatherhood and have it stand alone, preach a whole message on how fatheres should have a special bond with their kids and leave it at that. And fathers should have this special bond. But I think that, in context with the rest of what Malachi was just talking about, there is far more to this reference to fatherhood. If I remember right, this is the only reference to fatherhood in the book of Malachi. Why does He bring it up now at the end? Conclusions are usually summaries of the previous message. So what is Malachi summarizing? The big picture of Malachi is, in my opinion, "proper and holy adherence to the people's covenant relationship with God." So why does Malachi include fatherhood when summarizing this message? I will put this in terms of the Church, the bearers of the new covenant: because Fathers are foundational to the spiritual upbringing of their children, and therefore the Church. The way a father rears his children is symbolic of the health of the Church. When fathers take responsibility for their children, edifying them in a relationship with God, loving them, and providing for ALL their needs, they and the church flourish. This is not to say that children don't make their own choices, however many times children make those choices because the atmosphere that the fathers create in their home is not a Christ-centered one. Nor do the fathers take proper responsibily for their children. They put that on the church. The very church that rests on the fathers and husbands to be godly influences. It is not a godly influence to transfer your God-given responsibility to the church. You make up the church. You take responsibility. You, father, train your child up in a relationship with Christ. You have the sex talks with your sons and daughters. You confront them of sin and guide them in a way as to flush out sin with a deeper love for Christ. You teach them how to choose and develope good friendships. This is not the job of the sunday school teacher or the youth pastor. You are their dad. You take responsibility. When you don't, the church dies, dad by dad, child by child. Our covenant with Christ becomes a side-thought and a mockery. Legalism, dictatorships, and abuse are used to control families to make them what the father deems acceptable.

Perhaps a godly father will look like this, though I do not present prerequisites to fatherhood 101: he will read the bible aloud with his children. He will chat with them about practical applications of biblical truth. He will talk to them about life’s hard issues including sex, drugs, and relationships because he knows that if they are hard for him, they are impossible for his children. He will get involved in their lives, so that when they talk to him it is not like they are talking to a foreign dignitary who only drops in on their lives when there is a crisis or need for punishment. He will express God’s mercy and grace where necessary, and also express His chastisement where necessary. He will accept them as they are, but seek to help them mature and change, understanding that they, as well as he, are accountable to the same God. He will make his expectations known, but not be overbearing or unreasonable in them. In all things he will love his children from the inside out.

Now the husband is the head of his wife. And the quality of this headship is the discussion here. This is where I personally am the most involved. My daughter is 10 months old. She isn’t struggling with issues of sex, drugs, or relationships. She doesn’t even know English. Her biggest struggle right now is whether or not applesauce is right for her. Though I still need to be there for her and provide for her, most of my life’s communication will impact my wife. And here is where I have suffered the most conviction as of late.

I caught myself in a dangerous position. I have adopted the American mindset that a husband and wife are co-heads. We are a team that shares all responsibility. And those who know me and my wife know that my wife has a stronger and more expressive personality than I do. This is not bad, however it presents a struggle for me as far as my headship is concerned. So the struggle looks like this: When an issue arises where the outcome will steer our family in one direction or another, I generally concede. When I don’t have much of an opinion about something, the decision goes to her. I fear responsibility, not because I don’t want to do anything, but because I don’t want to take the fall, because if we are all honest, we know that whoever takes the most responsibility will take the most fall when things go bad. So I don’t want to take the blame for failure. And I know my wife doesn’t fail, so to me the answer is simple. But the answer neglects my God-given duty, whether taking on this duty is immediately efficient or not. The fact is, God made man the head of the woman. The man is to relate to his wife as Christ relates to the church. Christ did not sin, but He put Himself in a place of responsibility for our sin. He died for us. So we as husbands are responsible to selflessly care for our wives, whether we feel it is fair or not to take the burden of provision. And this provision goes far beyond going to work and bringing home bacon, and even some bread. This includes spiritual, emotional, physical, relational, and financial provision. This is a heavy list of terms, but this is the responsibility of husbands as heads of their households. This is why those who cannot rule their own households well should not be in ministry. Ministry will tear your family apart if you first have not gotten a hold of your responsibility as the head of your household. Remember, Christ will build His Church. He doesn’t need you. You can wait. Christ’s first calling on your life is your family, especially your wife. How can you communicate God’s covenant with the Church to your kids (or your church) if you can’t live it out with your wife? I am convinced that there are many in this world who entered ministry prematurely, and therefore have an “ok” ministry. Maybe they are expressive and have all the exuberance of a caffeinated chimpanzee, but God’s covenant has not truly been rooted in and grown up in their hearts because they neglect their own families for the sake of the ministry.

A father and a husband of all people is not his own. He is God’s vessel for communicating His covenant to mankind, primarily his own household. If the men in our churches bore Christ’s headship to his family first, I think we would see an unusual fire kindled therein.

“Shall I sin that grace may abound?”
This attitude seeks to bind God, or trap Him in His words. “Whoops! You promised to take me to heaven if I believed in Jesus. Guess you’re trapped in your words no matter what I do!”
Taking advantage of God’s grace is more than just “utilizing” a gift of God. It is an act of deceitful betrayal. Underneath the act is an attempt to catch God with His own promises. Finding a loophole, if you would, in the covenant contract. Did God not write sufficiently enough that we want more specific fine print? Does a real Christian NEED fine print?
So the real question is, does this attitude comes from someone who really entered into a relationship with Christ? If God did provide more fine print, would this person be any better? Or would he be a Pharisee? Full of religious works but empty of the Spirit?
I think it comes down to this: God did give the fine print, and oh it is fine. It is grace and love. It is a relationship with our Sovereign. Relationships include a bond between two people. And I’m talking about a relational bond – a bond of love. Not necessarily a bond of regulatory requirements. If a person has truly become a Christian, he has entered into this relationship. And don’t get me wrong, relationships grow. Our relationship with God is no different. We will grow from day one in our relationship with God into deeper love with God. But if this love-bond was never there, can you really say you are a Christian? If the details above match the details of your heart I would seriously consider this question. I am no judge, but I think this requires some serious, sober thought.