Music

     The more I listen to, discuss, study, and worship through the beautiful God-given art that is music, the less tolerance I have for things that lack passion, myself included. The angry, harsh screams of the metal genre channel a rage that’s pointed and freeing; the sad, whiny cries of the emo genre lament about sorrows that are relatable and tangible; the expressive, artistic poetry of the hip-hop/rap genre offers a window into a subculture foreign to me. These expressions are born from passion, from suffering, from hardship—not unlike many of David’s psalms or Job’s replies to those around him. Of course, these whole genres are not to be praised but rather the artists that represent those genres well (check out Oh, Sleeper​, Real Friends​, and Kendrick Lamar​).
     When looking at any art form or cultural expression, the temptation is always to throw the baby out with the bathwater, especially for evangelicals. Yes, a lot of metal is empty and stupid, a lot of emo music is laughable and melodramatic, and a lot of rap is deplorable and repetitive. But not all of it. And this is true of more than just whole genres, but artists themselves.
     I’ve found that (almost) any song or movie or book is redeemable if you’re willing to get past language that you’re uncomfortable with and embrace subject matter that won’t be found on Disney Channel. Look beyond Drake​’s radio singles that praise money and sex and you’ll hear him sing, “Time after time after time, money’s all I get and there’s still money on my mind but I ain’t ever satisfied” on Future’s ‘Never Satisfied,’ or beyond Bring Me the Horizon’s very explicit, anti-religious lyrics and you’ll find a man searching for something and someone more on their song ‘Drown’: “Who will fix me now? Save me from myself, don’t let me drown.” Both of these ‘secular’ artists make very biblical points: all the money in the world won’t satisfy you and no man can fix or save you.
     This approach to music is not merely for personal enjoyment, it comes with evangelistic intent, too. When unbelievers see us damning Katy Perry’s music on the basis of being ‘non-Christian’ or perhaps overly sexual, they don’t focus on that, they see us rejecting a person and the good art that they make. Again, yes, we should recognize that the content isn’t praiseworthy, but without communicating that Katy Perry is beyond the grace of God or that the pop music she gives to the world is not as great and catchy as it is (even if you hate radio pop). Moreover, if we can show the world that Christians in fact celebrate people, good art, and God-given truth regardless of where it’s found or who it comes from, then we represent the Lord well and we shatter misconceptions of what the Lord is doing in this world.
     Refuse to settle for surface-level art forms and dispassionate musicians, directors, and authors. We have so much to learn from different people of foreign backgrounds and far away cultures with new insights into life, the Lord, and the human condition. Great music, great cinema, and great literature should be celebrated as great gifts from the Lord.

Modesty

Niqab
     Modesty: such a traditional, culturally backwards, unpopular concept. It’s hard to reconcile modesty with a culture in which every girl has accepted bikinis as the norm, in which you can put a sticker over a woman’s nipple and then broadcast it on primetime television, in which pornography is no longer universally damned, on and on I could go. And this is just the culture at large, I’m not even dealing with the culture of the Church, though you’d have a hard time distinguishing the two at times.
     Before I tell you my personal convictions on modesty, I’ll acknowledge a few things. For one, modesty is totally relative to a culture: some cultures consider burqas (those full-coverings that Muslim women wear) as the standard dress, some cultures wold consider one-piece bathing suits scandalous, some cultures have no problem with bikinis, etc. Second, this isn’t a blog devoted to creating hatred for bikinis. Or yoga pants. Or tank tops, spaghetti straps, V-necks, low-rise jeans, or any of that. Those have been condemned items of clothing in years past, maybe topless bikinis will be the hot topic a few years down the road, I don’t know, and I don’t care. I’m writing about people, motives, hearts, and temptations, the clothing choices are just the product of those convictions.
     I wanna have sex when I’m looking at girls’ bare or nearly bare bodies. Believe it or not I thought hard about how to phrase that, I thought about sanitizing it because that’s “inappropriate” to express to some ears, I thought about awkward and vague phrases like “I lust when I’m looking at…”, but none would be as honest and clear as that. It’s a fact, my sinful and biological response to looking at the beautiful female body (and it is beautiful, there’s nothing to be shamed about the human body in and of itself) is to send signals in my brain to alert my sex drive.
     Mind you, I said sinful and biological. It’s both. I am responsible for the lustful thoughts my heart has, and I am designed by the Lord to be excited at the sight of the beauty that is a woman’s body. As a Christian, this is difficult to reconcile. I definitely “stumble” (as Paul would say in his letter to the Corinthians) when I see a girl in revealing clothing, all the more so a Christian because not only does my lustful heart begin lighting up but I grow frustrated at this girl for representing the Lord poorly and then I grow frustrated with myself for responding how I am. It’s a mess of blame shifting and frustration and lust, and the culture of our church is not one in which I could walk up and ask her to wear something that leaves less to the imagination. “Well this is what I want to wear,” or “Maybe you should control your own damn thoughts,” or “You’re shaming me for my body…”
     I would never want my wife, daughter, girlfriend, mother, sister, whatever, to wear much of what passes for the norm for beachwear, summer wear, tight clothing, etc. I’ll admit, back to my original statement, that my flesh wants to have sex when I’m looking at girls’ bare or nearly bare bodies; but my spirit, the true me, the me that’s been redeemed and cleansed in Jesus Christ, really wants to make love to the woman who’s heart has captured mine. I want to enter a covenant with the girl in jeans and a T-shirt who says much about the Lord with her life than the girl who says much about herself with her body.
     Yes, the very idea of modesty is an assault on the highest of American ideals: individuality and freedom of expression. But I plead with you, women, set aside those ideals for the virtues that Christ calls you to. Not because you’re weak-willed but precisely the opposite, because you’re stronger than the women who entice men with the beauty of their bodies and not the beauty of their hearts. Do it because I am extremely weak and so are my stupid brothers. And please, tell me what bothers you about what we stupidly do, because I know that modesty isn’t a one-sided issue. But don’t ignore my words simply because I have a plank in my eye. Let’s help one another remove those planks.


     Modesty is a respectable manner of adorning one’s body and carrying oneself, born out of a freedom from a worldly definition of beauty and worth, and motivated by a hatred of sin and a desire to draw attention to God.
     When it comes to the subject of modest clothing, the first question we should ask ourselves is: What am I trying to accomplish by what I wear?
1. Modesty is not anti-pretty.
2. Modesty is about who you worship.
3. Modesty is about behavior and attitude, not just clothing.
4. Modesty shows sensitivity to sin.
5. Modesty involves cultural discretion.
6. Modesty is about true freedom, not repression.”

     “Although Paul is talking about food in this passage [Romans 14] rather than dress, he is illustrating a broader principle: We do some things not because we are required, but purely for the sake of others. He says that all food is clean, but that it is better not to eat meat or drink or wine or to do anything that will cause your brother or sister to fall. This is a difficult principle for Westerners to accept, especially Americans, who value personal liberty seemingly above all else. Paul reminds us that, as all of Scripture does, that in all that we do, we have an obligation not only to ourselves but to others as well.
     This message has obvious intersection with modesty. Our bodies are not sinful or problematic—they are created by God and are beautiful things. Still, for many people, the bodies of others are tempting and cause them to think about that person in an objectified, sexualized light. This is surely more the fault of the one doing the lusting than anyone else, and to say anything else—anything along the lines of “she was asking for it”—is utterly repulsive. It is a fact of human existence from its very inception: People lust after one another sexually.
     We’re presented with a quandary—bodies are beautiful, and yet they often cause us to think and act in sinful ways, so what do we do? In our polarized culture, we tend to choose one extreme or the other, either to curse the body as sinful or to view those who lust as morally deficient and exclusively at fault.
     According to Paul, there is another path: We do whatever we can to prevent other beloved brothers or sisters from being stumbled. Modesty then is not a rejection of the beauty of body, nor is it a judgment on the moral weakness of others—it is the loving prerogative of the strong.
     Do we “have” to dress in a certain way? No, not at all, and the tone of Paul’s writing makes this clear. The problem is that we too often have made modesty a compulsory action. Instead, though, modest dress is something we consciously do for others, not because we are forced to, but because we want to; not because we are weaker than others, but because we are stronger; not out of our hatred for ourselves, but our love for another.
     I believe that women should dress modestly. Why, because they have to? Because they’re asking for it if they don’t? Because their bodies are not godly things? No, not at all. They should dress modestly because they love and value men.
     You see, in the sinful weakness of the male spirit, men often see the beauty of the female form and transform it into something base and soulless. It happens even to the best of us, who were raised well, who love Christ with all of our hearts. It is sin, and it is weakness, and separates us from God and women. I make no excuse for it in my own life, and I certainly do not blame women for something that I myself am responsible for.”

     “Modesty takes in to account the heart, the situation, and the culture. Modesty is a virtue that shows love to others and brings glory to God through appropriate dress.”
     – Tim Challies, Modesty Matters: The Heart of Modesty

     – Kevin DeYoung, The Lost Virtue of Modesty
     – GotQuestions, What Does It Mean to Dress Modestly?
     – GotQuestions, Should a Christian Woman Wear a Bikini?
     – GotQuestions, Should Christian Women Wear Pants?

     “Whatever is born is the work of God. Whatever, then, is plastered on (that), is the devil’s work.”
     – Tertullian

     “In 1 Timothy 2:9-10, the apostle Paul writes “I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.” The Greek word translated “modesty” here is kosmios. Derived from kosmos (the universe), it signifies orderliness, self-control and appropriateness. It appears only twice in the New Testament, and interestingly, its second usage refers specifically to men (1 Timothy 3:2). In fact, nearly all of the Bible’s instructions regarding modest clothing refer not to sexuality, but rather materialism (Isaiah 3:16-23, 1 Timothy 2:9-12, 1 Peter 3:3). Writers in both the Old Testament and New Testament express grave concern when the people of God flaunt their wealth by buying expensive clothes and jewelry while many of their neighbors suffered in poverty. (Ironically, I’ve heard dozens of sermons about keeping my legs and my cleavage out of sight, but not one about ensuring my jewelry was not acquired through unjust or exploitive trade practices—which would be much more in keeping with biblical teachings on modesty.)
     And so biblical modesty isn’t about managing the sexual impulses of other people; it’s about cultivating humility, propriety and deference within ourselves.
     With this in mind, there are three extremes those of us who value modesty should take care to avoid:
1. We turn modesty into objectification when we hold women responsible for the thoughts and actions of men.
     It is important here to make a distinction between attraction and lust. Attraction is a natural biological response to beauty; lust obsesses on that attraction until it grows into a sense of ownership, a drive to conquer and claim. When Jesus warns that “everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart,” he uses the same word found in the Ten Commandments to refer to a person who “covets” his neighbor’s property. Lust takes attraction and turns it into the coveting of a woman’s body as though it were property. And men are responsible for their own thoughts and actions when this happens; they don’t get to blame it on what a woman is wearing.
     Notice Jesus doesn’t say, “everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart, so ladies, be sure to dress more modestly.” Instead he says to the men, “if your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away”! The IVP New Testament Commentary notes that at the time, “Jewish men expected married Jewish women to wear head coverings to prevent lust. Jewish writers often warned of women as dangerous because they could invite lust (as in Sirach 25:21; Ps. Sol. 16:7-8), but Jesus placed the responsibility for lust on the person doing the lusting.”
     People have expressed skepticism of the Princeton study cited by Rey, pointing out that it was drawn from a small sample size, included men who already held negative or sexist views of women, and used headless images of women either fully dressed or wearing a bikini to evoke responses. But regardless of whatever synapsis involuntarily fire in a man’s brain when he sees a woman’s body, he alone is responsible for the decision to objectify a woman or treat her with respect. Placing that burden upon women is unnecessary and unfair.
     2. We turn modesty into objectification when we assume there are single standards that apply to all people in all cultures.
     Interestingly, the same study cited by Rey has been cited by a popular Muslim site as support for encouraging women to wear the hijab, which reveals something of how different cultures and faiths view modesty. I spent some time in India, where women in traditional saris exposed their midriffs and navels without a second thought, but would carefully avoid showing their knees. Rachel Marie Stone recently wrote an excellent piece for Christianity Today about how, in Malawi, women typically nurse in public without shame of exposing their breasts. In many cultures, a one-piece bathing suit would be considered scandalous; in others, bikinis—or even topless bathing— are the norm. What is considered modest or appropriate changes depending on culture and context. It also changes from woman to woman, depending on body type, personality, personal convictions and season in life. While we may long for a universal dress code that would make all of this simpler, we aren’t given one. Perhaps this is why Paul encouraged women to “adorn themselves with good deeds,” and why the valorous woman of Proverbs 31 is praised because “she clothes herself in strength and dignity.” At the end of the day, the most important things we project to the world are strength, dignity and good deeds; the sort of things that transcend culture, circumstance, and clothing.
     The truth is, a man can choose to objectify a woman whether she’s wearing a bikini or a burqa [a long, loose garment covering the whole body from head to feet, worn in public by many Muslim women]. We don’t stop lust by covering up the female form; we stop lust by teaching men to treat women as human beings worthy of respect.
3. Finally, we turn modesty into objectification when we make women ashamed of their bodies.
     It doesn’t take long for a woman to realize that no matter what she wears, the curves of her body remain visible and will occasionally attract the notice of men. If this reality is met only with shame, if the female form is treated as inherently seductive and problematic, then women will inevitably feel ashamed of their bodies.
     But our bodies are not something to be overcome; they are not dirty or shameful or inherently tempting. They are a beautiful part of what it means to be created in the image of God. These are the bodies that allow us to be the hands and feet of Jesus in the world, the bodies that feel sun on our skin and sand between our toes, the bodies that nurse babies and cry with friends, the bodies that emerge from the waters of baptism and feast on the bread of communion. They are beautiful, and they are good.
     So my advice for women looking for bathing suits this season is this: Don’t dress for men, and don’t dress for yourself. Instead, prioritize strength, dignity and good deeds, and then dress accordingly.”

     “[song playing: “Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini”] I’m sure you’ve all heard that song before and I apologize if it gets stuck in anyone’s head for the rest of the day. But, I am wondering, if you’ve ever really listened to the lyrics, because until a couple of weeks ago, I’d never really listened to them before, so I’d like to review some of them with you. The first verse goes,
     “She was afraid to come out of the locker // She was as nervous as she could be // She was afraid to come out of the locker // She was afraid that somebody would see”
     The song continues, with her being afraid to come out in the open, so she hides in her blanket, and then, she was afraid to come out of the water, so she starts to turn blue. Why was this woman, so afraid? This song was released in 1960, fourteen years after the bikini was invented in France. French engineer, Louis Reard invented the bikini, he worked in his mother’s lingerie shop and he named it after the site of the atomic bomb testing that year Bikini Atoll.
     He thought that the publics’ reaction would be like an atomic bomb explosion. And, he was right. His design was based on exposing the belly button for the first time. And he said, it wasn’t the true bikini unless it could be pulled through a wedding ring. It was so scandalous that no French model would wear it. So he had to hire a stripper to debut his bikini.
     Before Reard invented the bikini women wore one piece swimsuits, like this, or if they were two piece swimsuits, they were still very modest, exposed very little midriff and always cover the belly button. Before that, at the turn of the century women wore this voluminous bathing costumes, and they use things called bath machines, which were like a 6x6x6 wooden or canvas hut on wheels, the women would get inside of the bathing machine in her cloths, and then she would change into her bathing costume. And horses or sometimes people would drag the bathing machine down to the shoreline, and then women would get straight into the water. So that no one would see here in her bathing costume.
     We have certainly come a long way, since then from practically wearing a house of 36 square feet to wearing about 36 square inches of fabric. You go to the beach today and it seems like everyone is wearing a bikini, but it was not an instant hit in the United States. It was seen as a suspect garment favored by licentious Mediterranean types.
     In 1957, Modern Girl magazine said, “It was hardly necessary to waste words on the so called bikini, because no girl with the tact or decency would ever wear such a thing. And one writer described the bikini as a two piece bathing suits that revealed everything about a girl except her mothers’ maiden name. Guards at the beach would measure bathing suits and women wearing bikinis were sure to get kicked off of the beach.
     So, it’s no wonder that the girl on the song was afraid to come out of the water.
     With 1960s however, came the sexual revolution and the women’s movement and the rising popularity of the bikini. Soon no one was afraid to wear one. And in 1965, a women told Time magazine, that it was almost square not to. Last year alone annual spending on the bikini totaled $8 billion. The popularity of the bikini has been attributed to the power of women, not the power of fashion. And a New York Times reporter called the bikini, the millennial equivalent of the power suit.
     So I’d like to take a couple of minutes to examine this so called power that wearing the bikini brings.
     A few years ago, male college students at Princeton University participated in studies of how the male brain reacts to seeing people in different amounts of clothing. Brain scans revealed that when men are shown pictures of scantily-clad women, the region of the brain associated with tools, such as screwdrivers and hammers lit up.
     Some men showed zero brain activity in the medial prefrontal cortex, which is the part of the brain that lights up when one ponders another person’s thoughts, feelings, and intentions. Researchers found that shocking, because they almost never see this part of the brain shutdown in this way.
     And a Princeton professor said, “It is as if they’re reacting to these women as if they’re not fully human. It’s consistent with the idea that they are responding to these photographs, as if they were responding to objects, not people.
     In a separate Princeton study, when men viewed images a women in bikinis, they often associated with first person action verbs such as: “I push”, “I grab”, “I handle”. But when they saw images of women dressed modestly, they associated them with third person action verbs, such as “she pushes”, “she grabs”.
     Analyst at the National Geographic concluded the bikinis really do inspire man to see women as objects as something to be used rather than someone to connect with. So, it seems that wearing a bikini does give a women power, the power to shutdown a man’s ability to see her as a person, but rather as an object.
     This is surely not the kind of power that women were searching for, the power to be treated as an equal to be seen as in control and to be taken seriously. It seems that the kind of power they are searching for is more attainable, when they dress modestly. But now comes the problem of modesty.
     The very word, modesty is often met with such disdain especially among the younger high school crowd. I remember speaking to a group of teenagers in New York and when I mentioned modesty, this girl yelled from the back, “What am I supposed to dress like then, a grandma? And I was scared, but I have to admit, I thought the same thing when I first learned about modesty. I thought it meant, “I had to be frumpy and dumpy and out of fashion”. And, I imagine myself wearing dresses like this, sitting alone in my living room, never going on another date, ever again and never getting married, and I was particularly frustrated when shopping for a swimsuit, when I decided not to wear bikinis anymore, because all I could find were things that my grandmother would actually wear.
     Instead of being discouraged I took matters into my own hands and I designed my own swimsuit, and the first time I wore it, a few girls asked, where I got it, and the second time a few more and so on and so forth. So, I decided to put my MBA to use, which made my parents so happy, and just start my own swimsuit company.
     My goal is to disapprove the age old notion, that when it comes to swimsuits, less is more and that you can dress modestly without sacrificing fashion.
     My inspiration for my swimsuit line is Audrey Hepburn, who is timeless and classy and who happened to have dressed very modestly. I don’t think people would think of Audrey Hepburn and think frumpy and dumpy and out of fashion.
     These are some of my designs and my tag line is “Who says it has to be itsy bitsy?” Well to answer the question, if you look at today’s society everyone, everyone says, “It has to be itsy bitsy”, fashion designers, the media, and let’s face it sometimes parents.
     Little girls would not be running around in sexy underwear and skimpy bikinis, if it wasn’t for their parents buying them for them.
     I believe that the woman was afraid to come out of the water, because she had a natural sense of modesty about her. That has been stripped away by today’s culture. And, we need to bring it back.
     I have dedicated a lot of my time, I travel all over the country speaking to girls about this issue. I’ve just written a book called ‘Decent Exposure’ about it.
     And, we need to teach girls that modesty isn’t about covering up our bodies because they’re bad, modesty isn’t about hiding ourselves, it’s about revealing our dignity.
     We were made beautiful in His image and likeness, so the question I’d like to leave you with is, how will you use your beauty? Thank you. [see Rey’s swimline here: Reyswimwear.com]”
     – Jessica Rey, The Evolution of the Swimsuit

The Gift of Singleness // Celibacy

single
     Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.
      Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that.This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away.
     I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.
     – Paul, 1 Corinthians 7:6-9, 25-35

On the balance of marriage and singleness:
     We must never exalt singleness (as some early church fathers did, notably Tertullian) as if it were a higher and holier vocation than marriage. We must reject the ascetic tradition which disparages sex as legalized lust, and marriage as legalized fornication. No, no. Sex is the good gift of a good Creator, and marriage is his own institution.
     If marriage is good, singleness is also good. It’s an example of the balance of Scripture that, although Genesis 2:18 indicates that it is good to marry, 1 Corinthians 7:1 (in answer to a question posed by the Corinthians) says that “it is good for a man not to marry.” So both the married and the single states are “good”; neither is in itself better or worse than the other.
Reasons people remain single:
     I doubt if we could find a clearer answer to this than in the recorded teaching of Jesus himself in Matthew 19:11-12. He was talking about “eunuchs,” meaning people who remain single and celibate. He listed three reasons why people do not marry.
     First, for some it is “because they were born that way.” This could include those with a physical defect or with a homosexual orientation. Such are congenitally unlikely to marry.
     Second, there are those who “were made that way by men.” This would include victims of the horrible ancient practice of forcible castration. But it would also include all those today who remain single under any compulsion or external circumstance. One thinks of a daughter who feels under obligation to forego marriage in order to care for her elderly parents.
     Third, “others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven.” These people, who are under no pressure from within or without, voluntarily put marriage aside, either temporarily or permanently, in order to undertake some work for the kingdom which demands single-minded devotion.
Singleness as a gift from God:
     It’s noteworthy that Jesus himself, before listing those three categories of single people, said that not everybody could accept what he was about to say, “but only those to whom it has been given.” If singleness is a gift, however, so is marriage. Indeed, I have myself found help in 1 Corinthians 7:7. For here the apostle writes: “each man [or woman] has his [or her] own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.” “Gift” translates charisma, which is a gift of God’s grace (charis). So whether we are single or married, we need to receive our situation from God as his own special grace-gift to us.
On Stott’s own experience as a single:
     In spite of rumors to the contrary, I have never taken a solemn vow or heroic decision to remain single! On the contrary, during my 20s and 30s, like most people, I was expecting to marry one day. In fact, during this period I twice began to develop a relationship with a lady who I thought might be God’s choice of life-partner for me. But when the time came to make a decision, I can best explain it by saying that I lacked an assurance from God that he meant me to go forward. So I drew back. And when that had happened twice, I naturally began to believe that God meant me to remain single.
     Looking back, with the benefit of hindsight, I think I know why. I could never have traveled or written as extensively as I have done if I had had the responsibilities of a wife and family.
On loneliness:
     God created us as social beings. Love is the greatest thing in the world. For God is love, and when he made us in his own image, he gave us the capacity to love and to be loved. So we need each other. Yet marriage and family are not the only antidotes to loneliness.
     Some pastors work on their own, isolated from their peers, and in consequence are lonely. But the New Testament plainly envisages that each local church will have a plural oversight. See, for example, Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5. So in All Souls Church in the heart of London we have always had a team ministry, and we have found it an enormous enrichment. I have also been greatly blessed by Frances Whitehead, my faithful secretary for more than 40 years, and by the “apostolic succession” of my study assistants.
     In addition, single people are wise to develop as many friendships as possible, with people of all ages and both sexes. For example, although I have no children of my own, I have hundreds of adopted nephews and nieces all over the world, who call me “Uncle John.” I cherish these affectionate relationships; they greatly lessen, even if they do not altogether deaden, occasional pangs of loneliness.
Final words of advice for single people:
     First, don’t be in too great a hurry to get married. We human beings do not reach maturity until we are about 25. To marry before this runs the risk of finding yourself at twenty-five married to somebody who was a very different person at the age of twenty. So be patient. Pray daily that God will guide you to your life partner or show you if he wants you to remain single. Second, lead a normal social life. Develop many friendships. Third, if God calls you to singleness, don’t fight it. Remember the key text: “Each person has his or her own gift of God’s grace” (1 Cor. 7:7).”
     – John Stott, John Stott on Singleness

     “Because [Westerners] privilege marriage as God’s preferred way of life for everyone, churches in America, on the whole, do a very poor job of ministering to single adults. Our programs are rarely geared for singles. The few that tend either to isolate them from the rest of the congregation or function as a Christian matchmaking service. We sometimes think that the best discipleship step a single Christian can make is to marry a good Christian mate. In fact, we are often suspicious of a male Christian who chooses singleness. Something is “wrong” with him, and the burden of proof falls to him to prove otherwise. Some churches will not hire a single man as a pastor for fear “that a single pastor cannot counsel a mostly married flock, that he might sow turmoil by flirting with a church member, or that he might be gay” [see link below]. We fail to recognize, as Paul did, that singleness is a gift and that those who choose the celibate lifestyle have greater freedom to serve the Lord. John Stott and Henri Nouwen are just two examples of celibate Christian singles who dedicated their lives to the service of Christ and his kingdom. Spiritual gifting is not reserved for the married. Perhaps instead of focusing all our attention on ministering to the needs of families, we should find more meaningful ways of equipping singles for the work of the Lord.”
     – E. Randolph Richards and Brandon O’Brien, Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes

     – John Morgan III, The Gift of Celibacy—Its Meaning Today
     – Christine Colón, Bonnie Field, Singled Out: Why Celibacy Must Be Reinvented in Today’s Church

Redemptive Redefinition

     For Christians like myself living in an American context, we’re not pushing anything new. By that I mean that we’re not, like Paul, entering local city forums and declaring to pagans “the unknown God” (Acts 17:22-33), nor are we entering local religious centers and reasoning toward the coming Messiah (Acts 18:4; 19:8-10). Rather than sharing a completely new or foreign message with people, evangelism for us will consist of redefining and redeeming people’s conceptions of Christ, Christianity, church, sin, heaven, hell, and so on.
     Westerners are familiar with Christianity in some capacity or another. Ask any stranger on the street, “Who is Jesus Christ?” and they’ll have an answer. “He’s my Lord and Savior,” “He was a good teacher who’s followers went crazy after he died,” “He’s a mythical piece of religious fiction,” etc. The answers would vary widely, but I promise you they’d have an answer. No “Never heard of the guy” or “Who?” responses. This is because most Americans have been raised in church, or have attended a youth camp as a teenager, or have taken a world religions class in college, or have seen crazy Christian extremists on the news, or have studied it out of curiosity, or have been informed by their parents or voices within culture (e.g. TV shows, movies, books, etc.), the list is endless. The people you and I encounter from day-to-day know who Jesus is; at least, they think they do.
     As a result of this, when we approach people and ask, “Hey man, could I have a few minutes of your time to tell you about Jesus Christ?” we’re usually responded to with a negative disposition, if not a negative answer outright. People aren’t interested in something that they’ve already made up their mind about, and although they’d vary widely, the definitions people have for Jesus are pretty set in stone. Beyond this, their definitions of Christians are set, too, and chances are that they’re not very kind assessments. Rather than validating their assumption that Christians are the pushy, “shove-it-down-your-throat” type by forcing conversations like the examples previously mentioned, we should aim to redefine that conception.
     I love Breaking Bad, Guardians of the Galaxy, and any movie or television that makes me think deeply, but Christians shouldn’t watch media with cuss words or sex in them. I love to smoke a good cigar, but Christians shouldn’t smoke because their bodies are to be treated as temples of the Holy Spirit. I love to listen to Drake, Bring Me the Horizon, and any artist that makes good music, but Christians shouldn’t listen to music that doesn’t glorify God. My arms are covered in tattoos, but the Bible says that Christians shouldn’t get tattoos. On and on I could go with things about me (and many other Christians) that contradict the common definition of what a ‘Christian’ is.
     What if all of those “but Christians shouldn’t”s that I just listed aren’t true of Christians? What if Christians are not only free to enjoy good, genuine art but that they should learn to discern the message behind movies and shows that, quote, “have bad words and premarital sex”? What if Paul’s talking about the body of the church as a temple of the Holy Spirit and not the human body? What if music that isn’t written exclusively under the genre “worship/gospel” can glorify God? What if Christ has fulfilled the Mosaic law that previously prohibited Jews from tattooing themselves? Mind you, the point of this article is not to change your convictions on any of those things, start an argument, or make Christians look cooler. I’m just listing a handful of examples that I point to when redefining and redeeming what a Christian is. And people get more than just the definition of a Christian wrong; ‘church’ isn’t a building full of perfect people, ‘heaven’ isn’t the final home for the Christian, ‘sin’ encompasses more than just disobeying God’s commandments, ‘hell’ isn’t a party with all your friends, etc. We have to redefine these things with our lives and words if they’re ever going to realize that.
     When ‘evangelizing’ in this manner, my hope is that in correcting misconceptions about what a Christian is, I’m able to correct misconceptions about who Jesus is. The implication behind each of those “but Christians shouldn’t…” is a poorly misunderstood Jesus who only cares about what we look like and what cuss words we say and what movies we watch, rather than the true Jesus who walks among the poor, addicted, tattooed, sailor-mouthed freaks and commoners with compassion, mercy, and grace. Does Jesus care about what we look like and what we say and what media we consume? Absolutely. But when Jesus is represented as a spiteful tyrant looking to slap people on the wrist for watching rated R movies and drinking a beer, then who can blame people for shunning the annoying evangelist begging for 5 minutes to share the “good news” about said tyrant? He is far more, and far greater.
     You represent Jesus to the people you encounter every day. Their understanding of who He is will be determined by how they understand you. If you’re critical, self-righteous, a buzzkill, and evangelistic in word alone, then Jesus will be perceived as such. But if you’re kind, humble, joyful, and evangelistic in all of your life, then Jesus will be represented as He is. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, but don’t think that means forcing your coworker through the Romans Road or knocking on doors in your neighborhood with a handful of tracts that poorly attempt to make people scared of hell. Redefine and redeem your family’s, friends’, and coworkers’ misconceptions of what a follower of Jesus looks like in the hopes that they’ll be redefined and redeemed by Jesus.

Kendrick Lamar’s “To Pimp a Butterfly” Review

TPAB

I loved this review of Kendrick Lamar’s newest album so much that I had to post it. I didn’t write this, for the record.

To Pimp A Butterfly [TPAB] is the story of where Kendrick was/is in his life post-good kid m.A.A.d. city [GKMC].

It’s best to view this more as an audiobook than album. You’ll appreciate it more. I’m not being pretentious, just being honest. I would really suggest to those who like the album and what Kendrick’s trying to accomplish here: do not short change this project by comparing it to other hip-hop albums! The beats are providing a backdrop — similiar to a movie score — and should not be your central focus. There’s a reason that there’s little-to-no ‘bars’ (i.e. memorable lines, etc.) on the album: it’s a story, not merely a collection of songs. I’m floored with this concept and him using ‘Pac circa ’94 as inspiration. ‘Pac was leading a movement of hood niggas. Just like Kendrick is on the album cover. He just had to become strong enough to handle the responsibility.

This isn’t just Section.80 2.0, it’s the mission he’s been on since then. Deep shit, man. A literary masterpiece…:

  • Wesley’s Theory : He doesn’t want to be another Wesley Snipes (i.e. snatched up by critical acclaim and fame at an early age). Young Wesley was featured in a Spike Lee film when he was still considered an avant garde director and in Michael fucking Jackson’s first post-Thriller video for Bad directed by Martin Scorsese…that’s pretty famous, pretty fast. Why? What’s the outcome? The government/America/the powers that be — the “Uncle Sam” the woman will get to “fuck you up” referenced later — will come bearing down on you. Just like they did Wesley…
  • King Kunta :  This track begins the thread of self-doubt masked in braggadocio contained throughout the entire album until he reaches self-actualization — “I love myself!” — at the end of the album when he becomes a Negus. Hence the introduction of the poem that tells his state of mind post-GKMC at the end of this song. This track is critical in understanding this album. He’s becoming to realize that he’s a slave to the powers that be and this is his response as a black man. “He’s mad…but he ain’t stressin!” He’s accepted his fate. And what happens when you accept your fate to the powers that be? You become…
  • For Free? :  …and guess who the woman talking is portraying during this piece? That’s right, she’s America/the powers that be. Everything she wants are the things that Kendrick doesn’t want to become. Kendrick’s response? “This dick ain’t free”. He doesn’t play by the machine’s rules. And the response from America/the powers that be is “nigga you ain’t no King!” Hence, the next track…
  • Institutionalized : This song is his justification for why he’s become “institutionalized” — i.e. giving into fame/the powers that be for the sake of his art — and reasons why he will never become institutionalized all the same. Hence Snoop giving the biographical recap of just who Kendrick is. This continues the poem’s (“I remember you were conflicted…”) story. This internal conflict leads to…
  • These Walls :  It’s Kendrick’s confession that he has in fact “made love” with the powers that be and the marriage is one of convenience. This leads to his breakdown. The “I can’t believe myself and who I’m becoming” state of mind that leads to…
  • u :  Kendrick’s self-doubt officially becomes self-loathing. He’s taking himself to the woodshed and doing some real self-reflection. This is probably the most straight-forward message on the album. But, he’s trying to overcome this state of depression and reminds himself that he’s gonna be…
  • Alright :  The beginning of the “pick himself off the mat” state of mind. But, before he can completely overcome his struggles with doubt, denial and depression, he’s faced with his biggest challenge yet…understanding he is in fact…
  • For Sale?   Lucy (or Lucifer)  is enticing Kendrick more than ever by directly letting him know what material possessions the powers that be can provide for him. There’s a reason that this is posed as a question in the title. Kendrick doesn’t know the answer. And to discover the answer, he needs to go home to…
  • Momma : Kendrick goes home to be reminded of what’s most important to him and to begin to gain his confidence back. Hence the constant reminder that “I know everything…” throughout the track. Once he realizes he has the answers, he’s ready to take on this burden of fame, etc.; however, while he’s home, he realizes that things in his hood still aren’t right. He’s made it, but his hood (Compton) is left behind to deal with the perils that come with poverty, being a black man, etc. His homies thinks he’s changed and start playing…
  • Hood Politics :  This song begins with what is one of Kendrick’s OGs making fun of what Kendrick has become and they barely recognize who he is now. And with that, Kendrick begins to “fight back” and his defense mechanism is to remind all of these guys who thinks he’s changed that they are “boo boo”. However, what if they are right? And if so, the question is…
  • How Much A Dollar Cost? : A deep question, and again, no answer is given. But what’s key is that Kendrick’s confidence is beginning to show flashes of its old self. Going back home has Kendrick asking himself the right questions and with the help of the OGs/family/his girl/the Lord, he has a renewed sense of purpose and pride (black pride, to be specific). It’s also important to contextualize the ’94 ‘Pac influence again. ’94 ‘Pac was arguably one of the most known “black” revolutionaries of his time — Farrakhan was still foremost — and it’s clear that Kendrick is beginning to sense the same responsibility to his community. And much like ‘Pac in ‘94, he has the vision and purpose, but no answer…
  • Complexion :  This is what I’d imagine is his ode to black pride and will go down as one of Kendrick’s definitive tracks whenever his career is complete. What is the most powerful moment of this track is the inclusion of a woman, which is fantastic as it reinforces the notion of black women being just as important to black community and culture as the homies that he’s trying to reach. And now, think about the single cover for the next track (a woman breast feeding)…
  • The Blacker The Berry :  This phrase is commonly referred to reinforce black pride in black women and their complexion (remember this song?). Again, an exploration of black pride, but also an acknowledgment and act of consciousness. He now knows that he’s a hypocrite as much of his views conflict with and even oppose one another. This is again another layer of his renewed responsibility to continue to ask tough questions without providing answers. He hopes to get the answer later (this is why the ending is sooooo important)…
  • You Ain’t Got To Lie (Momma Said) :  By going home  (hence the Momma Said in the title)  he discovers purpose, renewed confidence, pride in his community, pride in his race, etc. and now he’s nearly reached the stage of self-actualization: realizing exactly who he is, “you ain’t got to lie to kick my nigga” (i.e. be yourself) and most importantly…love yourself.
  • i :  This is his moment of self-actualization. He’s ready to carry the torch. But again, this comes with a burden. He’s shunning fame/the powers that be and doing things his way (there’s a reason that this was chosen as the initial single. It was this story carried out in real life…he shunned expectations when this single was released last year). However, with this power comes great responsibility. He’s ready to lead. And as with any man looking to lead his people, he has accepted his fate, and he accepts the fact that he is a…
  • Mortal Man :  Kendrick has accepted his responsibility, found his purpose and now (as anyone must do when they assume the mantle), he’s seeking guidance. He knows who he is. But he still doesn’t have the answers. And in seeking to get the answers, he presents ‘Pac with his backstory —the six-part poem — and hopes to get answers and wisdom…who was the ultimate mortal man in hip-hop? Tupac Shakur.

No answers are yet given, but this is the story of how they (America/the powers that be/your own self-doubt) tried to pimp (lose self-identity and self-worth for material gain) a butterfly (a beautiful and now powerful black man).”

— DGIsAWinner, comment section of Review: Kendrick Lamar’s ‘To Pimp a Butterfly’ Is a Dark Album for a Dark Time

First Things First

FirstThingsFirst

We cannot overemphasize things of highest importance. But, conversely, we can overemphasize that which is of secondary value, though equally necessary or true. All truth is true (duh), all necessities are necessary (duh), but not all truth and necessities are of equal importance. This should be fairly obvious.

Think Jesus’ emphasis on the Greatest Commandment, “Love God, love people,” or his words to the Pharisees, “Woe to you, hypocrites! For you tithe, yet have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.” Or Paul, “Now faith, hope, and love abide; but the greatest of these is love” and “of first importance: that Christ died for our sins…” Followers of Christ should be known not for nitpicking things of secondary importance, but rather for embodying the love of the crucified Lord of creation. My cynicism aside, this is generally my biggest frustration with Christians on social networking.

Sharing Christ is more important than damning homosexuality or a sin you particularly dislike; worshipping the Lord is more important than singing songs to your musical or theological preference; loving your neighbor is more important than arguing against his political views; identifying with the broken body of Christ is more important than identifying with Texas pride or the Cowboys; living out New Testament ethics is more important than captioning a Bible verse with your selfies and Instagram bio; contributing to the church is more important than complaining that you can’t consume what you’d like from it; damning global injustice is more important than bashing Obama; demonstrating authenticity through weakness is more important than faking the happiness and strength that you don’t always have; celebrating great music and cinema is more important than hiding from anything with the F word in it; being an agent of change is more important than voicing what’s wrong with our generation; and evaluating me based on how I love God and love people is more important than thinking I’m solid because I post a Facebook status you like.

C.S. Lewis writes, “When first things are put first, second things are not suppressed but increased.” We should not neglect things of secondary importance; and I cannot draw a universal line and define what’s of greatest and least value. But, I can echo Christ’s words in the sermon on the Mount: “Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.”

“The woman who makes a dog the centre of her life loses, in the end, not only her human usefulness and dignity but even the proper pleasure of dog-keeping.

The man who makes alcohol his chief good loses not only his job but his palate and all power of enjoying the earlier (and only temporary pleasurable) levels of intoxication.

It is a glorious thing to feel for a moment or two that the whole meaning of the universe is summed up in one woman—glorious so long as other duties and pleasures keep tearing you away from her. But, clear the decks and so arrange your life (it is sometimes feasible) that you will have nothing to do but contemplate her, and what happens?

Of course this law has been discovered before, but should stand re-discovered. It may be stated as follows: every preference of a small good to a great, or partial good to a total good, involves the loss of the small or partial good for which the sacrifice is made…You can’t get second things by putting them first. You get second things only by putting first things first.”

– C.S. Lewis, “First and Second Things,” in God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics

My Tattoos

These are all my tattoos and their meanings, in order of when I got them. Click each picture to get a better look. See this post for an understanding of tattoos.


TasteAndSee

Done by Jeremy Maxfield at Elite Tattoo Gallery in Fort Worth, Texas (July 2013). “Taste and see that the LORD is good,” Psalm 34:8. I just wanted a reminder of God’s constant goodness. Dang, God’s so good.


BindMyWandering

Done by Cody Dresser at Dallas Tattoo & Arts in Dallas, Texas (November 2013).”Bind my wandering heart to Thee,” a line from my favorite hymn, Come Thou Fount. This tattoo represents my favorite hymn, my love for beautiful art devoted to the Lord (like many classic hymns), and the meaning of the line itself is a plea to the Lord to bind our hearts to Him, as we fickly wander toward sin and worldliness away from that which satisfies.


Kingdom

Done by Cody Dresser at Dallas Tattoo & Arts in Dallas, Texas (March 2014). The crown represents our union with Christ; Paul would call us “ambassadors for Christ” (2 Corinthians 5:20), or viceroys: representatives of an authority not our own. We wear the crown that Christ has earned and purchased with His blood. The castle is a reminder of the holy city, the New Jerusalem, that the Lord is preparing for us (Revelation 21:2), and ultimately a reminder of God’s presence, as God will dwell with us (Revelation 21:3). God’s dwelling with man was once full in the Garden of Eden, broken after the Fall and relegated to the Tabernacle, then the Temple, then the Church, and will finally be fully restored in the new Earth. See T. Desmond Alexander’s From Eden to the New Jerusalem for a better understanding of God’s presence and man’s viceregency. The roses and background are just aesthetic, at the artists’ choice. I love letting the artist freely design his artwork, as he’s likely to design something to the best of his ability when given little limitations. And Cody’s awesome.


Sword

Done by Cody Dresser at Dallas Tattoo & Arts in Dallas, Texas (July 2014). There’s a ton of sword imagery all throughout the New Testament, e.g. “fight the good fight of faith” (1 Timothy 6:12), “the sword of the Spirit” (Ephesians 6:17), “He does not bear the sword in vain” (Romans 13:4), “the word of God is sharper than any double-edged sword” (Hebrews 4:12), etc. Thus, several motifs are implied but ultimately the tattoo points to the face that we exercise the authority of the Lord, the same Lord who tells us He came to this world not to bring peace but a sword (Matthew 10:34).


AllNations

Done by Cody Dresser at Sparrows Tattoo Company in Mansfield, Texas (September 2014). This tattoo is a reminder of God’s bigness, and our obligation to reach the nations. He’s not merely the God of Dallas, or Texas, or the Bible Belt, or America, or even the world, he reigns over all creation. “All nations” is a phrase that occurs some 200+ times in the Bible, most commonly recognized in the Great Commission, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations,” (Matthew 28:18-20). Thus, we’re called to take the gospel of God’s kingdom to all nations, not just where we’re comfortable or the places with God-fearing churches on every corner. There are soooo many unreached nations, in urgent need of Jesus.


Processed with Moldiv

Done by Cody Dresser at Sparrows Tattoo Company in Mansfield, Texas (November 2014). The tattoo is on a curving part of my forearm so it’s a bit difficult to get a good picture, which is why the photo above is actually two merged together. This tattoo relates to my anxiety, that is, when I’m not trusting the Lord. The words and imagery all come from Matthew 6, part of Jesus’ sermon on the Mount. “Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you,” (Matthew 6:33). When I’m seeking the Lord, I don’t need to worry about money or school or work or whatever; I don’t mean that I neglect diligence and responsibility in those respective areas I may worry about, rather, I trust the Lord with them knowing that He is good and He is in control. Further, Jesus says, “Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?” (Matthew 6:26). The bird is a reminder that if God’s taking care of mere birds, then He’s got me. “Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven…For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also,” (Matthew 6:20-21). The heart in the lamp is a reminder that if I’m treasuring those things that are bound to fail me, I will reap worry and struggle, but if I’m treasuring the Lord, I will not fret. God’s good, and I’ve got every reason to trust Him and His goodness.


Processed with VSCOcam with c1 preset

Done by Cody Dresser at Sparrows Tattoo Company in Mansfield, Texas (December 2014). A chalice or goblet with blood spilling out, most obviously associated with communion (read Matthew 26:26-29). Beyond the more obvious meaning, this tattoo is a reminder to strive for compassion. I serve a God of great and deep compassion, but often I demonstrate much apathy and cynicism rather than a concern for others. Compassion, ‘com-‘ meaning “with” and ‘passion’ meaning “to suffer,” literally means “to suffer with,” and like Christ has suffered with us and drank the cup of wrath that the Father has given Him (Matthew 26:38-39, 42; John 18:11), I want to strive to emulate that compassion daily, suffer with those around me, and to demonstrate love for God and people.


Processed with VSCOcam with c1 preset

Done by Cody Dresser at Sparrows Tattoo Company in Mansfield, Texas (December 2014). First tattoo of mine to not yet have a ‘meaning,’ I guess I’m open to suggestions. I just told him to do an arrow, and he did this. Good art looks dope.


FullSizeRender-11
Done by Cody Dresser at Sparrows Tattoo Company in Mansfield, Texas (March 2015). In this piece, the snake symbolizes the enemy, the candle symbolizes time. The length of our short life is like that of a burning candle, and satan aims to get a stranglehold on our time in so many different ways, that it wouldn’t be used for the Lord. Ultimately, life is war and time is precious; we cannot waste a second.


Processed with VSCOcam with c1 preset
Done by Cody Dresser at Sparrows Tattoo Company in Mansfield, Texas (March 2015). In general, this tattoo is a reminder of wisdom. Chess is historically considered a “wise man’s game,” or associated with nobility and intelligence. Wisdom is a necessity in the Christian life, taking all that we know and sifting through what life throws at us day by day. Moreover, the knight alternates black and white spaces with each move, similar to how we make ‘moves’ throughout life alternating between the head and the heart.


FullSizeRender

Done by Cody Dresser at Sparrows Tattoo Company in Mansfield, Texas (March 2015). This is Star Lord from Guardians of the Galaxy, I freaking love this movie. My love for studying and enjoying culture manifests itself in good music (Drake, Bring Me the Horizon, etc.), good TV shows (Breaking Bad, Sons of Anarchy, etc.), and good movies, like Guardians of the Galaxy. Good art glorifies God, and I wanted to engrave a reminder of the good gifts that God gives us through good movies, songs, books, shows, on and on I could go.


IMG_5249.JPG

Done by Joseph Ayala at Saints and Sinners in Carrollton, Texas (April 2015). The verse is Leviticus 19:28, which states: “You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the Lord.” I got this because people often quote this verse, ripped of its proper context, mistaking it to forbid Christians from marking their bodies, i.e. tattoos. For one, this verse is written to the Israelites. This is part of the Law, given by God to His chosen people, to obey, yes. And were Jesus never to come and the Lord to never intend a plan of redemption that freed us from the Law and the New Testament never be written and I be born into the country of Israel, then I would be required to obey it. But the New Testament is replete with the fact that Christ came and fulfilled the Law (Matthew 5:17), freed us from it (Romans 7:6), and instituted the New Covenant (Hebrews 9:15). This is a major aspect of the gospel, and far more important than freeing us merely to get tattoos. I got this as a controversial, trolling, tongue-in-cheek way of pointing to the New Covenant, and ultimately to Jesus Christ who came and freed us from the Law. A permanent irony.


ROSE tattoo

Done by Cody Dresser at Sparrows Tattoo Company in Mansfield, Texas (September 2015). This is just a beautiful rose that I got as a filler, a red rose tattoo is a very standard traditional tattoo, so it’s something I’ve always found aesthetically pleasing and it was convenient that the size/shape of the piece filled up the last large chunk of space on my sleeve. I’d been dying to get the last of my arm filled so that my sleeve would be complete but I’d been saving up for an engagement ring, thus I denied my tattoo addiction and told myself I couldn’t spend any money on them. But, my wonderful girlfriend (soon-to-be fianceé) knew this and decided to go behind my back and contact Cody, and after explaining my situation he decided he’d cut her a discount because he knew me (and he was engaged at the time, so he sympathized with why I was saving). Thus this final tattoo was a gift, and it holds a special significance because it reminds me of Lindsey, who’s my beautiful rose. Yeah, it’s cheesy, but that’s love, sorryboutchya. And I’ve got a super dope sleeve now, shout out to Cody Dresser. Check him out!

Chronological Snobbery

CSL

     “I have called…”chronological snobbery,” the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited. You must find why it went out of date. Was it ever refuted (and if so by whom, where, and how conclusively) or did it merely die away as fashions do? If the latter, this tells us nothing about its truth or falsehood. From seeing this, one passes to the realization that our own age is also “a period,” and certainly has, like all periods, its own characteristic illusions. They are likeliest to lurk in those widespread assumptions which are so ingrained in the age that no one dares to attack or feels it necessary to defend them.”
     – C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy (207-208)

 

    “J.I. Packer describing the heretical spirit of our age, which holds that: “The newer is the truer, only what is recent is decent, every shift of ground is a step forward, and every latest word must be hailed as the last word on its subject.””

 

     “…But how does [Hillary Clinton] know what “history” will do? And what makes her think that “history” never makes mistakes? … The spirit of the age is in any case notoriously fickle. You might as well, walking in the mist, take a compass bearing on a mountain goat. What is more, the Church’s foundation documents (to say nothing of its Founder himself) were notoriously on the wrong side of history. The Gospel was foolishness to the Greeks, said St Paul, and a scandal to Jews.”

 

     “…The youth-centred spirit of the age, in which freshness is more fashionable than faithfulness, innovating inspires people more than imitating, technology trumps tradition, and novelty is confused with creativity. Many still think that the Dylanesque call to change everything your parents stood for is iconoclastic, without noticing that true iconoclasm is to be found when people challenge the deepest convictions of a culture, and (say) teach that children should obey their parents rather than tell them to move over because they don’t understand the world no more. When you add to that the modernist metanarrative of progress (which is not completely dead yet), and the wider social obsession with the possibilities brought by technology, it is easy to see why the view could creep into the church that changing things was Good and conserving things was Bad.”

 

     “If it’s true, it’s not new; new truth is an oxymoron.”
          – Anonymous

 

     “And, as the inner life of the Believer thus endures, so, thank God, the outward truth also passes not away. There is not a single Truth of God that is revealed in this blessed Book that shall ever become a lie. There is not one promise there that shall ever be revoked. What God has revealed in His Word is not for yesterday nor for today, alone, but for tomor- row, and until the world’s end and throughout eternity! I know that there are those who would like to see a new Bible, or a revised version of it. I mean a revised version of the original Scriptures to suit their depraved taste! They would gladly have what they call “new developments” and “fresh light” worthy of this “advanced” generation! But, beloved Friends, there is nothing new in theology but that which is false—only the old is true—for the Truth of God must be old, as old as God Himself! So let us rejoice that whatever may happen, and although the fashion of this world shall surely pass away, there is not a single text between the covers of this Book that shall ever lose an atom of its Divine Truth and force. Oh, no! The old Book is not effete and the Revelation it has brought to us will never grow stale! The promises well up with as rich consolation to us today as they did to the first of the martyr-band! The solemn oaths and Covenant of God stand as firm and fast today as when He first gave them to our fathers! So let us cling to the Holy Word and to the doctrines of God’s Grace, for these are among the things that are to abide forever!—
     “Engraved as in eternal brass, the mighty promise shines,
          Nor can the powers of darkness erase, those everlasting lines!
          He that can dash whole worlds to death, and make them when He please—
          He speaks and that almighty breath, fulfils His great decrees!
          His very Word of Grace is strong as that which built the skies.
          The voice that rolls the stars along speaks all the promises!”
     – Charles Spurgeon, The Fashion of This World
     – Isaac Watts, Begin, My Tongue, Some Heav’nly Theme

 

     “But what else can this [the problematic “critical study of history”] mean but that it was in the eighteenth century that man began to axiomatically to credit himself with being superior to the past, and assumed a standpoint in relation to it whence he found it possible to set himself up as a judge over past events according to fixed principles, as well as to describe its deeds and to substantiate history’s own report? And the yardstick of these principles, at least as applied by the typical observer of history living at that age, has the inevitable effect of turning that judgment of the past into an extremely radical one. For the yardstick is quite simply the man of the present with his complete trust in his own powers of discernment and judgment, with his feeling for freedom, his desire for intellectual conquest, his urge to form and his supreme moral self-confidence.
     What historical facts, even, can be true except those which to the man of the age seem psychologically and physiologically probable, or at any rate not improbable? How, in face of such firm certainty about what was psychologically and physiologically probable and improbably could eighteenth century man conceive of the existence of historical riddles and secrets?”
     – Karl Barth, Protestant Thought: from Rousseau to Ritschl (36)

 

1. Everything in the Bible is either cultural or timeless.
2. There is a cultural reason for a particular biblical statement, X.
3. Therefore, X is not timeless, and we don’t have to live by it any more.”
     – Andrew Wilson, The Cultural/Timeless Fallacy

 

The form of the chronological snobbery fallacy can be expressed as follows:
     1) It is argued that A.
     2) A is an old argument, dating back to the times when people also believed B.
     3) B is clearly false.
     4) Therefore, A is false.
          – Wikipedia, Chronological snobbery

 

     “And people say I talk about the same ol’ thang; reason that I sound the same cause the truth don’t change.”
          – Lecrae Moore, Gimme a Second

 

     “It is no novelty, then, that I am preaching; no new doctrine. I love to proclaim these strong old doctrines, which are called by nickname Calvinism, but which are surely and verily the revealed truth of God as it is in Christ Jesus. By this truth I make a pilgrimage into the past, and as I go, I see father after father, confessor after confessor, martyr after martyr, standing up to shake hands with me.”
     – Charles Spurgeon, Election

 

     “The appeal to history is thus a nifty little piece of rhetorical violence, a ‘performative utterance’ that seeks to bring about the fate that it announces and to excuse the opposition’s loss of agency as the inevitable triumph of justice.”

 

     “Upon inspection, “X is on the right side of history” turns out to be a lazy, hectoring way to declare, “X is a good idea,” by those evading any responsibility to prove it so.”
     – William Voegeli, The Redskins and the Wrong Side of History

 

     “We invoke the future’s verdict of guilt precisely because we’d like to smuggle back into our politics the moral force of Divine judgment. But our appeals to progress are a pathetic substitute for the concept of Providence. The former stifles critical reflection about the past. The latter is at least flexible enough to account for the sudden flowering of great evil, even in an age as advanced as ours.
     What we do know from history is that the future often rejects the past. Political ideals are often abandoned, rarely refuted.
     And so we are thrown back on ourselves. If your cause is just and good, argue that it is just and good, not just inevitable.”
     – Michael Brendan Dougherty, The Most Bullying Argument in Politics

 

     – Relevant Magazine, Suffering from Chronological Snobbery

God’s Sovereignty

     “But, of course, the Bible says more than that God could have prevented it; it says it occurs “according to the counsel of his will” (Ephesians 1:11). Indeed, he works all thingsaccording to the counsel of his will. And when the Bible says ‘all things,’ it means all things. This ‘all things’ includes the fall of sparrows (Matt 10:29), the rolling of dice (Prov 16:33), the slaughter of his people (Ps 44:11), the decisions of kings (Prov 21:1), the failing of sight (Exod 4:11), the sickness of children (2 Sam 12:15), the loss and gain of money (1 Sam 2:7), the suffering of saints (1 Pet 4:19), the completion of travel plans (Jas 4:15), the persecution of Christians (Heb 12:4–7), the repentance of souls (2 Tim 2:25), the gift of faith (Phil 1:29), the pursuit of holiness (Phil 3:12–13), the growth of believers (Heb 6:3), the giving of life and the taking in death (1 Sam 2:6), and the crucifixion of his Son (Acts 4:27–28).”

     “The Bible verses below are far from exhaustive, and each should be interpreted according to its genre and context. But I am convinced that these verses—rightly interpreted—definitively establish God’s absolute sovereignty over all things. And since compatiblism is true, none of this contradicts the equally biblical teaching that Satan is “the god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4) and that human choices are genuine and significant.

God Is Sovereign Over…
     Seemingly random things:
     The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD. Proverbs 16:33

     The heart of the most powerful person in the land:
     The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He will. Proverbs 21:1

     Our daily lives and plans:
     A man’s steps are from the LORD; how then can man understand his way? Proverbs 20:24
     Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand. Proverbs 19:21
     Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit”—yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring… Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.” James 4:13-15

     Salvation:
     “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. Romans 9:15-16
     As many as were appointed to eternal life believed. Acts 13:48
     For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified. Romans 8:29-30

     Life and death:
     See now that I, even I, am He, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of My hand. Deuteronomy 32:39
     The LORD kills and brings to life; He brings down to Sheol and raises up. 1 Samuel 12:6

     Disabilities:
     Then the LORD said to [Moses], “Who has made man’s mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?” Exodus 4:11

     The death of God’s Son:
     Jesus, [who was] delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. Acts 2:23
     For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your plan had predestined to take place. Acts 4:27-28
     Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush Him; He has put Him to grief… Isaiah 53:10

     Evil things:
     Is a trumpet blown in a city, and the people are not afraid? Does disaster come to a city, unless the LORD has done it? Amos 3:6
     I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things. Isaiah 45:7
     “The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.” In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong…“Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips. Job 1:21-222:10
     [God] sent a man ahead of them, Joseph, who was sold as a slave…As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. Psalm 105:17Genesis 50:21

     All things:
     [God] works all things according to the counsel of His will. Ephesians 1:11
     Our God is in the heavens; He does all that He pleases. Psalm 115:3
     I know that You can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted. Job 42:2
     All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and He does according to His will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay His hand or say to Him, “What have You done?” Daniel 4:35
     – Justin Taylor, What Is God Sovereign Over?

Filthy Rags or Fully Pleasing?

     “Many Christians believe that all their righteous deeds are nothing but filthy rags. After all, that’s what Isaiah 64:6 seems to say: even your best deeds are dirty and worthless. But I don’t think this is what Isaiah means. The “righteous deeds” Isaiah has in mind are most likely the perfunctory rituals offered by Israel without sincere faith and without wholehearted obedience. In Isaiah 65:1–7 the Lord rejects Israel’s sinful sacrifices. They are an insult to the Lord, smoke in his nostrils, just like the ritual “obedience” of Isaiah 58 that did not impress the Lord because his people were oppressing the poor. Their “righteous deeds” were “filthy rags” (64:6, KJV) because they weren’t righteous at all. They looked good but were a sham, a literal smoke screen to cover up their unbelief and disobedience.
     But we should not think that every kind of “righteous deed” is like a filthy rag before God. In fact the previous verse, Isaiah 64:5, says “you [God] meet him who joyfully works righteousness, those who remember you in your ways.” It is not impossible for God’s people to commit righteous acts that please God. John Piper explains:
     Sometimes people are careless and speak disparagingly of all human righteousness, as if there were no such thing that pleased God. They often cite Isaiah 64:6 which says our righteousness is as filthy rags. It is true–gloriously true–that none of God’s people, before or after the cross, would be accepted by an immaculately holy God if the perfect righteousness of Christ were not imputed to us (Romans 5:19; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:21). But that does not mean that God does not produce in those “justified” people (before and after the cross) an experiential righteousness that is not “filthy rags.” In fact, he does; and this righteousness is precious to God and is required, not as the ground of our justification (which is the righteousness of Christ only), but as an evidence of our being truly justified children of God.
     It is a dangerous thing to ignore the Bible’s assumption, and expectation, that righteousness is possible. Of course, our righteousness can never appease God’s wrath. We need the imputed righteousness of Christ. More than that, we cannot produce any righteousness in our own strength. But as born-again believers, it is possible to please God by his grace. Those who bear fruit in every good work and increase in the knowledge of God are fully pleasing to God (Col. 1:10). Presenting your body as a living sacrifice pleases God (Rom. 12:1). Looking out for your weaker brother pleases God (14:18). Obeying your parents pleases God (Col. 3:20). Teaching the Word in truth pleases God (1 Thess. 2:4). Praying for the governing authorities pleases God (1 Tim. 2:1–3). Supporting your family members in need pleases God (5:4). Sharing with others pleases God (Heb. 13:16). Keeping his commandments pleases God (1 John 3:22). Basically, whenever you trust and obey, God is pleased.
     We can think it’s a mark of spiritual sensitivity to consider everything we do as morally suspect. But this is not the way the Bible thinks about righteousness. More importantly, this kind of spiritual resignation does not tell the truth about God. A. W. Tozer is right:
     From a failure to properly understand God comes a world of unhappiness among good Christians even today. The Christian life is thought to be a glum, unrelieved cross-carrying under the eye of a stern Father who expects much and excuses nothing. He is austere, peevish, highly temperamental and extremely hard to please.
     But this is no way to view the God of the Bible. Our God is not a capricious slave driver. He is not hyper-sensitive and prone to fits of rage on account of slight offenses. He is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love (Ex. 34:6). “He is not hard to please,” Tozer reminds us, “though He may be hard to satisfy.”
     Why do we imagine God to be so unmoved by our heart-felt attempts at obedience? He is, after all, our heavenly Father. What sort of father looks at his daughter’s homemade birthday card and complains that the color scheme is all wrong? What kind of mother says to her son, after he gladly cleaned the garage but put the paint cans on the wrong shelf, “This is worthless in my sight”? What sort of parent rolls his eyes when his child falls off the bike on the first try? There is no righteousness that makes us right with God except for the righteousness of Christ. But for those who have been made right with God by grace alone through faith alone and therefore have been adopted into God’s family, many of our righteous deeds are not onlynot filthy in God’s eyes, they are exceedingly sweet, precious, and pleasing to him.
     – Kevin DeYoung, The Hole in Our Holiness
     – Kevin DeYoung, Filthy Rags or Fully Pleasing?

     We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. (Isaiah 64:6)
     It is true that any shortcoming of God’s law offends against his perfect holiness and makes us liable to judgment, since God cannot look with favor on any sin (Habakkuk 1:13; James 2:10–11).
     But what brought a person to ruin in the Old Testament (and it is the same for us today) was not the failure to have the righteousness of sinless perfection. What brought them to ruin was the failure to trust in the merciful promises of God, especially the hope that he would one day provide a redeemer who would be a perfect righteousness for his people (“the Lord is our righteousness,” Jeremiah 23:6; 33:16). The saints knew that this is how they were saved, and that this faith was the key to obedience, and that obedience was the evidence of this faith.
     It is terribly confusing when people say that the only righteousness that has any value is the imputed righteousness of Christ. Clearly, justification is not grounded on any of our righteousness, but only on the righteousness of Christ imputed to us. But sometimes people are careless and speak disparagingly of all human righteousness, as if there were no such thing that pleased God.
     They often cite Isaiah 64:6, which says our righteousness is as filthy rags, or “a polluted garment.” “We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment.”
     But in the context, Isaiah 64:6 does not mean that all righteousness performed by God’s people is unacceptable to God. Isaiah is referring to people whose righteousness is in fact hypocritical. It is no longer righteousness. But in the verse just before this, Isaiah says that God approvingly meets “him who joyfully works righteousness” (verse 5).
     It’s true — gloriously true — that none of God’s people, before or after the cross, would be accepted by an immaculately holy God if the perfect righteousness of Christ were not imputed to us (Romans 5:19; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:21). But that does not mean God does not produce in those “justified” people an experiential righteousness that is not a “polluted garment.”
     In fact, he does, and this righteousness is precious to God and is, in fact, required — not as the ground of our justification (which is the righteousness of Christ only), but as an evidence of our being truly justified children of God.”
     – John Piper, Future Grace
     – John Piper, Dirty Rags No More

     “When it comes to our justification—our legal standing before God—our own good works are in no way the grounds of God’s declaration that we are “righteous.” Indeed, the gospel is good news because we are saved not by what we have done, but by what Christ has done. We are accepted by God not because of our works, but in spite of them.
     So what does God think of our good works after we are saved? Here, unfortunately, Christians often receive mixed messages. Somewhere along the way we have begun to believe that our pride is best held in check, and God’s grace is most magnified, when we denigrate all our efforts and all our labors as merely “filthy rags” in the sight of God (Is. 64:6).
     But does God really view the Spirit-wrought works of his own children in such a fashion? Is God pleased only with Christ’s work, and always displeased with our own?
     Righteous Deeds
     Not at all. Time and time again, the Scriptures show that God is pleased with the righteousness deeds of the saints. God was pleased with Noah: “Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God” (Gen. 6:9). God was pleased with Zechariah and Elizabeth: “And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord” (Luke 1:6). Christ was pleased with Mary’s gift of perfume (Mark 14:6), a deed he called “beautiful.” Christ was pleased with the widow’s offering: “She put in more than all of them” (Luke 21:3).
     Indeed, one could say that the entire “Hall of Faith” in Hebrews 11 is a catalog of the great deeds of the saints. Think of all that was done by Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Rahab, Gideon, Samson, David, Samuel, and others. Are all their deeds “filthy rags” in God’s sight?
     Of course, we should not be surprised that God is pleased with the good works of his people. AsHebrews 11:1-2 tells us, God is pleased with these works precisely because they were done out of faith. They are good works generated from the work of God’s own Spirit in the hearts of the saints (Eph. 2:10). Sure, they are not perfect works—they are always tainted by sin to some degree. And no, we cannot think for a moment that they merit salvation. They do not. But they are the works of God’s own sons and daughters, and he delights in them.
     Biblical Context
     This larger biblical context can provide the proper framework for understanding the intent of passages like Isaiah 64:6. The “filthy rags” in this passage does not refer to the Spirit-wrought works of the regenerate, but the outward religious grandstanding of the wicked (see Isaiah 58). This understanding allows John Piper to say the following:
     It is terribly confusing when people say that the only righteousness that has any value is the imputed righteousness of Christ. I agree that justification is not grounded on any of our righteousness, but only the righteousness of Christ imputed to us. But sometimes people are careless and speak disparagingly of all human righteousness, as if there were no such thing that pleased God. They often cite Isaiah 64:6, which says our righteousness is as filthy rags. . . . [But] when my sons do what I tell them to do—I do not call their obedience “filthy rags” even if it is not perfect. Neither does God. All the more because he himself is “working in us that which is pleasing in his sight” (Hebrews 13:21). He does not call his own, Spirit-wrought fruit, “rags.” (Future Grace, 151-152).
     In a similar fashion, the Westminster Confession offers a wonderfully balanced perspective on how God views the good works of his people:
     Yet notwithstanding, the person of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works are also accepted in him; not as though they were in this life wholly unblameable and unreproveable in God’s sight; but that he, looking upon them in his Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied by many weaknesses and imperfections (WCF 16.6).
     Good and Faithful
     God’s delight in the works of his people is not, as some might think, a recipe for pride. Rather, it is a tremendous (and much needed) encouragement to those of us laboring in ministry. Our efforts can seem futile. We often find ourselves spent and exhausted.
     What a refreshment to our souls to know that our Father in heaven actually delights in these labors! It is like salve on our blisters and a balm to our aching muscles to know that he is pleased with the faith-driven works of his children.
     He is like a Father who sees the painting his 5-year old brought home from school. He doesn’t pour scorn on the effort because it is not a Rembrandt. Instead, he takes the painting, with all its flaws, and sticks it on the refrigerator for all to see.
     Indeed, it is this very hope—that God might be pleased with our labors—that Jesus lays out as a motive for us. For our hope is that one day we might hear, “Well done, good and faithful servant” (Matt. 25:23).”
     – Michael J. Kruger, God Does Not View Your Labors As ‘Filthy