Posts

Showing posts with the label metaphors

What does God do with our sins?

Image
In one of the many memorable sections of his Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin compares God’s revelation of Himself to His creatures to a parent or a nanny who speaks to children on a level they can understand. Just as we “baby talk” with infants, so God condescends to our feebleness, stooping “far beneath his loftiness” to “accommodate the knowledge of him[self] to our slight capacity” (Institutes, 1.13.1 ). Calvin refers to how the Bible speaks of God’s body parts, such as His mouth, eyes, ears, nose, hands, and feet. God does not have a body like men, but He refers to bodily aspects of His being in His communication to us so that we can better grasp the truth about Him. The same accommodating manner of expression is found in the various similes and metaphors used throughout the Bible, particularly regarding how God treats the sins of His repentant and believing people. These word pictures paint the grace of forgiveness in unforgettable imagery so that we might better

Yes, We Can Still Sing “Onward, Christian Soldiers”

Image
By Jonathon Aigner The war against the once-beloved “Onward, Christian Soldiers” is decades old. When the United Methodist Church was revising its hymnal in the mid-80s, it made the mistake of trying to drop this hymn from what would soon become the current United Methodist Hymnal. Good Methodists and Methodists are good people. They started a war of their own, essentially inundating the hymnal committee with correspondence which, according to Carlton Young, made it “impossible for the committee to go on with its work.” Suitable for those lovely Methodist saints. Other denominations have long since dropped it like a hot potato. “Onward” hasn’t been in a mainline Presbyterian hymnal for 50 years. Other traditions still have it in their hymnals, like the Episcopal church, but I would guess that few Episcopal churches would use it lest they make those among them with little Scripture knowledge uncomfortable. On the one hand, I understand how militaristic language can be complex. It can be