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.

Titus 2
11For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, 12training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, 13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.
The grace of God, when it takes root in our life, teaches us to renounce ungodliness. In other words, it integrates the word "NO" into our lives as it pertains to our worldly passions. I think that counselors do well to try to help people find ways to change, however we cannot lose sight of the focus of this passage. And no, the focus is not a person saying "no" to sin. Saying "no" is a biproduct of the focus. The focus is the grace of God. And this, I believe, references Christ. Specifically according to the perspective that Christ came to establish God's people - the Church...the chosen people whom God's grace has reconciled, established a relationship, and called to holiness. God's grace teaches us the points in this passage. And this grace is personal. The Biblical counselor's first priority is the aid in a the counselee's relationship with God. The Spirit is real. He really does work in people. We don't have to take His place in order to make things work. But we can help people grow in grace. Sometimes this edification comes in the form of helping people establish disciplines in their life. But we cannot do so in a way that would replace grace with guilt. I.e., a person cannot discipline himself to the point where his religion is formed around the idea that if he touches the unclean thing God no longer accepts him. He IS reconciled. Therefore BE reconciled (2 Corinthians 5:16-21). "Be who you are" rather than "try to attain something that you should be." Spiritual disciplines are initiated by grace unto godliness, they do not attain grace by godliness. I believe it is easy and typical for counselors to blur the lines between these two thoughts. The old has gone, the new is here! Offer hope upon grace, rather than a burden upon burdens.

Charles Hawking said something that has become a cheer and a herald for atheists: "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Though atheists treat this statement with as much respect and admiration as a puppy does his owner, it really does nothing to promote the cause of Atheism.
First, it does not provide any reason to reject God. It merely states (though emphatically within context) what theists already believe, that men are free to accept or reject God and His Son (i.e., the existence of a theos and the means by which Christians believe He relates to mankind). I don't think it is a stretch to say Christians actually believed the basic concept before it ever entered the thoughts of an atheist. It does not provide evidence, logical or physical, against theism. It does, however, claim there is no evidence for theism. But it does nothing to build actual evidence against theism.
Second, it does not provide support for Atheism. In fact, the exact same phrase could be used in reference to atheism from the theistic standpoint. Charles Hawking himself, when confronted with the need to provide evidence for atheism during a debate with William Lane Craig, could not provide evidence, but rather avoided the question with much stuttering. It was a perfect opportunity to muster evidence against God in a crowd of both believers and atheists, but he didn't.
Third, it implies, or should I say that the popularity of such a vague statement implies that those who honor the statement believe at some point that the absence of evidence for a theos provides evidence for absence of a theos. This is purely illogical. You cannot disprove the existence of something based on the fact that you haven't seen the proof.
Now, I do not say that the statement is illogical or wrong within the confines of it's limitations. However, I write this in response to the popularity that the statement has achieved among atheists. It is nothing but a fluff-packed pillow that an atheist can rest his weary head on after he has exerted hard labor out of his pre-determined heart. The statement does not flow out of someone seeking truth, but rather someone who has already decided.

We must be careful not to blur the lines between not compromising our positions and having sacrifice without mercy.
James 1:27 "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world."
Our religion (speaking as James would define it, rather than some program or whatever) is not based upon how well we hold to a belief, but rather how we love people. The last description is often a can of worms in this department, as many tend to throw in their ten cents concerning what being "unstained" looks like. Well, here's my tens cents. Take it for what it's worth (pun intended).
I would define "unstained" within its context. I would treat this as a neat segway to chapter 2, where James further describes how we should treat others, just like 1:27 was describing. I believe the context supports the notion that being unstained from the world refers to not live according natural tendencies to treat people differently based on status.
Anyway, all that to say, "unstained" is not quite so broad and subject to opinion as one might think.
Back to the point. Our religion is not based on how dogmatic we are about our doctrinal stances. Rather it is based on how we relate to those around us. It is founded in a relationship with Christ, and that reveals itself through our relationships with other people. When we choose to break relationships because of our inability to compromise, we defile our religion. We sacrifice, but neglect mercy. Now, there is cause for separation, but even that is to the end that heavenly and earthly relationships are restored. When a brother or sister in Christ chooses sin and/or to follow a false Gospel, then there is a reason to separate, all to the end that the wanderer might return to Christ and to the fellowship of believers.
When we become so "sold" on beliefs concerning issues that do not necessitate such a "sold" point of view in order to progress in our relationships with Christ and others, we set ourselves up for nullifying Phil. 1:27 and Eph. 4:12-13 with our lives and relationships. I will not give specific examples so as not to stir up disunity, however this is something that we ought to meditate on. Is my dogmatic stand concerning ___ more important than my relationship with someone? Is my or someone else's relationship with Christ really at stake if I or they do not believe ___? If not, then we should be willing to compromise.

I heard, in relation to counseling, that a person has to hit rock-bottom before he can turn his life around. I've been thinking about that quote. At first thought, I would like to think that it's not true. I mean, come on...I've changed without sulking into depression, feeling like there's nothing left where I'm at. But the more I think about it, the more I tend to agree with the statement. "Rock-Bottom" is basically another term for "realizing your current state, and honestly coming to grips with the truth." This person is fully exposed to HIMSELF. He has quit fooling himself and allowed himself to admit to his wrong and his need for radical change. I remember the man in Luke 18:13 - "And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner." This man was justified in the eyes of God. But who does that these days? Stand, looking to the ground, beating one's chest, praying aloud, grieving. I guess it would follow to ask how many people return from their prayers having their relationship with God mended? Not to say one must beat their chest to be heard. But this just shows a sincere and exposed heart. And exposure is not something people are comfortable with, no, not with their unseemly parts. And this is not to say we ought to live our lives with guilt. But this is to say that there ought to be sincerity and grief when confronted with those things about ourself that are not fit for a child of the King. I think the following quote from A.W. Tozer would be fitting:

"It is possible to go through life believing that we believe, while actually having no conviction more vital than a conventional creed inherited from our ancestors or picked up from. . .our social circle. If this creed requires that we admit our own depravity we do so and feel proud of our fidelity to the Christian faith. But from the way we love, praise and pamper ourselves it is plain enough that we do not consider ourselves worthy of damnation."

So, back to hitting rock-bottom: Must one hit rock-bottom to really change? If the change is going to be real, lasting, and sincere rather than just externally conforming, then I believe so. Not only is hitting rock-bottom a place where we realize our depravity, but it also, when joined with the hope Christ brings, gives us deep motivation to change, and purpose behind the actions that follow. If we haven't known conviction deeply within ourselves, then perhaps we aren't really convinced that it's all that bad. And when we DO change, it is as Tozer said - because we're led by our individual culture (which could be merely a comment from a fellow church member or a quote from the pulpit, or the fact that those around us act and dress a certain way or do certain things) rather than conviction in Christ. Our change is done in order to fit into a system of ethics that we're continually developing, rather than a relationship that we SHOULD be continually developing. Therefore we are not conformed into the image of Christ, but rather the image of those that surround us. If they look like Christ, then we may come to look like Christ to, but we are not like Christ. Weirdly enough, the only true way to grow in Christ's likeness is to hit rock-bottom first. It is there that we rid ourselves of the self-effort and self-sufficiency that plagues us, and we reach out to Christ from our miry clay. Then He will be the one who sets our feet on a rock.