Covenant Hearts’ Blog

Rewritten & posted by Michaelsei (that’s me!) on Helium.com

“We will never have God’s exhaustive knowledge of reality (in my judgment, not even in heaven).” John Frame

If this is true, and I think that it is true, then we will always be ever increasing and never diminishing. How does that feel? In a finite capacity we have felt this.

Have you ever read a good book? It was so great that you could barely put it down; you couldn’t wait to pick it up again. And how did you feel when you finished it? “The End.” No. “Where’s the sequel?”

Then the feeling diminishes. It goes away. We remember the book though.

Have you ever seen a good movie? It is similar to a book, but it only has minutes to build up before it is all over; and usually doesn’t quite evoke what a book can.

Have you ever been “in love?” You could not bear to be away from that person. No matter how long you were together it was never enough. You wanted to spend the rest of your life with that person; then you got married. Seriously, not being a cynic, marriage is great but it is hard work (a good marriage is).

What I’m saying is that we are bound by the “constrictions of time.” “All good things must come to an end.” They do and oftentimes change form. A good book ends with the beginning of the next one. Your romantic interest becomes your lover. But what of heaven? What of God?

It is beholding perfect love; not fully understanding it, but growing in it always. “Let the good ‘times’ roll.” It will be good; it will not end. The good feeling won’t go away; ever. That is eternity. Whatever God actually has for us (playing harps, making cloud castles, opening and closing gates for others, living on the ‘new earth’); whatever it is, it won’t be dull, boring.

God made us and He knows us. Jesus Christ is a man (though He is God). It’s gonna’ be good.

In my view toleration is the most unchristian ideology at work in the minds and hearts of men. The more I learn about God, the more I realize that He calls us to something resembling moderation not toleration. Moderation accepts no sin, accepts no evil. Toleration, on the other hand permits it.

Moderation: temperance, restraint; the quality of being moderate.
Moderate: not extreme or excessive, balanced; not violent; become less severe, to act as a moderator
Toleration: forbearance, allowing, enduring, or accepting what is not actually approved, act or instance of tolerating
Tolerate: to allow the existence, presence, practice or act of without prohibition or hindrance, permit

If God does not allow toleration of sin personally, how can He allow toleration of sin corporately in His body? Even our society of toleration does not intellectually tolerate Christianity. To be moderate does not mean equivocating. We do not accept sin, but neither do we walk around casting stones either. God wants us to be “moderators” on earth.

Intolerance is an inescapable concept. It is not really a question of tolerance or intolerance. The real antithesis is between those who would tolerate God and those who will not tolerate God. As Christians we need to come to grips with this reality and instead of accepting the false gospel of toleration we should repudiate it. But in our repudiation we need to be moderate.

Balance is the key.

What is more important, the individual or society? If you answer one or the other and take it to its logical conclusion, you will end up in one of two extremist camps: individualism or socialism. As a Christian theist I see a synthesis between the one (individual) and the many (society) based upon the concept of trinity. Neither is more important. They are both (or all) equally important. Both need to be dealt with as such. Laws passed to protect a society need to examine whether it is unduly encroaching upon individual rights. A society that protects individual rights needs to ensure that it does not do so to the detriment of society. The answer as originating from scripture is a multi-perspective view rather than a narrow one. The secular variant we might call the gospel of moderation. Again when I speak of moderation I come from the scriptural viewpoint, and yet it is very acceptable to a secularist when toleration is seen as a misplaced antithesis.

Love the Lord…and Him ONLY shalt thou serve.

God is the father of us all. He created all men. The world is His footstool. His dominion is overall, but this has yet to be played out in history. And when all kingdoms submit to Him then will the end be.

In a very obtuse way I am going to say that the whole world is [t]he Church. By this I mean that God created all men and that He has called all men unto Himself. This calling all men unto Himself is not some weak desire for all to be saved nor does God feel a consternation that His will shall not be done. On the contrary, His will is already established and declared end to beginning.

I do not deny that there are two different kingdoms at war. But for the sake of discussion I am going to say rather that there is one Church with two different factions. In the one group we have the covenant-keepers and in the other the covenant-breakers.

The covenant-keepers strive always to retain the relationship with God as it was once for all delivered and revealed. The covenant-breakers want nothing to do with God and want to replace Him with another god or even with themselves. They deny Him and by some even His existence. They observe the lives of the covenant-keepers and are convicted (they know that the covenant-keepers follow the way of truth).

In response to having to confront the truth, the covenant-breaking faction fights against the covenant-keepers. They may preach the message of “tolerance” to the covenant-keeper, “don’t force your religion down my throat;”but they seek nothing more than the conversion of all covenant-keepers to the covenant-breaking faction’s point of view. They do not want to see division in the “Church” any more than we do. Fundamentally the struggle is one of dominion (it is a comforting thing to know that we can rely on His promises).

Conclusion: The preaching of toleration is a tactic. Their strategy is to replace God at every point possible. The goal is dominion. Christian, you now know your enemy. Love thy enemy. And convert him, because he is trying to convert you. Our goal is dominion. Our strategy is to infuse God into every area of life. Our tactic is to preach the whole counsel of God.

Check out a good article by Schlissel.

Lately my thinking has been on the subject of the relationship between the family and the church. It has led me to such questions as; “Which is more important, the family or the church?”. I think that I err in making the assumption that there is a disparity between any of the God-ordained institutions.

Which is more important: prophet, priest or king? I do not think that question can be answered. Likewise I do not think that an importance of the family over church or vice versa can be argued.

Will there be marriage in heaven? No. What implication does that have for the family? Will there be a non-theocratic ’state’ in heaven? I am pretty sure there won’t be, but I don’t know what source to cite as evidence. On the other hand you could argue that there will be a ’state,’ though it will be a theocratic one. Likewise you could argue that we are all the ‘family’ of God and so there will still be the concept of ‘family’ even in heaven. Does the church exist in heaven? It ought to. I believe it is orthodox to look at the visible and invisible aspects of the church as the “church.”

In one sense you could say that the institutions of family and state go away in the new heavens and new earth. From this you could argue that the church is the only lasting institution and therefore somehow most/more important than the others. I think this is where I have been recently, but I think I am coming to a more moderate position.

Neither institution is any more important than the other. I believe they are all aspects of God’s administration of His creation (that is, covenantal aspects). The state represents a kingly institution, the church represents a priestly institution, and the family represents a prophetic institution. At the end of time I think we will see these earthly types melt away revealing God’s singular covenantal ordering of the new heavens and the new earth. It will resemble something of a conglomeration of these institutions, not because God will combine them but because God separated them at the beginning of time for our benefit (a decentralization with ‘checks and balances,’ if you will; maybe so that no one could gain preeminence and proclaim himself as god).

What we shall see will be more comprehensive a covenantal governing than what a conglomeration of church, state, and family would look like. In every way God is inexhaustible and in general He is incomprehensible.

[As an aside, some of my favorite visualizations/ideations.

God is like a diamond with its many facets. Anyone person may see several facets of God but no one person can see them all at the same time. This is what I refer to whenever I use the term "multi-faceted." There are always aspects of every issue that go unconsidered by men in their thinking. This is why I try (hopefully) to always be humble and open to a fresh perspective. (Source: I dunno)

God is like an onion. There are many layers. But unlike an onion which gets smaller as you peel away another layer, God (or at least your view of Him) gets larger with each layer peeled away. (Source: C.S. Lewis, "The Last Battle" if I'm not mistaken)

God has not told us everything. But everything He has told us He wants us to know. John heard the voice of seven thunders but was commanded to not write what he had heard. So we know God has not revealed all there is to know. But what He has given, He wants us to know, understand and apply (I take this as a presupposition, I think or maybe I'm just copping out of a defense for it; well hit me up if you want more on this issue). (Source: Bible)

God is triperspectival. This is my latest discovery, courtesy of John Frame. Epistemology deals with convoluted thinking. We don't just "think" when we are thinking epistemologically, but now we are thinking about our thinking. Why do we believe what we believe? These are the sorts of issues epistemologists deal with. They also consider such things as the knower, the object that is known and the rules/norms governing this knowledge. God at all times and in every way knows all three perspectives about everything. (Well I suppose it helps that He sustains everything concurrently through His covenant with creation.) But we as humans never get beyond seeing things uniperspectivally. Barring any "out of body" experiences, we cannot not be ourselves. We can never go outside of ourselves to see something from a different perspective, not truly. It helps when someone shares their perspective with us. (But even then you are understanding what they are saying through your own perspective.) I guess when you are "one" with someone you've come the closest any man will come to biperspectivalism. If you and your wife are truly one, then you have something of two differing perspectives working to the mutual benefit of the parties invovled. In some ways we may speculate at what triperspectivalism looks like. Again we cannot elucidate it in any situation comprehensively, but we can "give it a go." (Source: John Frame, "A Primer on Perspectivalism," I do not give justice to this concept here. If you want to know more click the link.)

Alright, so those are the thoughts that go through my head when I deal with ideas beyond the grave.]

In summary, all institutions are equal and equally necessary. All three social institutions represent some aspect of prophet/priest/king.

But can we emphasize family over church? I don’t think we can. God has no grandchildren. The family exists to provide conception and maturation of the children of God, but at some point it ends (and begins for the next generation). The father no longer has authority over their adult children. There is a certain respect due, but it is due to any elder regardless of family “ties.” After a child is “liberated” he joins the church as it is now his “family.” The church is not a family of families; the church is a family. The relation you have to your pastors, elders, deacons, and members are not mediated through your father any longer. Instead of viewing the church as a family of families it is more like a “little church.” As we are “Christians” (little-christs), so are families “churchians” (little-churches). In other words the family is not an atomical(ly a) building block of the church but sub-atomical(ly) to the church; the church being the essence of society.

I know it really sounds as if I denigrate or even despise the family to those raised in our family-worshiping culture, but I do not. In fact I adore the family for its God-given role. I love being a father and have had the unction for it in me since I was five years old (am I strange?). I would not trade it for the world. But is my role more important than a pastor’s role? No. Is it less important than a pastor’s role? No. These are different callings and all equally valid and beneficial to the kingdom. They really are the same job; they deal with Christians at different levels of growth/maturity. Fathers are first in chronology, but pastors are final (in the earthly sense). Pastors pastor from ones birth to ones death. Fathers only father from birth to liberation. Each is necessary but pastoring is the permanent ‘fathering.’ Likewise the church is the permanent family.

I am saying all of this in my defense of my emphasis on the church. I am not saying that the church is more important than the family. I am merely placing a slight emphasis on the role/work of the church. I am not here debating importance but emphasis. Neither institution is any more important than any other. Thus no institution deserves an inordinate/disproportionate share of our attention. But I think this is where we fall apart. Most Christians hold the family to have greater importance and give an inordinate/disproportionate amount of attention to the family. I think they do this to the neglect of the church. Does this mean that no institution needs to be emphasized? I don’t know? But I do know that until Christians in general give equality to the church in importance with the family I will continue to emphasize the church.

We do not get the sacraments in the family. The evangelical institution is the church. The mechanism of discipleship is the church (discipleship may take place in the family but it is not the family’s work necessarily; it may be argued that any discipleship taking place in the family is the outworking of the fact that your children are your fellow heirs in Christ. I think many parents have a hard time looking at their snobby two-year-old as a fellow heir. This emotional or psychological detachment is not a reflection of reality however.).

State = legal, negative sanctions, order
Church = spiritual, sacramental, covenantal, worship, evangelism, discipleship, common grace, positive sanctions, Kingdom of God, “Christendom,” Christian community
Family = economic, life, entrepreneurial, educational

If nothing else, take this away: We need more fellowship and the gathering together of believers.