Better Bible Reading Podcast

Centers of Reconciliation

In Bruce Milne’s book, he argues that the church is meant to be a center of reconciliation. This idea of a reconciliation center is predicated upon the vast division in society, division which is normally comprised of the four major categories of class, age, race, and gender. According to Milne, a center of reconciliation is a place which seeks reconcile the divides found in those four categories (Milne 14). In other words, a center of reconciliation is meant to either mend, bridge, or even transcend these categories of division and/or distinction, to borrow the verbs used by Milne. 

Where then are these centers located? What is the most appropriate place to see this reconciliation take place? The answer varies from person to person. Generally speaking, these centers are understood to be (or at least meant to be) the societal structures of nations, states, and cities. And the engine for the reconciliation of class, age, race and gender is legislation. While this is a popular opinion and legislation may indeed have some validity in contributing to fair and just societies, this is not the answer for true reconciliation. It is also not the answer Milne gives. 

Instead, Milne suggests that the most appropriate place to see this reconciliation take place is not in legislation, but in the church. Yet, his reason is not due to a moral argument that the church is the arbiter of truth, or that a theocratic society is the most preferred variety for considering the legislative process of reconciliation. Instead, his reason is due to the fact that the church is described as nothing short of a new humanity. That is an argument of transcendence, which is quite appropriate for transcending divides.

A reasonable follow up question to ask of Milne’s argument is, what does it mean that the church is a new humanity? The apostle Paul describes this to the Corinthians: “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, that is in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5.18-19). And this whole discussion from Paul is predicated on the previous verse, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold the new has come” (2 Cor. 5.17).

Based on the testimony of scripture, the church is the heartbeat and center of reconciliation. It is to the bride of Christ that God has gifted and entrusted the ministry of reconciliation, and this means that anything short of the ministerial context of the church is short of the full realization of reconciliation. This is a profound answer offered by Milne, especially as issues of class, age, race and gender are primary issues that legislation and political science seeks to solve. 

It could well be argued that the church is overstepping her bounds when she seeks to enter into the realm of state by assuming that she hold the key to solving these issues. But according to the apostle Paul, the whole idea of reconciliation is a heart issue, one which requires a new humanity altogether. And if the stakes of reconciliation are high enough to require a new heart, no one would argue that such a problem could be fixed by legislation. New hearts do not come into being by legislation, new hearts come into being in a new humanity. 

Support the show

If you're ready to dive deep with me, consider joining my all-new membership site Better Readers Academy.

Today on Teaching Thursdays we continue our study of 1st Peter. We look at the beginning of chapter 3, considering the first seven verses. This section of 1st Peter teaches how Jesus' example of suffering and serving is the template and example for a godly husband and a godly wife. We talk about the parameters of suffering in marriage, the depths and extent of a wife submitting to her husband, and the weight of responsibility placed on the husband to understand his wife in a loving way. This is the Better Bible Reading Podcast with Kevin Morris!

Support the show

If you're ready to dive deep with me, consider joining my all-new membership site Better Readers Academy.

Why Did God Test Abraham?

Scripture testifies that God by direct result of His being is all-knowing of events that have not yet come to pass: "Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors, remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose'" (English Standard Version, Isaiah 46.8-10). This passage not only teaches the omniscience of God, but the sovereignty and aseity of God; that He does not only know about all things as a spectator, but knows them because they are part of His counsel and purpose. This can only be true of a God who exists in and of Himself and thus, One who is outside of time, not bound by it in power or in knowledge. In the full scope of Scripture, this proposition can be traced as a whole and identified in individual passages.

If this is true of God, it should be able to be upheld regardless of the passage being examined. In the case of Genesis 22, there is certainly a point of tension, since God seems to plainly indicate that an event has occurred to enlighten Him in some way: "for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me" (Gen. 22.12). A closer look at the text however will reveal that the point of the test is not to enlighten God, but to enlighten Abraham. When analyzing Genesis 22, it can be demonstrated that God holds the pieces in every aspect: He provides the timing of the test (v.1), as well as the place (v.2). That is to say, the test in not something experienced by God as it is something designed by God. God is not a spectator here, He is the architect.

Second, the chapter makes it a point to emphasize on God's provision by capturing Abraham's words of assurance to Isaac (22.8). This theme is also presented as the conclusion of the test by Abraham's response to God's provision: "So Abraham called the name of that place, "The LORD will provide (or will see"; as it is said to this day, "On the mount of the LORD it shall be provided (or he will be seen)" (Gen. 22.14).

In this way, Scripture clearly shows the reader what the 'take away' point of the text is: a demonstration of God's providing and seeing. This seems to indicate an oversight on God's part: His purposes playing out in time and reality. This particular test was conceived by God, while He also provided time (v.1), place (v.2), and sacrifice (v.8,13-14). All of these point to a position of authority and knowledge, not guesswork. In addition to the summary of the event itself, it is clear that in God's appointing of Abraham to go through this trial, He taught Abraham to see whether his own assurance is grounded in the benefits of God's promise (Abraham's long-awaited son Isaac) or in the God who made the promise. That is to say, is Abraham's faith in his own faculties, or in God? The 17th century theologian John Owen speaks in this way:

"He sends instruments of trial into the bowels and inmost parts of the soul, and lets man see what is in him, of what metal he is constituted. Thus he tempted Abraham to show him his faith. Abraham knew now what faith he had (I mean, what power and vigor was in his faith) until God drew it out by that great trial and temptation. When God says he knew it (Gen. 22.12), he made Abraham to know it." (John Owen: Overcoming Sin and Temptation, 153).

It seems then that the context of the passage points to a lesson to be learned by Abraham. This is the point of a trial and a test. The test-giver is God and the student is Abraham. The

Support the show

If you're ready to dive deep with me, consider joining my all-new membership site Better Readers Academy.

John 17, formally referred to as the high priestly prayer of Jesus Christ, is a wonderful place to see the work of reconciliation and unity in the body of Christ. In this prayer, Jesus rehearses the work of redemption between the Father and the Son and gives a clear blueprint of God’s design in how He has saved His elect people. This chapter serves the church by reminding the people of God that they are caught up in a work of reconciliation and currently reside in state of unity with God. To that end, the church’s work is to be situated in reconciliation and unity. 

In John 17, Jesus speaks of the unified plan of redemption between the Father and the Son: “Father, the hour has come; glorify the Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him” (ESV, Jn. 17.1-2). Here, the work of redemption is described as a collective work of the Father and the Son (and the Spirit’s in prior chapters). That is to say, there is a spirit of the purest sense of unity in the Godhead in the effort to accomplish the work of redemption. 

In addition, God’s work of redemption is also a work of reconciliation: “I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world […] They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth” (Jn. 17.14, 16-17). This work of redemption is a work of reconciliation, as these people are distinguished from a world full of hate and animosity towards God. It follows that the people who are afforded God’s work of redemption will also be people set apart from the hatred of the world to a life of reconciliation and unity among each other. This is fully expressed towards the end of Jesus’ prayer: “I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one” (Jn. 17.23). This language of oneness is unmistakably one of unity among God’s reconciled people.

How then are these implications brought to bear in the work and life of the church? In an article concerning the state of the church, Mark Dever describes four particular problems facing the church today, one of which is the problem of sectarianism. Dever makes the point by way of contrast: “what unites us as Christians must always be valued more highly than the things that distinguish us” (45). The opposite of this is the reality of sectarianism in the church. But how is a church to practice unity in a context where contrasting denominational expressions are normative? This problem of inescapable sectarianism is perhaps the most prominent of the four within my own area. Locally, there is a diversity of denominations, music type, church size, and political leanings, all of which are often situated in churches right next to each other. This makes for a very consumeristic ‘free market’ of church shopping, and so long as churches are presented in this consumeristic way, there will inevitably be a type of tribalism or sectarianism present. 

While nations should leave people free to find a church that matches their own theological convictions, there are instances when sectarianism goes well beyond issues of worship choice. Take for example an episode within my own church context. My presbyterian church recently received a family into our congregation who was an elder at a reformed Baptist congregation. This man recently became convinced that baptism is appropriate to be administered both to believers and their children, a

Support the show

If you're ready to dive deep with me, consider joining my all-new membership site Better Readers Academy.

The debate between Protestants and Roman Catholics about justification is normally between Paul and James' teaching on justification. It is argued by Protestants that Paul teaches justification by faith alone, while Roman Catholics argue that James teaches a mixture of faith and works as the recipe for justification. Do these men agree? This is Giving an Answer, an edition of the Better Bible Reading Podcast with Kevin Morris 

Support the show

If you're ready to dive deep with me, consider joining my all-new membership site Better Readers Academy.

Are worldviews universal in scope, or are they reserved for academic and philosophical discussions? Although questions like these are not regularly asked by the average person, the implications embedded in each question are well-worth considering. Christian Theism provides the only compelling answer to this question, a worldview described by James Sires as "a universe charged with the grandeur of God". This is Culturology, an edition of the Better Bible Reading Podcast with Kevin Morris 

Support the show

If you're ready to dive deep with me, consider joining my all-new membership site Better Readers Academy.

Today on Teaching Thursdays we finish chapter 2 of 1 Peter, looking at verses 18-25. Along with last week's eithical imperative to submit to authority as a Christian and live out the gospel in the public square, we now learn of our perfect model of suffering and servanthood in the life of Jesus Christ. Peter uses Jesus' perfect example from Isaiah 53 on the suffering servant to show us how we are endure all things as we follow in the footsteps of Jesus Christ. This is the Better Bible Reading Podcast with Kevin Morris 

Support the show

If you're ready to dive deep with me, consider joining my all-new membership site Better Readers Academy.

Social media regularly becomes a temptation for Christians to use it as a means to gossip, venting, and idolatry. What is harmlessly a tool for communication is distorted into a trophy room whereby people compare and contrast their lives, their quotes, and their opportunities over against one another. So should Christians use social media? Today we talk about why this question is not answered by a strict yes or no, but rather by exploring how we use social media. This is Giving an Answer, an edition of the Better Bible Reading Podcast with Kevin Morris. 

Support the show

If you're ready to dive deep with me, consider joining my all-new membership site Better Readers Academy.

Having previously considered naturalism as a worldview, we now look to another worldview that it regularly leads people to embrace: postmodernism. This worldview is especially difficult to define, because it rejects the notion of absolute truth and objectivity. Because of this, we have to break the rules of postmodernism in order to define it. We will now briefly consider postmodernism both as a worldview and an interpretive method. This is Culturology, an edition of the Better Bible Reading Podcast with Kevin Morris. 

Support the show

If you're ready to dive deep with me, consider joining my all-new membership site Better Readers Academy.

We are back into our weekly study in 1 Peter on Teaching Thursdays, part of the Better Bible Reading Podcast lineup! Today, we look at verses 13-17 in chapter 2 of 1 Peter where Peter teaches us about the ethical imperative of the Christian life, under the banner of submitting to authority. This submission to authority is explained with a very interesting dynamic of Christians existing in this world as freed slaves. As we are freed from sin, we are obligated to serve God as our covenant-giver. 

Support the show

If you're ready to dive deep with me, consider joining my all-new membership site Better Readers Academy.