Blessed Assurance!

Growing up during the time that I did, if you were a church-going person, you learned the words to lots of hymns – at least “the first, second and final stanza” words. One of those hymns for me was Blessed Assurance. The first stanza goes like this:

Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine!

Oh, what a foretaste of glory divine!

Heir of salvation, purchase of God,

Born of His Spirit, washed in His blood.

Fanny Crosby composed those words – and growing up it seemed to me that she wrote more songs than the rest of the people in the hymnbook combined. There is a kind of comforting pull to hymn tunes and their words – especially when you grew up hearing them every Sunday.

“Oh, what a foretaste of glory divine!” is one of my favorite phrases not only from Blessed Assurance, but lots of other hymns for that matter. It seems to suggest that somehow, some way, God provides for us these little moments of opportunities that even though we may still “see but a poor reflection as in a mirror,” that poor reflection reminds us of that day when “we shall see face to face.” (1 Corinthians 13:12)

Fast forward from my childhood days in a simple country church to the present, and when I hear “Oh, what a foretaste of glory divine!” I think of N.T. Wright’s wonderful phrase suggesting that there are times when “heaven overlaps earth.” One of these days I would love to teach a theology elective exploring that phrase and its implications. After all, it is what Jesus Himself told us to pray for – “your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”

This morning, at 8:30 sharp, Point University held its annual Convocation, marking the beginning of a new academic year. There isn’t an auditorium in the Greater Valley Area large enough for us to use, so we meet in the Sportsplex, a part of the Valley, Alabama Community Center. Last night our campus life ministers and others set up the gymnasium area with a stage and 850 chairs. We’ve never set up that many chairs for convocation before.

It wasn’t enough. From the stage where I was seated, there were clearly more people standing around the back and sides of the audience than there were empty chairs. I have to tell you it is an amazing thing to sit on the stage at a convocation for Point University and see this sea of humanity – mostly young students who have come to Point for an education at a school whose mission is “to educate students for Christ-centered service and leadership throughout the world.” 

And to get even more amazing, the audience was filled with people from a wide array of places in life. As President Collins said in his sermon, whoever wrote those words “red and yellow black and white, they are precious in his sight” must have been thinking about Point University. It was such a perfect image to reflect our spiritual formation theme for this year: Many parts . . . One Body. 

Some of my personal Bible reading over the past few weeks has included Revelation. I thought about some of that reading this morning as I looked out from the platform at convocation and saw the amazing gathering of God’s people in this community called Point University. Twice – once in Revelation 5:9 and again in 7:9 – John uses the phrase “every nation, tribe, people and tongue” to describe the “great multitude that no one could count” gathered before God. I know that vision is about the future – about the glorious reappearing of Jesus to complete God’s mission of renewing and restoring creation to its God-intended purpose.

But this morning, I couldn’t help but think “Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine! Oh, what a foretaste of glory divine!” And had Tom Wright been present, I believe he might have said, “This looks a bit like heaven overlapping earth.”

Remember When?

None of us is old enough to remember from our own life experiences, but surely you can’t have grown up in the United States since April 12 and 13, 1861 without knowing the church has faced monumental social-crisis moments before. Those were the dates that Fort Sumter was fired on by the South Carolina militia to begin the Civil War, or the War Between the States as some prefer.

This issue then of course was slavery. Oddly, as it seems from our vantage point in history, the church was divided on the subject. Many pulpits in the north declared slavery an abomination, while southern pulpits were prone to see slavery as somehow God’s intended purpose for Africans. From our vantage point in time, it seems impossible that anyone could have argued that the Bible approves of slavery. That’s about as impossible an idea as the idea that the Bible approves of same-sex marriages.

I write all of that not because I think no one has thought about it yet, but because of something I read about Abraham Lincoln in Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln. I have read disputing views about Lincoln’s faith and honestly don’t know what the answer to the “was he a disciple of Jesus?” question would be. But what I do know is that he was right about the evil nature of slavery and his approach to dealing with it is amazingly like the Bible calls us to deal with challenging issues.

In one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates of the early 1850s, Goodwin quotes a reporter, Horace White, who describes Lincoln like this: “Then the inspiration that possessed him took possession of his hearers also. His speaking went to the heart because it came from the heart. I have heard celebrated orators who could start thunders of applause without changing any man’s opinion. Mr. Lincoln’s eloquence was the higher type, which produced conviction in others because of the conviction of the speaker himself.” (page 165)  In all the textbooks on preaching I’ve ever read, up to and including Tim Keller’s excellent new book, Preaching, I’m not sure I have ever read a better definition of pathos as an important part of one’s oratorical tool box.

A part of that “from the heart reality” for Lincoln was his approach to what he viewed as a grievously important social issue – slavery. Here’s how Goodwin describes him: “By appealing to the moral and philosophical foundation work of the nation, Lincoln hoped to provide common ground on which good men in both the North and South could stand.” (page 167) Goodwin summarizes Lincoln’s approach by saying, “Unlike the majority of antislavery orators, who denounced the South and castigated slaveowners as corrupt and un-Christian, Lincoln pointedly denied fundamental differences between Northerners and Southerners. He argued that ‘they are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist amongst them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up. . . I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself.’” (page 167)

I don’t think you can make an argument that Lincoln thought slavery was anything less than a serious moral issue that needed to be solved. Yet, he apparently thinks solving such issues involves trying to understand where the opposite side of the issue lives. Can you imagine if both politicians and preachers today would stop the shouting for a moment about same-sex marriages and say to each other: “We don’t agree, but let’s have a civil conversation.” I know there would be people who still wouldn’t listen to how I view the teaching of Scripture, but I don’t see where they are listening now!

One other thing I learned in Goodwin’s account and commentary on these debates was the contrast in approach between Douglas, making a pro-slavery argument, and Lincoln, making an anti-slavery argument. Here’s what she says: “While Douglas simply asserted his points as self-evident, Lincoln embedded his argument in a narrative history, transporting his listeners back to their roots as a people, to the founding of the nation – a story that still retained its power to arouse strong emotion and thoughtful attention.” (page 165) 

Understood in the context of this part of her book, Goodwin is simply saying that rather than giving the proverbial “seven reasons slavery is wrong” story, Lincoln appealed to The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States to insist that the idea of slavery was out of character with the ideals upon which this country was founded. The Illinois Daily Journal said “that the overall effect was strikingly original and ‘most effective.’” (page 165)

For some time now, people like Gabe Lyons (The Next Christians) and David KInnaman (UnChristian and You Lost Me) and others have suggested that a part of the reason evangelical Christians seem to be losing ground in our culture is because we have preached a “truncated gospel” – that is, we have, like Douglas, “asserted our points as self-evident” rather than, like Lincoln, “embedded our argument in a narrative history.”

As noted above, I don’t know what sort of faith Lincoln had. But it does seem to me that his approach sounds rather biblical. Rather than widespread condemnation, he sought to understand predicaments. Rather than a list of reasons as to why slavery was wrong, he appealed to a narrative of how the United States came into existence to ask the all-important question “Is slavery consistent with our founding ideals?”

Didn’t Jesus model an approach to life that while not condoning sin, at least seemed to understand the predicament people were in? And isn’t it much easier to talk about serious moral issues in the context of the entire Bible’s narrative, than to just isolate a text or two that says “this is wrong?” Isn’t that similar to what Paul himself does in the opening chapters of Romans itself? 

I know we ended up fighting the Civil War over this issue – at least at some level – and I am certainly not suggesting that was a good solution to the problem or that it was Lincoln’s fault. But in the broader context of American history, I think it is pretty fair to say that Lincoln’s approach worked – eventually even for those who might have helped light the fuses on the canons on the Charleston Battery that fired on Fort Sumter.

No one can suggest that the issue of same-sex marriage is inherently more serious than was the issue of slavery. In fact, the slavery issue raises its ugly head on the pages of the New Testament itself – and amazingly, Paul seems to think it is important to understand the predicament, appeal to our bigger narrative, and work toward the solution.

If we did that with the current moral dilemma about marriage, I wonder how long it would be before the problem could be solved?  Or have we so lost our confidence that the gospel is the power of God until salvation, that we just keep shouting? Didn't I read that somewhere in Romans?

It's the Lord's

Admittedly the competition isn’t too impressive, but all things considered, Jehoshaphat was one of the better kings of Judah during the years of the divided kingdom. When we first meet him in 2 Chronicles 17, he is described with the phrase “he walked in the ways his father David had followed.” (17:3) His relationship with Ahab, king of Israel, created some issues, but by and large Jehoshaphat avoided much of what plagued kings in both Judah and Israel during the divided Kingdom after the death of Solomon. 

One of my favorite quotes from Jehoshaphat, found in 2 Chronicles 19, comes from the time in his reign when he is appointing judges over Judah. Here’s what he said to them, “Consider carefully what you do, because you are not judging for man but for the Lord, who is with you whenever you give a verdict. Now let the fear of the Lord be upon you. Judge carefully, for with the Lord our God there is no injustice or partiality or bribery.”  (19:6, 7) I know the United States is not a theocracy – and quite frankly I wouldn’t want it to be – but I can’t help but think how different the judicial system in our country would be if every judge and court official took that statement to heart!

At some point in his reign, the Moabites and Ammonites decided to make war on Jerusalem – and Jehoshaphat. (2 Chronicles 20) He gets word that a vast army is preparing to attack and becomes very alarmed. A fast is announced in Jerusalem and all of Judah. The people assemble and the prayer Jehoshaphat offers is majestic in its language and scope. At the end of that prayer, the chronicler says, “All the men of Judah, with their wives and children and little ones, stood there before the Lord.” (20:13) The phrase “stand before the Lord” is a fairly common Old Testament description of people, and all Judah in this text, presenting themselves before the Lord for worship and instruction.

While waiting, a Levite by the name of Jahaziel speaks on behalf of God. His ancestry is unusually long and goes all the way back to Asaph, from the days of David – perhaps another reminder of the kind of kingdom Jehoshaphat sought to create as he “walked in the ways his father David had followed.” Jahaziel’s prophetic words begin (20:15) and end (20:17) with “do not be afraid.” Think how those words would have sounded in the moment of Judah’s gathering to fast and stand before the Lord because of a vast army about to attack. 

But these words are more than FDR’s famous “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself” comment in his first inaugural address in 1933. Here’s why: “For the battle is not yours, but God’s.” Even though the opponents of Judah are vast and powerful, they need not fear for the Lord was fighting for them. This is one of those places where you would expect that perhaps a psalm was read reminding them of the God who rescued them out of Egypt, brought them through the Red Sea, and finally to the promised land. He was on their side. For Jahaziel, the idea of God’s presence was more than some well-crafted theological concept – it was the source of the kind of strength that could overcome Judah’s deepest fears. 

If you read the rest of 2 Chronicles 20, you will discover that by the time the armies of Judah got to the battle field, it was all over and they only saw “dead bodies lying on the ground.” (20:24) It is an amazing story of God’s presence among His people. The army of Judah left the battlefield unharmed and with great spoils. They returned to Jerusalem and the Temple to worship God.

As we approach the annual celebration of the birth of our country, many believers do so with something akin to “great fear” in our hearts. Every survey you see suggests that Christians are losing ground, not gaining ground, in our culture. There is great concern about the decision the Supreme Court made about marriage. What many view as the improper intrusion of government into private life moments is a part of many conversations. Clearly we are yet to figure out how to live in the multi-ethnic culture in which we find ourselves in a Christ-like way.

Those are all internal issues – but there are lots of external realities as well. The whole issue of terror – what should we do about it? How can we do that? How can we pay for it? Or what about the plans Putin has for Russia and its next moves? Is anyone confident that the Middle East is going to quiet down for a while? And the list goes on.

Again, with no sense of thinking the US is “the new Israel” through which God can work, what if Christians decided that the paradigm seen in 2 Chronicles 20 might be worth emulating? What if we “stood before the Lord” – that is, committed ourselves to worship Him and Him alone. What if we finally decided that only in trusting Him can our fears be relieved? What if . . .?”

What if the real issue for the church is not to decide with political candidate will be the closest to what we think is “just,” and simply decided that we would be the people God has called us to be? 

If you read the first scene in Acts – 1:1 – 6:7 – you see a picture of a thriving, “multiplying” body of Christ that seems to be modeling precisely what the kingdom of God is intended to do. Despite some external issues – persecution by Jewish leaders who continue to oppose the idea of Jesus as Messiah – the church seems to be invigorated for greater, not lessor, witness.

Only when there is an internal problem – Acts 5:1-12 and the Ananias and Sapphira story – do we see a bit of a glitch in the progress the body of Christ is making in carrying out the continued mission of Jesus. They want the blessing of a “changed name” (see 4:36) but aren’t interested in the kind of spiritual commitment that requires. If they were alive now, it would be easy for them to point a finger at the Supreme Court’s potential ruling about marriage without ever looking internally about the poor example of marriage so many people who call themselves Christians set. 

Here’s the bottom line: if we are “standing before the Lord,” and willing to listen to His Word, then we have no need to fear – the victory is the Lord’s.