Why is my blog title: "A Brick in the Valley?"

While it is true that our church is made out of bricks, the title for my blog points to the New Testament metaphor that Christians are “living stones.”

And, despite how many Christians live, God makes bricks with a building in mind.  God never made a brick expecting it to be out laying in the weeds by itself.

Maybe the best way to make the point is to describe a conversation I had with four bricks I found out behind the tool shed at our previous home. . .

———

Four bricks hide behind my tool shed. The shed sits on the edge of the woods so leaves hide the bricks. If you weren’t looking, you wouldn’t notice them: just a few bricks settling into moist, black soil under brown oak leaves.

If I picked up one of those bricks, brushed the leaves off it, and asked it what it is doing, I wonder what it would say. I know that bricks can’t talk. Bear with me for the sake of the thing. A brick disconnected from any building, lying behind my tool shed, how would it explain itself?

It might be a little defensive. Can’t you just hear the brick bristling when asked why it is not in a building?

“Look, I am a brick! I assure you that I am a brick. Are you implying that I am not a brick?”

I would probe gently. “No, I’m just wondering why you aren’t part of one sort of building or another? Just curious.”

The defense would continue. “Look, I don’t have to be in a building in order to be a brick. I can be a brick all on my own.”

True enough.

Then again, maybe it wouldn’t be a defensive brick. It might be a “friendly, procrastinating” brick: agreeable and well-intentioned.

It would say, “I know what you are thinking and you are right. I do need to find a good building. I just haven’t gotten around to it. I mean there was a time when I was in a building, a school actually, but I drifted away and now I’m back here behind the tool shed. But, I am going to find a good building. I still listen to the radio - - -you know, to stay in touch with what is going on in the building industry.”

Or, it might be critical: a brick that lists and describes the imperfections in other bricks. This brick would point its finger while it answered. It would go on offense.

“Hey, I got tired of being next to so many irregular bricks. Bricks, and I am talking especially about the ones in buildings - - they have rough edges. I don’t want to judge, you understand, but they’re lopsided. They’re uneven. I decided if that’s what the other bricks are like, then I am not interested in being in a building.”

Or maybe the brick would be too busy. It has nothing against buildings per se. At some point it would even like to be part of one; it just can’t find time.

At the end of the day, there would be as many different excuses as there are loose bricks in the world. Each brick would offer some logic about why it is stacked out behind a tool shed and not mortared into a building.

Of course, none of the explanations would work. There is no good reason for a brick to be lying in a sloppy pile, dirt crusted on the side of it, underneath brittle leaves.

Don’t get me wrong. The explanations make sense. I can relate. I understand that a brick is still a brick regardless of whether or not it is in a building. We’ve all seen enough brick-laying going on to know that it is an involved process; there are legitimate reasons why a brick might take some time jumping into the wheel barrow. And, there are a lot of uneven bricks in the world - - certainly, it is a challenge to fit next to them day after day.

What brick isn’t busy?

But, none of those reasons adequately explain why a brick would be tossed aside next to a tool shed under decaying leaves and hollow excuses.

Bricks are made with a building in mind. A brick, and I looked this up, is “an artificial stone made by forming clay into a rectangular block.” After it has been formed, it is hardened, either by burning in a kiln or sun-drying. And, the whole process is done for the purpose of building.

No brick was ever kiln fired with a goal of seeing it exist unto itself. Brick-makers dream about a school or a store, a high-rise or a home. Bricks are meant to build something grand.

* * *

If you didn’t know the point of the word picture, the Bible might insult you by calling you a “brick.” Think about it. If someone looked you dead in the eye and said, “Hey, ‘rock,’” you might take offense.

But, if you are a Christian, then you are a brick: a “living” brick, but a brick never the less. Peter wrote:

“. . .you also, like living ‘bricks,’ are being built into a spiritual ‘building’ . . (1 Peter 2:9a).”

Peter means no offense. He’s explaining that God makes “bricks” with a building in mind. The Creator never envisioned building blocks in isolation from one another. He pictured community.

“Living stones” is a more accurate translation than “living bricks.” Bricks are the same. Stones come in all shapes and sizes. The kind of building that God intends has widely varied stones laid together. Picture the stones in cottage chimneys in stories like Hansel and Gretel: oblong stones of all sizes, shapes, and colors, smoothly nestled together.

* * *

I pointed out reasons that bricks give for not being in the building. But, what really deserves attention is the positive side of the thing. What should motivate a brick to be in a building? Why give time, energy, and space to be part of community? Why be laid together and over and under and next to one another’s lives?

The answer begins and ends with the foundation of the building, what Peter calls a chosen and precious cornerstone: the Lord Jesus Christ. He is such a stunningly perfect foundation for any building, so brilliant that anyone who glimpses Him would long to be mortared into a building with Him.

But, along with Jesus, part of the motivation to be a part of community must be to see the sheer beauty of human lives in all their diversity coming together. If we took the time to look at lives the way that we soak in sunsets, we might find ourselves out behind the tool shed far less often.

People in community are a beautiful sight to behold. Being in the building, in community, doesn’t mean that we lose our individual identity. In a way, when a brick is incorporated into the structure, it gets more attention because it is visible. Reflect on that. Long grass and leaves swallow a brick in isolation. Loose bricks are soon lost and forgotten. But a brick mortared into relationship with other bricks is seen, like the red bricks in the church building where I pastor, unlike the bricks behind my tool shed. When a stone is in the building, that’s when you might stop and look at that one unique place in the building and how it is a part of the whole, a tile in the mosaic, a pane in a stain glassed window.

First Day of School 2008

First day of school today.  The person willing to exegete the photograph will learn much about our family.

(1)  Pretty in Pink: Allison opposes pink and all its implications on principle.  Pretty much everything Mary Beth wore is pink, from her shoes to her backpack.First Day of School 2008

(2) We support nuclear energy: If you look over Chris’ shoulder you can see the looming nuclear towers in the background.  Here in Northern Illinois, we were nuclear when nuclear wasn’t cool.

(3) It’s football season: There’s a story (perhaps apocryphal) about the Notre Dame team being at the cemetery to visit George Gipp’s grave.  On the way out of the cemetary, a few players stopped at the grave of the recently deceased basketball coach’s grave in order to pay their respects.  Knute Rockne didn’t approve.  He beckoned the players to come at once and said sternly, “It’s football season boys.”  All of which is to point out that it’s football season here.  Chris is wearing his A.J. Hawk jersey while Ben’s shirt reads, “Don’t take it personally.”  On the back it says, “Smashing you into the turf is just part of the job.”

Though we lost both football games this weekend.

(4) We live in a sparsely populated area.  You will notice that the population density is not real high here in Ogle County.

(5) I have put off sealing our deck.  While this may not be obvious to the untrained eye, I need to seal the deck.

Who in Hell . . .?

To forgive in the right way, you must believe rightly about hell.

If I was asked to layout the areas of systematic theology/doctrine which most immediately come to bear on unpacking forgiveness I would begin with these.

  • Doctrine of Salvation (soteriology): We are to forgive others as God forgives us.  This means we must begin with the Cross and understand with clarity how God forgives, if we are to know how to forgive others.
  • Providence refers to the word theologians use to describe the truth that God is directly involved in history and is working all things together to accomplish His purposes.  Firmly owning providence will allow us to say with Joseph that though someone may have intended to harm me, God is using it for good.
  • Doctrine of Last Things (or the future work of Christ, Eschatology) with an emphasis on hell.  Believing what the Bible says about hell is foundational to the area of forgiveness for at least two reasons. 

First, the Bible often encourages believers to take comfort in the fact that God will deal justly with evil people.

“The assurance of God’s ultimate justice (then) frees radical love (now).”  John N. Day

“. . . it is only when God’s wrath and vengeance are hanging as grim realities over the heads of one’s enemies that something of what it means to love and forgive them can touch our hearts.”  Dietrich Bonhoeffer in a letter from prison to Eberhard Bethge.

Second, the Bible motivates offended people to forgive by teaching that a Christian who is unwilling to forgive someone who has offended him or her, should fear for his or her soul.  Saying, “I will never, ever forgive that person is much like saying, “I’m planning on going to hell.”  (Matthew 6:14-15, Matthew 18:35).

It is in this latter area that Western Christians are most deficient.  Believers in our culture may summarize the doctrine of salvation and the centrality of the Cross on some level (though they don’t apply this to forgiveness nearly enough).

People will often say, however glibly, that God works all things together for good.

But, as Al Mohler explains here, many Christians increasingly question an orthodox understanding of hell (that unbelivers will suffer eternally).  

The less people are willing to accept what the Bible teaches about hell, the more vulnerable they are to bitterness.

Reach Out to Those Who Unplug from Church

You can probably think of someone who has stepped away from involvement in a local church. There are many reasons people decide to pull away.

They find a sport or some other form of entertainment that takes the place of church,

they keep putting off finding a new church home,

they are disillusioned with churches because of a past conflict,

or they feel guilty about choices they have made.

Maybe someone you know is angry with God about circumstances he or she has faced and as a result has wandered away from the faith.

Whatever the reason, we know that this quitting cannot be an option. God sometimes calls people to switch churches, but Hebrews 10:25 explicitly commands believers to be a vital part of a local church.

And, James 5:19-20 tells us:

My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins (James 5:19-20).”

These are the last verses in James and their meaning is amazing. The fact is says James, that God uses people to turn other people back to Himself. And, if God uses you in that way, then you are being used to save such a person from judgment of God and a lifetime of hurt. Are you willing to be used to turn someone back to Christ?

The Personal God

“‘Person’ is the word in our vocabulary that applies to beings who speak, act intentionally, and so on. . . Only in biblical religions is there an absolute principle that is personal. Other religions have personal gods, but those gods are not absolute. Other religions and philosophies (Hinduism, Aristotle, Spinoza, Hegel) have absolute principles, but those principles are impersonal. Islam believes in an unknowable God who can (inconsistently) be described in personal terms; the extent to which Allah is personal is due to Mohammed’s original respect for “the book” (the Jewish/Christian Scriptures) and to the Arab polytheism described in Hadith. Other sects also hold to some level of personality in God, because of the influence of the Bible upon their founders. But groups like the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, like the Muslims, are inconsistent in their confession of God’s absolute personality.” John Frame.[1]


[1] John M. Frame, The Doctrine of God (Phillipsburg, PA: P&R Publishing, 2002), 26-27.

The Right U.S. Approach to Georgia

John Mark Reynolds outlines how the United States should relate to unfolding events in Georgia. Read it here.

Make No Mistake: God is Not “In the Dock”

In England, when a prisoner is on trial, the place where he sits is called “the dock.” So, the accused is said to be “in the dock.”

C.S. Lewis, in his brilliant essay, “God in the Dock,” points out that somehow modern man thinks that God is “in the Dock”: that God must give an account of himself to humanity.

The ancient man approached God (or even the gods) as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man the roles are reversed. He is the judge: God is in the dock. He is quite a kindly judge: if God should have a reasonable defence for being the god who permits war, poverty, and disease, he is ready to listen to it. The trial may even end in God’s acquittal. But the important thing is that Man is on the Bench and God in the Dock (God in the Dock, page 244).[1]

Who can deny that Modern Man largely believes that God must defend himself to human beings? Somehow, Modern Humanity is audacious enough to act as though God must meet a standard humanity establishes.

Can anything be more ridiculous?

It’s as though Modern Man stands on the edge of the Sears tower in Chicago and peers over the side. With his toes hanging over the edge, and the wind gusting at his back, even as he watches others scream and pitch over the side, Modern Man says smugly, “I am not sure that I approve of the law of gravity. In fact, I’m not sure I agree with it at all. What kind of a law would cause people to fall off objects?”

Don’t get me wrong. Modern Man is a reasonable sort of “chap” (I have to stay with British words when interacting with Lewis), he is willing to listen to a few defend to him the law of gravity. But, generally, he takes a pass on accepting that gravity has any particular bearing for him and those he knows.

So, for a few moments - - the length of time a wisp of steam rises over your coffee cup (James 4:14), Modern Man stands with a smirk on his face laughing at the law of gravity. Soon enough, a gust of wind comes along and an eternal plunge begins.


[1] C.S. Lewis, “God in the Dock,” in God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 244.

Should We Forgive John Edwards?

A friend pointed me to this article by John Mark Reynolds on what the attitude of Christians should be to John Edwards.  It is a valuable article because Reynolds helps us think theologically while walking carefully through a particular forgiveness problem.

Having ignored warning signs for so long, the culture’s fascination, even delight, in the destruction of yet another political leader is sickening. I don’t know if John Edwards is sorry for his sins, but I do know that only a fool or a saint can afford to be unmerciful or delight in his fall.

A fool likes any prurient story because it is entertaining. This fool reads of the fall of great men with no sense of discomfort because he believes that his own vice is “not so bad.” For the fool, self-knowledge is always delightful and easy. He is puzzled why Socrates made such a fuss about it.

A saint can advocate justice without mercy, because his virtue leaves him without any need for grace. He can simply ask for justice. Strangely, Jesus, when faced with His own John Edwards, did forgive absolutely. The man who could judge didn’t, which suggests it must be better so.

Should we forgive John Edwards?

For his fellow Christians, the answer is plain, if not easy to practice.

We cannot forgive his moral sin because his sin was not against us. As for his lies to the public, the charitable are eager to forgive, but the wise not so quick to trust. As for his sins against God, which at the hour of his death will matter most, God knows his heart, but forgiveness is freely available to Edwards, though bought at great cost to God.

Read it all here.

On the Necessity of Preaching on the Wrath of God

Daryl Dash explains how D. Martyn Llodyd-Jones believes that a reluctance to preach on the wrath of God resulted in increasingly empty churches. 

Lloyd-Jones preached a different message, as seen in this address:

First and foremost we are face to face with the fact of the wrath of God…God has decided and ordered and arranged that a life of forgetfulness of Him, and antagonism to Him, shall not be successful and happy. Cursing falls upon such a way of life. The facts of life, the story of history, proclaim the wrath of God against all ungodliness and unrighteousness. We have sinned against God…

It is as the idea of judgment and the wrath of God have fallen into the background that our churches have become increasingly empty. The idea has gained currency that the love of God somehow covers everything, and that it matters very little what we may do, because the love of God puts everything right at the end. The more the Church has accommodated her message to suit the palate of the people the greater has been the decline in attendance at places of worship.

This is a very good example of God-centered versus human-centered preaching.

Read it all here.

Driscoll’s New Book

Vitamin Z (my new favorite blog) posts a really interesting link to Driscoll’s new book.  You really should watch it.  Click here.  I have not read Driscoll’s book.