I’m no poet, I know. But the other day I was thinking about why we send flowers, and what we mean to express by them, and where the flowers really do come from and what they really are meant to express. A man picks a bouquet and hands them to his favorite one: “Look, my Dear! Look at this gift I’ve given you!” “Oh, how lovely they are! Thank you!” The man stands up-chested and proud that he’s joyed his beloved with such beauty–borrowed though it may be. I’m not so obtuse or so immature to think sending flowers is “wrong” or something — please don’t misunderstand. It’s good to send flowers — especially to one’s “favorite.” God’s gifts to us are meant to be appreciated and shared with one another. It’s as the poem says, “I could not love you if I did not love Him, and I could not love Him if I did not love you.” Godly man-woman love is pleasing to the Lord — it’s His design. That’s not my point.

I just wonder how often we hear the twofold love-song those flowers sing, when we do send (or receive) them? After all, don’t we read that, in effect, all the passions and jealousies and joys and forgivings and repentings and desperation and restorations and comforts and longings inherent in man-woman relationships are meant to be an object lesson for our relationship with “our husband, our Maker”? There are other reasons for God to have made man “male and female” instead of mere asexual self-replicating “humans”, I’m sure (as the angels are, and as we shall one day become) — but surely the romantic aspects we experience with one another, all the good and bad, are to point us to him? (Eph. 5:22-33) Few things in this earthly life are so powerful, I would dare say, as love for our beloved. And few things are more powerful in (or, toward) all creation, I would again dare say, than God’s love for us — “For he did not spare his one and only Son…”

So, next time you send or receive flowers, listen for the two-fold song of adoration…

====
Full disclosure: Yes, it’s true. I’ve been seeing Megan for a few months now. (Even asked for her dad’s permission first.) Unexpected, joyous, frustrating, hopeful, confusing…all the things human relationships are.

Me: “Yeah. I think too many people see marriage as the end, and girl x as the means to that end. As in, ‘Excuse me, miss maybe, but could you help me reach that TomHanksAndMegRyanThing on that shelf up there? I’d really like one of those.’ But marriage isn’t the end–she is. And marriage is just the means to her, you know? So, whenever someone says, ‘Marriage is awful,’ I hear them really saying ‘My wife is awful.’ I mean, what is marriage anyway, outside of your husband or your wife?’ Marriage isn’t a thing, it’s a relationship between two people. What someone says about marriage, they mean about their spouse.”

Both of us: (mutual silent nod, then) ‘Hm.’

Me (with mock sarcasm): “Anyway, enjoy your lovingly-prepared home-cooked meal. I’m off to the Impersonal Sandwich Shop…again.”

Why do so many people say so many awful things about marriage–don’t they realize that they really mean their marriage? And even more clearly, their spouse? I’ve even heard guys complain about marriage–while planning their wedding. A young guy I work with occasionaly told me he was getting married, so I congratulated him. He replied, with a smile, shaking his head, “What? Don’t congratulate me–it’s marriage, man! Who really wants that?” I just looked at him and said, laughing, “Well, then why do it? You’re not married yet, you know–it’s not too late.” He didn’t say anything else. (They got married a few weeks ago, btw–words aside, it was obvious how much he loves her.)

Though, I guess someone could say “marriage is difficult,” or “marriage takes work,” or (a personal favorite) “marriage is sanctification,” and I suppose I’d understand what they meant. Some things are inherent in all intimate relationships. But even in these cases, it’s clear that despite it’s difficulties, the ‘she’ in the picture is worth the difficulty, the work, and the sanctification. It’s a hidden expression of love, but it’s there. Climbing mountains is difficult–but hugely rewarding. It’s just when people say “the view isn’t worth the climb,” in a sense, that they really mean “she’s not worth the effort.” It’s sad.

But it was nice to hear a married man declaring the greatness of his marriage (i.e., his wife)–in a secular workplace, at that. Breath of fresh air, one might say.

Anyway–just a thought.

I went back to the OPC church this morning, and caught the tail end of their new members’/inquirers Sunday School Class. Today’s lesson was on Church Discipline, so naturally we went to Matthew 18. But I went there like I’ve never done before; before I’d seen it as almost a surgical, judicial process. But Ron Pearce (the pastor) expressed that Matt. 18 is a good thing, and it’s restorative. It’s sending people out to find a lost sheep–and who then should be sent? A familiar voice, not a harsh one. This process is a plea for repentance and restoration. Only when all hope is lost, when all measures toward repentance and restoration have been tried, when enough time has passed for the Holy Spirit to bring repentance, only then is the person put out of the fold (or, “delivered unto Satan,” or cast from the kingdom, or loosed on earth”, etc.). At that point, the concern has passed from the health of the individual person, to the health of the body as a whole.

I immediately thought about our physical bodies in a time of injury or sickness. When my right hand is injured, what’s my first, involuntary reaction? I bring it in close to my body, and hide it under my left arm for protection. That’s what this process in Matthew 18 is; a bringing in close for help, healing, protection from further injury or prolonged sickness. Attention is then focused on my hand, to see if it’s getting worse, or getting better. If worse, maybe I ice it a bit. If that doesn’t seem to help, maybe I go to the hospital for increased attention. But all the while, my hand is under focused care. At some point in this process, a “turn for the better” must happen; my hand must stop getting worse and start getting better. If that happens, I slowly bring it back into the service of the rest of my body.

But if it doesn’t get better–if this is a sickness unto death, or a sin unto death–if there is no sign of a “turn for the better,” then I must, tragically, amputate. And I must do so because that sickness is not stagnant; it hasn’t slowed down, and will only spread. Cancer, or ganghrene, once diagnosed, must be dealt with. At this point–barring a(n entirely possible) miraculous change, all hope is lost for that member of the body. It’s a last resort, but for the sake of the entire body, surgical dismemberment must happen. All other means of healilng, of restoration are thoroughly tried in hopes that the hand/member will become functional once again–the means of this entire process is one of love, hope, help–because no one wants to lose a member of their own body.

I was nearly broght to tears a number of times during the class, thinking of how many times I’ve seen people feel like they’ve been treated–pun intended–differently. “You’re sick; leave so no one catches it, get your stuff together, take care of business, then come back again once your health has been restored.” A sheep won’t get better by being cast out of the fold–that only puts them into more danger. There is saftey in numbers. A lame sheep must be brought in, near the center, where she can lean up against the others until she is restored to her own strength.

What a treat to hear this understanding of church discipline in Sunday School, only to then witness a welcoming to membership (ceremony?) immediately afterward in the worship service. What a joy to see seen church health taken so seriously, so proactively, so wisely. What foolishness it has been for us to so quickly cast aside the wisdom of those who’ve gone before us!

• Build a Cabinet
  • —Design the Cabinet
  • —Procure materials
  • —Treat Wood
  • —etc…

Each of those tasks, children of the parent “Build a Cabinet” task, would also have child tasks such as (for procure materials, for example) “select a vendor”, “ask to borrow Jim’s pickup” or whatever. One rule of designing this structure is that no single task be without relationship to all the other tasks–that is, that no task may be “orphaned.” Each task must “come under” another.

Another rule is that when a parent task is outdented in the outline, making it subordinate to a higher-level parent task, its children follow. The subtasks (children) are not orphaned when the parent tasks move (that is, when their subordination shifts), they are not moved under a different parent, but they follow the parent task wherever it goes. That is, the subordination of tasks is hierarchical: when the parent task becomes subordinate to a higher (or lower) level task, the children’s subordination follows. Task-families are re-subordinated together. Every task is in relationship to all the other tasks; there are no individual, orphaned tasks–at least not in a perfect, well-structured schedule/project (/reality). Orphaning happens when a child (or worse, a parent with children) is outdented–moved from its position of relationship to all other tasks, and ultimately out of subordination to the highest level task. The technical term for this is insubordination.

Now imagine the top-level task of the project being “Creation.” Imagine also that the first child-task of the Creation-project is called ‘Adam.’ Picture, then, all his children (all the way to yourself) arranged in groups of children-task-families under him. Now picture the fall. When Adam fell, he shifted out of subordination to the Father–thus orphaning not only himself, but all his children after him–all his “posterity” see (WSC Q6)–and ruined God’s first project, “Creation.” The whole Creation project [file] became corrupt. So all of us, as children of Adam, are born in a state of insubordination to God, who “manages” the project of Creation. But rather than re-subordinate the old creation, under Adam, God decided to not just renovate, but upgrade and blow away the old Creation project. (He started a whole new, and incorruptible, project [file].) And he began with a new first-child, or a New Head: Christ Jesus, the Second Adam, the firstborn over the New Creation-project. When a person is “transferred out of the kingdom of darkness [the old, fallen creation], into the kingdom of the beloved Son,” it’s not just a re-ordering within the same project–it’s a transfer from one old, corrupt project file into a new, clean one. (In order to transfer, or copy-paste, a task in MS Project from one project file into another, an external “user” must intervene…Creator/creation distinction!) Saving Grace is that ultimate transfer of an insubordinate person-task (insubordinate due to his subordination to the insubordination of Adam–got it?) into a new position of subordination to Christ Jesus, who is himself perfectly subordinate to the Father. As children of the new creation, we are right with the Father due to our being in right relationship to him through Christ, our superior, covering “parent.” Right relationship with the Father is only possible through right relationship with Christ. (Not a perfect analagy, of course, but I think it works pretty well.)

Now, this ultimate New Creation has come already (in a sense) and yet it hasn’t yet come (in a sense). The final, new creation is what’s called the invisible church–the perfect, complete fulfillment of the New Creation, visible to the naked, physical eye. Then, we’ll see perfectly who is truly in that New Creation “outline,” who is truly subordinate to Christ and thus right with the Father. But until then, we deal with what’s called the “visible church,” with those whose true relationship with Christ we’re not yet sure of–but in faith, we hope it is right. Some of those “others” are our children. They belong in the covenant community, in the New Creation project, subordinate to their parents who are subordinate to Christ, by faith and in hope that they will one day be revealed as members of the now-invisible church. The alternative is to leave our own children as orphans–which is not only unacceptable emotionally, but potentially offensive to God (see Exodus 4:24-26). Christ did not leave us as orphans; neither should we leave our children as orphans.

Now for some urgency: that corrupted Creation project [file] has been slated for deletion. The only way for a person-task to survive that deletion, is for him to be un-subordinated from Adam in the Old Creation, and re-subordinated to Christ in the New Creation project (file). We’re copied (not cut) from the old, and pasted into the new – then, File…Save. We’re kind of in between projects, of the new but still in the old (Eph 1, Col 1). But once marked by the Holy Spirit (downpayment)–flagged as ‘for the New Creation.,’ by grace through faith, we’re ‘sealed’ for the new. When the old project is deleted, our bodies will die with it–but those sealed by the Holy Spirit will appear with Christ when the new project window is brought into view–into the foreground on the screen of reality. (Or something like that–the analogy’s there somewhere…you get it, right?)

Now for a little down-to-earth evangelistic application. The people I work with–who understand the whole project outline/WBS concept, and use the language of parent/child, task families, subordination and orphaning–are not believers. Pray with me that I might be able to share–not necessarily the latter, more technical/difficult portions of the above, but at least the part about being orphans and being brought into the family of God by right relationship/subordination to Christ, who is the only one to ever remain in right relationship with the Father.

Father of the fatherless and protector of widows
is God in his holy habitation.
God settles the solitary in a home;
he leads out the prisoners to prosperity,
but the rebellious dwell in a parched land. – Psalm 68:5-6, ESV

…just a thought, inspired by something I read this morning concerning covenant relationship, in Deuteronomy 17:20, –particularly the phrase “he and his children.”

A child‘s parents function as a cohesive unit to display the many attributes and character traits of God himself–for they are created in his image, both male and female. All his attributes are displayed in both, but some are prominent in one or the other. For example, provision, leadership, a healthy fear of authority, protection, guidance–all of these are seen in both father and mother, but seem to be more prominent in a father by design. Likewise comfort, encouragement, nurture, kindness, tenderness–these too are evident in both parents, but seem to be more prominent in the mother by design. In the relationship of the father and the mother, the child can observe intimacy, headship and submission, mutual respect and love, which also portray the inherent attributes of God in some of the “interactions” (for lack of a better term) between the persons of the Trinity. But these are not seen “purely objectively,” he is not an “external observer,” because the child is brought into these relationships and interactions (at some level), though he never becomes a parent but remains “other than,” as still a child.

A father learns from his wife the paraklete attribute of God; as one who comes along side and comforts, supports, encourages, “helps.” He learns from her how he ought to be in submission to his own head, who is Christ. He learns from her, perhaps, the affectionate and tender attributes of God. A mother also learns many things of God from her husband’s example, such as his headship, provision, protection, leadership, strength, etc. And both father and mother learn something even deeper of the nature of God when they become parents. Parents taste the depth of the Father’s love for his Son; they may even taste the immensity of grief at having lost a beloved child. It’s frightening to think that God has, in a sense, given us the power to create offspring–with everything that goes with that. The purpose of this power, I think, is to know the character of God more deeply–more experientially. As parents, we learn the kind and degree of love that He as Creator feels toward his own creation, in how parents would gladly lay down their own life to save that of their beloved children. There is an intellectual knowledge that any student or observer can attain, but the knowledge a parent is (or, I imagine, must be) a knowing of an unfathomably deeper kind and degree.

All material objects and their interactions with one another–whether family relationships, biological systems, environmental conditions, or what have you–are made as “media” to communicate the knowledge of God and his astounding perfections. But I’m not so sure that the family imagery is a mere creation meant to serve as an image or picture of something “higher” that God is. God isn’t “like” a father, he essentially is a Father–the Father. He is the eternal Father, never having not been a father. He is the eternal Son, never having not been a son. He is the eternal Helper (Holy Spirit)–never having not been exactly that. Humanly fathers are, in finity and imperfection, mere shadows of the true “Father.” The family is, or at least ought to be, one of the highest expressions of the nature of God the world may see visibly. (Note that the church is called the “family” or “household” of God in 1 Timothy 3:15.)

I’m also thiking about how Frame’s ideas of God apply to the family. There are hints and shadows of the Creator/creature distinction, of Covenant Lordship (control, authority, and presence), and of transcedence and immanence, even in the family unit. There is a fundamental distinction between parents and children that may not be compromised (much like the Creator/creature distinction), but the parents and children are nevertheless in a covenant relationship (parents being in control, having authority, and yet being always present). There is even a shadow of the child’s being ‘created’ by his parents–implying all the rights and responsibilities of a ‘sub-creator’ (of a sort) for the parents in relation to their children, and those of a ‘creation’ for the children in relation to their parents. Also, the parents transcend, in a sense, their children (in authority, control, and for much of their lives, knowledge and wisdom), yet they are also immanent in the lives of their children (that is, they don’t abandon them). (Recall the is/ought caveat above, of course.) I think there’s a lot that could be said here, by way of application, and counseling, parental instruction, etc. By way of application, theology done this way is a study of how to be a godly husband, wife, parent, and/or child. But I’ll have to leave this for some other time (perhaps when I’m, Lord willing, sitting under Frame’s teaching at RTS!).

The lengths that God has gone to reveal himself to us are astounding to me. I’ve only mentioned a few undeveloped thoughts here – not even close to a “full” inquiry into this idea – but nevertheless wanted to share it. It’s an endeavor that must be renewed every day, I think, to exemplify, seek out, and otherwise encourage the immitation of the character of God in all our human relationships. And perhaps most of all in the closest of all our human relationships – the family unit. “…that the World might know.”

Anyway. Just a lazy, rainy, Saturday-afternoon kind of thought.

Yes, I do believe that God loves the world as he tells us in John 3:16 (and I do think it means ‘the world,’ and not just ‘the elect’ – common grace further suggests this). But I also believe that he reserves a special, gracious, extraordinary, covenental husband-wife quality of love for his church, “who is his bride.” He does have a measure of general love for his creatures who will, nevertheless, ultimately perish, for he is good. But his love toward them is not the same in kind, or degree, as his particular, extravagant, covenental love for “his beloved, his fair one, his bride” (Eph. 5:25-32). Isn’t that amazing, that he covenants with his people? God, infinite and immense, altogether glorious and majestic, entering into an eternally binding, unconditional, benevolent, irreversible, “marital” covenant with us–finite and fleeting little creatures though we are! But this extraordinary love is not for everyone: covenental, marital love, (itself a picture or shadow of the higher reality of God’s love for his church,) is by its very nature exclusive. “I will love you my whole life; you, and no other.”

[...]

…but when Christ died on the cross, he didn’t purchase some external ‘commodity’ or ‘gift’ that he then offers to me in some state of moral neutrality, as though I may accept it or reject it (or return it!) as I see fit. As a dead, blind, hard-hearted, child of wrath by nature–indeed, as a true enemy of God, I don’t need options; I need a miracle. When Christ died on the cross, he bought me. Some may dare to die for a good man; but God showed his loved for us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us! Isn’t it glorious? Me, a sinner and an enemy, comprehensively unworthy! Yet, he purchased my full redemption on Calvary–full, free, infallible, and irrevocable. The first installment on the redemption plan is, as it were, exactly that miracle I so need: the miracle of the New Birth which begets the condition of salvation: repentance and faith. Oh, thank God that he is so passionate about his glory! (Eph. 2:1-9)

…we’re going to talk instead.

Did I Kiss Marriage Goodbye?

A few recent posts:

• Relating: It’s the Principles, not the Label (on “courtship” vs. “dating”)
• Victoria Should Keep Her Secrets Better Hidden (need I say more?)
• Beware an Imaginary Life Build Around an Imaginary Man (excellent)
• Luther, Feminism, Celibacy, and Marriage

Very good stuff–for men and for women.

7 Things…

…I hope to do before I die:

• Learn patience
• Learn humility (see above)
• Own the books I’ve purchased
• Master the art of dialectic teaching (right now I’m stuck in ‘lecture’ mode)
• Talk about the Good, the Beautiful, and the True over a pint at The Bird and Baby with TC, and then spend a moment of silent appreciation for how the Inklings have forever impacted our lives
• Take a quiet stroll down Addison’s walk, at Magdalen College, Oxford.
• Preach the Gospel in a “closed” country

(Unintentionally, those could be in somewhat chronological order…)

…I can do

• Buy books like it’s my job
• Connect with people
• Understand
• Put my foot in my mouth with blinding speed and cat-like agility
• Say (or write) in 100 words what could’ve been said (or written) in 5.
• Impressions/voices
• Stare at the stars, or the ocean, or the mountains, or an ant, for hours

…I cannot do (on my own)

• Control my temper (or better, get rid of it altogether)
• “Apprehend that for which I’ve been apprehended”
• Live, move, and have my being
• Cook well
• Navigate my way through Portland, ME, arriving at my intended destination on only the first “try”
• Enjoy sushi (who am I kidding?)
• Tie a bow tie

…that attract me to the opposite sex

• Warmth, without being inappropriately inviting
• Discretion, but with a healthy sense of humor
• Intelligence, wielded with humility and grace
• A smile that captivates me for hours–if not for life
• Beauty, veiled in genuine modesty
• Playfulness, but not immaturity
• Embraced femininity

(Godliness is, of course, a given.)

…that I say most often:

• “Stop. Are you serious? Stop it!” (As in, I know you’re serious, but I’m pretending it’s way more earth-shattering than you’re making it sound…just to tease a bit.)
• “Whut-the HECK is that about?
• “You’ve gotta be KIDDING me…”
• “I’m sorry.”
• “Does that make any sense?”
• “Woah, nellie.”
• Random quotes from Brian Regan or The Holy Grail

(Am I missing any?)

…celebrity crushes:

• I don’t know any celebrities.

Yeah, yeah – I know. I’m a party pooper.

Well, it worked. Of all the people using the ‘gift’ tag, I apparently have the highest number (and I have a relatively small library compared to the others).

I am humbled almost to the point of silence.

I have been so blessed by loving (and giving!) friends and family; I’m so thankful, and I barely have words. What kind of God, by his providence, brings so much goodwill into my life, when I can be so selfish, and utterly self-absorbed? Truly, he is merciful and gracious above all comprehension. Lord, help me to be more of a giver, like all the friends and family you’ve given me–and most importantly, like You. In Jesus’ name, amen..

Those who object to a detailed, orderly, systematic approach to the study of God deny to God-lovers what lovers most instinctively do: make a science of knowing (and by their knowing, pleasing) their beloved. A man who truly desires his wife will study her every feature, memorize and think often of each freckle or wrinkle on the nape of her neck. The curvature of her lips when she sleeps or smiles or flirts with him will linger in his mind’s eye long after his physical eyes have closed. A favorite glance, or gesture, or word of encouragement, or perhaps even a giggle, will spring upon him in midday, capture his attention, and leave him in a momentary daze before his duties regain him. The many minute discolorations of her eyes–those only seen up close–are the main characters of his daydreamings. Even her soft fingertips and tender earlobes will fascinate him for hours. Attributes that on any other person would go wholly unnoticed, he finds utterly captivating on his beloved. So ought we to study our most beloved.

I’ll not go any further, but my point is made in this: provided that our theology leads to and aims at (and to a large degree consists in) doxology, it should never be discouraged. Indeed, if we are exhorted and commanded to the blessed tasks of growing in the knowledge of God, of teaching our children of him, and of teaching all nations the good news about him, we would do well to make as diligent and thorough a study of him over the Word in our prayer closets as a husband does of his beloved wife in their bedchambers. For this is life eternal: to know God, and his Son, Jesus Christ.

And this deep and inner knowing comes “from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.” (WCF I.v)