Mind and Body Democracy

I've started reading James K. A. Smith's Imagining the Kingdom, which is a follow up to his Desiring the Kingdom. He succinctly summarizes his previous book in response to his critics:

The argument of Desiring the Kingdom  is not that we need less than worldview, but more: Christian education will only be fully an education to the extent that it is also a formation of our habits. And such formation happens not only, or even primarily, by equipping the intellect but through the repetitive formation of embodied, communal practices. And the "core" of those formative practices is centered in the practices of Christian worship (10).

Smith argues that "the way to the heart is through the body and the way to the body is through story" (14). Smith seems to be arguing against the primacy of the intellect, and for the primacy of the body.

He maintains that we don't merely have a body but we are a body. I think Smith means that we are a body but not merely a body. If we were merely a body we would lose our identity when we die. Death is the unnatural separation of body and soul. We continue in our personal identity after the body is laid down but this unnatural state is remedied by the resurrection.

Smith's emphasis is well taken but we need to remember that when God breathed into us we became a living soul. In other words, God prepared a body to be united to the soul, but the soul itself animates the body. In this way, the soul can continue to preserve the human self separate from the body.

Instead of arguing for the primacy of the mind or the primacy of the body in forming the heart, I think we need to see the mind and body in a democracy. They are united in the image of God and both play an equal role in forming the heart. The intellectual tends to underestimate the body and the hedonist underestimates the mind.

Just Sanctification

Sanctification is proof that justification has occurred.

"Peter on the Pond with No Place for Pride"

“Peter on the Pond”
Sermon by Matt Heckel, PhD
8-31-13


Read Luke 5:1-11 and John 21:1-8

(Attention) Ever wonder what it would be like to be Peter? Crazy, right? Peter lived a crazy life of ups and downs, but he also lived a full life. A life that we are normally scared to live.

(Textual Analysis) Let’s try and relive this story from the vantage point of Peter. Peter is cleaning his nets after a miserable night of fishing. If he could’ve known how it would go, he surely would’ve spent it at home in bed. So Peter is experiencing a sense of loss. He is frustrated. Then he sees a probably most unwelcome sight. A huge crowd following Jesus comes into view. But that will be tolerable if they mind their own business.

But then Jesus just steps in it. Yep, he steps into Peter’s boat and right into his business. Here’s a good word of advise, “Don’t step into a fisherman’s boat uninvited.” Peter must be thinking, “Who does Jesus think he is.” Then Jesus imposes himself on Peter. “Peter, could you push me out a little into the lake so the people can hear me better.” Can you picture yourself as Peter throwing your nets down, walking over to your boat and pushing this preacher out into the lake. You might think, “If he wants a floating pulpit I’ll play along, but he better not get long-winded. I need to get home and crash.”

So the sermon is finally over but we don’t have any record of what Jesus said. Why? Because the most important part of the sermon is about to be lived out. Hearts are going to be revealed and a soul is going to be saved.

True Patriotism

The true patriot repents for and calls for the repentance of his nation: "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people" (Proverbs 14:34 ESV).

Nature and Gay Marriage

Marriage begins in a wedding, which implies the bringing together of two people who fit together. God is the God of nature and he has left in nature a testimony of what goes together and what doesn't. We don't need a degree in anatomy to see the obvious.

Nature has not equipped people of the same sex for sexual union. Do we need further proof? Those unions don't have the "innate" ability to reproduce. In other words, reproduction isn't natural to those unions. The receiving of children to those unions is artificial and thus not endorsed by nature or nature's God.

Now what state would have a problem recognizing that nature of things? Maybe a state separated from nature and nature's God. The two go together, don't they. If we reject God we lose our common sense grip on the nature of things. We start thinking that we can make nature conform to us, instead of conforming ourselves to the nature of things.

This is not to deny that same sex attraction is a real thing. But when we start thinking that any desire we have is natural, we can justify anything. We cannot lose sight of the fact that we are fallen. Something has gone wrong with our sexuality, and nature and nature's God stand as a testimony to that fact. Our desires need to be directed toward the Good as defined by nature. What state cannot recognize this fact? Our state? I hope not.


Righteousness exalts a nation,
but sin is a reproach to any people.
(Proverbs 14:34 ESV)


Now therefore, O kings, be wise;
be warned, O rulers of the earth.
Serve the LORD with fear,
and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son,
lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,
for his wrath is quickly kindled.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
(Psalm 2:10-12 ESV)

Time to Build

By wisdom a house is built,
and by understanding it is established;
by knowledge the rooms are filled
with all precious and pleasant riches.
A wise man is full of strength,
and a man of knowledge enhances his might,
for by wise guidance you can wage your war,
and in abundance of counselors there is victory.
Wisdom is too high for a fool;
in the gate he does not open his mouth.
(Proverbs 24:3-7 ESV)

Am I building my house with wisdom. Is it established? Are the rooms filled with knowldedge or diversion? Do we have "precious and pleasant riches" or mere gadgets?

Am I full of strength. If I am living wisely, I should be "enhancing my might," not getting weaker. With wise guidance I can wage war, rather than indulge my idiosyncrasies. Do I have many counselors instead or do I tend to worship a single hero at a time? Can I open my mouth at the gate, or am I silenced in the presence of the wise? The wise man built his house upon the rock. Jesus be my rock! It is time to build.

Burning Eloquence

Got this from Blog and Mablog:

One of the best definitions of eloquence is, 'to have something to say and to burn to say it'." (Fish, Power in the Pulpit, p. 18).

The Start of Abolition

The abolition of slavery as an institution didn't begin with William Wilberforce in the early 19th century, but with Gregory of Nyssa's Easter sermon in 379:

If man is in the likeness of God, and rules the whole earth, and
has been granted authority over everything on earth from God,
who is his buyer, tell me? Who is his seller? To God alone belongs
this power; or rather, not even to God himself. For his gracious
gifts, it says, are irrevocable (Romans 11:29). God would not therefore
reduce the human race to slavery, since he himself, when we
had been enslaved to sin, spontaneously recalled us to freedom.
But if God does not enslave what is free, who is he that sets his
own power above God’s?

Historians have searched in vain for a predecessor to Gregory, so I guess we will have to take Gregory's word for it. He must have gotten this from the Bible.

The Sucking Canvass of Nothingness

I heard a portion of an interview with Woody Allen on NPR on my way to teach class. Allen confessed that it is hard to find any pleasure in life because of the human predicament hanging over every happy moment.

This means, for Allen, that every enjoyment is not pointing beyond itself to the Joy of joys but is, in his words, "ephemeral." Allen has made atheism the canvass of his life. Whatever pleasing strokes he brushes on are immediately absorbed by the sucking canvass of nothingness.

This has reminded me that life without God is painfully subjective. But life with God guarantees an objective reality that our senses were created to know, and Scripture declares that God has personally entered that reality and we are part of his business of redemption. Let's join the family business!

We Are Lovers, This Is True

We are basically lovers. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and all your strength," says Jesus. I'm one who tends to lead with my mind, which isn't necessarily bad. But when I reduce man to mind that's bad. Especially when I look down on my less cerebral brothers and sisters.

So I need to remember that the life of the mind is important to an abundant Christian life but not the be all end all. In other words, we all have our primary, secondary, and tertiary love languages when it comes to loving God. We must proactively promote the love languages of our brothers, especially when they are different than ours.

Why Religion Gets to the Heart of Things

Ken Myers has a good quote on why theology is still the queen of the sciences. Whether it is acknowledged or not, it is the science behind all the sciences:

"Virtually all the major disagreements between rival theories in the sciences and in philosophy can ultimately be traced back to the differences between the religious beliefs that guide them" (Roy Clouser, The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay on the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories, Revised edition, University of Notre Dame Press, 2005.

Christian Comedy

The ancient pagan worldview said, "Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die." Jesus said, "Be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world." Anthony Esolen points out that the pagan worldview is tragic, but the Christian worldview is a comic (Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization, 95-96).

Did Everything Good in the State Come From the Church?

Defending Constantine by Peter J. Leithart
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Americans tend to assume that we cannot have religious freedom without a separation of church and state. But Leithart shows that Constantine created true religious freedom almost a millennium and a half before the US Constitution and within a Christian empire. How did he do this?

First of all he didn't try to turn the church into an arm of the state. Constantine tried to reform his empire with the gospel of Christ, but he did not try to control the church. He respected the church as a distinct polis with its own sphere of authority. For instance, he called the council of Nicea but didn't attempt to determine its outcome. He tolerated paganism in the civil realm, but let the church carry on its own culture war with the empire's pagan past. Compare this to conservatives turning the Christian Coalition of the 1990s into a religious arm for the Republican party (See Stephan Carter's God's Name in Vain).

Now we might consider Constantine's Christian reforms of the Roman state dangerous, but without them, Leithart points out, the state would have continued to allow men to abandon their wives through divorce, treat their unwanted infants as disposable property, sell their children into slavery, and enjoy murder in the gladiatorial arenas as entertainment. Before Constantine, equality could not be assumed. That came from the Christian doctrine of creation, which taught that all people are made in the image of God.

Leithart shows that sacrifice to the Roman gods and the deified emperor was the central religious act in a very religious empire. Constantine broke with the pagan Roman past by not offering the customary sacrifices after his triumph at the Milvian Bridge in 312. He turned the back the demise of the empire by looking out for the disadvantaged. He gave tax breaks to poor parents who couldn't afford to raise their children. Constantine reformed the corrupt judicial system of Rome by turning justice for the those who couldn't afford representation over to ecclesiastical courts.

Constantine had his faults but he knew that the state needed the moral authority of the church in order to defend women, children, and the poor. We are now losing the ground he gained by promoting a secular understanding of the separation of church from the state. Without a transcendent basis for our laws everyone does what is right in their own eyes. There are no absolutes in Israel, and we are re-paganizing at an alarming rate with abortion, no-fault divorce, and commercial combinations that widen the gap between rich and poor.

Would to God that more Christians would, like Leithart, defend Constantine instead of Congress.


View all my reviews

Loving God in Each Other

Loving the Unseen God


Text: 1 John 4: 7-21

I. Intro.
A. (Att. Getter) It’s easy to love a god you cannot see. This is because we can imagine an unseen God to be however we like.
B. (Textual) John says that we must love God not according to our own imagination. We must love God according to who he really is. And how do we know who he really is? John says that we know who he is because he has revealed himself in Christ’s love and he has revealed himself in each other.
C. (Transition) Let’s take a look at how God has revealed himself so that we can truly love him for who he is.
II. The first way God has revealed himself is in sending his Son to die for our sins.
A. It’s easy to love a God we cannot see, but can we love a God who “sent his son to be a propitiation for our sins?”
B. To love God we must accept the fact that we are in such a bad condition that it required God to become a man and die in order to save us. Steve Brown has said God’s grace is a radical grace, but to receive it we must accept that we are radical sinners.
C. We are sinners who cannot save ourselves. We deserved God’s wrath and couldn’t do anything to satisfy his wrath.
D. (Ill) Sometimes we say to our spouse in exasperation, “What do you want from me.” In other words, “What can I do to make you happy.” What if our spouse said, “Nothing.” That would be a terrible, helpless feeling. But what if our spouse said, “The only way that I can love you is by giving my life for yours. Then and only then can you become a person I can love.” That is actually true. We could never love each other unless we sacrificed ourselves to our spouse. When we make sacrifices for our spouse it makes the other person lovable. “If we don’t sacrifice ourselves we end up sacrificing each other” (Glenn Kaiser). God paid the ultimate sacrifice for us so that he could make us the object of his love and save us. Therein we see his love.
E. This means that we should love each other by laying down our lives for each other. Love begets love. If you want something to be lovable start loving it. Love makes things lovely. Love has a redeeming power that transforms whatever it loves.
F. This is why Paul says, “Without love, I am a resounding gong or clanging symbol.”
G. C. S. Lewis wrote, “The husband is the head of the wife just in so far as he is to her what Christ is to the Church. He is to love her as Christ loved the church – read on – and gave his life for her (Eph. V, 25). This headship, then, is most fully embodied not in the husband we should all wish to be but in him whose marriage is most like a crucifixion; whose wife receives most and gives least, is most unworthy of him, is – in her own mere nature – least lovable. For the church has no beauty but what the Bride-groom gives her; he does not find, but makes her, lovely. (the Four Loves 105-06).
H. We must make each other lovely to ourselves.
I. Someone once told me that they found it very hard to love someone. I said, “Love him and you will find him lovable.” This is divine, agape love. There is nothing lovely about us to the holy God, but he lays down his life in an act of love to make us lovely.
J. In this way, as Lewis points out, husbands are responsible for the loveliness of their wives.
K. John says in v. 17, “we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world.” If we want assurance of salvation we must love others as Christ loved us with sacrificial love.
L. This is not impossible. Jesus is our source, “We love because he first loved us” (v. 17).

III. The second way God has revealed himself is in each other.
A. v. 12, “No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.” What is John talking about?
B. God is invisible but he is made visible in each other. When we love one another sacrificially his sacrificial love is perfected in us.
C. When we go beyond just saying we love one another and actually start loving each other then we find his love in us.
D. v. 20, “If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.”
E. The invisible God is made visible in each other. If we cannot love God as he is seen in each other, we cannot claim to love him as he is unseen.
F. It’s easy to love a God we cannot see. It’s another thing to love the God we see in Christ and the cross and each other.
G. But this is who God truly is. We see his sacrificial love in Christ and we see his diversity in each other.
H. Why can’t we love one another when God is in each other? We come to think that God is like us and those who are different are ungodly or unchristian.
I. But God says we cannot claim to love him as he is invisible if we don’t love him where he is visible.
J. (Ill) Gr. Charlie, the church split, and the man he wouldn’t let hate him.
K. This is why marriage is so important. It teaches us to love someone quite different from ourselves.
L. (Ill) there are two kinds of marriages: birds of a feather flock together and opposites attract. The research says that the more successful marriages are birds of a feather flock together. But I know of more marriages where opposites attract. God loves bringing people together who are quite different from each other. Their marriages might not be as successful but maybe they can be better and broader people. I wonder if birds of a feather might not get along better but become more lopsided as people. We are exposed to more through people who are different in temperament, personality, and taste.
IV. Conclusion:
A. God reveals himself in two ways: in his son’s sacrificial love on the cross and in each other.
B. The first transforms us and we see the evidence of that transformation in how we love or do not love people different from us.
C. It’s easy to love a God we cannot see, but loving the God we see in Christ and in each other is more rewarding.

Will Anyone Go To Hell?

Robert Peterson was my mentor at Covenant Theological Seminary,  and he has ably responded to Rob Bell's book Love Wins. Dr. Peterson has published several excellent books on eternal destinies and the Bible's teaching on salvation.

Like Dr. Peterson, we need to let God speak for himself through Scripture in dealing with questions of heaven and hell, especially at a time when our culture has no stomach for hard truth and real grace.

Gospel Hinges

Deuteronomy 6:6, 9:

These words that I command you today ... You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

The door is the gateway to the outside world and back into the home. It needs to turn on gospel hinges. It is the entry way to both realms because it must govern our interactions in both places. In My Life for Yours: A Walk Through the Christian Home, Douglas Wilson points out that the door is also a protection from the outside world. Sometimes the door needs to be firmly shut.

Comforting Sovereignty

Got this from a friend on FB:

Indeed the great point for our comfort in life, is to have a well grounded persuasion that we are where, all things considered, we ought to be. It is no great matter whether we are in public or private life, in a city or a village, in a palace or a cottage. The promise, My grace is sufficient, is necessary to support us in the smoothest scenes, and is equally able to support us in the most difficult. (John Newton)

God's sovereignty always has us where his grace is sufficient.

Curiosity and Kids

Deuteronomy 6:20-25:

When your son asks you in time to come, 'What is the meaning of the testimonies and the statutes and the rules that the LORD our God has commanded you?' then you shall say to your son, 'We were Pharaoh’s slaves in Egypt. And the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand. And the LORD showed signs and wonders, great and grievous, against Egypt and against Pharaoh and all his household, before our eyes. And he brought us out from there, that he might bring us in and give us the land that he swore to give to our fathers. And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as we are this day. And it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to do all this commandment before the LORD our God, as he has commanded us.'

God's covenant culture was a culture of question asking. In other words, there should be in our homes an inculcation of curiosity. Not everything is taught. Some things are taught and other things are left for Q and A. This also means that we as parents need to be ready to take advantage of teachable moments.

Is Worldview More Caught than Taught?

Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation by James K.A. Smith
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

James K. A. Smith’s Desiring the Kingdom lays siege to the church’s current approach to  worldview training. He says our current fascination with worldview is  dominated by a philosophical emphasis that tends to overlook the body and the imagination. Man is treated like “a brain in a vat” rather than as the embodied lover God made him. This leads to an impoverishment of the church and the Christian life and surrender to the world, the flesh, and the devil. Smith seeks to redirect his readers into culture building through the church’s ancient liturgy. He argues that the liturgical practices of the church are full-bodied culture builders that can direct our desires, order our loves, and train our habits for fuller expressions of the kingdom. I think there is much to praise here but also some cautions that Smith shouldn’t have “thrown to the wind.” More about that below. One caution: I found Smith’s book is so provocative and challenging, I couldn’t help writing a longer review essay than a mere review of his ideas.


Smith specifically takes aim at his own reformed tradition which tends to be idea driven instead of practice driven. The reformed tradition tends to view the person as a container of ideas that issue forth in actions, rather than a passionate person formed by practices first and that issue in propositions later. Smith even sees in the reformed emphasis on “basic beliefs” that undergird ideas something more akin to propositions than passions. He fears that this approach, advocated by the highly respected Plantinga, Wolterstorff, and Dooyeweerd also reduces Christianity to a “belief system.” This reduction tends to ignore our the role of the body and makes the faith something that can be mediated outside the church (45). Smith argues that love is the basic human orientation to the world. Man is primarily a lover and secondarily a thinker or believer. Affections are more basic than thoughts, ideas, and propositions.


This is provocative for someone like me who was raised in a rebellion against liturgy. In my circles tradition was out and being "led by the Spirit" was in. This implied, of course, that either our forebears weren't led by the Spirit or the Holy Spirit was doing a new thing or both. I suspect it was both. I later moved toward the intellectual approach which could also denigrate the liturgical as a mindless “going through the motions.” I have since come to appreciate the benefit of time tested liturgy. Smith goes one further by arguing that all of life is liturgical. It is liturgical in that it consists of practices both thick and thin that train our desires. Thick ones are like the Lord's Supper, and thin ones are like brushing your teeth or checking for ticks. These direct our loves, and thus form us as people. The thick practices obviously have a greater impact on who we are. Smith argues that all of life is sacramental but the sacraments themselves are a God ordained intensification of the sacramental order into an act of special grace.


Smith convincingly reveals the liturgies of the mall, media, and market for what they are: training grounds for a kingdom other than the Kingdom of God. Far from innocent, they are "secular liturgies," fine tuned and field tested by media elites and advertisers. They are designed to make us want to dispose of what we have in discontent and purchase the new and the novel. These liturgies tend to express our fallenness and often participate in the demonic. For instance, it is not so subtly suggested to young men that if they mist some axe body spray over themselves beautiful young girls will throw themselves at them. Not only must we be aware of our culture if we don't want to be manipulated by it, but we must also reform it so that we will be reformed in turn. It turns out that, according to Smith, the evangelical and Reformed churches haven’t been as effective as the consumer culture at speaking to the heart and shaping desire.


As mentioned, Smith targets the current evangelical approach to worldview education, because it treats man like a brain walking around in an earth-suit. Smith says our approach to Christian worldview development is overly intellectual and cognitive. Smith's critique is based upon his argument that man is primarily a lover and secondarily a philosopher. We feel, sense, and "love before we know" (70). We imagine before we theorize (66, 134).  One might say that worldview is "more caught than taught." Smith says worldview is visceral, running off of sense impressions from the body that fuel the imagination. Only a small percentage of worldview is usually processed by reason. It is also the case that while Christian truth forms Christian practice, our rational understanding and articulation of that truth comes later. Smith does not denigrate the cognitive mind. After all his book is an intellectual tour-de-force which aims to make us better appreciate what is going on in secular and sacred liturgies. His argument is that the teachings of the Christian faith are embedded in the practices and this is gradually discovered intellectually as reason matures. Thus God-ordained worship is the font of personal worldview (136). Visions of the kingdom are implicit in the liturgies (121). He argues that the proper use of the intellect is to deepen our understanding of the liturgical. We can reflect on and reform the liturgy as Smith encourages us to do. For instance, Smith asks us to consider what is going on when we go to the mall.


A walk through the mall presents one with sights, sounds, and smells. It also sends messages and puts us through motions that appeal to the whole person. The mall says fix it not through "confession but in consumption." Smith comments, "implicit in those visual icons of success, happiness, pleasure, and fulfillment is a stabbing albeit unarticulated recognition that that's not me" (96). But it can be me, if I proceed to the altar to complete my worship experience with transaction overseen by a high priest of consumerism professionally trained to pull it off with a smile and a tease for next time.


Smith argues that thick cultural practices, like going to the mall, train our hearts through casting a spell over our imaginations. The body is not unconnected to what we think, contra Kant and the Enlightenment. Smith asserts, and I think rightly, that bodily practices activate and animate our imagination. The heart is trained by the disciplines of the body. Meanwhile, Smith points out, the church tries to extinguish the lust consuming our hearts by pouring water on our heads. He says that we need to develop habits of daily worship in private, in our churches, schools, and families (211). Smith is giving us what he calls a "methodological jolt" by switching us from worldview beliefs to worldview practices and thus liturgies (93). He actually prefers the term "social imaginary" to worldview, but I'm afraid its not nearly as catchy.


Smith emphasizes, a la St. Augustine, that man is a lover and his loves need to be ordered. Smith understands liturgies as rituals that form and direct our loves. His recipe for reordered love through liturgical practices travels through three institutions: the church, the school, and the family. He points to the church as the cultural center of the kingdom that orders our loves under God. Quoting Witvliet, Smith refers to the Bible and worship as "God's language school" that "challenges us to practice forms of faithful speech to God that we are not likely to try on our own. Authentic worship, like toddler talk, expresses who we are and forms what we are becoming" (172). Smith is saying that if we want to love God with all our heart, soul, and strength we must do liturgy. We must kneel, fold our hands, confess, pray, stand, lift our arms, sing, dance, hear, see water trickle over an infant’s head, take, eat, touch,  smell, drink, open, read, write, reason, praise, smile, shake hands, hug, and give thanks.


With respect to education, Smith quotes Stanley Hauerwas who said that “every education is a moral formation.” This means that the idea of a secular education that conveys information without formation is a myth. Smith calls for the Christian university to be the ecclesial university. Medieval universities were founded by the church and served as extensions of the church into the world. Today's secular university is, quoting Hauerwas, "the great institution of legitimation in modernity whose task is to convince us that the way thing are is the way things have to be" (221). Smith is refreshing in calling for a radical reformation of Christian universities. “The Christian university should not only be born but also nourished ex corde ecclesiae, ‘from the heart of the church’.” This would include “baptismal renunciations of what the surrounding culture might consider 'excellence’ ” (221). This means the "ecclesial university curriculum" will not look like that of the secular state university "plus Jesus" (220-222). In fact, it might not even ensure its students' success in a world formed by secular liturgies. Smith wants us to consider whether we are willing to pay the price for a truly Christian education.


Smith cites David McCarthy who refers to the family the “domestic church” (212, n. 129). The church is the “first family” that defines our homes and opens them to those to whom Christ ministered. In most Christian traditions, as soon as a child is born into a Christian family, he is baptized by the church. Smith calls baptism a subversive sacrament that, in the words of McCarthy, "establishes a communion that qualifies our relationships of birth" (186). This flies in the face of the modern idols of choice and democracy. Smith points out that since the Enlightenment freedom has been increasingly defined in terms of the mere act of choosing. Historically and biblically freedom has more to do with the ability to choose the good. Modernity has reduced freedom to the mere exercise of the will, because moral authorities, like the church, which define the good have been pushed to the margins of society. The problem with the modern definition is that it ironically leaves us with much less freedom. Smith cites research indicating "that only about 5 percent of our daily activity is the product of conscious, intentional actions that we 'choose'" (81). We simply find ourselves immersed in a life already given to us. Most of us do not choose to live the life of a commuter. We simply accept that lifestyle as a fact of our modern existence. To choose otherwise requires a deliberate countercultural move. Similarly Baptism is an act of grace that says you have begun your formation as a child of God, and it puts the baptized in an antithetical relationship to the world. It shows us that we don't choose the church, but it chooses us as part of the saving arm of God. We can choose otherwise, but only after the fact.


Desiring the Kingdom is a rich mine of truth, but even the richest mines yield some dross when refined by the word of God. Smith seems to be drinking from the font of secular liturgy by using "she" instead of "he" when it could be either sex. Smith thus breaks with Scripture's practice of assuming that a female is not necessarily negated by the masculine pronoun but protected under male headship. So it is no surprise when he also refers to ordained ministers as "she" breaking with the Bible's prohibition of women exercising that office of authority over men. For all the honor Smith pays to Scripture, he doesn't permeate his own words with the Word like one might expect. While he does use the Bible he doesn’t avail himself of the abundance of biblical texts about culture building. The "Shema" of Deuteronomy 6:4-9 would make his point in spades, but Smith doesn't turn his points on that sturdy hinge. Smith is more of a philosopher, but if Scripture is supposed to be the standard, as he says, it ought to be raised a bit more and its habits of speech imitated.


Smith is clearly for more liturgy in worship not less. He shows us that we shouldn’t be afraid of this since life is inescapably liturgical. He also encourages us to embrace the imagination since the liturgical works on the imagination first and most. But he goes on to say that this happens “without having to kick into a mode of cerebral reflection” (167). He recognizes that some people may be scandalized by the implication that liturgies work “ex opere operato” or “by the mere performance of ritual.” He admits that he thinks this is true though not ideal. Indeed, I know of  many liturgical churches whose membership tends to have little passion for knowing and applying Scripture to their personal lives. They seem to assume that the liturgy takes care of all their spiritual needs, and their lives tend to resemble the world around them. I also know churches who aren’t known for being liturgical, and yet they have created a vibrant biblical culture where members personally apply the Bible to their lives and the world around them. Smith talks about those who wander into the world but are awakened by a liturgical memory and return to the church. Praise the Lord this happens, but nominal Christianity that issues in backsliding until the eleventh hour is FAR from ideal.


The goal of the Christian life is increasing levels of spiritual maturity as we mature physically and mentally. This means that as our rational capacities develop, rational understanding of what we love and believe should grow. Smith fails to emphasize that the intellectual appropriation of the liturgy represents a primary goal of Christian maturity. He also fails to use the intellectual appropriation of the liturgy as a safeguard against the nominal and passive Christianity that often attends highly liturgical churches. I agree that we need more liturgy, but we need to avoid the opposite error of being merely liturgical. The church must be vigilant in teaching the meaning of liturgy and that it must be personally received by a proactive, reasoning faith “until we all reach unity … in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13).


All things considered, Smith's scholarship is good and his call for Christian scholarship to "emerge from the matrix of worship" is much needed. We do need to return to the liturgical without becoming passive. We must use it to invigorate our imaginations and develop our reason. He promises to take the conversation further in future works, and I must say that I'm looking forward to them with my heart, soul, mind, and strength.



View all my reviews

Knowing the World through the Word

Wow! It's been a long time since I've blogged. It's good to be back. Here's a sermon I preached last Sunday. Blessings to all my readers out there. I always covet your comments, questions, and most of all challengeez! ;-D



Knowing the World Through the Word or How to Introduce Covenant Culture into Your Home
M. Heckel, 6-24-11


I. Read Deuteronomy 6:4-9 & Ephesians 6:1-4.

II. Intro: We’ve had Mother’s Day and Father’s Day was last week. Well today I’ll be preaching on children and the family, so we might call this family day. The Bible has a lot to say about families and raising children.
I am far from an expert on these things. I am very much a father in training. I’m very glad we have God’s word, because I could not teach about this subject on my own expertise. So Let’s take a look at what God is saying to his people in our passage.

III. Historical Context:
A. Israel is about to enter the promised land. Moses has led God’s people out of Egypt, through the Red Sea, entered into covenant with them on Mt. Sinai, given them the Ten Commandments, and they have just wandered in the dessert for forty years. They wandered in the dessert because of their disbelief. They did not believe that they could destroy the inhabitants of the land, even though God was sending Israel as his instrument of judgment. God had given them into Israel’s hand, but ten out of the twelve spies said “There are giants in the land.” They rejected the Word of God and so God rejected that generation. They all died in the dessert except the two believing spies, Joshua and Caleb, and their families.
B. Now they are on the border of the promised land again, and God is about to renew the  covenant with his people.
C. After the fall of Adam, God reestablishes relationship with his people through a covenant. In a covenant God makes promises to Israel and calls his people to obey. In this section, God is calling his people to keep the covenant.
D. (Application) Like Israel, we too are God’s people. The church is God’s New Covenant people. So God is addressing us in this passage as well.

IV. God is One, 6:4
A. In verse 4 God solemnly calls his people to attention. Whatever follows is of the utmost importance. The Jews understood this, and made it their great confession of faith that they recite every morning and evening.
B. The Lord, who is Israel’s God is one God. This is know as monotheism and it made Israel unique. All other ancient religions worshipped many gods and were thus polytheistic. The oneness of God also means that his people can trust him. A polytheistic god cannot be trusted because the gods are in conflict.
C. (Application) But this means that we can trust God today no matter what the gods of the market and media do. The market may plummet but God is still on his throne. Brittany may have lost custody, but the Lord never loses custody of us.

V. Loving God, 6:5
A. Israel is told, “You shall love Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.”
B. This shows us that we are to love God with our whole being. He isn’t just part of our lives, he must be our lives.
C. This shows us that love can be commanded. Love is a feeling but it is also a commitment. God commands us to love him. Loving God is a commitment. I’m sure that Israel didn’t always feel like obeying God, but she was commanded to love him.
D. (App) Similarly, we don’t always feel like loving our spouses. We don’t feel in love. But if we love our spouse in spite of our selfish feelings the deepest feelings will eventually spring from our hearts. C. S. Lewis in The Four Loves says that we expect being in love to be like falling in love. But falling in love is only the incentive. It is like the dive into the pool. But once we are in the pool, swimming, not diving, is the thing.
E. Loving God also makes Israel unique. All other ancient religions related to their gods primarily through fear. You did not love Zeus. You might have feared him, but you did not have a personal relationship with him. You sacrificed to him so that he would not be angry; so that you would stay off of his radar. But Israel is unique. Listen to these verses:
i. Gen. 15:6, Abraham “believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.” We have a right relationship with God based on faith not works.
ii. Genesis 6:8, “Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.” God’s grace is the basis of our relationship with him.

VI. God’s Word, 6:6-7
A. God’s word is to be on our hearts.
B. We are to teach it diligently to our children.
C. How do we do this you ask? We are to “talk” the word of God:
i. “when you sit in your house, and when you walk along the way.” This covers the private and the public realms. This means we are to discuss the word of God everywhere we go.
ii. “and when you lie down, and when you rise.” This is a common Hebrew way of saying “all day.” We are to discuss the word of God at all times.
iii. We get the word of God into our hearts and into the hearts of our children by discussing all of life in relation to the word of God. This is the divine curriculum.
D. (App) Even 2 + 2 = 4 needs to be discussed in relation to God. This reflects the nature of an orderly and logical God who made a creation that can be described mathematically. We can penetrate the mathematical nature of the world because we are made in God’s image. Though they like four bones better than two, dogs don’t understand that 2 + 2 = 4. Now think about discussing politics, philosophy, history, literature, economics, business, art, sports, and relationships in relation to the word of God! That’s a marvelous thing, but it’s only possible if we know the word of God.
E. Before the time of print culture, the people of god would have heard and memorized God’s word in worship and in the family. Today each of us can afford a Bible of our own. We can sit down, open it up, smooth out the pages and read what God has said about these things.
F. (App) A few years ago I realized that my Bible knowledge was slipping. I noticed that worldly influences we’re creeping in upon me. I had three degrees in divinity, and I had begun to take the Bible for granted. I had quite reading. I was reading plenty of other theology, but there is no substitute for the word of God. I had to get back into it, so I started by reading a Proverb a day. There are thirty-one chapters, one for each day of the month. I must have read through Proverbs five times, stopping, restarting, and faltering many times until I reformed the habit. Then I started reading Acts and then the Psalms at the same time. I started reading the books I was reading to my family after supper and then the kids started reading them. We’ve still have a long way to go but we’re going.
G. (App) Douglass Wilson says that there are three kinds of culture we can have in the home. We can leave a cultural void that the media is only too happy to fill with television, internet, materialism, and consumerism. Or we can create a culture of rebellion when we preach on thing but live another in front of our family. Or we can build a Christ centered culture with the word of God (Standing on the Promises).

VII. Experiencing God’s World through God’s Word, 6:8-9
A. “You shall bind them as a sign on your hand.” We touch the world with our hands and we are to touch the world with God’s word. This brings healing to a sick world. It mends the brokenness.
B. “They shall be as frontlets between your eyes.” We see the world through our eyes. We are to see the world through God’s word like a pair of glasses if you will. In order to see the world the way God does, he needs to adjust our prescription.
C. “On the doorposts of your house.” Even the rooms in our house are to reflect the gospel. Do our rooms glory God? Do they point us to family time, play time, feasting, festivity, celebration, orderliness, rest, and quiet time in his word? Or are our rooms permeated with worldliness and distraction?
D. “On your gates.” The gate is the way to the outside world and the way back in to the home. This gate is to be guarded by the word of God. In all our comings and goings we are to experience the world through God’s word.


VIII. Conclusion: People of God, we must remember that our God is one, he’s consistent, and can be trusted. We are to love him with our whole being, committed to him no matter what. His word is to be on our hearts and taught diligently into the hearts of our children all the time, everywhere we go, and thus in relation to all of life. We are to experience God’s world through his Word. So let’s open the word, smooth out the pages, read, and let God write it on our hearts. Let’s be transformed by the word and let the word transform the world around us. It won’t be easy. There will be set backs, but God can build a Christ centered culture around us. For nothing is impossible with our God.