Wednesday, November 20, 2019

Psalms for Weary Souls: Psalm 77, A Desperate Remembrance

It feels somewhat inauthentic writing this, because I am in the middle of a long and deep trial of body, mind, and spirit like I've never known before (even if I felt it was appropriate to share details here, I wouldn't know exactly what to write), and am in no position to lecture or lord over anyone else with any supposedly superior spiritual insight or wisdom of my own. All I know is that despite the numbness and battle with sleep and other problems I am facing right now (with the help of others), I have to carry on ministry of some sort, and I find myself able to write a little today. Neither my next breath nor my next day, month, year, nor decade is guaranteed, and I have to continue bearing fruit for the kingdom of Christ. God has smashed one of His vessels for a time, now let the waters of Zion stream out of it and at least give some life to others if possible.

I also still believe that there is power in the Word of God, and that things I have seen in it and learned from it could prove helpful to my brothers and sisters in Christ facing their own trials (or who certainly will some day), especially those in my home church of Christ the King Presbyterian in Norman, Oklahoma, whom I miss grievously during this time away. This Psalm asks questions that are shocking to a person until he faces truly difficult things, and then the questions seem all too obvious and familiar. As Rev. Mike Biggs preaches through the book of Exodus, Christ the King members especially will appreciate the direction this Psalm turns eventually. May the Spirit use my weak efforts unfolding some of it here to bless anyone who might happen to read it. Perhaps it will become part of a larger project one day (although I have said that of many things before...)


Psalm 77

For the choir director; according to Jeduthun. A Psalm of Asaph.

"My voice rises to God, and I will cry aloud;
My voice rises to God, and He will hear me.
In the day of my trouble I sought the Lord;
In the night my hand was stretched out without weariness;
My soul refused to be comforted.
When I remember God, then I am disturbed;
When I sigh, then my spirit grows faint. Selah.

You have held my eyelids open;
I am so troubled that I cannot speak.
I have considered the days of old,
The years of long ago.
I will remember my song in the night;
I will meditate with my heart,
And my spirit ponders:

Will the Lord reject forever?
And will He never be favorable again?
Has His lovingkindness ceased forever?
Has His promise come to an end forever?
Has God forgotten to be gracious,
Or has He in anger withdrawn His compassion? Selah.

Then I said, 'It is my grief,
That the right hand of the Most High has changed.'

I shall remember the deeds of the Lord;
Surely I will remember Your wonders of old.
I will meditate on all Your work
And muse on Your deeds.
Your way, O God, is holy;
What god is great like our God?
You are the God who works wonders;
You have made known Your strength among the peoples.
You have by Your power redeemed Your people,
The sons of Jacob and Joseph. Selah.

The waters saw You, O God;
The waters saw You, they were in anguish;
The deeps also trembled.
The clouds poured out water;
The skies gave forth a sound;
Your arrows flashed here and there.
The sound of Your thunder was in the whirlwind;
The lightnings lit up the world;
The earth trembled and shook.
Your way was in the sea
And Your paths in the mighty waters,
And Your footprints may not be known.
You led Your people like a flock
By the hand of Moses and Aaron."

Asaph hides none of his thoughts or feelings. Like in Psalm 73 he fully exposes his darkest thoughts and feelings about God that crop up when he looks around at his circumstances. He begins this Psalm with loud lament and persistent prayer: "My voice rises to God, I will cry aloud!" "In the night my hand was stretched out without weariness." But his prayer and lament simply bounce, it seems, off his Ancient Near Eastern mud-and-tile ceiling: "My soul refused to be comforted."

"Well," thinks Asaph, "God is not granting me the earthly physical and/or emotional comforts I need to feel as whole as I could be, but I remember what I wrote in Psalm 73, and how I learned from going into the sanctuary of God's house that He will make all things right one day, and that actually for now, He is enough--yes, that great line I wrote!: 'God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever!'" God. God is the gospel, ultimately. Through Christ's cross-work, we have peace and fellowship with the Almighty; what more could we ask?? To be discontent with God as our sufficient portion is idolatry, isn't it?

"When I remember God, then I am disturbed."

"I am disturbed." "I moan." "I was troubled." Pick your translation. That which has been most precious to Asaph now seems turned against him, or distant from him--with God the two are equivalent. The Aaronic blessing is that God would "lift up His countenance" on His people. His wrath is expressed at times as "hiding His face." Asaph sighs and his spirit grows faint. He can't sleep ("You have held my eyelids open.") He's lost for words ("I am so troubled I cannot speak.") His mind cannot make sense of his experience, so his words fail--such meager containers cannot contain his complex thoughts, concerns, questions.

Asaph the musician runs again to his music. Perhaps that will enliven his prayer and give it new hope: "I will remember my song in the night..." but all that comes out are the questions in his heart. Maybe he couldn't speak before because he was afraid to say these words, but he has nothing else to say at this point:

"Will the Lord reject forever? And will He never be favorable again? Has His lovingkindness ceased forever? Has His promise come to an end forever? Has God forgotten to be gracious, or has He in anger withdrawn His compassion? Selah." Asaph asks his questions of God here, stopping just short of actually accusing God of breaking His covenant promises. He is disturbed when he remembers God, because the dominant thoughts about God in his heart are, in effect: "Has God reneged on His promise to David, gone back on His word of blessing given to Israel through Levitical priests, walked Himself backward through the animal pieces constituting the cutting of His covenant of promise with Abraham?"

Verse 10 is apparently difficult to translate, but to me the idea seems to be something like this: "It is grievous to me what God has been doing lately."

Asaph's circumstances weigh his heart down. His prayers bounce off the ceiling. Music doesn't help. Even trying to simply trust in and rest in God Himself doesn't help because Asaph knows God is actually behind--in some ultimate sense--all His troubles (although God's personal relationships to good and to disaster are shaped differently, as every good gift comes from above, from the Father of lights in whom there is no darkness at all). There is no comfort in the present, let alone a sense of hope yet for the future. God hides His face. So Asaph goes the only other possible direction...

"I shall remember the deeds of the Lord; surely I will remember Your wonders of old. I will meditate on all Your work, and muse on Your deeds." There is no comfort in the present, and the idea of "God" Himself is too abstract and distant for Asaph at this time. So he goes to the past--the past works of the Lord, the past self-revelation of the Lord to His people in Word and especially in deed. That's concrete. It's recorded in Scripture. At Asaph's time, it was likely also passed down to him through strong oral traditions in the family and in temple worship.

Where is this God? What is He like? What are His works like, which reveal who He is? "Your way, O God, is holy; what god is great like our God? You are the God who works wonders..." Ok, but it's still a little abstract, what wonders? What "redemption" of the sons of Jacob and Joseph is in view?

"The waters saw You, O God; the waters saw You, they were in anguish..."

Oh, we see where this is going now...

The waters, which are associated with the godless Gentile nations, and with darkness and chaos and trouble, tremble at the gaze of the Holy One of Israel, and ultimately part so that God could lead forth His people like a flock, out of bondage (out of Egypt, obviously) "by the hand of Moses and Aaron."

Yahweh's path is in the mighty waters, because that is where He demonstrates His power best. His footprints may not be known; false gods cannot copy His movements. The waters are the means of His deliverance of His people and His judgment of His and their enemies. The Exodus is the quintessential paradigm of redemption given in the Scriptures. Asaph remembers it poetically, and stops there. He does not respond, in this Psalm, with relief and worship (as in most Psalms where the writer is renewed in faith and hope by the end). Perhaps this remembrance was enough for him to not fall all the way into despair, and that was all the help he received at the time, until later. Perhaps he fell asleep in meditation on the Exodus and decided to never add more to this particular Psalm. Whatever the case was, in the Holy Spirit's inspiration and leadership, the Psalm ends there.

The lesson is that when God seems abstract and distant, meditate on His past works--grand historical works like the Exodus, or various works in our individual lives (think, gratitude journal titles like "What God has done for me.") But on this side of the cross, we can't forget that the Second and Greater Exodus (Lk. 9:31) has already taken place, as well. Sin, Death, Hell, and Satan have been trampled by the blood of Christ, and the bodily resurrection of Jesus has brought His flock out of bondage to sin and into the freedom of an estate of Grace and Righteousness, with the attendant hope of glory. And who hopes for what he already sees? (Rm. 8:24) So if all that such meditation does is protect from utter despair for now, thank God for that. Amen.

Wednesday, September 18, 2019

Baptist Faith & Message Ch. 15 "The Christian and the Social Order"

"All Christians are under obligation to seek to make the will of Christ supreme in our own lives and in human society. Means and methods used for the improvement of society and the establishment of righteousness among men can be truly and permanently helpful only when they are rooted in the regeneration of the individual by the saving grace of God in Jesus Christ. In the spirit of Christ, Christians should oppose racism, every form of greed, selfishness, and vice, and all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality, and pornography. We should work to provide for the orphaned, the needy, the abused, the aged, the helpless, and the sick. We should speak on behalf of the unborn and contend for the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death. Every Christian should seek to bring industry, government, and society as a whole under the sway of the principles of righteousness, truth, and brotherly love. In order to promote these ends Christians should be ready to work with all men of good will in any good cause, always being careful to act in the spirit of love without compromising their loyalty to Christ and His truth."

One will find much worse/weaker statements of the relationship of the Christian to the social order by many Presbyterians, swayed as some are by extreme forms of two-kingdom theology. That reactionary ilk, though, is mostly concerned with clarifying the institutional Church's mission, along "spiritual" lines of discipleship. As will be shown here, I agree in some respects. However, I appreciate the strong view presented here in the BF&M concerning the Chrisitan's obligation to seek to promote the will of Christ in every area of life, including public/social arenas.

The second sentence here rightly points out that Christian ethics are not promoted publicly, in the first place, by top-down political coups, ecclesiocracy, or a focus on legislation; rather, in the first place, men's hearts must be changed by the Holy Spirit so that they see Christ for who He is--Lord of heaven and earth, not just Lord of individual hearts--and embrace His commandments. This happens through the gospel, both as it is preached in formal worship, and as it is shared by individual believers in informal settings.

This section is also right to focus on the Christian and the social order, rather than the Church and the social order. The two of course can never be separated, but a clear view of the mission of the institutional Church as being focused on discipleship is important, biblically speaking. Noticeably absent from the pastoral epistles is any emphasis on important things like charity work, social justice concerns, and the like. The repeated emphasis is on the teaching and preaching of the Word, and the maintenance of good discipline in the Church. It is individual Christians who are called, in various individual vocations, to "build the kingdom" in ways beyond discipleship proper as they seek to apply the implications of both Law and Gospel to every area of life--arts, politics, industry, criminal justice, human life, etc.--and to redress the Fall in its myriad effects of sin and misery (including working for all kinds of "social justice"...so long as that term is defined biblically rather than by neo-Marxist intersectionalists).

As rightly sensitive as the more conservative wing of the Reformed world in the U.S. is to the "capital-S, capital-J" Social Justice movement that threatens to derail the institutional Church from its central mission of making disciples (and to distort its theological anthropology by overly reifying the concept of "race" beyond "human" in the first place), I do fear that at times, in places, the reaction has tended toward a level of blindness to real remaining social problems that those on the political and theological Left are more sensitive to (but also tend to exaggerate at times, on the other side). For example, is racism far less of a problem in the modern West than in almost every other time and place in global history? Yes...try saying something racist on social media today and notice the reaction--is that not an indication of the actual cultural zeitgeist on the matter? However, does that mean there is absolutely no "systemic" racism left anywhere here, in the sense of its subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle!) permeation of certain social groups, professional bureaucracies, and the like? I'm not convinced that such a thing has been eradicated the way some on the Right have suggested, and that's not because I'm any kind of expert social commentator--far from it. It's just that 1) I've heard dozens of stories from trustworthy non-white Christian brothers that indicate to me that there is still deep and wide racial hostility in some places; and more importantly, 2) biblically, the kingdom of Satan doesn't work by isolated "guerilla warfare" attacks...sin spreads like leaven through dough, and it is never eradicated overnight. We should be clear-headed about that fact in relationship to every area of private and public life, and as Christians we need to work to expose darkness werever we find it and push it back with the light of the gospel of the kingdom (not with reparations and affirmative action--things which pretend compassion and mercy but actually strip human dignity and, especially in the Church, functionally deny the gospel of grace and pretend divine precision of judgment over history). I could be wrong about this, and my goal is not to speak out of both sides of the mouth because I have an a priori goal of "balance" defined by the middle of the cultural moment; I lean Right on most theological and many political issues, but I do worry sometimes that the Reformed reaction to the SJW movement has been more "Republican-balanced" than "biblically-balanced." I just think our own reactions to any movement should be thought through as self-critically and carefully as possible. For what it's worth...

In a previous section I already wrote a bit about cooperating with other men "without compromising...loyalty to Christ," as it is put here, so I would simply echo my previous thoughts on that in relation to this section as well. There is a sense in which the wider kingdom of Christ includes a "common grace" realm of sorts, but, unlike some hardcore amillennial two-kingdom thinkers, I do not think that exempts those areas of life from the specific, concrete authority of the rule of Christ (which brings even Old Covenant law principles/"general equity" to bear on the New Covenant situation). And this will affect the degree to which Christians can lawfully cooperate with men of "good will" (and there is some need to define that phrase further on its own!...) without compromising loyalty to Christ. For example, to what degree can a Christian cooperate with or participate in a government system that explicitly sanctions religious pluralism (at least as its constitution is commonly interpreted today), which is an offense to the true and living God? Our brothers in more establishmentarian-leaning denominations raise a good question here. I'm not completely sure yet on my position about voting vs. strong dissent, but I am convinced, at the very least, that most Christians need to think longer and harder (and more biblically) than they often do before "laying on hands hastily", as it were, in selecting their leaders at the ballot box, lest they "partake in other men's sins" (cf. 1 Tim. 5:22, about ordination, but relevant to democratic processes as well).

As one theologian quipped once, Jesus Christ is Lord in reality, not just between our ears. Therefore all areas of life, including public and social areas of education, government, industry, etc., belong to Him already in principle (Ps. 110). And Christ is constructing an eschatological footstool for His feet by destroying every enemy of His who stands in the way of His advancing kingdom. The institutional Church, the called-out covenant community that gathers regularly for worship, must focus on "baptizing" (incorporating) and "teaching" (training/deepening faith and loyalty to Christ among the incorporated members)--that is to say, making disciples. But that training should result in individual believers who are equipped to go out from the New Jerusalem into the beginnings of the new heavens and earth and build the kingdom of Christ in every area, taking every thought captive to His obedience, tending to the "garden," bearing fruit, crushing the serpent under their feet (Rom. 16:20; [since he has already been crushed under Messiah's foot]), so that Death and Sin, which have no more rightful authority in this world (Rom. 5-8), will eventually be banished forever (ultimately, at Christ's return, and because of it, of course).

Overall, I am encouraged by the robustness of this section of the BF&M, and only wish more Baptists in America took such theology to heart. With the decline of dispensationalism, I think that is beginning to happen even in some unlikely circles. Thank God for that. It just needs to stay centered on the gospel--the actual gospel, not the gospel of Liberation Theology, nor the gospel of apocalyptic, monastic retreat (neither of which are any sort of gospel at all).

Sunday, August 4, 2019

Baptist Faith & Message Ch. 14 "Cooperation"

"Christ's people should, as occasion requires, organize such associations and conventions as may best secure cooperation for the great objects of the Kingdom of God. Such organizations have no authority over one another or over the churches. They are voluntary and advisory bodies designed to elicit, combine, and direct the energies of our people in the most effective manner. Members of New Testament churches should cooperate with one another in carrying forward the missionary, educational, and benevolent ministries for the extension of Christ's Kingdom. Christian unity in the New Testament sense is spiritual harmony and voluntary cooperation for common ends by various groups of Christ's people. Cooperation is desirable between the various Christian denominations, when the end to be attained is itself justified, and when such cooperation involves no violation of conscience or compromise of loyalty to Christ and His Word as revealed in the New Testament."

In this section of the BF&M we find an articulation of the approval of "associations" and "cooperations" between churches and different Christian organizations, within an overall framework of what is historically a very central doctrine for Baptists: the autonomy of the local church ("Such organizations have no authority over one another or over the churches"; "Christian unity in the New Testament sense is spiritual harmony and voluntary cooperation..."; etc.).

I don't intend to give a full critique of congregationalist church government here, nor to give a full articulation and defense of Presbyterian polity. I'll just say that I believe the ideas of cooperation, co-belligerence, and informal associations are operative even within Presbyterian circles; 'NAPARC', or the 'National Association of Presbyterian and Reformed Churches' is one such association, within which distinct denominations which have no ecclesial authority over one another's churches have voluntarily chosen to associate because of the large overlap of our doctrinal and ecclesial commitments. Moreover, it is not uncommon for many 'NAPARC' churches to engage with, support, host conferences with, and associate in various ways with churches and Christian organizations beyond our official ecclesial bounds, for the extension of the kingdom in various areas. This is wise, so long as it follows the principle articulated at the end of the BF&M section here: "when such cooperation involves no violation of conscience or compromise of loyalty to Christ..."

Commenting briefly on forms of church government, there have historically been three broad approaches, with nuanced different expressions within each: episcopal (rule by singular regional bishops in a hierarchical fashion), presbyterian (rule by groups of elders in graded courts), and congregational (autonomous local churches, led more or less authoritatively by a group of elders usually). Arguments in favor of congregational polity include appeals to the church discipline procedure in Matthew 18 and a strong emphasis on the priesthood of all believers; while the crucial role of the office of elder is usually acknowledged by Baptists, there is a very strong desire to protect the biblical idea that all believers have an "equal footing" in Christ, and that a local, visible body of believers should be sufficient to judge and govern itself in matters of doctrine and discipline. There are probably a lot of other strong arguments for congregationalism that I'm no expert on.

Again, ecclesiology is not my particular expertise, and I would likely lose a debate in this area if arguing with a well-educated Baptist or Anglican, but I'd be remiss if I didn't at least offer a very brief sketch of some overlapping key arguments in favor of presbyterian polity (which can each be debated in much greater detail, no doubt):

a) connectionalism: the way the New Testament refers to visible church bodies includes language that assumes the category of a discernible regional church beyond individual "local" churches; Paul also assumes that individual churches have formal responsibility for the good of other churches, by means of financial and prayer support (this argument supports episcopalianism equally with presbyterianism); Acts 15 also, while not a strictly "prescriptive" passage, shows elders coming together to make authoritative top-down decisions for regional churches (always based on application of Scripture, not arbitrary, rogue decrees--ecclesial authority is only and ever "ministerial" and "declarative" according to the PCA Book of Church Order)

b) terminology: "bishop/overseer," "elder/presbyter," and "pastor/shepherd" are used interchangeably in the New Testament to refer to the same office that carries out the fundamental, authoritative spiritual leadership within in a church body (this may count against episcopalian polity, barring certain interpretations of a few passages of Acts and Revelation, and it has to be admitted that regional singular "bishops" existed very early on in the Christian church era)

c) history of office of elder: groups of elders governing at levels of both individual local congregations and larger regional churches, in a system of graded courts, seems to be the assumed norm of the New Testament (note it was the "apostles and elders" debating the issues at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 and then handing down joint recommendations, rather than any apostle simply pontificating authoritatively, as would have been an apostle's right); moreover, the office of elder was not a New Testament invention but was instituted first under Moses (with no explicit change in the NT), and involved popular election (bottom-up selection for representation), ordination (top-down installation), and smaller and larger groups of responsibility (graded courts)--see the review in Deut. 1:9-17

d) visible unity: Jesus prayed for Christian unity in the "high priestly prayer" of John 17, and far from it being a merely "spiritual," it is to be an increasingly visible unity, by which the world will be convinced that Jesus really came from the Father; obviously, Christians have a long way to go in achieving this, but it will happen in history (Eph. 4:11-13)

e) one and many: as a more general consideration, it is to be noted that presbyterianism at least sees itself as attempting to hold an ideal balance between the "one" and the "many," because of a) the biblical pattern of God's covenant dealings in Scripture embracing groups of people (families, nations, kingdoms, etc.--even covenants made in one sense with individuals always implicate others as well...consider the so-called "Abrahamic" and "Davidic" covenants which involve Abraham's entire household and David's descendants), in covenant solidarity; and ultimately b) in reflection of the Triune nature of God Himself, who, as one Being in three Persons, covenanted eternally within Himself to carry out creation and redemption, for the display of His glory.

To Presbyterians (and likely to episcopalians of whatever stripe), congregational church polity smacks more of modernist individualism than of a biblical mindset of corporate covenantal accountability. But to be fair, to Baptists, presbyterianism and episcopalianism likely often smack of dangerous authoritarianism and sacerdotalism, compromising the priesthood-of-believers doctrine.

To be honest, there are pragmatic advantages and disadvantages to each system, and every denomination executes the designs of the system they hold to with less than ideal success (or consistency). Baptists organizations sometimes functionally exercise authority over individual churches that formally they don't claim to have, and believe you me, there are Presbyterian churches that find interesting ways around the supposedly authoritative determinations of their presybteries, synods, and national assemblies. But how well a particular system of church government is implemented is not the final criterion of whether it's a good system. Nor is church government to be regarded as "adiaphora" to be determined by mere pragmatic concerns and individual preferences. Some rather specific principles of church government are revealed in Scripture in a prescriptive enough manner that we must study them, argue them out charitably between each other, submit to them, and implement them by the wisdom given by the Holy Spirit more and more, under the one and only Head of the church, Christ Himself.

Monday, June 24, 2019

Baptist Faith & Message Ch. 13 "Stewardship"

[Yep, still slowly going through and interacting with the BF&M; once done, will decide whether to do similarly with the Augsburg Confession (a Lutheran document), the 39 Articles, or the Westminster Standards next]

"God is the source of all blessings, temporal and spiritual; all that we have and are we owe to Him. Christians have a spiritual debtorship to the whole world, a holy trusteeship in the gospel, and a binding stewardship in their possessions. They are therefore under obligation to serve Him with their time, talents, and material possessions; and should recognize all these as entrusted to them to use for the glory of God and for helping others. According to the Scriptures, Christians should contribute of their means cheerfully, regularly, systematically, proportionately, and liberally for the advancement of the Redeemer's cause on earth."

This section of the BF&M is rather straightforward and unobjectionable from my perspective. Indeed every good gift comes from God, and He expects a multiplication of the "talents" with which He entrusts us. Or, to use another scriptural metaphor, we, having received the implanted seed of the word of the gospel, are to bear fruit for the kingdom of God (or risk proving ourselves dead branches ready to be cut from the vine and discarded--John 15). This includes our having been entrusted with the gospel message (and the oracles of God found in Scripture, more broadly), our material possessions, and our "natural" and Spiritual gifts and abilities.

An approach to earthly wealth framed by the concept of "stewardship" protects us from dual errors. On one side, it affirms a real ownership of private property, proper to image bearers of God, implicitly rejecting any notion of universal ownership of material goods. On the other side, it reminds us that in the cosmic final analysis, no image-bearer ultimately owns anything, even his or her own body (much to the chagrin of some, in our culture of would-be absolute bodily autonomy). Wives own their husbands' bodies, and husbands their wives' (1 Cor. 7). Christ owns the bodies of all His people. God owns the body and possessions of every image-bearer--even the "cattle on a thousand hills." Moreover, Christ's people are to, in principle (and in a degree of orderly practice, with oversight) share their goods in common with each other--at least be ready and willing to sacrificially share property and wealth with other brothers and sisters in Christ at the drop of a hat. No earthly creature possesses pure, absolute ownership of anything except sin. But real stewardship means real sub-ownership with an obligation to neighbor and especially to the household of God.

When it comes to giving directly to the cause of the Church's mission ("the advancement of the Redeemer's cause on earth"), this section of the BF&M does not specify whether all, or a majority, of this giving should go toward the support of the local church. Nor does it commit to a continuing New Testament "tithe" principle specifying 10% of income (however that's defined precisely) as the minimum amount required for giving in general, or to the local church, for each individual Christian. Most people coming from a Reformed perspective would take issue with this and affirm a more strictly continuous obligation of "tithing," based on a tri-partite distinction of the Mosaic Law (wherein the "moral norms" continue largely unmodified into the NT period in every instance), and based on verses from Proverbs, and other OT passages that refer to a tithe of the "firstfruits" of harvest belonging to the Lord. Jesus, after all, fundamentally affirmed the continuing validity of the Law (Matt. 5:17ff).

I appreciate the bold Reformed commitment to all of Scripture being applicable to Christians today, and the strong upholding of our commitment to give (as the BF&M says) "systematically" and "proportionately" to Christ's cause in a specific way. However, I remain slightly skeptical that the strict "10% minimum" is an appropriate eschatological paradigm for practicing or teaching NT giving; in fact, I am somewhat skeptical that the tithing commandments in the Mosaic Law (which in fact were somewhat more complicated than simply "10% of annual income") applied even then to classes of people below wealthy land-owners. Nevertheless, it is crystal clear that the NT expects generous, sacrificial, cheerful giving, and arguably "systematic and proportionate" giving "as each has decided in his heart." I agree with what many preachers have stated, namely, that the "tithe" rule was a starting point and part of the "training wheels" of the people of God, and that New Covenant generosity should in theory extend well beyond that number for those who are able. After all, an investment in eternal realities, under the direction of a sovereign God who is heaven-bent on fulfilling His purpose for the nations, is a risk-free investment that will reward greatly.

I do think it makes sense in general for the majority of a Christian's giving to go toward the local church's funds and efforts. The support of ministers of the Word, the local discipleship ministry, and the local mercy ministry, of one's own church seem like legitimate priorities. However, in thinking through these things for myself, I have realized how complicated individual situations can be. For example, I participate in a Christian healthcare cost sharing ministry (in lieu of health insurance). The level of the program in which I participate involves a fairly significant chunk of change monthly, which would likely "bulk up" my giving to my local church if I participated in a more conventional insurance program. This money, though, goes to support the healthcare needs of other Christians--just not often Christians within my formal, local covenant body. Perhaps the ideal would be that each local church (and Presbytery, or Synod, or whatever the governing structures happen to be) would have its own "healthcare cost sharing program" wherein its members support each other directly, and primarily. But the reality is that currently, while the deacons at my church do consider and attend to the needs of our members via the mercy ministry fund, they cannot carry on the kind of full-scale ministry that Samaritan Ministries or Christian Healthcare Ministries can, negotiating discounts with healthcare providers and the like.

All this to say that I appreciate the BF&M's emphasis on NT principles of generous New Covenant era giving (over against spelling out a detailed program of giving minimums, etc.), and agree with the way they are stated here. I must confess, while I sometimes wonder about other aspects of my own financial situation (involving a good chunk of debt still, at which I am slowly chipping away), in my heart I know I have not been fulfilling my vows to my local church regarding support lately the way I should. Christian stewardship should be a freeing, spiritually restful concept, delivering us from preoccupation with earthly wealth or legacy. For it to be freeing though, it requires faith and diligent obedience. So may the Lord forgive me my negligence, and grant you, and especially me, an increase of His Spirit so that we can be more generous givers, reflecting the God who gave us nothing less than all of Himself in the Person of His Son.