John H Armstrong

Understanding the Mystery of Christian Marriage, Part One

Perhaps no passage in all of Holy Scripture is misused, and abused, more than St. Paul’s instruction in the Epistle to the Ephesians found at the end of chapter five. In 5:21–33 Paul gives the church ethical instruction about marriage. He addresses both husbands and wives. The text has prompted raging debates and divided more than a few Christians. The troubling verse is really 5:22, which says: “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.” The ways in which this text has been understood and applied are almost as various as are the commentators and teachers of the Bible. I do not have a definitive interpretation but I do believe that I understand it in terms of great Christian consensus, at least as regarding the essential points Paul wants us to grasp.

One of my favorite Bible translations is not known among evangelicals, at least from what I have been able to tell. It is called the Christian Community Bible (CCB). This version is an English translation of a version prepared in 1988 by Brazilian translators. A Catholic friend introduced me to it. It includes a solid translation of the Scripture as well as some very helpful annotations. The CCB translates Ephesians 5:21–22 this way:

Let all kinds of submission to one another become obedience to Christ. So wives to their husbands; as to the Lord.

Note that Ephesians 5:21–6:9 clearly parallels Paul’s words in Colossians 3:18–4:1. Both texts follow a Christocentric pattern that sets forth Jesus as Lord over all. Both clearly set forth the truth that Jesus is the Lord of all humanity, the second Adam, the new man. In his resurrection Jesus is declared Lord over all, having defeated death and having been raised for our justification. As the head of all humanity Jesus has suffered everywhere, worked in every field of human activity and given life to all. (There is a definitive universality here but this emphasis is missed by many evangelicals. This seems to be true because evangelicals rightly insist that the ultimate universal salvation of all humanity is not plainly taught in the Scripture!) To put this very simply, Paul is saying in both Ephesians and Colossians that Christ gathers into himself every form of human love and lives the diversity of all human existence; cf. Ephesians 5:1–2.

So the central point here is that Christ is the head of redeemed humanity. In this ethical instruction Paul applies this very principle to marriage and family. This development comes in a way that is totally unexpected. When we read this text as a simple endorsement of “male headship” we thus read it ideologically, not biblically. We should be surprised by such a text and if it does not lead us in a direction that stands against Western or Eastern culture we should doubt our conclusions. This text is unique precisely because the basis for the instruction is so uniquely rooted in Christ our head.

Question: When biblical texts no longer intrigue and surprise us what happened?

Did Jesus Forbid Repetitive Prayers?

Jesus taught us to pray. He even gave us a model to guide us in Matthew 6:9-13. The church has historically believed that this prayer can and should be followed, thus is occurs in the earliest Christian teaching on how to pray and what to specifically pray about. It seems very apparent that very early in the church's historical development this prayer was recited both publicly and privately. But many evangelical Christians stumble over this idea sometimes. The reason is often found in the words of Jesus in the same prayer context when he said, "And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words" (Matthew 6:7).

Is Jesus forbidding the repetition of his own words? Is he instructing us that all prayer must be spontaneous and extemporaneous, not prescribed and read? Is the repetition of words already spoken or written by someone else simply "vain repetition" (cf. the KJV translation)? Are Christians who pray with written and learned prayers babbling like pagans?

The first thing to note here is that this text is really stressing the point that people who pray like "babbling pagans" are really believing that "they will be heard because of their many words." The point is obvious. The "pagan" idea is not repeating words but praying many words in hope that this will gain God's favor by such acation. This gets to the heart, to the motive Jesus is addressing here. The Greek word, battalogeo, means "to repeat idly" or "meaningless and mechanically repeated phrases." This was done in pagan prayer in the time of Jesus and the apostles. Our Lord is thus rejecting prayers said without proper reverence for God as our Father. Jesus is more concerned with the inner disposition of the heart (cf. Matthew 7:20-23; 15:9) than with outward appearances.

The second thing to note here is that Jesus is not condemning all formal prayers. By this I mean prayers that are already set in writing and then learned and/or read. Formal prayers were used by Jesus himself. How do I know this? He prayed in the synagogue. This was a part of the practice.

All of us use hymns and other set forms in our worship. Even the freest charismatic church follows some ritual, albeit one that allows for greater change within the structure. Many of the songs we sing, from both formal hymnals and informal praise music we learn or see on a projected screen, is prayer. Most of us are already praying in a set manner and do not realize it.

I recall hearing someone say when I was young: "If you have to use someone else's words than you aren't really praying." But the truth is that this is simply untrue. It is, in the end, another one of those numerous reactions that many of us have to traditions that are not our own.

Spontaneous prayer is valuable and benefits those who learn to talk to God in this manner. But it is not the only form of talking with God. Sometimes following the words of others helps. When I am dry, and need to be pushed out of myself, the words of others help me. When I cannot frame my thoughts properly I can use the Lord's Prayer and begin to connect with the petitions. I know I am right and safe to pray this prayer. There is no shadow of doubt. Formal prayers can and do shape my thoughts and desires and keep me in alive to God's revealed will. Informal prayers are more conversational and remind me that my Father loves me and wants to talk to me. A well developed and shaped prayer life will include both. Indeed, repeated written prayers will deliver me from missing something essential that I am prone to leave out if I follow the course of my own thoughts spontaneously.

Les Choristes: A Tender French Film

Foreign films are generally produced on small budgets. They also succeed in frequently telling great stories. Every year I watch for the five nominees for best foreign films from the Golden Globe Awards and Academy Awards. Most of these five films prove to be rich in texture and character acting. This is the case with a lovely little 2004 French film called Les Choristes (The Chorus). Les Choristes is a post-World War II film of nostalgia, optimism and authenticity. This gentle drama, nominated for both an Academy Award and a Golden Globe Award, is from first-time French director Christophe Barratier. It features a music teacher named Clement Mathieu (Gerard Jugnot) who lands a job at a boys' boarding school populated by delinquents and orphans. The performance by leading actor Barratier is nuanced and very properly low-key. The school, run by a martinet headmaster (Francois Berleand), is a place for misfits and losers.  Sensing potential in these rambunctious ruffians Mathieu forms a choir to rein in his charges through the transforming power of song. He knows his actions will likely end his career but he presses on courageously.

Clement Mathieu demonstrates some of the greatest virtues: love, patience and self-discipline. The boys initially attack him mocking his efforts and demeanor. He refuses to attack the boys back but applies large doses of tender love joined with justice when rightly needed. The result is radical change in most of the boys. The story is told from the perspective of two boys who are reunited many years after their time at the dreary boarding school. The opportunity to reflect on how their lives were changed by this one great teacher leads them to consider how powerful Mathieu’s influence really was in shaping their lives.

Les Choistes fits the category of American film like Mr. Holland’s Opus and Music of the Heart. It is simple, powerful and very fun film to watch. I recommend it to you if you like a great story and enjoy films that show the power of love in shaping children into productive and happy adults.

The Cultural Legacy of Abraham Kuyper

No single theologian has more influenced my view of culture than the Dutch minister and statesmen Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920). Kuyper was an unconverted minister until he went to his first church and a woman had the audacity to tell him he needed to know Christ. Thank God she did because this was used by the Spirit to bring Kuyper to saving faith. Kuyper went on to be the pastor of other congregations and became the editor of a leading church newspaper of the time. He is remembered as well for his role in politics. He became the prime minister of the Netherlands (1901-05) and had considerable influence in many areas of life in his nation and beyond. It is worth noting that what we read today are not his political speeches but his sermons and theological reflections.

Perhaps no quotation of Kuyper's is more often cited by Christians than words he first gave at the founding of the Free University of Amsterdam. He said: "No single piece of our mental world is to be hermetically sealed off from the rest, and there is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human experience over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: 'Mine!'"

From Kuyper's influence the doctrine of common grace was developed among Reformed Christians. This doctrine has had a great influence on many different Christians over the past one hundred years. Common grace meant that God was involved in nonbelievers in ways that should lead us to respect divine providence in all of creation.

Kuyper's view was that the Christian should be involved in every part of life: home, school, art and state. Christ was Lord of all. We must live so as to show how this Lordship is displayed in every sphere of life. This was what was meant by the term sphere sovereignty.

Some Thoughts on the Michael Jackson Funeral

Michael Jackson was clearly a pop culture icon. I make it a practice to neither bash nor praise such icons. They are what they are. There legacy seems ephemeral, at least to me. There importance is huge, at least to those who follow their art, music or writing. The whole idea that high culture, which is the product of certain mores and beliefs, trumps low culture, or pop culture, seems artificial so much of the time. What is apparent is that some culture will endure and some will not. The reasons may not be altogether clear sometimes. Who can account for taste in the end?

Since I was forced to think a bit about Michael Jackson (as little as possible I confess) this past week I thought back over my sixty years and the rise and decline of pop stars of all sorts. I thought about Elvis and Graceland and my first remembrance of a pop star in the 1950s. I thought about the rise of pop and rock music in general. I still believe some of the music and lyrics of some of these great artists will endure. I think, in this regard, of the Beatles. Their music had a particular brilliance and some of their lyrics are memorable. I doubt, however, that people will sing their music in a hundred years. I then thought about Michael Jackson's music and lyrics and realized how great the Beatles really were. Don't misunderstand me. Jackson was a star and he was very talented. But I do not see his legacy enduring for more than a few years. Such art moves on at a such fast pace. He will be remembered by some historians of the genre but by very few besides these historians once a few decades have passed.

What I could not avoid, but tried, was the funeral at the Staples Center in Los Angeles. I did not watch it but I got a few brief parts of the event on the evening news. What never ceases to amaze me is how we speak about heaven in the popular culture. We still have a deep sense of the afterlife and thus talk a lot about heaven. No one seems to believe in anything other than heaven when you come right down to it.

Jackson's funeral underscored this point profoundly. People who have some undefined faith, or even no faith at all, spoke about Michael and his place in heaven and with God. Everyone, I mean everyone, assumed that he just had to be in heaven! We have no conception of any other reality in the culture. Where once people were preoccupied with hell now they have forgotten it altogether.

Don't misunderstand. I do not assume any knowledge about the state of Michael Jackson's soul. God is his judge. But what I noticed in almost everything said about him, at least in the clips I did see, was this universal theme that he just had to be in heaven smiling, watching and enjoying the whole scene. People spoke about God "needing Michael" thus he took him to heaven prematurely. Others spoke about all the good he had done and why this meant he was in heaven. Some of these speakers were ministers, at least of some sort. So much assurance and little or no basis for any of it at all.

Over the years I have been asked to preach many funerals for people who I did not know. I would never talk about them being with Christ if I had no real assurance that they likely were accepted by him at their death. I refused to preach about their unbelief since I did not see into their heart. What I did was preach one verse time and time again: Hebrews 9:27. The writer says "people are destined to die once and after that to face the judgment." I know of nothing more clear in all the scripture. We who live will die. When we die we will face divine judgment. God is merciful, but he is also just thus all of us should prepare for this final day.

Some years ago the popular movie "Ghost" underscored this very powerfully. The lead character dies. His life demonstrated no faith at all. In fact, he was living in immorality and sin. But when he dies he goes straight to heaven as you discover in the movie. The great assumption here is clear. To got to heaven you need do one thing: die! Those who challenge this great assumption will not be popular in modern culture but challenge it we must. We do not need to challenge it with the old "hell fire and brimstone" approach of our cultural past but we should challenge it with the truth in all of its fullness. This will take both tact and courage. I doubt we are up to it in most cases since we lack one or the other. Come to think of it I think we may lack both.

Medical Debt

I am quite suspicious of a federal system that solves our medical and health care crisis. I am not suspicious that there is a real crisis but I am very suspicious of the solutions that I hear being offered by the president and the congress. It is not that there are not solutions that we need to pursue. The question is whether or not the federal government can establish a program that works and then can be paid for in an efficient and prudent way. The history of what the government has done with Social Security is all the proof I need. The system will be bankrupt in a few decades and hardly anyone seems determined to fix the problem. So Bush had a bad solution. Did the opponents have any at all? During the Clinton era the Democrats argued for fixing the problem and then when they opposed Bush they said everything was just fine thank you. In general both parties, but the Democrats in particular, would rather create another huge entitlement and then leave the debt to the next generation.

Make no mistake about the problem. A team of U. S. researchers form Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School and Ohio University recently reported the following in the American Journal of Medicine.

1. 60% of bankruptcies in the U. S. are due to medical bills. 75% of these bankrupt families had health insurance but still were overwhelmed by their medical debts.

2. 92% of medical debtors had debts of more than $5,000.

3. 25% of firms cancel coverage immediately when an employee suffers a disabling illness; about another 25% do so within a year.

4. 15% of the U. S. population would be left with no coverage if the current overhaul of the health care system was installed.

Remember, none of these figures come from a politically partisan source. The two biggest issues here seem to be: (1) medical debt crushes some people in the U.S. and, (2) the cancellation of coverage is a huge issue. It seems to me that these two problems could be fixed without making the federal government the source of fixing every other problem in the system. Changes in supervision and monitoring could address these two issues without deepening our federal debt in the process. It all seems simple but the congress has a way of making the simple into a huge new problem once they work out a bill and turn it into law

I expect that we will continue to hear numbers cited from every side arguing that their case about the health care issue is right. The question does seem to come down to this: "Who do you believe and why?" Reagan once said that the worst words that you could hear were, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you!" I do not doubt that government can help, in some limited and clear-cut cases, but administering a huge program to solve the bigger health crisis does not seem to be a sound solution from all I can see. I simply do not trust the government to do this efficiently and with fiscal integrity.

My Ideas Have a Shelf Life

A friend passed along a great quote from an Assembly of God leader, Earl G. Creps, formerly the director of the doctor of ministry program at the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary and now a church planter in Berkeley, California. Here is the quote: “The ability to admit that my ideas have a shelf life cultivates a humility that will make following Christ attractive to those walking through this epochal change.”

That is a gem. I wish more leaders had this wonderful ability. I plead for it, seek it with all my heart and encourage everyone I know to embrace the fact that their ideas have a “shelf life.” In some sense, there is a “use by” date on everything we do in this world. At best we should admit that how we understand what we confess really does change, unless we want to say that what we believed twenty or thirty years ago is precisely what we believe today in the same exact way that we believed it then.

I can remember as a young minister reading a quote from the famous Charles H. Spurgeon about never changing anything he believed from his teen years to his death. I do not believe that for a second. I think he meant that he held to the same basic doctrinal system he believed as young man. (I hope that is what he meant and all he meant though I still have my questions.) But even this is not entirely true. This is the same man who chose to become a Baptist when his father and grandfather were paedobaptist ministers. This is the same man who held liberal political views too, in spite of opposition. I think those who use this Spurgeon quote get him wrong when they use this quote to say that they can be trusted because they never changed anything they previously believed. What nonsense. I will tell you who I would not trust—the person who says that they never changed anything they believed!

Dr. Miguel Diaz: The Presidential Nuncio to the Vatican

Miguel Diaz was named as President Obama’s appointment to serve as papal nuncio a few days ago. Both friends and critics have spoken widely about Diaz but few seem to understand who he really is. His story provides a glimpse inside the debate over abortion in the Catholic Church and the wider culture.

Diaz is a 45-year-old professor at the College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University in Collegeville, Minnesota. (I have been on the campus of St. John’s. It is a Benedictine university with a beautiful campus!) Diaz brings some interesting credentials to this new appointment. He is fluent in Italian, French, Spanish and English and has a doctorate in theology from Notre Dame. His academic work was on the Trinity and immigration and the Hispanic experience. He is a board member of the Catholic Theological Society of America, former president of the Catholic Hispanic Theologians of the United States and is a member of the Karl Rahner Society. For those who do not recognize these affiliations they represent the less traditional/conservative Catholic mainstream within academia.

It is wrong, however, to suggest that Diaz is pro-choice, though pro-life advocates are wary of his appointment. Diaz has made it very clear that he is a committed Catholic on the issue of life but he confuses people because of his support for various pro-choice Democrats, including Barack Obama and Governor Kathleen Sebelius. He even served as a member of the Catholic advisory team Obama assembled before the 2008 election and gave $1,000 to the Obama campaign.

Evangelical author and professor Paul Kengor writes: “In Diaz, it looks like Obama got exactly the kind of Catholic he wants: one who doesn’t let his alleged pro-life convictions get in the way. Is that what the Vatican is looking for?” Diaz has said Obama desires to work with Catholics who are pro-life and deeply respects people who hold this position. Kengor obviously views this stance with a wary eye.

The argument Obama, and his pro-life friends, make is that they are committed to reducing the number of abortions. Many believe this is true and assume that since Roe v. Wade cannot be reversed in the foreseeable future this is a good policy in the present circumstances. At the same time these pro-life Obama supporters believe there is much more to a Christian application of social policy than the single issue of legal abortion.

Benedictine Abbot John Klassen, of St. John’s Abbey, said:

Professor Miguel Diaz is a skilled Trinitarian theologian who is passionate both as a teacher and a scholar. He is a strong proponent of the necessity of the Church to become deeply and broadly multicultural, to recognize and appreciate the role that culture plays in a living faith. Born in Havana, Cuba, his is a leading Hispanic theologian in the United States” (From a statement on the St. John’s University Website).

A friend of Diaz called him a “brilliant theologian . . . just a phenomenal man.” This same individual told Our Sunday’s Visitor, a conservative Catholic publisher, that Diaz “believes relationships between human beings should mirror the relationship of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit.” And this same person described Diaz as “incredibly open to dialogue.”

This appointment mirrors the stance the Obama administration has taken. The president advances some of the most indefensible positions on life issues in American history while at the same time he shows personal respect for the people he opposes. When Alan Keyes ran against Barack Obama, in the 2004 U. S Senate race in Illinois, Keyes argued that Obama was not a Christian. Keyes, a fervent conservative Catholic, ran some very strong ads to which Obama expressed real dismay in his book, The Audacity of Hope. 

The problem here is fairly evident and it is not new. Raymond Flynn, also a papal nuncio and pro-life Democrat., says he was reprimanded by the Clinton White House for his pro-life stance. But Flynn says he was never told to change his position. Flynn actually gained a great deal of credibility with Pope John Paul II who knew he was acting with courage in the way he dealt with the White House. Will Diaz do the same? My guess is that he will. But many will still find his stance unacceptable.

Diaz will replace Mary Ann Glendon, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2007 and left her post when Obama took office. Many Catholics, and non-Catholics like me, will be watching to see if Diaz acts with courage. Let us pray that he does. Meanwhile the debate will go on and Christians would do well to learn some of the people skills that Dr. Diaz is praised for having in abundance. 

Do The Thing You Are Afraid to Do

Fear is a powerful emotion. There is good fear and bad fear. Good fear will keep you from doing things that are foolish and dangerous. It will also keep you in a place where you rightly fear God, which is the beginning (or foundation) of true and lasting wisdom. Job was said to be a righteous man, thus he was a person who "feared God and shunned evil" (Job 1:8). The writer of Proverbs says that a noble wife is one who "fears the Lord" (Proverbs 31:30b).

But the wrong kind of fear can cripple you and keep you from God and your duty. The beloved apostle wrote: "God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment; In this world we are like Jesus. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love" (1 John 4:16-18).

Recently I read this quote, which I assume to be anonymously cited: "Do the thing you are afraid to do and the death of fear is certain." The thing I think we fear the most is often love. Strange as it is we fear that if we love deeply we will be deeply hurt but this is how we grow, through the love and the hurt. We must do what we fear and fear will slowly die. In the middle of great difficulty there is often great opportunity. Look for the opportunity and wage war against your fear.

The American Way of Life?

The oft-used phrase "The American way of life" or "the American Way" is often heard in the oratory associated with July 4th in the United States. The term has its origins, interestingly enough, in the free enterprise system. It was used by Alf Landon in his 1936 campaign against Franklin D. Roosevelt. He had a slogan that was "Save the American Way of Life." This was aimed at FDR's radical new measures advanced in the New Deal. At the Chicago Tribune telephone operators answered the phone by saying: "Only ___ more days to Save the American Way of Life."

An American diplomat named Eric Johnson, who was also a film studio executive, said this phrase was a euphemism and that the word used should really be capitalism (1958). Richard Nixon, who was not a strong political conservative, used the ideas and words in a different way. Perhaps the most interesting development came in the 1980s when the television producer Norman Lear used the phrase in the title of a new liberal group, People for the American Way.

So what value is there in this kind of rhetoric when we hear it today? Likely very little. It is a political piece of oratory that no longer rings in the hearts of modern voters. If you believe the era of expansive government is a growing problem, and I do, then you need to find new language that will clearly communicate this problem. Even the terms capitalist and socialist, used so broadly in the most recent election, do not resonate with people deeply today. (I am not sure these are the options anyway since unfettered capitalism is not the best option for a just and compassionate society.) I think there is a great challenge here for genuine intellectual conservatives to find a more nuanced and effective way to argue that bigger government, with its massive entitlements and the tendency to bad management because of political patronage, is almost always a bad option for a just and truly good society.

Mistakes Are the Portal of Discovery

I have made so many mistakes that I stopped counting. To count them only leads to depression, not to the type of repentance that produces real joy. Mistakes can be faced honestly and become our friends, at least in a one way. We learn from our mistakes or we will repeat them. Sometimes we keep making the same mistakes again and again, which creates a deformed, or poorly developed, character. If we overcome our mistakes, by the grace of God, we become more and more like Christ our Lord. Our mistakes can become the portal of true discovery. We can gain true "self knowledge" through the knowledge of God and by the discovery of our mistakes. Learn to enter into the depths of spiritual joy through the portals of your mistakes. You will be much stronger and healthier if you do.