the Gospel of John

I'm studying John for an upcoming sermon, and I found these two statements regarding the 'argument of the Gospel of John' to be insightful.  Calvin, in the Preface to his Commentary on John, says:

But as the bare history [of what we call 'the Gospel'] would not be enough, and, indeed, would be of no advantage for salvation, the Evangelists do not merely relate that Christ was born, and that he died and vanquished death, but also explain for what purpose he was born, and died, and rose again, and what benefit we derive from those events.

 
 ...

And as all of [the four NT Gospels] had the same object in view, to point out Christ, the three former exhibit his body, if we may be permitted to use the expression, but John exhibits his soul.  On this account, I am accustomed to say that this Gospel is a key to open the door for understanding the rest; for whoever shall understand the power of Christ, as it is here strikingly portrayed, will afterwards read with advantage what the others relate about the Redeemer who was manifested.

the beautiful Christ

Reading Hebrews 1:1-4 last night with friends, and one remarked, "It doesn't get bigger than this!"

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.  He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

Meditate on the intricacies of this word about the Final Word who was spoken.

the Image

  One of the most important theological truths in my life for the past year has been "...God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (Gen 1:27 ESV)  This is by no means a new concept; I was thoroughly taught the theological implications of it in my formal biblical studies. Plus, I have been familiar with the truth and its basic implications since I was a child.  God made us to be correspond to Him in many of His perfections.  Consider two current personal illustrations:

1.  I have not practically lived out the implications of the image of God very well personally.  In other words, I have often doubted who God made me: I didn't necessarily fight who I was, I just didn't believe in His image in me enough to pursue the design He had placed in me.  I do not have the normal abilities for what I plan to do in my life. Yet, if I am following the direction that God has led and if He truly designed me to reflect certain aspects of Himself (however imperfect that reflection actually is), then I will find that the direction, the abilities and the desires which He has and is giving me will match.  This has helped to direct our path as we leave our home and trek towards a new home and the journey that awaits there.  We were designed for this!

2.  A second area has emerged from what was originally a community Bible study but continued in my personal study... thoughts from Ephesians 5: what would it look like if we as husbands really sought to build up our wives as Jesus builds the Church.  It would be thorough; it would be for their benefit; it would be beautiful; it would be in the same way Christ loved.  But the Image of God... what if I learn to love the reflections of Himself that God had designed in Bethany as well as those in me?  What if the image of God were evenly and equally displayed in our home and marriage? 

The Future of America and the Globe

  "The myth of America's decline" on cnn.com today brought to mind various readings I have done in the last year.  The article expresses well the basic reasons why America will continue to be in a commanding central position as a global leader for the foreseeable future, barring a disruptive act of God.  George Friedman's excellent book The Next 100 Years is a more detailed argument for the same basic thought.

In my opinion (though some would disagree), there is little contradiction between those who see a dominant America and those who would argue that globalism will soon overpower the unilateralism of the present.  Fareed Zakaria's The Post-American World (now in its second edition) makes compelling arguments for why the world will become less dominated by America, but he does not make a strong case for another nation becoming more dominant.  In other words, as we look to the future, I see no reason that the USA will not be the world's primary shaker-and-mover indefinitely: only America will have the power to move the world to action and lead such action.  However, Zakaria's basic point that America will no longer be able simply to do as it likes also carries weight.  The balance may well be that a tandem will be created by which America must dance with (much of) the rest of the world while also being the only force large enough to chose the tune for dancing.