The Gospel According to Joseph: Humility

As we continue through the story of Joseph, Jacob, and Judah, there are so many great aspects of this story that we won't be able to cover from the pulpit. The passage at which we will be looking this week, Ge. 41, is one of the high points of this whole narrative. In it we see the climax of God's providential work in and through Joseph, and in it we also get a great look at Joseph's character.

Remember, one of the things we noted in the very beginning of this series is that we can often see the gospel in the development of characters in OT stories, i.e. gospel-change working in their lives. In the previous chapters of this narrative, we have seen Joseph become a man who endures and serves God faithfully wherever God has put him. However, in Ge. 41 we get the clearest picture of Joseph's developing character so far, and one of the things that stands out is the humility that God has developed in Joseph.

Humility is a tricky virtue to nail down. It's the one fruit of the Spirit that when we look at it or gaze upon it in ourselves, it immediately becomes something else. That's because true, gospel-driven, Christ-centered humility isn't what we might normally think of as "humble." I think we often think that the opposite of pride is self-abasing, but that's not true humility. True humility isn't talking or thinking about how bad we are and constantly bemoaning our flaws or sin in our own minds or before others. Constantly thinking about or pointing out how lowly we are is just another way of putting ourselves at the center when it is Christ that should be at the center. Furthermore, when do debase ourselves in our minds or before others, what creeps into minds after that is how great it is that we're so humble, and we become proud of being humble! Listen to what Jonathan Edwards has to say about this aspect of humility:

If on the proposal of the question [Are you humble?], you answer, "No, it seems to me, none are so bad as I." Don't let the matter pass off so; but examine again, whether or no you don't think yourself better than others on this very account, because you imagine you think so meanly of yourself. Haven't you a high opinion of this humility? And if you answer again, "No; I have not a high opinion of my humility; it seems to me I am as proud as the devil"; yet examine again, whether self-conceit don't rise up under this cover; whether on this very account, that you think yourself as proud as the devil, you don't think yourself to be very humble.

C. S. Lewis called this cycle of fighting self-admiration and then admiring yourself for defeating your self-admiration "like fighting the hydra... There seems to be no end to it. Depth under depths of self-love and self-admiration."

That's because humility is the one fruit of the Spirit that flourishes when our thoughts and our gaze are on Christ and others and not at ourselves at all! Humility isn't thinking less of ourselves, it's thinking about ourselves less. It is "blessed self-forgetfulness," as Tim Keller calls it. Lewis has a great statement about this in Mere Christianity:

Do not imagine that if you meet a really humble man he will be what most people call 'humble' nowadays: he will not be a sort of greasy, smarmy person, who is always telling you that, of course, he is nobody. Probably all you will think about him is that he seemed a cheerful, intelligent chap who took a real interest in what you said to him. If you do dislike him it will be because you feel a bit envious of anyone who seems to enjoy life so easily. He will not be thinking about humility: he will not be thinking about himself at all. [Emphasis added]

And, in Ge. 41, we see this kind of humility in Joseph when he stands before Pharaoh. In that moment, he has the chance to put himself in the spotlight. He has the chance to show Pharaoh how useful he could be to him or how he's been treated so unjustly, but he doesn't take it. In fact, it is remarkable how Joseph points the spotlight away from himself towards God. He doesn't give any hint of trying to impress Pharaoh with his abilities, self-abasement, or anything else. He simply serves God faithfully and let's God handle the rest. Before Pharaoh, Joseph isn't thinking about himself at all. He's self-forgetful, and that's because he finds his true, core identity in his relationship with God and nowhere else. And, that will be one of the things we talk about this Sunday from Ge. 41: true identity in Christ.

In the mean time, when you read through Ge. 41, make note of Joseph's humility and how it is in his self-forgetfulness, not self-abasing.

By His Grace,
Taylor

A Life of Repentance

“Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.” ~ The first of Martin Luther's 95 Theses

Traditionally, Reformation Day is celebrated on the anniversary of the day Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of Wittenberg Cathedral. The first is something I often need to be reminded of even though it may look bleak. It does seem like Luther is saying Christians will never make progress in getting better so they always need to be repenting. What he really meant, however, is that living a life of repentance is the way a Christian actually makes progress. In fact, a persistent life of repentance is one of the best, telltale signs that we are being conformed to the likeness of Christ. (By the way, “poenitentiam agite” is the Latin Vulgate mistranslation of Matthew 4:17 that led to the Roman Catholic doctrine of repentance. Luther is saying that it should not be translated as “do penance” but “repent”.)

When talking about repentance we must understand the difference between “religious repentance” (a term I borrow from Tim Keller) and gospel-driven repentance. “Religious” repentance is done basically to keep God happy so He will not punish us, so He will bless us, or to bribe Him to answer our prayers. Gospel-driven repentance, however, comes from deep sorrow for sinning against our God who loves us so much and repeatedly reminds us of our union with Christ, His all-encompassing sacrifice for us, and God’s love for us that can never change. This kind of repentance will weaken our need to do those things that are contrary to God’s heart.

Sin is atrocious and dishonors God but with “religious repentance” we are not sorry for the sin; we are afraid of condemnation or punishment, which is a man-centered way of viewing repentance. The gospel reminds Christians that we are incredibly sinful (Romans 7:7ff) but also that no sin can ultimately bring us to condemnation (Romans 8:1) so we do not have to go to God thinking we must somehow avert His anger. Jesus has already done that for us with His propitiatory sacrifice for us (Romans 3:23-26)! Gospel-driven repentance opens our heart to being sorry for the sin itself and what it has done to God. Gospel-driven repentance is ultimately God-centered, which is how our entire lives should be.

Another problem with “religious” repentance is that when we have this mindset we are often trying to atone for the sin somehow. We think that if we are truly sorry for the sin then we deserve to be forgiven for it. We might even go so far as to do something that will make us suffer for the sin as some kind of act of penance. That kind of thinking is actually quite arrogant and, again, man-centered. We cannot atone for anything! The gospel, however, reminds us that we do not have to atone for our sin. Jesus has already done that! He suffered the punishment for our sins (I John 2:1-2). He earned the forgiveness. In repentance we simply receive with open, empty hands the forgiveness that Jesus earned for us. In gospel-driven repentance, forgiveness is a just/righteous thing for God to do (I John 1:9) because Jesus suffered and died for it. Think about that for a second. It would be unjust for God not to forgive us when we come to Him for forgiveness on the basis of Jesus’ sacrifice for us because Jesus merited acceptance for us! Again, this makes gospel-driven repentance humble and God-centered.

Gospel-driven repentance also makes confession of sin easy. Listen to John’s words in I John 1:8-2:2:

If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us. My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

In “religious” repentance we only ask for forgiveness when we are really feeling guilty about something. There must be tremendous pressure for us to repent. In gospel-driven repentance, however, we run to God with all our sins because 1) we know we have to and 2) we know that we will be accepted. John tells us that if we say we have no sin we are a liar. Harsh words but true words. But, he says, if we confess our sins God is faithful and just to forgive us! Not only that, John says, “…if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” This should make us run to the throne for repentance any time we sin, no matter how “big” or “small” the sin seems. We can run to the throne because we know that God is faithful and just to forgive us and Jesus, the sacrifice that earned our forgiveness, is our advocate! Gospel-driven repentance reminds us of how sinful we are, yet also reminds us that we can freely, quickly run to God for forgiveness and be certain that He will grant it.

This is why repentance is a way of life for believers, as Luther says. We will always have sins to repent but at the same time repentance is one of the ways that God helps us grow and become better. Look again at what John tells his readers, “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin.” Wait, he is telling them that they are sinful and that they can confess their sins so they will not sin? That seems odd. It seems like telling people they are going to sin (no doubt about it) and that they can get forgiveness from God when they confess would make people sin more. That kind of radical grace opens the door for more sinning, right? No, John does not see it that way at all. He says that he is telling them the radical grace of the gospel so that they will not sin. Why? I like Steve Brown’s answer, “The only people who get any better are those that know that if they don’t get any better God will still love them anyway.” Gospel-driven repentance based on radical grace does not encourage sin but helps conform us to the likeness of Christ, which changes our hearts to be after God’s.

By His Grace,

Taylor

Four Spiritual Laws (According to Steve Brown)

"...You know people like that: arrogant, elitist, demanding? You don't do that if you know the four spiritual laws. Let me give them to you. Law number one: there's a sovereign God. Law number two: you're not Him. Law number three: He doesn't need you. Law number four: go get a milkshake." ~ Steve Brown

I love how Steve has a way of breaking things down like this. When we think too much of ourselves in reference to the world and God's work in it we start to get off track, put too much pressure on ourselves, and/or become arrogant. I know I do this at times and it is always nice to be reminded that God was doing just fine before I came along and will do just fine after I am gone. Anything done through me is a blessing of His sovereign grace. Keeping that in mind relieves some of the pressure and keeps my ego in check.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Hawking's God

"But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions." Dr. John Lennox, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, writing for Mail Online

Recently Stephen Hawking, while promoting his new (yet-to-be-published) book The Grand Design, has made a few highly controversial statements. In an interview Hawking stated, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing... Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going." Dr. Lennox responded to Hawking's statement in an article for Mail Online where he says what I have quoted above. I wanted to write about this because I both agree and disagree with Dr. Lennox. I agree with him in that physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe and that laws, of course, do not create anything. In his article, Dr. Lennox goes onto say, "What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine." This is where I disagree with him. I do not think that Hawking is confusing law with agency but attributing agency to the laws of physics, replacing a personal God with impersonal laws.

Many years ago in A Brief History of Time (BHT) Hawking stated, "If we discover a complete theory it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason for then we would know the mind of God." When Hawking wrote BHT he seemed to be your average deist who does not believe in a personal God but believes that some transcendent being is necessary for creating the laws of physics and mathematics. In his recent statements, Hawking appears to have changed his theology about God. This is what is creating all the hype about this book. But has he (this is the way Dr. Lennox interprets it) or is he now just being more explicit about who, or what, this "God" is? I believe it is the latter. I do not think that Hawking has changed his theology at all but is being much more explicit than he was in BHT. Now he is specifically stating that a personal God does not exist but that the laws of physics are "God". Look at what he says, "Because there is a law such as gravity..." (emphasis mine). He is not eliminating a need for a first cause (see the Kalam Cosmological Argument) but treating the laws of physics as a brute reality, a transcendent cause that is preexistent. To Hawking, "God" is the laws of physics.

Why is he doing this? Well, again, I believe we can see that in his statement in BHT as well as his recent statements. In BHT he says that discovering a complete theory would allow us to "know the mind of God." In his new book Hawking is proposing a way of looking at the universe where it would be possible for a human to know everything there is to know about the universe (a theory of everything (TOE)). Now we can see what is driving Hawking. If God is personal and transcendent, then the idea that we could come up with a TOE that shows us "the mind of God" is impossible. For example, science would not be able to answer the question of why the universe exists in the first place. However, if "God" is an impersonal set of physical laws that are simply a brute force of reality with no basis (a god) then a TOE is possible. Hawking is picking one cosmological and theological model over another so that it would be possible for him to have a complete theory of everything.

Hawking, like all human beings do at one point or another, has fallen prey to the original temptation of satan. How does satan tempt Eve in the Garden of Eden? "'You will not surely die,' the serpent said to the woman. 'For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God...'" (Genesis 3:4-5). In order to know what God knows, Eve disobeyed the one command He gave Adam and her by eating the fruit. In order to know what God knows, Hawking is taking a theological world-view, which holds that "God" is an impersonal set of physical laws that transcend the universe.

There is a very big problem with what Hawking is doing here, however. The laws of physics constantly remind all scientists that effect cannot be greater than the cause, the lesser cannot produce the greater. How can an impersonal set of laws (the lesser) produce personal beings like humans (the greater)? Why is it that humans have personality, compassion, or relationships? Hawking's TOE cannot answer this question because the impersonal cannot beget the personal. To put the problem in another way that philosopher Kenneth Samples has put it, "How is it that the universe can create beings that can understand the universe but the universe cannot understand itself?" If the universe generates us and we can understand the universe but the universe cannot understand us then we are greater than the universe. This is counter to the laws of physics. Impersonal laws (Hawking's "God") can only produce impersonal results such as planets and stars, but they cannot produce personal, compassionate, relational beings like us.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Social Networking

"The great paradox of 'social networking' is that it uses narcissism as the glue for 'community.' Being online means being alone, and being in an online community means being alone together. The community is purely symbolic, a pixellated simulation conjured up by software to feed the modern self's bottomless hunger... As I walk down the street with thin white cords hanging from my ears, as I look at the display of khakis in the window of the Gap, as I sit in a Starbucks sipping a chai served up by a barista, I can't quite bring myself to believe that I'm real. But if I send out to a theoretical audience of my peers 140 characters of text saying that I'm walking down the street, looking in a shop window, drinking tea, suddenly I become real. I have a voice. I exist, if only as a symbol speaking of symbols to other symbols." ~ Nicholas Carr, "Twitter dot dash"

I think I agree with Carr for the most part. Why do we like these sites that allow us to broadcast to everyone on our friends list what we are doing? We can take the most minute parts of our life and broadcast them to the world as a headline. It is kind of narcissistic to let everyone know what we are doing at any moment in time. That becomes even more clear when we get a comment by a peer on said headlines, that means someone read it and thought about us! I confess, I get that feeling if someone comments on my Facebook status.

Is it harmful? I do not think it has to be. I think the social networking sites can be a great avenue for keeping in touch with friends and family and just having fun. Can it be harmful? If we take it too far it can. It can feed our egos because it allows us to make the minute moments a headline. Also, as Carr says above, when we are online we are actually alone. The online "community" might be satisfying for a time, but it is not replacement for real world relationships and if we let it become that it will leave us empty people with exaggerated ideas of our own importance.

You know what is ironic about this blog entry? It is going to show up on my Facebook page as a Facebook Note since they are linked...

By His Grace,
Taylor