Skip to main content

Psalm 4:6-8

"There are many who say, “Who will show us some good? Lift up the light of your face upon us, O Lord!” You have put more joy in my heart than they have when their grain and wine abound. In peace I will both lie down and sleep; for you alone, O Lord, make me dwell in safety."

    Good.  How do we define good?  How do we define success, happiness, joy, fulfillment, etc?  In God's terms, or in man's terms?  There are many who tell us that we will be happy if we just get that job or that possession.  They tell us that we deserve this "good" and that in it we will find ourselves truly complete.  Unfortunately, there are many in the Church who peddle the Gospel in the same manner, telling us that the joy and prosperity found in God are primarily defined by our checkbook and stress-free lives.  "If the Lord lifts the light of His face upon you," they say, "you'll never have another worry.  All your bills will pay themselves.  Your family won't disappoint you.  You'll have your best life now and forever."

    I'm afraid the Bible paints a different picture.  For starters, not every circumstance will be pleasant.  We are called to bear our crosses and to press through adversity.  What makes us different, however, is the presence of the Lord.  His presence doesn't always change our circumstances, but it does change how we deal with them.  He gives us joy that transcends circumstances.  He gives us rest that allows us to lie down and sleep despite the troubles around us.  It's not that we are blind to our problems, but with the knowledge of the Lord's sovereignty and the assurance that the things of this life are vanities we can find peace and safety.  This is what the grace of God produces in the life of a believer!  This is true joy!  This is what happens when the Lord lifts the light of His face upon His people!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...