Bill's Thoughts

GRACE, VI

2012-02-15T16:37:00.000-06:00

God’s Gracious Choice

I wonder – are my fellow believers and I really able to comprehend God’s grace? I mean, yes we can recite Scripture passages and can give reasonable definitions, but can we really get our heads around it? It seems we want to insert ourselves a bit too strongly into the process, when it is all of God.

One of the biblical teachings that many object to is that of God’s choice of us – or to be a bit more “theological” – the doctrine of Election. Now I grant this doctrine has been abused by many and that many of us have a weird picture in our minds of God randomly selecting some for heaven and some for hell by some eeny, meeny, miney, mo process.

But I also suspect that one reason we object is that we like to think that we are the ones doing the choosing, or at least having some influence on God.

The Apostle Paul seemed to have the most to say about grace. Nearly two-thirds of the word’s uses are found in his writings. And he frequently ties the two concepts of election and grace together. One of the better known passages is Romans 11:5, 6: “So then, even in the present time, there has come to be a remnant in accordance with the election of grace. And if by grace, no longer from works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.”

It’s in the first chapter of his letter to the Ephesians, however, that Paul makes clear that God’s salvation plan begins with His choice of us, and concludes with praise to each member of the Trinity for His part in that plan. Ephesians 1:3-14, is one big long sentence in Greek, abounding with subordinate clauses, though our English translations break it into smaller bites. (Even my Nestle’s Greek text adds a few periods.) Its principle clause is “Blessed is the God and Father …”

Ephesians 1:3-8: “Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ … even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world … having predestined us to adoption … according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace with which He graced us in the Beloved One, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our transgressions according to the wealth of His grace which He abounded to us …”

Then again in Ephesians 2:5, 7-9: “ … and when we were dead in our transgressions, He made us alive together with Christ – by grace you have been saved -- … so that in the coming ages He might show the surpassing wealth of His grace in His kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that is not of yourselves, it’s the gift of God, not of works, so that no one can boast.”

The phrase “you have been saved” in 2:5, 8 is translated “you are saved” in the KJV. It is composed of a present tense verb with a perfect participle in Greek. I suppose we could translate it more literally (though awkwardly), “you are in a state of having been saved.” It speaks of a past act with continuing results.

The pronoun translated “that” in 2:9, is neuter in gender and so has no clear antecedent. The words translated “grace” and “faith” are both feminine and the participle translated “saved” is masculine. [Those readers who remember their English grammar will remember the rule that a pronoun must agree with its antecedent. If you don’t remember, just trust me! :^)]

Why is this important? Because' with no clear antecedent we’re forced to see the word “that” as referring to the entire preceding clause. Paul is not simply saying that the grace is not of ourselves, or that the faith is not of ourselves, but that the whole process is not of ourselves.

These passages affirm to us that every aspect of our salvation is of God’s grace. It originates with Him. The Father chose us, the Son died for us and the Spirit sealed us when we believed.

But, “Wait” we might say. “It says faith. We’re commanded to do something. We’re commanded to believe.”

Well, yes, but even that faith, Paul tells us, is “not of ourselves, it’s the gift of God.” We can’t take credit for it! In this Paul is in total agreement with the words of his Lord and Savior.

“No one is able to come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him …” (John 6:44). The word translated “draw” is used in this same Gospel in the sense of “hauling” or “dragging” a fishing net (21:6, 11).

We need to be careful in our understanding of God’s choice. This does not mean that we are merely passive in this matter, or as someone claimed, “robots.” Faith is an active conscious decision on our part. It is a total reliance on Jesus. But our faith is brought about in some way by the action of God. And it has been predetermined by Him in eternity past.

Though we may not be able to explain this to our own satisfaction, those of faith are able to grasp this concept. Perhaps the best illustration is that given by the preacher H. A. Ironside in his commentary on Ephesians, written nearly 75 years ago.

“Here is a vast host of people hurrying down the broad road with their minds fixed upon their sins, and one stands calling attention to yonder door, the entrance into the narrow way that leads to life eternal. On it is plainly depicted the text, ‘Whosoever will, let him come.’ Every man is invited, no one need to hesitate. … as the invitation goes forth, every minute or two some one stops and says, ‘What is that.’ ‘The way to life,’ is the reply. …And such an one draws near and listens, …and he says, ‘I am going inside: I will accept the invitation; I will enter that door,’ and he presses his way in and it shuts behind him. As he turns about he finds written on the inside of the door the words, ‘Chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.’” (In the Heavenlies, pages 27, 28.)

MARTYRS

2012-02-14T13:48:00.000-06:00

Today, February 14, we celebrate Valentine’s Day, a day dedicated to a third century Christian martyr of whom little is known and of whom what is known appears to be legendary. In fact, there seems to be a number of Saint Valentines who were martyred and who appear on various lists in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. A visit to the site on Wikipedia should add to the reader’s confusion as to who this guy really was.

But no matter; it’s highly probable that he really existed and really was martyred for his faith in Christ, along with thousands of others from the first century on.

Early in my Christian life I was exposed to the accounts of the sufferings of the first century church that were given in the book of Acts. I read of the persecutions and numerous arrests of the apostles and of the martyrdoms of Stephen and James, the brother of John. I read of the harassment of the early church by Saul of Tarsus, who later became Paul, the apostle and was himself persecuted by those to whom he presented the gospel, and finally died for his faith. I read of the warnings Jesus gave to His early disciples. As I read the epistles, I found them full of allusions to and warnings of, sufferings and persecution, even possible death.

Later I read Foxe’s Book of Martyrs with its accounts of the sufferings of those in the early church, as well as throughout the centuries since. I read of martyrs burned at the stake or slaughtered in the Coliseum because of their faith in Christ.

It’s easy for us 21^st century American Christians to see these accounts as just ancient morality tales or tales of long ago heroism, simply given to inspire the readers. We are tempted to regard them as far removed from our enlightened age, or on the other hand, to regard them as metaphors for the minor discrimination or taunting that we may experience.

But these are real stories about real people! And similar stories are being repeated today!

Our English word “martyr” is directly related to the Greek word martus (plural martures), which originally had the meaning of “witness.” A martus was one who had seen an event occur and who then would testify, often in a legal sense, to its having occurred. The word had this meaning in the New Testament and is still used in this way in modern Greek.

This is the most common use of the word in the New Testament. Matthew 18:16: “…by the mouth of two or three witnesses, every matter will be established.” 26:65: “Why do we have further need of witnesses?”

In Luke 24:48, however, the word takes on a particular specialized meaning, that of a witness to Christ’s resurrection. When Jesus appeared to His disciples after His resurrection and explained how the Old Testament Scripture applied to Him, He commanded them to proclaim these truths to all nations and said, “You are witnesses of these things.”

It is in the book of Acts that this specialized meaning becomes almost a theme. Of the 13 times the word martus is used, it is used in this way 11 times.

So in Acts, the word has taken the meaning of: “A person who has seen Christ risen from the dead, and who has taken the assignment of proclaiming this truth.”

“…you will be My witnesses, both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and until the end of the earth” (1:18).

“This Jesus, God raised up, of which we are all witnesses” (2:32).

However, in Acts 22:20, the word begins to take on a new shade of meaning. The apostle Paul in relating his prayer after his conversion speaks of Stephen, the first “witness” to be put to death for carrying out his assignment. “…and when the blood of Stephen, Your witness, was shed, I also was standing and giving approval …”

In the book of Revelation, this idea was carried even further. The risen Christ speaks in 2:13 of: “Antipas, My faithful witness who was killed among you …”

In Revelation 11:3, He speaks of: “My two witnesses …” who are later killed (verse 7).

In Revelation 17:6, John sees the scarlet woman “drunk from the blood of the saints, and the blood of the witnesses of Jesus.” Some English translations (the KJV for one) even translate the word here as “martyrs.”

Jesus Himself is called “The faithful Witness” in 1:5 and 3:14. It has been thought that here there may be a subtle reference to His death.

Anyway, we can see that by the time of the book of Revelation, which is dated at the latest in the mid-90’s, the word martus had taken on this new shade of meaning: “One who has borne witness of Christ, even to the point of death,” although the original meaning was also retained.

By the mid-second century, the word was clearly being used of those who were put to death for their faith in and witness to Christ. One of the most well-known documents from that time period is a letter to which has been given the title, “The Martyrdom of Polycarp.” In this account, we are told of a bishop or overseer named Polycarp, who was burned at the stake for his refusal to recant and to confess Caesar as Lord. He is included among a number who were martyred (19).

But, as mentioned earlier, martyrdoms of followers of Christ were not simply events of the past. Down through the ages people have been put to death for their faith. Sometimes sadly, even by those who have claimed that faith as their own.

It has been claimed by some that the 20^th century saw more martyrs than all previous centuries put together. I can’t say so for sure, but certainly it had more than its share – the purges by Stalin and Mao, the slaughter of Armenian Christians by Turkey, come to mind.

And martyrdom is still going on today, as well as other persecutions. Though there are few nations where it is blatantly against the law to even be a Christian, many Muslim nations have “blasphemy laws” which demand a sentence of death for those who reject Islam. Many Hindu states have “anti-conversion laws.” And, of course, there are the Communist and Atheist regimes. And even where persecution is not government sponsored, in many countries, government simply looks the other way when family or village members kill and persecute followers of Christ.

And some of the worst persecutors are allies of the U.S.!

Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12:26: “… if one member suffers, all the members suffer together.” I urge that we who know Christ pray regularly for those members of Christ’s body who are suffering and speak out as we have opportunity.

For further information on today’s persecuted church, see: http://www.persecution.com/.

Also see: THE PERSECUTED CHURCH and THE CHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR.

WHY CAN’T ATHEISTS LIGHTEN UP?

2012-02-08T16:50:00.001-06:00

“I am very fond of humor and laughter … Materialists, humanists and atheists all take this world too seriously because it is the only world they are ever going to have.

But he who possesses faith knows that this world is not the only one,

and therefore can be regarded rather lightly.”

-- Fulton J. Sheen

I’ve had this bit of wisdom hanging on my wall for years. It’s on a little plaque given to me years ago and I can’t remember by whom. Possibly this person appreciated my attempts at humor in my teaching; and beneath my apparent lightness he or she saw a genuine depth in my faith. I’ve always taken it as a compliment.

And as I have encountered materialists, humanists and atheists, I’ve come to realize that this quote tells me as much about them as it does about the person of faith.

Now I recognize that Bishop Sheen was speaking in generalities, and not all in these categories fit his descriptions. At least not on the surface. And in the past I would have questioned his conclusions, or recognized that there are many exceptions to the rule.

Though I have personally met few, if any atheists, I have read some of them, and to tell the truth, have often been impressed with their logic and clear thinking. People like the brilliant philosopher Thomas Nagel, or the writers Susan Jacoby (See: DEALING WITH DUMBING DOWN.) and Chris Mooney. (See: DON’T CONFUSE ME WITH THE FACTS.) These and others are a delight to read and often add immensely to my store of knowledge as well as forcing me to clarify my thinking.

However, atheists (like Christian thinkers) who simply write learned tomes expounding their views apparently don’t sell many popular books. It seems that the books that really sell are “attack” books. I recognize that there have been many in the past who attacked religion, especially Christianity, but I don’t remember as many attacks till recently. (See: THE ATHEISTS ATTACK.) These guys seem to be at war with the God whose existence they deny.

Please excuse me for implying that they do this merely to sell books. I’ll concede that their motives are genuinely sincere. They speak from a belief system that colors all their thinking and it is this belief system which causes them to (as Bishop Sheen said) “take this world too seriously.” I suppose that I would too, were I in their position.

Perhaps the words of Thomas Nagel are true of many atheists. “I am talking about something much deeper – namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.” (The Last Word, page 130.)

Are professing atheists perhaps not really atheists but theophobes?

A few words to my atheist friend: Please don’t be like your mentors Dawkins, Hitchens and the rest, unable to lighten up. Don’t be incapable of looking with an open mind at views which cast doubt on your beliefs. Don’t simply resort to ridicule toward those matters with which you disagree or simply do not understand.

And yes, I’m still praying for your conversion! :^)

(P.S. I’m still not able to get any of my comments published on your blog.

GRACE, V

2012-02-06T17:31:00.000-06:00

Paul and James

Every four years the American people are subjected to the presidential primary races with all their trimmings. We get to watch and hear candidates and potential candidates in conflict. It happens in both parties, though the incumbents are sometimes spared. Men, and occasionally women, tear apart each others’ proposed policies and programs, and often each others’ characters and ethics.

Then when a candidate is finally chosen, the combatants become instant allies. All is forgotten (if not necessarily forgiven) and the chosen one is backed up in his or her attacks on the candidate of the opposing party.

Many people view the Bible in similar fashion, as though it is some sort of political campaign. Biblical writers are seen as holding opposing views on historical and theological essentials, though they usually stop short of calling each other names. Yet, though they disagree, somehow they have all united in their claims to speak God’s truth and have been combined together in the Bible. These supposed conflicts have provided the grist for many “learned” studies made by theological liberals or “higher critics.” They have also been the source of heated discussions in many Bible studies and Sunday school classes, often ending with a choosing of sides and a battle of proof-texts.

The most well-known of these supposed conflicts in the New Testament is that between Paul and James over the question of faith and works and their place in the salvation process. A superficial reading of some chosen texts could possibly lead to the conclusion that these men were arguing with each other.

Paul: “Knowing that a person is not declared righteous by works of Law, but through faith in Jesus Christ, we also have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be declared righteous by faith in Christ and not by works of Law, because no flesh will be declared righteous by works of Law.” (Galatians 2:16 – written somewhere around 48 AD.)

James: “What’s the profit if someone says he has faith, but doesn’t have works? The faith isn’t able to save him, is it? …Even so, faith if it doesn’t have works is dead, by itself.

But someone will say, ‘You have faith.’ I also have works! ‘Show me your faith without the works.’ And I’ll show you the faith by my works! ‘You believe that God is one; you’re doing well.’ Even the demons believe and shudder!

Do you want to know this, you vain man, that faith without works is idle? Wasn’t Abraham our father declared righteous by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith worked together with his works, and by works faith was perfected. And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, ‘And Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness,’ and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone… For even as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead! (James 2:14, 17-24, 26 – written about 48. The “straw-man” dialog translation was suggested to me years ago by a professor at seminary – Zane Hodges.)

Paul: “What then shall we say that Abraham, our father according to the flesh has found? For if Abraham was declared righteous by works he has a boast – but not before God! For what does the Scripture say? ‘And Abraham believed God and He credited it to him as righteousness.’ Now to the one who works, the wage is not credited as grace, but as something owed. But to the one who doesn’t work, but believes in the One who declares the ungodly righteous, his faith is credited as righteousness.” (Romans 4:1-5 – about 56/57 AD).

We see the same expressions used over and over by James and Paul: “declared righteous” (or “justified” – dikaioo), “faith” (pistis), “believe” (pisteuo), “by works” (ex erga).

We also read in Acts and Galatians 2 of a conflict going on. But we should notice that nowhere is there any mention of a direct conflict between Paul and James. And the conflict is not between “faith and works,” but rather over whether non-Jewish believers in Christ should become Jews and observe the Old Testament Law, as well as over whether Jewish believers should associate with non-Jewish believers.

So how do we deal with this apparent conflict? Well, first of all, as those who accept all Scripture as “God-breathed,” we need to start with the assumption that any conflict between Paul and James is only apparent, that in some way these passages are consistent with each other. I know this criterion won’t please those who don’t accept the doctrine of inspiration, but it is the same criterion we’d use when reading any book or article. We’d assume that it was self consistent.

We should also recognize that these passages must be read in their contexts. Pulling lines and even paragraphs out of context may be a great debating technique, but it is a poor way of ascertaining truth. A check of the context should show that, in spite of appearances, James and Paul were not writing to each other or with each other in mind. In fact, it is highly probable that each was unaware of the others’ writings, at least in the earlier letters.

Paul, in Galatians (if my dating is correct) had recently returned to Antioch from his missionary trip to central Asia Minor (present day Turkey). He had made converts mostly of Gentiles (non-Jews), and planted a number of churches (Acts 13 and 14). It wasn’t long after this that he heard of what he termed “a different gospel” being preached among these new converts (Galatians 1:6-9; cf. Acts 15:1ff), teaching that faith in Christ was not enough – they must also practice the Old Testament Law. It was (among other things) to counteract this teaching that he wrote Galatians.

Paul’s later letter to the Romans was to a mixed church, composed of both Jewish and Gentile elements. His main purpose seems to have been to reconcile differences between the groups. His argument was that all – Jews and Gentiles were in need of God’s grace for salvation. Romans in many ways restates the arguments of Galatians, only in a much more orderly and logical form, perhaps with a bit less of the passion he showed to the Galatians.

James, on the other hand, was not a missionary. He was apparently the chief elder, or pastor of the church in Jerusalem. His letter was sent to the Jewish believers in Christ who were scattered due to the early persecutions (James 1:1; Acts 8:1; 11:19; see also the word “synagogue” used for their assembly in James 2:2).

Since both Paul and James center their arguments on Genesis 15:6 (see Grace IV), it seems to me important that we note how they use the word dikaioo (“justify” or “declare righteous”) as well as when in Abraham’s story this justification occurred. Paul takes the Genesis passage literally, that this justification took place immediately. Abraham heard the LORD’s promise; he believed; God declared! That’s all there was to it!

Does James disagree? No. James knew the story. He read the same Scripture. But James adds a new angle to the story. It’s what happened later that he’s concerned with.

Abraham was about 80 years old when the events mentioned in Genesis 15 occurred (compare Genesis 12:5 and 16:3). But James fast forwards his readers about 30 years to Genesis 22. Abraham’s promised son Isaac, who was born when Abraham was 100 (21:5) is grown. He was weaned (21:8) and was able to carry wood and to carry on a conversation with him. It is at this time that the LORD calls Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. And it is by this act, this “work,” as James tells us, Abraham was “justified.”

There is no contradiction here. These are two totally different acts of “justification,” separated by 30+ years. When Abraham was about 80 years old, the LORD declared him righteous on the basis of his faith. But when Abraham was over 110, he declared himself righteous by his works.

This act, James sees as “perfecting” Abraham’s faith, bringing it to completion. By this act Abraham “fulfilled” God’s pronouncement that he, Abraham, was righteous. The judicial act is treated by James as though it were a prophecy which took 30+ years to fulfill. Though James places faith and works together, the works follow faith in order. Faith comes first; works perfect the faith.

We should also notice that James’ examples of works are not “works of the Law,” such as Paul was arguing against, but works of simple obedience. In James 2:15, 16, he speaks of feeding and clothing the poor; and in 2:25, he gives the example of Rahab protecting the spies. And if we check out her story in Joshua 2, this “work” followed her confession of faith (Joshua 2:9-11).

So when James speaks of works, he is not speaking of works as required along with faith for justification, but as that which follows naturally from faith and “perfects’ faith. In this he is in complete agreement with Paul:

“For we are His design (poiema) created in Christ Jesus for good works which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10).

Though the word “save” (sozo) is usually understood to be speaking of our initial “salvation,” i.e., our justification by God, it has a broader range of meanings. James uses the word 5 times (1:21; 2:14; 4:12; 5:15, 20), and though in 4:12 it is contrasted with “destroy,” in 1:21 and 5:15 and 20, it is applied to the “brothers.”

“So then my beloved brothers … receive the implanted word which is able to save your souls” (1:19, 21).

“… and the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick” (5:15).

“My brothers, if any of you should wander from the truth and someone should turn him around … the one who turns the sinner from the error of his way, will save a soul from death …” (5:19, 20)

So when James questions whether faith can save someone who doesn’t have works, he is not speaking of God’s justification of the believer, but of what happens after that. He is speaking of faith and works in the life of the justified believer, of salvation as it is worked out in our daily lives.

Compare what Paul says in Philippians 2:12 and 13:

“So then my beloved ones … with fear and trembling, work out your own salvation; for God is the one who is working in you, both to desire and to work for His good pleasure.”

GRACE, IV

2012-01-25T12:24:00.000-06:00

Abraham and Grace

When I was 16 and a junior in high school, I had a job working after school at a bakery, Sunrise Pie Company. The owner was an old Greek named Chris, who addressed his employees brusquely in his thick accent. Though at first I was fearful, I soon found out that his heart was softer than his speech.

On payday Chris would walk around handing out our checks for our week’s work. He came to me on my first payday and held out to me my first paycheck. I reached out and grasped it between my thumb and the fingers of my right hand.

“Thank you.” I said.

Immediately, Chris pulled it back. “Didn’t you earn this check?” he growled.

“W-w-well, y-y-yes.” I stammered.

“Then why did you thank me? You don’t have to thank me for something that you earned.”

That day I learned something about the difference between grace and works.

Searching the Old Testament for examples of grace we find Abraham, the father of the Hebrew nation. His story is found in the first book of the Bible, Genesis, but he’s also mentioned in 17 of the 39 Old Testament books and 11 of the 27 New Testament books.

The Apostle Paul writes of him extensively in his letters to the Galatians (chapter 3) and to the Romans (chapter 4), he is seen as one of the heroes of faith in Hebrews 11, and while James only speaks of him in a brief four verses (2:21-24), what he says is significant.

Interestingly, in all of these accounts, we find the word “grace” mentioned only twice (Romans 4:4, 16), even though we could say that it underlies Abraham’s whole story.

Both Paul and James make reference to the statement in Genesis 15:6: “And he believed in the LORD (Yahweh) and He credited it to him as righteousness.” However, they are apparently quoting from the Septuagint (LXX) which adds Abraham’s name and substitutes the name “God” for “the LORD.”

Since Romans 4 is where we find our subject “grace” specifically mentioned, I’d like to go there. Verses 1-5 read:

1) “What then shall we say that Abraham, our father according to the flesh has found? 2) For if Abraham was declared righteous by works he has a boast – but not before God! 3) For what does the Scripture say?

‘And Abraham believed God and He credited it to him as righteousness.’

4) Now to the one who works, the wage is not credited as grace, but as something owed. 5) But to the one who doesn’t work, but believes in the One who declares the ungodly righteous, his faith is credited as righteousness.”

Paul in Romans had been speaking of God’s grace at work. He has explained in very vivid language, quoting the (Old Testament) Scriptures, that all are sinners, whether they are Jews or Gentiles (non-Jews), and stand condemned before God. Mere knowledge of Scripture is no plus. God judges impartially. But God has supplied a way for people to be declared right (or justified or acquitted) before Him through the death of His Son. This way of gaining right standing is appropriated through faith. It is nothing new, Paul explains; it has been God’s way all along, even in Old Testament times.

So in chapter 4, Paul argues his claims, using Abraham as his example. He poses a hypothetical situation: Abraham being declared right by God on the basis of his good works.

Abraham was the great man of the Old Testament. We might say that if anyone could be declared right on the basis of what they’ve done, it would be him. And if he did, he would have something to boast about. Paul even seems to be suggesting that this was possible. But he very clearly adds the qualifier: “not before God.”

Verse 4 contains that truth I learned many years ago at Sunrise Pie Company. Chris was doing me no favor when he paid me. I earned it. If I (or Abraham) could earn my way into right standing, I would not need the grace of God. But grace tells me I can’t earn it. As 3:21 says, “All sinned and keep falling short of God’s glory.” That includes me – and Abraham.

And verse 5 brings it down a bit clearer yet. It gives the “qualifications” for being right with God.

· I must recognize that I am ungodly. The ungodly are the only people that God credits with righteousness.

· I must be one who is not working for that righteousness or right standing with God.

· I must believe. I must place my belief in God’s promise, just as Abraham did. Of course, the promise for this day involves Christ and His death on the cross.

Grace, as defined before is “the expression of God’s love without condition toward those who do not merit it.” If I can do anything to merit it, it is not grace. Grace is not, as some have defined it, “the power and desire to do the will of God.” All the do-ing is on God’s part. Even faith is not a work. It is the receiving of the benefit of Someone else’s work.

THE WORD AND THE WORD

2012-01-20T13:03:00.000-06:00

In a comment on my previous post (GRACE, III), Canadian Atheist said (among other things) the following:

“ … you’d have to prove both Jesus as being the son of God and that he existed. Even if you think he existed (which I do) that is not proof that he was the son of God. He was probably a preacher who was voted to be the son of God by a power hungry Emperor. His message was then twisted into what Christians believe today. If you read the Gnostic scriptures, you will see Jesus portrayed as something very different than the NT, heavily edited and mistranslated version that Christians follow today.”

I’ve heard these assertions before, a few of them many years ago, although some have turned up more recently, like the ones about an emperor being in some way responsible for the view of Jesus held by Christians today. These claims have been developed over the last few decades by a number of scholars, but probably received their greatest popularity through the recent novel and movie, The Da Vinci Code.

So, It would appear that my friend is disparaging my reliance on one Book, based on his reliance on another book (or books). Interesting. Is this a faith issue?

It would seem to me that one who denies the existence of God based on the lack of empirical data, would not be so hasty to rely on truth claims that have little, if any, empirical data to back them up.

So, if I may, I’d like to address some of the claims made above.

· The claim that Christians today follow a “heavily edited mistranslated version of the New Testament.” There is no evidence whatsoever for this assertion. We have manuscripts of large portions of the New Testament that date back to the middle of the third century, within 160/175 years of the latest estimated dates for its composition. Though there are textual variations, they differ very little from our present day printed Greek texts. As a matter of fact, our modern critical Greek texts use those early manuscripts.

Although there are many modern translations, some more accurate than others, our modern English translations are quite reliable. The “heavily edited and mistranslated version” is a myth. Such an assertion would (or should) be denied by even the most skeptical scholars.

· “If you read the Gnostic scriptures, you will see Jesus portrayed as something very different than the New Testament …” I have read a few of them, including the Gospel of Thomas and I can say amen to this assertion. But I fail to see how this detracts from the truth claims of the New Testament.

Our New Testament was composed within the first century, even the latest book within 60 years of Jesus. Though there is much dispute as to precise dating, much of the material in our Gospels came from eyewitnesses.

The Gnostic scriptures were composed later, probably in the second or third centuries. The Gospel of Thomas is supposed by some to have been written around 200 which would put it more than a century later than any New Testament writings, even though some believe it may possibly contain some authentic says of Jesus.

The Gnostic scriptures were the product of a broad school of thinking which combined elements of Christianity, Judaism, Neo-Platonism and other beliefs. They are inconsistent, not only with the New Testament, but also with each other and present no historical or theological unity such as is found in the New Testament. They are also merely one segment of a great number of similar writings. I fail to see how their disagreement with the New Testament is relevant at all to the argument.

· “He (Jesus) was probably a preacher who was voted to be the son of God by a power hungry Emperor. His message was then twisted into what Christians believe today.” I’m assuming that the reference is to the Roman emperor Constantine “the Great,” who reigned from 306-337. Constantine did establish the toleration of Christianity with the Edict of Milan in 313 and called the Council of Nicaea in 325, which clarified some of the major doctrines of Christianity.

However, by this time the New Testament writings had been in circulation for over 250 years. Christianity had already spread throughout the Roman Empire and well beyond. Beliefs about the Person and Message of Jesus were recorded in the New Testament and in the minds of many, long before the time of Constantine. There were no changes in the message.

· I’m glad we both agree that Jesus existed. I guess that means we have some agreement in our beliefs. If we can’t accept the massive evidence of the New Testament and other writings on this matter, I don’t see how we can accept any historical evidence for the existence of any individual of ancient history.

The New Testament documents make up the earliest and largest body of evidence we have, not only for the existence of Jesus, but also for His life, teachings and work. They also are our most accurate evidence for the early church and for how His life, teachings and work were understood. We don’t need to seek later claims nor the pronouncements of emperors.

And, if this is so, then perhaps we need to examine the claims that Jesus made, as recorded in the New Testament, especially the Gospels. If we do, we will find that He was more than simply “a preacher.” He claimed to be one with God the Father and to have existed before His birth. He claimed to be the Messiah and the only way to God.

Of course, we can deny that He made these claims, even though the evidence says that He did. Or we can say He was delusional.

Or perhaps we can simply accept His claims as true. I do.

GRACE, III

2012-01-17T13:56:00.000-06:00

Grace after Grace

“Because from His fullness we’ve all received, and grace after grace.

Because the Law was given through Moses;

grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ.”

John 1:16, 17

A few comments on translation:

· The word translated “fullness” (Greek – pleroma) here probably has the same meaning as it does in Paul’s letter to the Colossians (1:19; 2:9), the completeness of Christ’s Deity.

· The word I translated “after” is usually translated “upon.” It is the Greek word anti, which usually means “instead of.” It is used in the Greek Old Testament (LXX) of a king succeeding his father. (So and so reigned anti his father so and so.) In other words we receive a succession of graces.

· The word I translated “came about” is a form of the Greek word ginomai. It doesn’t simply mean “came” in the sense of “arrived,” but often has the idea of “come into being,” which I believe is the sense here.

John has been talking about the preexistence and deity of “the Word” (1:1, 2), as well as His incarnation (1:14). In verse 17, he tells his readers who the Word is known as in His human form: Jesus Christ (Messiah). In verse 16, he says that Jesus is the source of graces which come on us in succession.

But in verse 17, he makes a radical claim. He draws an analogy between Moses and Jesus and their accomplishments. Moses was the giver of the Law. And certainly those who have read the first five books of the Bible know the accounts of the giving of the Law at Mount Sinai. Of course, there was law before Moses, but he is the one through whom God delivered His covenant Law to Israel.

In similar fashion, though God had always been characterized by grace and truth, it is the Word, Jesus Christ through whom God brought His grace into being.

Of course, we know, from reading the Gospels, as well as from our own experience, that Jesus is the embodiment of grace and truth. But it seems that John is speaking of even more than the New Testament experience. It was through the Word, the One who is referred to by Christians as the Second Person of the Trinity, that God exercised His grace in the Old Testament.

The next verse adds to this claim: “No one has seen God at any time; the unique God (some manuscripts have “Son” here) who is in the Father’s bosom, He has explained Him” (1:18).

From this, it would seem that we could conclude that in those instances where God appeared in the Old Testament, it was the Word, the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity that was seen. So then, God’s appearances and His works of grace in the Old Testament period were actually the appearances and works of the Son.

GRACE, II

2012-01-11T14:58:00.000-06:00

The Grace of God

In our first discussion on the topic of grace this past Sunday, I asked the class members to give a brief definition of grace. There were many given and I wrote them all down on the board as quickly as I could. One that came up was “a communicable attribute of God.” I liked that one, even though it didn’t really define, but rather categorized the word. I feared, however, that those who were not familiar with theological terms might fear that Grace was something for which they might need to be inoculated.

So a few brief definitions are necessary.

· God’s attributes are His “distinguishable and essential characteristics” according to one theologian. We might say that His attributes are simply what/who He is.
· Some would place these into two categories: God’s incommunicable attributes – those which belong only to Him, such as His self-existence, His infinity, His immutability – and His communicable attributes – those He shares to some extent with His created beings (us), such as knowledge, wisdom. Etc.

In other words, grace is a characteristic of God that is also found in human beings. He also apparently expects it of us. But more of that later.

We must recognize that God’s grace, along with His mercy, compassion and longsuffering are related to His love. As John says, “God is love” (1 John 4:8, 16). John is not equating God and love, but saying that love is an essential aspect of God’s nature. Love (agape’) has been defined as “That which seeks the greatest good in its object.” And this love works itself out in these other aspects.

Recognizing this, we may define God’s grace as “The expression of God’s love without condition toward those who do not merit it.”

Perhaps the Apostle Paul describes it best. After spending over two chapters in the Book of Romans describing how we – humankind – can make no claim of being right before God, he tells his readers that they are “declared right freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:24). He tells his readers in Ephesus that they are “saved by grace … through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8).

Of course, we should be careful not to think of God’s grace as something only revealed in the New Testament. The word grace (Chen) is first used in Genesis 6:8 of Noah. Notice that God’s grace is mentioned before Noah’s good qualities, probably because it preceded them.

“But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD … Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God” (Genesis 6:8, 9).

But it is in the story of the exodus where the LORD not only reveals His grace, but claims it as a characteristic.

The first time we read of His claim of grace is in Exodus 22:27, speaking of mistreatment of the poor. “… if he cries out to Me, I will hear him, for I am gracious!”

Also Exodus 33:19: “I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will be compassionate to whom I will be compassionate.”

Exodus 34:6: “And the LORD proclaimed, ‘the LORD, a God compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and full of loving-kindness and truth!”

We often think of the Old Testament as picturing God as a God of justice and wrath, a “jealous God” and it certainly does that. Yet throughout the Old Testament there is this other picture. We need to keep both “sides” of God in view.

RELIGION AND VIOLENCE

2012-01-09T13:29:00.001-06:00

Religion in the news for the week between Christmas and New Years: (I’m not making these up).

Ultra Orthodox Jews in Bethlehem publicly beat little girls (not theirs) because of alleged indecent dress.
Muslims in Nigeria bomb churches and kill Christians; Christian leaders say they have no more cheeks to turn and will defend themselves.
Priests of different Christian sects riot and battle one another over territory in the Church of the Nativity. We are informed that this is a common occurrence every Christmas and Easter season.

Ho! Ho! Ho!

And then, of course, there are the usual bombings and riots between Sunni and Shia Muslims, the increased persecution of Coptic Christians by Egyptian Muslims, the harassment of Christians (and Muslims) by Hindus in India, etc., etc.

Are my atheist friends correct:

Is religion a cause of violence?
Would violence cease if there were no religion?

Before attempting to answer these questions with a simple yes or no, I believe we need to look at the fact that humankind is characterized by two seemingly incompatible attributes – religion and violence. Whether one subscribes to the biblical accounts or to the anthropological/historical evidence, or even to the daily newspaper, we are forced to admit this to be true. So what we see today is nothing new. People are both religious and violent!

So I believe that we should be cautious in naming one as the cause of the other. Questions of cause and effect are not always as easy to determine as we’d like them to be. As I recall from my studies in philosophy and logic, there can be many causal factors leading to any occurrence. Certainly religion appears to be a link in each of the causal chains leading up to the events mentioned above. But it is usually not in itself the efficient cause, that triggering event, that which initiates the violent activity. Often that is some trivial event. Very possibly religion was the final or purposive cause of some of the events mentioned (i.e., drive out the infidels so that Islam will triumph) but not all.

And not all violent events have a religious cause, as a study of 20^th century history would demonstrate. Religion was not a cause of the violent purges of Russia, China and Germany. These were perpetrated by the irreligious, often upon the religious. (Of course, by a little twist in our logic we could see the persecuted as a cause of the violence inflicted on them; in other words, blame the victim.) Thus, the answer to the second question would have to be no, violence would not cease if there were no religion.

So what am I, as a follower of Jesus, to say in regard to the first question above (Is religion a cause of violence?), especially as I am reasonably sure that the answer is yes?

It would be tempting to simply claim that these violent actions were all the actions of those who have chosen to worship a false god, not the God of the Bible, that these were those who had turned from the true God to worship one of their own making. And this would be true of many (see Romans 1:18ff).

But what am I to make of the fact that many of the violent acts perpetrated throughout history have been committed in the name of Jesus Christ, the one known as the Prince of Peace? What am I to say of the hate that is spouted in His name, or of the present day hate groups that use the name of Jesus?

Again, it would be tempting to say that those who are violent are not followers of Christ, that they are using His name in vain to promote their own hate causes. And I suppose I would be partially correct in saying that. Groups with names like “Traditional Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan” and “Christian Identity Church – Aryan Nations” have no idea of the heart or ethics of Jesus. However, I must confess that there are those among Jesus’ followers who are so convinced of the rightness of their beliefs that they are willing to advocate violence on their behalf.

But Jesus nowhere advocated violence. Even when His life was threatened, He told Peter – who attempted violence in His defense, “Put your sword back in its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52).

I see some necessary actions on my part and on the part of my Christian brothers.

First, we must pray for them: “Father forgive them, they don’t know what they are doing.”
We must personally live out the nonviolent ethics of Jesus.
As teachers, we must be concerned to teach, not simply the doctrinal requirements of the Christian faith, but also the ethics that Jesus lived and taught and demanded.

And I believe that many – most – of those who have chosen to follow Jesus do live lives that are nonviolent, that are compatible with His life and teaching.

AN OPEN LETTER TO MY ATHEIST FRIEND

2012-01-06T16:16:00.000-06:00

I want to thank you for your “Merry Christmas” on my blog post. I also thank you for your graciousness as we have interacted – even when we have disagreed, as we do frequently.

What is interesting and eye-opening to me is how often you and I have agreed. You have seen the negatives of Christianity as have I. In fact, if you will scan through my many posts, you will find that I say many of the same things that you do. My criticisms come from within my faith while yours come from the outside. One possible reason for this agreement may be that I often look at my faith, my church, my religion from the outside. Perhaps this is because as a young person I was often an outsider and still am today among many evangelical Christians (after all, I’m a Democrat). Or perhaps this is some special (God-given?) ability I have.

Anyway, I am seriously troubled by what I see happening among Christians today – the political pronouncements, the legalism, the rudeness at and intolerance of, those whose behavior or religious or political convictions differ, etc. All of these, I believe, are symptoms of our failure to genuinely follow Jesus. I want you to know that they are more of a concern to me than to you. You can just put them down as evidence of the invalidity of religion. I have to live with them.

However, please don’t take these comments as an indication that I’m crossing over to your side. I sincerely doubt if I will do this. As a matter of fact, the misbehavior I see among Christians actually drives me to a desire to follow Jesus more closely than before.

Nor do I suspect that the things I say will bring you over to my side. I suppose that you are as committed to the rightness of your cause as I am to mine. However, I confess that I do pray for your conversion, not to a philosophy or opinion, but to genuine faith in Christ, because that’s what Jesus told us to do. :^)

A more immediate goal is to simply convince you that the stereotype presented by many “Christian” public figures is not what Christianity is. There are many of us who do not subscribe to this caricature.

But even more than this, I desire to keep up the dialogue and to build a genuine friendship. You have already contributed to my understanding and I hope that I have to yours.

Looking forward to further conversation,

Bill

GRACE, I

2011-12-28T12:15:00.001-06:00

Most of us Christians do not really understand grace. When I think of much of the preaching I’ve heard in my life and the books I have read, when I hear the moralistic political rhetoric that’s thrown around, when I talk to Christians, both “mature” and “immature,” I’m forced to this conclusion. Of course, none of us have a complete understanding, but I believe most of us don’t even have a “working” understanding.

So when I received a request to teach a series on the topic in my Sunday school class, I jumped at the chance, even though I’d never taught it as a topic before.

But when I agreed to take on a study of grace in our Sunday school class, I didn’t realize what a huge task I was taking on. Not far into my study and thinking on the topic, I realized that a complete study would involve the whole Bible, as well as its application in every area of our lives. As I don’t have enough years left in my life for that, I decided I need to break the topic down into small bites.

So I begin with some word studies and definitions. First, we need to have a working definition; I believe a simple synonym will do in most cases.

Grace is “favor.” We could replace nearly all references to grace in our Bibles with this simple word. As a matter of fact, many translations seem to use the words interchangeably. Some would add to the definition the adjective “unmerited,” but isn’t that idea already included in the word? Aren’t all favors unmerited?

The Old Testament is full of this word, even in what we might term a “secular” or non-religious usage.

Jacob, for instance, sends a message to his brother Esau hoping “…that I may find favor in your eyes” (Genesis 32:5). “Joseph found favor in the eyes” of Potiphar (Genesis 39:4). These are common expressions and all use the word “favor,” which is the same Hebrew word elsewhere translated “grace.”

For starters I’d like to look at the biblical words – Greek and Hebrew – that are usually translated “grace.”

First, the Greek words used in the New Testament:

· Charis (pronounced khah’-ris) is found 156 times, usually translated “grace,” “favor” or occasionally “thanks.”

· Charizomai (pronouned khah-ridz’-oh-my) is found 22 times, usually translated “grant,” “give freely,” “forgive.”

· Charitoo (pronounced khah-ri-tah’-oh) is found twice, usually translated “bestow favor,” “favor highly.”

The Hebrew words used in the Old Testament:

· Chen (pronounced khane) is found 67 times, usually translated “grace,” “favor.”

· Channun (pronounced khah-noon’) is found 13 times, usually translated “gracious”

· Chanan (pronounced khah-non’) is found 80 times, usually translated “be gracious,” sometimes “beseech” (request grace).

So there are at least 340 references to grace in the Bible besides other similar words, such as “mercy,” “compassion.”

I plan on rambling through this study in the near future. There are many thoughts still rushing through my mind.

Also see:

CHEAP GRACE

FREE GRACE

EXAMPLES OF GRACE

Something to think about this season.

2011-12-22T14:22:00.000-06:00

Philippians 4:4-9

Rejoice in the Lord always,

again I will say, rejoice!

Let your gentleness be known to all men.

The Lord is at hand.

Be anxious for nothing,

but in everything by prayer and supplecation,

with thanksgiving,

let your requests be made known to God;

and the peace of God,

which surpasses all understanding,

will guard your hearts and minds through Jesus Christ.

Finally, brethren,

whatever things are true,

whatever things are noble,

whatever things are just,

whatever things are pure,

whatever things are lovely,

whatever things are of good report,

if there is any virtue

and if there is anything praiseworthy ~~

meditate on these things.

The things which you learned

and received

and heard

and saw in me,

these do,

and the God of peace will be with you.

Merry Christmas and a blessed 2012!

Uni and Bill

A NEW HOLIDAY

2011-12-19T14:05:00.000-06:00

As the American Civil War divided families and friends, so has our latest conflict. I am grieved to have friends on both sides of it. Because of this I have sought for ways to alleviate the tensions before they lead to actual bloodshed.

I have, on the one hand, many friends who feel that their enjoyment of the current holiday season is lessened by an incursion of the enemy into their sacred territory. This is known as “The War on Christmas.” As evidence, they can point out that one can walk all through any shopping mall and note that while it is decked out with all the trimmings of the holidays – elves, red ribbons, greetings of every sort, 40% off signs, a fat guy in a red suit – yet, nowhere can be found the word “Christmas.” I can attest to the truth of this assertion, having conducted such a search on my own. (It should be noted, however, that the music on the PA does occasionally use the word: “Holly, Jolly Christmas,” “Blue Christmas,” “White Christmas,” etc.) This is perceived by my friends as an attack, not only on them, but also on Jesus and on the American Way.

I have also a few friends who consider any religious overtones to be offensive, not only to them but to those of other religious persuasions who do not recognize the person referred to in the first six letters of the word. They believe that we must be tolerant of all views. To promote one religious view on the holiday would be an attack on all other views as well as on the American Way.

I believe I have a solution which would, or at least should, satisfy those on both sides in this strife. I propose that we rename the holiday – the whole season – with a name that I believe will be inoffensive to all.

Syncresmas!

I arrived at this new name by combining words:

n Syncretism, which Mr. Webster defines as “the combination of different forms of belief or practice.” This word is related, of course, to the verb syncretize, which Mr. Webster defines as “to attempt to unite and harmonize, esp. without critical examination or logical unity.”
n Christmas, defined by Mr. Webster as “A Christian feast on December 25 (or January 7) that commemorates the birth of Christ and is usually observed as a legal holiday.”

I had originally thought of calling it Syncretismas but after some thought realized that the shortened title sounds a bit closer to that originally used of the holiday (the title under attack). Perhaps some could even be allowed to capitalize the C in the middle of the word.

The new holiday name would fit within our traditional songs of the season, replacing the former name without altering the rhythmic structures of the songs.

I also propose that we use this title for the entire season, which would officially begin in November on Black Thursday (formerly known as Turkey Day, formerly known as Thanksgiving) and run through the middle of January, thus including all the holidays of the season, including my birthday.

This should satisfy all celebrants, not only those of the secular persuasion, but also those who are worshippers of a Deity, by whatever name they choose: Jesus, Yahweh, Allah or Mammon.

Of course, there are a number of minor details to be worked out, such as the use of the word “Merry” to precede the title when used as a greeting. Many see religious significance in the word and its non-use is perceived, as to some extent, blasphemous.

I realize that it is too late to start using the new name during the current season, but if we begin to work on the changes, perhaps we can have them made by next year. I urge any readers to petition their congressmen to take action quickly, which they of course are in the habit of doing.

I also realize that even if my proposal is adopted, there will still be some (relatively few) who will continue to celebrate in an outdated manner, who will worship the One whose birth is observed at this time – the Man who is also God, who came to “save His people from their sins.” But they will be few and their numbers will undoubtedly diminish rapidly as time passes and the advantages of the new holiday become more and more evident.

Have a Joyful SynCresmas!

QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE INCARNATION OF CHRIST

2011-12-12T13:14:00.000-06:00

Continuing with the questions from the previous post:
- - - - - -
Did he know who he was? It seems so in the only story we have of his childhood. If so, how? If it was from his mom, well, I’m thinking that would make the whole sibling thing I mentioned above even worse!!! Or did he have a knowledge of God that we don’t have that might have helped in the temptation resisting department?
- - - - - -

I’d like to rephrase this question and put it in the form that it is usually phrased. It is really two questions. And I’ll add a third.

·        How much did Jesus know and when did He know it? i.e., Did He know who He was and when?
·        Was Jesus able not to sin or not able to sin?
·        Related question: How did He resist temptation? As man or as God? Was there “some supernatural interference or predisposition”?

The question of Jesus’ knowledge, especially His self-awareness has perplexed the minds of scholars and saints, probably from the beginning. There are many views and theories.

There are those, of course, who believe that Jesus at birth understood all, that He could have looked out at the stars from His manger bed and known the names of all, that He knew from the beginning that He was God and knew what His mission was. However, the Gospel accounts don’t present us with this picture. They seem to present Jesus as a human being who gradually came to understand His divine nature. Notice some of the things the Bible says about Him.

Luke 2:52: “And Jesus was progressing in wisdom and stature …” This statement follows the account of His precocious behavior and of His words in the temple at the age of 12 stating that God was His Father (verse 49).

Though most of the questions Jesus asked were rhetorical, at least some appear to have been asked out of honest ignorance. “Who touched My garments?” (Mark 5:30). If so, this could imply ignorance of other matters.

During His Olivet Discourse, He clearly stated His ignorance of the time of His return. “But concerning that day and hour, nobody knows – not the angels of heaven, not even the Son – but the Father alone!” (Matthew 24:36).

Hebrews 5:8 tells us that “He learned obedience from the things that He suffered.”

We are told that the pre-incarnate Christ “emptied Himself” at the incarnation (Philippians 2:7). It is believed that what He emptied Himself of was the independent use of His divine attributes.” Though He was infinite, He confined Himself to a human body; though all-powerful, He did not utilize that power; and, though all-knowing, He did not utilize that knowledge.

So we have a Man, who was also God, gradually increasing in knowledge (in a way similar to that of others) and gradually coming to a full knowledge of His divine nature through various experiences.

By the time of His temptation experience as recorded in Matthew and Luke, He was aware of His divinity. But how much knowledge He had as a child we can’t be sure of, nor how this would have been of help in His earlier temptations.

So we come to the old question: Was Jesus able not to sin or was He not able to sin? This question, like the previous one, has been debated almost from the beginning and I don’t have much to add to it. There are essentially two views. I should note that those who disagree on this question do not disagree on the fact that Jesus did not sin. All agree that He lived His life free from original sin and from actual sin.

This may seem to many to be an irrelevant debate, but there are important issues here.

Those who believe that He was not able to sin argue that “it was impossible for Him to sin because of the essential bond between the human and divine natures” (L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, page 328). Some who hold this view feel that to believe otherwise would be blasphemous.

Those who take the opposing view argue that “If He was a true man He must have been capable of sinning … If from the constitution of His person it was impossible for Christ to sin, then His temptation was unreal and without effect, and He cannot sympathize with His people” (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, page 457).

And so the debate goes. There are godly persons on both sides, much godlier and wiser than I, so I would hesitate to be dogmatic. However, I lean toward the second view given above. I believe the Book of Hebrews makes this clear.

“For in that He has suffered, being tempted, He is able to come to the help of those who are tempted” (Hebrew 2:18).

“For we do not have a High Priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but One Who has been tempted in all things as we are, without sin. Let us come then with boldness to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help at the right time” (Hebrews 4:15, 16).

So I’d have to say that if Jesus was tempted as a human being, He also resisted as a human being. This would include those childhood temptations, as well as, those elaborated in the Gospels and related to His adult life and ministry. If there was some providential “bubble” around Him in the form of His knowledge or some miraculous provision, we are not told.

QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE FALL

2011-12-12T13:07:00.001-06:00

I deleted my original post on this topic because it made me extremely uncomfortable. I was uncomfortable with the questions asked me, I was uncomfortable with my attempts at answering them and I was uncomfortable when I had finished. So I thought I’d start over.

I had received a long comment on my post A SPIRIT DRIVEN MAN. The comment contained some thoughts and raised some questions that I felt it was my responsibility to answer. Though some were not specifically stated as questions, I perceived that they needed to be addressed in that manner. Questions of fairness seemed to stand out. They could be restated this way:

Is our fallen condition (our “sin nature”) a punishment for Adam’s sin? Is it fair? Is there a possibility that without our sin nature we could actually be sin free?

The answer to the first question is clearly ‘No.” Our sin nature is not a punishment for Adam’s sin but a consequence. When Adam and Eve sinned the whole human race sinned.

As far as any questions of fairness, I believe they are off limits. God is not answerable to our concepts of what is and what is not fair. God is just in all His doings, even when we can’t make sense out of them. If that sounds like a copout, I suppose it is.

I felt I wasted way too much time on attempting to answer the third. I tried to imagine what a world would be like in which each of us was born without sin and had the opportunity, as Adam, to decide. I failed. I couldn’t really do that.

“What if?” questions have always seemed to me to be dead ends. Matters are the way they are. If we recognize that God is wise, just, loving and completely in control, we have to admit that God is doing what He feels is best and that He has made the correct choices. If we speculate on what God “could have” done, it seems a short step to talking about what He should have done. I don’t want to go there.

Though there are many of His actions that are not explainable, there are many that are, by study of the Scriptures. I believe we should continue to seek understanding, but we should be satisfied when and where He chooses to be silent.

So, though I may not be comfortable with God’s actions, I’ll accept them and seek greater understanding and leave it at that.

My teaching stops where my ignorance begins.

FRIENDS

2011-11-22T10:14:00.000-06:00

I have a Facebook page. On my profile page I’m told I have 226 friends. Some are relatives; some are people to whom I have or have had a ministry; some are present or past acquaintances; some I’m not even sure I know or at least where I know them from. I’ve lost a few: I “defriended” them or they “defriended” me.

Do I really have 226 friends? As I said, there are a few I’m not sure I know. And there are many people in my life with whom I am much closer, but who are not listed on my page.

Checking my Webster’s, I find that the word friend is a bit of a “soft” term. It can be used of a mere acquaintance or of one “attached … by affection or esteem” or of “a favored companion.” Perhaps we could say that the persons we call friends can be placed on a continuum from mere acquaintances to those with whom we share our innermost selves.

A brief article appeared in The Week magazine of November 25, 2011, entitled: “True friends are getting rarer” (page 25). It tells of a survey by Cornell University sociologists that found that of the 2,000 surveyed, “on average they had only two friends with whom they could discuss important matters – down from three in 1985.” It went on to say that “Nearly half … listed only one friend and four percent said they had none”! I’d have to admit, from my own personal experience and that of others I’ve dealt with, that I’d agree with those general figures.

Personally I have many “friends” if by the word I mean “acquaintances” (I’d probably have an innumerable host of friends if I could only remember names). I also have a large number of closer acquaintances, those with whom I share some common interest and/or affection.

And then there are those to whom I have attempted to be a friend; to listen to their problems; to share some of their needs; to pray with and for. I have found in the ministry that this is a necessity and, I suppose, a gift. I believe that God calls us all to “be a friend” to others to some extent. And I’ve found that it’s easier to be a friend than to find one – one whom I can trust with my soul and my secrets, with whom I can “spill my guts,” with whom I can “bare my soul” – one who knows me intimately and still wants to be my friend.

In my life there’s only one person like that – my wife for 55 years and friend for 58 years, Uni.

Did Jesus have friends? Well, yes He did. He is called “a friend of tax-gatherers and sinners” (Matthew 11:19 = Luke 7:34). He calls His disciples His friends a number of times (Luke 12:4; John 15:13-15). He refers to Lazarus as “our friend” (John 11:11). The Greek word used in all these passages is philos, which is related to phileo, the word for the love of deep affection.

There is another word translated “friend” in the Gospel of Matthew. Jesus uses it to address His betrayer Judas in the Garden of Gethsemane. “And Jesus said to him, ‘Friend, do what you’ve come here for” (Matthew 26:50). The Greek word is hetairos. The BAG Greek lexicon says that this word is used “As a general address to someone whose name one does not know.” Jesus uses it in the parable of the Vineyard in Matthew 20, where the landowner addresses a disgruntled employee “Friend, I’m not doing you wrong … (verse 13). He also uses it in the parable of the Wedding Feast in Matthew 22, where the king addresses a man who has come to the Feast improperly attired, “Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?” (verse 12). So when Jesus uses it in addressing Judas, He is expressing that same disappointment or even something even stronger.

Jesus could be a friend to many – sinners and disciples. I consider Him my Friend. We sing, “What a Friend we Have in Jesus.” However, I can’t help but wonder how much of a friend I am to Him. After all, John tells us, “… many believed in His name … but Jesus, on His part would not entrust Himself to them, for He knew all men” (John 2:23, 24).

But then I realize that Jesus – God Himself -- has chosen to pour out His heart to me in His Word and has given me His Spirit to open my understanding of His heart. I only hope that that friendship will continue to grow.

WORTHLESS SLAVES?

2011-11-14T14:33:00.000-06:00

There are many passages in the Bible that make me uncomfortable. Some of the most discomforting are Jesus’ parables. And sadly, I tend to avoid the troubling ones, often until I’m in some way pushed into dealing with them. A while back, a young man in a Bible study brought up the following one, which I hemmed and hawed my way around, to no one’s satisfaction:

“And which of you who has a slave who’s plowing or tending sheep will say to him when he comes in from the field, ‘Come quickly, sit down at the table’? Won’t he rather say to him, ‘Get me something for dinner, get yourself ready and serve me till I’m done eating and drinking, and after that, you can eat and drink’?

He doesn’t thank the slave because he did what he was told to do, does he?

In the same way you, whenever you’ve done all the things you were told to do, should say, ‘We’re worthless slaves, we’ve only done what we were supposed to do?’”

Luke 17:7-10

I suspect this parable bothers others as much as it does me. I can only recall hearing one sermon on it and that was so long ago I can’t remember anything about it.

The first problem I have with it is that it seems to be in contradiction with what Jesus says in Luke 12:37 (using many of the same words):

“Blessed are those slaves whom the master (or Lord) will find awake when he comes. Amen, I’m telling you that he will get himself ready, and sit them down and come and serve them.” And then Jesus Himself, in a sense, acts this out in His washing of the disciples’ feet in John 13.

And it seems to go against all those other parables and sayings where the master commends his “good and faithful servant(s).”

I can also see how cruel slaveholders might have used this parable to justify mistreatment of slaves (even in our own history).

And how does this fit in with our modern teachings about self-esteem? We certainly shouldn’t tell our employees or those under us that they’re worthless – should we? We wouldn’t like that said of us, would we? Doesn’t the Golden Rule apply here?

A few thoughts are in order here, on the parable and its interpretation.

The context (17:5) is a teaching time with the apostles – Jesus’ 12 closest disciples. These are our examples of followers or imitators of Christ. We’d like to find Jesus telling this to the Scribes and Pharisees. We’d like Him to be telling them they are “worthless,” but He’s not. Through the apostles, He’s telling this to us.

A parable is usually either an extended metaphor, or, as in this one, an extended simile – a comparison between two (usually) unlike things. The words “In the same way,” show us this. In this parable, the apostles are compared to slaves.

Jesus usually uses stories drawn from real life in the culture around Him and His hearers. He is not advocating slavery or even speaking to labor practices; He is simply telling a story about matters as they are.

The word translated “worthless” (Greek, achreios) is a difficult word to translate. It has been translated by “unworthy,” “good-for-nothing,” “unprofitable” and numerous other words. I believe that in this context it doesn’t mean that the slave is of no use or value; obviously he is. He farms, shepherds, cooks for and serves his master; but he brings no further benefit to his master. So with the apostles.

Perhaps this is what the apostle Paul had in mind years later when he said (1 Corinthians 9:16, 17): “For if I preach the gospel, it’s nothing for me to brag about; for there’s a necessity laid on me; for woe to me if I don’t preach the gospel. For if I do so willingly I have a reward, but if unwillingly, I (still) have a stewardship entrusted to me.” Paul seems to be repeating the “worthless slave” idea in different words.

The hypothetical person in the parable apparently owned one slave, who did all the work – shepherding, farming, cooking. We might imagine that one or more of the 12 had at one time owned a slave. James and John were involved in their father’s fishing business, which was large enough to have hired men (Mark 1:19, 20). Matthew (or Levi) was a tax-collector in the service of the Roman government and was wealthy enough to throw “a great feast in his house,” which must have been quite large (Luke 5:27-19).

While in our “enlightened” day we might be repulsed by the idea of owning another human being, this was a common enough practice in Jesus’ day. We might suppose that even those who did not own slaves dreamed of the day they could afford one, just as we today desire the latest gadget, appliance or tool to make our life a bit easier.

So how does this parable apply to us? To me in particular?

I believe it’s a reality check. Just as the 12, we who are involved in the work of the ministry can become convinced of our own importance, or at least we struggle with that tendency. I do!

We constantly evaluate our own performance. I am troubled when I see little positive response to my teaching, or when an intense counseling session seems to go nowhere, or when a new believer fails to grow, or even when only a few show up for a Bible study. I believe that there’s nothing wrong with being troubled over these things. I believe evaluation is necessary.

But the danger of self-evaluation is when I appear to be doing well – when I see positive results in my ministry. My hat seems to fit a bit tighter. I may feel that I’m going beyond what is required, that God needs me, that the results I see are all to my credit.

And then there are all those nice people who give my inflated ego “positive reinforcement.”

Whether I am up or down, whether I feel that I’m “succeeding” or failing, I need this parable. I need to be reminded that I’m only doing what is required of me. I am doing no more.

In a sense this can be a great relief.

A SPIRIT DRIVEN MAN

2011-11-02T22:02:00.001-05:00

There are relatively few books written or sermons preached on the topic of the imitation of Jesus. Why is this? Isn’t this what the spiritual or Christian life is all about? It would almost seem that the imitation of Christ is a topic we ignore, or even avoid, perhaps because we are uncomfortable with it. And I must confess that for years I did little if any thinking on the topic.

Over the years as I have studied and taught the Gospels and the life of Christ, as well as courses in theology, I believe I’ve become aware of a possible theological reason behind this avoidance. Many – perhaps most – Christians have a very unclear understanding of the doctrine of the Incarnation, and the closely related doctrine of the Trinity. Now I recognize that none of us have a complete understanding of these doctrines, but I’m talking about basic knowledge, “working knowledge.”

I hope I don’t sound offensive or judgmental when I say this, but I believe that one of the main reasons we don’t seek to imitate Jesus is that we’re not quite clear on how really human He is. We perceive Him as a sort of theophany, a divine appearance of God in human form as God sometimes appeared in the Old Testament. And some of us aren’t quite clear on Jesus’ uniqueness as the Son, the Third Person of the Trinity, but instead perceive Him as all Three Persons rolled into One. Who could imitate that?

I say this because this seems to be the reaction I’ve received in some degree or another form many of my students – at least from some of the more vocal ones-- when I tell them the following.

Jesus lived His life on the earth as a man, totally committed to God the Father, and led by the Holy Spirit. The great difference between His humanness and ours is that He did not have a fallen human nature. If I may say this, He was sinless in the same way that Adam was sinless before the fall.

Please understand me. He did not cease to be God at His incarnation, but He “emptied Himself” (Philippians 2:7), apparently (as theologians say) of the independent use of His divine attributes. Or as one student (who got it) said, “He didn’t take advantage of the perks of divinity.”

Yes, there were times when His divinity “shone through,” such as at His transfiguration, described in Matthew 17:1-8; Mark 9:2-8; Luke 9:28-36. This is undoubtedly what John was referring to in his Gospel when he said, “…we beheld His glory…” (John 1:14b) and what Peter meant when he said, “…we were eyewitnesses of His majesty…” (2 Peter 1:16).

But most of His time on earth, He lived His life as we do, or are expected to do. We don’t find Him acting independently of the Spirit of God, but find that the Spirit is the One at work in and through Him. He did not rely on His own divinity, but on the Holy Spirit.

If I were teaching this publicly, I would at this point have a few students getting ready to pick up stones and cast them at me, or to report me to the church or school authorities, or at least to question my orthodoxy. But I find at least 15 references in the Gospels and Acts, to the work of the Spirit in Jesus’ life.

In all four Gospels we read that, at Jesus’ baptism, “He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming on Him,” or something similar (Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32, 33). John uses the words “remaining on Him.” Nowhere do we read of the Spirit’s presence in Jesus’ life prior to His baptism. Nor do we read of any miracles or teaching ministry prior to this, other than the events of His precocious childhood at the age of 12 in the temple (Luke 2:41-52). In fact, John tells us that His turning water into wine at a wedding was His “beginning of signs” (John 2:11) – His first miracle.

It is immediately after His baptism and the descent of the Spirit that, “the Spirit led Him into the desert to be tempted” (Matthew 4:1; Mark 1:12; Luke 4:1). Luke tells us that Jesus was at this time “full of the Spirit” and Mark tells us not simply that Jesus was “led” but that “the Spirit drove Him out.” The Greek word Mark uses is Ekballo – literally “throw out.” It has the connotation of force.

Luke tells us that after this “Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee” (4:14). And he goes on to tell us that Jesus on the Sabbath went into the synagogue at Nazareth and as the one selected to read the Scripture, chose a passage in the scroll of Isaiah and read, “The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, because He has anointed Me…” (Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:18). A bit later He tells the congregation, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your ears!” (Luke 4:21).

Matthew also says that Jesus’ ministry was a fulfillment of prophecy, “…that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying, ‘Here is My Servant whom I have chosen, My Beloved in whom My soul is well pleased. I will put My Spirit on Him…’” (Isaiah 42:1, 2; Matthew 12:18).

Peter in his sermon in the home of Cornelius, speaks of “…Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and power…” (Acts10:38).

Elsewhere we read that Jesus Himself claimed, “I cast out demons by the Spirit of God…” (Matthew 12:28). We also read that Jesus “…rejoiced in the Holy Spirit…” (Luke 10:20).

I believe we can conclude from the above passages that Jesus, as completely human (though still completely God) did not possess, was not indwelt by the Spirit of God until His baptism. It was at that time that the Spirit came on Him. This was His “anointing” for service. It was only after this that He performed miracles and He did these as He was empowered to do so by the Holy Spirit.

It seems clear then that when Jesus performed miracles, He performed them, not in His own power as God, but in the power of the Holy Spirit. So could we not conclude then that His entire ministry, that which was miraculous and that which was not, was conducted in that same power?

If these conclusions are correct, then there are some tremendous implications for our spiritual life.

First of all we understand that the imitation of Christ is not some alternative method of living the Christian life, somehow in discord with the Christian life as spelled out in the Epistles. Paul said, “Walk in the Spirit” (Galatians 5:16). John said, “…walk as He walked” (1 John 2:6). These are not two different “walks” or methodologies; to walk as He walked is to walk in the Spirit.

The imitation of Christ involves not just the “what” but also the “how.” We are not only to pattern our ethics and our character after His; we are to develop those ethical and character traits by the power of the Holy Spirit. We are not just to seek to do deeds similar to His; we are to do those deeds in the power of the Spirit.

If then we are believers in Christ, we have both the example and the power to live the life He desires in us.

PROPER CHURCH PRACTICE

2011-10-31T16:50:00.000-05:00

Voice of the Martyrs (www.persecution.com) is a ministry to the persecuted church worldwide. On the second page of their November newsletter, is an editorial by the director, Tom White, accompanied by a picture of a man being baptized in what appears to be an oil drum. In the editorial, Mr. White mentions that some readers are troubled by pictures of believers being baptized in bath tubs or other unusual places. He notes that one reader even said that these were not “proper” baptisms.

Mr. White, of course, defends these practices by telling the story of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:26-29, and explaining the difficulties believers have in many closed countries, where they often must be baptized in secret.

I couldn’t help but recall the many baptisms I have performed and the various venues used: a galvanized horse trough, a river, a lake, a swimming pool; a hot tub and, of course, a “proper” baptistry in a church building.

Then there were all the various styles and locations where I have served or partaken of the Lord’s Supper: a loaf of French bread and paper cups of grape juice served outdoors, a loaf of home-made matzo and Mogen David (Kosher) wine in a single crystal goblet served in our home and, of course, those little tiny wafers with grape juice in little tiny cups, served in a church building.

And all of this in a free country where I didn’t have to worry about being arrested for my activity. (Well, I have been cautioned a few times by friends and then there was that time a policeman just dropped in to our Bible study to check us out.)

What is it that troubles these well-meaning folks about unusual worship activity? What is it that, to them, constitutes proper practice? I’m not sure, but I have my suspicions.

I believe, first of all, that they have a narrow understanding of what it is to “do church.” To many, church is a particular physical location, a building. Or perhaps it is seen as an organization, a properly incorporated group of people, with all the proper officers and papers. Any churchy looking activity conducted outside of these parameters is suspect. Now, I’m not faulting organization or buildings, but God’s church is, or should be active everywhere. We who know Christ are the church.

And I also believe that many believers are not “world Christians.” They’ve never seen the church in action in other lands; they’ve never gotten to know believers from other lands. They’ve never really seen how God is working among those “from every nation and tribes and peoples and tongues” (Revelation 7:9). And He works in very different ways!

I believe we all have a tendency to feel comfortable in our box and to feel that everyone else ought to feel as comfortable as we are, in the same box. And (even though it seems a bit blasphemous), we feel that God should be quite comfortable there too! And as Donald McCullough said (The Trivialization of God, page 32), “…then it’s a very short step to believing that God would not feel at home anywhere else.”

Jesus didn’t talk about a box; but He did speak of wineskins (Luke 5:37, 38 – also Matthew 9:17; Mark 2:22). “And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the wineskins and will be spilled out, and the wineskins will be destroyed. But new wine should be put in new wineskins.”

Jesus, of course, was speaking of the custom of making wine in fresh waterproof leather bags. As the grape juice fermented and put off gas, the leather would stretch. An old dried, used skin would have no give and thus would burst. Apparently this was not an unusual occurrence. We can perhaps imagine Jesus as a boy, laughing at the explosion.

Jesus, I believe, was telling his hearers that the old Judaism with its practices was defunct, that the New Covenant, with Him as Messiah could not be poured back into an old dried up religion.

I feel that there is also an application for us today. Following Jesus should always be a fresh experience, but we want to restrict it in our old dried up customs. We can’t understand “new wine.” Luke 5:39 adds an interesting comment of Jesus: “And no one drinking old wine wants new; for he says, ‘the old is good!’”

But sometimes the new is better!

IS GOD ON AMERICA’S SIDE?

2011-10-26T15:49:00.000-05:00

In the October 16^th edition of the Los Angeles Times, is an op-ed article entitled, “America: With God on our side,” written by Andrew Bacevich, professor of history and international relations at Boston University.

To those of us who were around in the 60’s it is, of course, reminiscent of that Bob Dylan tune with a similar title.

Bacevich reminds us that “despite a Constitution that mandates the separation of church and state, religion and politics have become inseparable.” He goes on to describe how presidential candidates, no matter their party affiliation “regularly press God into service.” America, they claim, has been uniquely chosen by God.

As the first illustration of his thesis, he quotes from a speech by Mitt Romney. Romney asserts that America must, with its military might be the leader of the world, both economically and militarily and claims “God did not create this country to be a nation of followers.”

Bacevich goes on to assure us that Romney’s claims are not unique, that “No leading contender for the Republican nomination will challenge” Romney’s positions. Whoever receives the Republican nomination will claim that President Obama does not hold this view. And President Obama will of course, argue that he does.

The article asserts (correctly) that both the Hebrew Bible (our Old Testament) and the New Testament writings “provide no evidence to support this proposition.” No, he claims that instead “the American Bible contains a de facto Third Testament.”

Bacevich appears to be asserting that this is a 21st century phenomenon, although, I’m sure he would agree that the origins of this idea go much farther back to before the beginnings of our nation. The present lineup of Republican candidates did not invent the idea of America as somehow uniquely chosen of God.

I’ve heard this “doctrine” all of my life and like most of my contemporaries raised during WWII, I accepted it as fact. I was taught of America’s exceptionalism in school; as Dylan says “…the history books tell it, they tell it so well…” When I became a Christian and a member of a fundamentalist church, I found that this “doctrine” was held as strongly as the doctrine of inerrancy, even the doctrine of the atonement. I would probably have agreed with Romney’s statement, “I will never, ever apologize for America.”

I suppose that America’s “civil religion” will always be with us, even though it leads to uncivil politics. It’s nothing new. All the great empires of ancient history had theirs. Many nations today have theirs, even so-called “secular states.”

But it seems to me ironic that the people of the nation that invented the concept of religious freedom should hold so tenaciously to a religion that demands total allegiance from its national leaders.

And it seems more than ironic that those who claim the uniqueness of their religion, who claim that Jesus Christ is the only Way and that all other religious claims are false, should cling to another religion. And one that demands our loyalty, apparently an even greater loyalty, than our loyalty to Jesus Christ.

I want to be clear. I love my country. I consider myself a loyal citizen of the USA. But must that love of country translate to a syncretism of my faith in Christ with a religious faith in America?

I guess that I’ll never be elected President. :^(

Perhaps the question should be rephrased, “Is America on God’s side?”

JESUS DECIDES A CAPITAL CASE

2011-10-19T15:55:00.000-05:00

The subject of Capital Punishment has been much in the news lately. Trials and executions have been prominent, as well as questions raised in Presidential debates. I have even mentioned it a number of times in this blog and have even said on another blog that I planned on attempting a thorough biblical study on the subject. I have yet to do so, though I am collecting and researching and discussing with my wife Uni. I believe that she was the one who brought up this story.

Anyway, before going into a lot of other biblical passages, it might be good to ask “What would Jesus do?” or in this case, “What did Jesus do?” Thought I could (and plan to) analyze Jesus’ sayings that are relevant, it just might be a good idea to look at a story where Jesus actually is called on to adjudicate a case involving Capital Punishment.

John 8:2-11:

2) And early in the morning, He arrived again in the temple, and all the people were coming to Him, and He sat down and was teaching them.

3) And the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, made her stand in the midst, 4) and said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, right in the act! 5) Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So then what do you say?” 6) They were saying this testing Him so that they’d have something to accuse Him of.

But Jesus stooped down and started writing on the ground with His finger. 7) Now when they kept on asking Him, He stood up and said to them, “The one among you who is without sin should be the first to throw a stone at her,” 8) and He stooped back down and continued writing on the ground.

9) And when they heard this, they began to leave, one by one, beginning with the oldest ones and He was left alone, with the woman standing there.

10) And Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?”

11) And she said, “No one Lord.”

And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you! Go your way and from now on, sin nor more!”

Before I make any comments on the story itself, I feel that I must give a few notes about some technical difficulties. If you, the reader, are uninterested in these, you may skip them without a loss of understanding.

·        First, this passage (John 7:53-8:11) is not found in most of the earliest Greek manuscripts of John’s Gospel, as well as other early versions. Some manuscripts have it in other places in chapter 7 or at the end of John’s Gospel; others have it in Luke’s Gospel after 21:38. Its style and vocabulary differ quite a bit from the rest of John (I discovered this as a first-year Greek student, reading through John.), and it seems to interrupt the general flow of the narrative. So there is near unanimous agreement among scholars that it is not part of John’s original Gospel.
·        Yet, as one scholar put it, “…the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity.” That, plus the fact that it is included in some ancient manuscripts causes many to believe it is authentic. A few have even supposed that it was deliberately “expunged … because it was liable to be understood in a sense too indulgent to adultery.”
·        I will accept and treat it as a true story, a genuine part of God’s Word, even if it wasn’t written by John. Besides all the above, it gives us a picture of Jesus similar to those we find elsewhere in the Gospels – His tenderness toward women, His disdain for the religious leaders of His day, His ability to get out of the traps set for Him, and especially, His demonstration of grace and forgiveness within a context of Legalism.

Now back to our story:

The Gospel writers tell many stories of confrontations such as this, between Jesus and the religious leaders. It would seem that He took their constant questioning as a matter of course, and even seemed to enjoy it. He always won in these verbal battles, sometimes turning their questions back on them, other times tearing into their false teachings and motives, but nearly always using the disputes as “teaching moments.”

But this incident was different. Here, Jesus is not simply being tested with a goal of trapping Him in His words. Here He is being challenged to make a life or death decision. Nowhere else are we told of an incident where He is urged to decide the fate of another human being.

I believe we can see His opponents’ aims pretty clearly: if Jesus decides to exercise compassion toward the woman, He will clearly (to them) have defied the demands of their God-given Law. This could be used as evidence against Him in their plot to have Him legally put to death. If He decided against the woman, He would be going against all He had taught. He would no longer be “a friend of sinners.”

Their actions were, of course, based on the Law as found in Deuteronomy 22:22-24 (also see Leviticus 20:10):

22) If a man is found lying with another man’s wife, both of them must die – the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. Thus you will sweep away the evil from Israel.

23) If there is a young woman who is a virgin, engaged to a man and a man finds here in town and lies with her, 24) you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death. (The word “engaged” here is inadequate. Under the Law a couple was as good as married when the bride price was paid, even though they were not to cohabit for up to a year.)

However, there are some serious questions about their prosecution of the case. Where is the man? The Law appears to put the major portion of the blame on the man. “If a man …” It takes two to commit this act. In fact, there were some cases where the man alone was to be prosecuted – see Deuteronomy 22:24-27. I have my suspicions as to where the man was.

And there’s another question: Where are the witnesses? A capital case required two or more witnesses.

There are many theories regarding Jesus’ writing on the ground and what He was writing. Some think He was listing the sins of the accusers, but there is no indication of this in the text. Some think He was writing His decision down as a judge would do. The King James has “… as though He heard them not,” at the end of verse 6, which is apparently only found in a few late manuscripts. I believe that expresses it well. Jesus was simply doodling! He was showing His disinterest and disdain, while they kept on pestering.

Finally He gave His decision, which appears to be a guilty verdict. His words in verse 7 are among the most quoted words of Jesus, usually, however, in a situation where the one who quotes is defending or justifying his or her own behavior. But what did Jesus mean by this? Perhaps another passage regarding Capital Punishment can shed some light on His words.

Deuteronomy 17:6, 7:

6) On the testimony of two witnesses or three witnesses the condemned shall die; he must not die on the testimony of one witness. 7) The hand of the witnesses must be the first to put him to death, then afterward the hand of all the people. Thus you will sweep away the evil from your midst.

Thought I can’t say for sure, I believe that the male partner was standing right there among the woman’s prosecutors. And Jesus knew it. This was a setup. One or more of them had apparently engaged in sex with this poor woman (who was not allowed to testify in her own defense) in order to trap Jesus in a dilemma. Her life was of no importance to them.

This would mean that the witnesses themselves were her guilty sex partners. Yet, according to the Law, they were to cast the first stones. Jesus was not demanding complete sinlessness of her executioners, He was saying that they must not be guilty of the same crime. He put them in a Catch 22 situation. He had turned the tables and they could not carry out the sentence.

Jesus gave this woman words of grace and forgiveness. His words “sin no more” would imply that He knew she was guilty.

So what does all of this have to do with our 21^st century views on Capital Punishment?

We could argue that this case is in no way relevant to current thinking. Adultery is not a capital offense today and no one is trying to make it into one (at least not to my knowledge). Capital Punishment today is reserved for murderers and a few others who commit horrible crimes. Certainly Jesus would behave differently toward a murderer, wouldn’t He?

But Jesus lived under the Law of Moses which required death for adultery. And He knew this woman was guilty. Didn’t respect for the Law require Him to support his Law? Was Jesus not a “law-and-order” supporter?

I don’t believe we can argue that because this was a lesser crime than murder Jesus could slack off on enforcement. “The soul who sins will die” (Ezekiel 18:4). Jesus wasn’t simply cutting the woman some slack – He was pronouncing her free of condemnation. He was setting her free from the condemnation of the Law.

Jesus died for that woman’s sins. He died for the sins of the condemned man hanging on the cross next to Him. He died for my sin. He died to cancel the debt we owed God and the condemnation God’s Law pronounced.

And it should be noticed that in this case, He went beyond teaching that we must personally forgive, He was pronouncing forgiveness from criminal law.

I don’t know exactly how this should affect our attitudes toward the laws of our land. But it should affect them in some way. It should certainly lead us away from cheering the death of a criminal, no matter how heinous the crime. It should lead us to seek to be imitators of Christ, even in this area.

A RELIGIOUS TEST?

2011-10-12T17:27:00.003-05:00

“… no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” -- U. S. Constitution, Article VI

Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, introduced Texas Governor Rick Perry at the Values Voters Summit this past Friday. But he said a couple of things that got commentators, both on the right and on the left, in a tizzy.

“Mitt Romney’s a good moral person, but he’s not a Christian. Mormonism is not Christian. It has always been considered a cult by the mainstream of Christianity.” “Rick Perry is a proven leader. He is a true conservative, and he is a genuine follower of Jesus Christ.

In an interview afterward, Jeffress told reporters, “In my estimation, Mormonism is a cult. And it would give credence to a cult to have a Mormon candidate. I believe that Mitt Romney is a good moral person, has a wonderful family, but that’s not what makes you a Christian.”

We hear a lot of tsk-tsking on the left, a lot of amening on the right and a lot of confusion on both sides, as well as in the middle. So here are my thoughts.

I have to say, that I do not find the Rev. Jeffress’ statements about Mr. Romney nearly as offensive as his statements about Mr. Perry.

Many evangelicals hold to a definition of a cult as follows (See: WHAT IS A CULT?):

· It has as its authority, the Bible plus some other authority which is often claimed to be divinely inspired (such as The Book of Mormon, Science and Health and Key to the Scriptures, etc.).

· Its doctrine holds to a low view of who Jesus Christ is (A god rather than God, a glorified man, etc.).

· It is exclusive and holds that there is no salvation outside the group.

While Mormonism has attempted to become “inclusive” it certainly qualifies in the first two points above. But it has also grown so large as to be more of a religion on its own right than a cult. After all, in the first century, Christianity itself was considered a cult. This is not to say that a Mormon cannot be “saved.” The requirement for eternal salvation is given in the Scripture as faith in Jesus Christ. How much erroneous doctrine does that allow us?

But is this really relevant to Mr. Romney’s qualification for President? Apparently our Founding Fathers felt that this was a non-issue, if I understand Article VI of our Constitution as quoted above. We do not need to make Mr. Romney a Christian in order to qualify him for President.

And as to Mr. Perry’s alleged Christian faith, I have a number of questions:

· How can I know for sure he really is a Christian? Talk is cheap and profession is easy.

· How does this faith qualify him to be the leader of the free world any more than a Mormon, a Muslim, any non-Christian or even an atheist?

Every one of our Presidents has either personally claimed to be a Christian or was painted as such by enthusiastic followers. Some were good Presidents and some were real losers. There seems to be little correlation between their performance and their faith. Of course, their opponents have always been quick to question or deny the reality of their faith.

I believe it’s about time we quit trying to amalgamate Christianity and politics. It’s time we started endorsing and supporting those who are people of integrity and who are qualified for the office. And it would seem to me that a candidate who claimed to be “a genuine follower of Jesus Christ” would not need the endorsement of religious leaders. He or she would show the reality of their faith by their integrity and their actions.

Note: The above remarks do not constitute an endorsement of either of the candidates mentioned.

STAY IN THE PLANE!

2011-10-10T14:46:00.000-05:00

Preach left a comment on the previous post: “I learned my scales and chords with a little saying ... EBGDAE ... or Every Bible Gets Dusted At Easter. I used that with my guitar playing because of those that "cherry picked." A pericope here, a verse there. I thought hmmmm ... shouldn't that Bible look a bit more worn than that, or did he/she have to buy a new one? Great read sir! Me personally, I do not enjoy the ride on the extreme wings. Too far is too far, right or left. I like it in the plane, the extremist can have the wings.”

Thanks, Preach. I always appreciate your comments. They keep my thinking stirred up and force me to keep on thinking.

I especially appreciated your analogy about the plane. A similar one that I heard and have used myself is, “If you keep falling off the ______ side of the horse, your tendency is to lean the other way. But be careful; if you lean too far, you can fall off the ______ side!” (Usually the words “right” and “left” are inserted, but I deliberately left them out.)

I am personally uncomfortable with contrasting categories like “right/left” or “conservative/liberal.” They’re political! Of course, we have many other political categories, but they almost all tend to divide us. Some are those we use of ourselves, while others are those we use on those who disagree with us. What bothers me as a follower of Christ is that we who claim His name use them to divide ourselves.

We are already divided theologically (Calvinist/Arminian, charismatic/cessationist) and denominationally (Baptist/Methodist/Catholic); why must we be divided politically as well? And from what I have observed, politics is where we are most divided.

Divisions between God’s people, of course, are nothing new. Probably the most notorious are the schisms in the church at Corinth, mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:10-13. They were divided into at least four different parties. And they apparently weren’t divided over doctrine or politics or ethics or anything of importance. They were divided over preachers!

Note what Paul says in verse 12: “Now I say this, that each of you is saying, ‘I’m of Paul!’ – ‘but ‘I’m of Apollos!’ – ‘but I’m of Cephas!’ – ‘but I’m of Christ!!’”

We can feel his indignation as he barrages them with rhetorical questions: “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”

I would love to just stay in the plane, or not have to be in danger of falling off the horse, and I would like to believe that’s where I am. I suspect that’s where the party in Corinth who said, “I’m of Christ” thought they were! But when I see the direction that much of the church is going, I have to lean in the other direction. Perhaps “tug” would be a better word than “lean.”

Much of the evangelical wing of the church is totally identified with the Republican Party. Republican “values” are seen as the same as “Christian values” or “family values.” Republican candidates must identify themselves as “Christian.” And they adopt stances and make speeches that sound an awful lot like fire-and-brimstone preachers.

As I said in my previous post, I agree with many moral positions taken by my literalist/conservative friends. But I have to say that I do not agree with most of them. And I must say that those positions that I agree with are not held consistently by them. For instance:

Their “pro-life” stance. I agree that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life. But how can one oppose this taking of life and be pro-war, pro-death penalty? How can one see a need for government to prevent the death of the unborn, but oppose government care for the born?

Their stance on homosexuality. I agree that the Bible teaches that homosexual sex is sin and I question whether there actually can be such a thing as “gay marriage.” But how can one be so vehemently opposed to this one type of sexual sin and ignore the others – many of which are part of the lifestyle of many favored political leaders. And the hatred expressed toward homosexuals. Didn’t Christ die for all our sins? Isn’t His grace available for all sinners? Do we need government regulation of our sexual behavior but not our economic behavior?

And then, of course, there are those political positions taken by the right that are completely unbiblical, especially the favoring of the rich over the poor. Whether it’s called “trickle-down economics” or we refer to the rich as “job creators,” it seems totally contrary to the teachings of Jesus, Paul and James, as well as the Old Testament prophets.

I recognize that the left has its faults and there are plenty. I don’t want to fall off that side of the horse either. I believe that we who follow Jesus Christ must build our ethical systems and moral codes on the Scriptures. We must seek to live our lives by them. And we need to be careful not to identify too closely with any political system. Rather we should bring all political systems under the scrutiny of the Word.

I realize that the last paragraph of my previous post should have begun, “So my challenge to my conservative and liberal friends …”

Thanks again, Preach!

CONFESSIONS OF A LEFT-LEANING LITERALIST

2011-10-04T17:28:00.001-05:00

I was pleasantly surprised (or should I say, blown away?) by an article that appeared in the October 2011 issue of Christianity Today. The title was, “A Left-Leaning Text” and the note below the title said, “Survey surprise: Frequent Bible reading can turn you liberal (in some ways)". The author is Aaron B. Franzen, a graduate student in sociology at Baylor University. The data used is from the 2007 Baylor Religion Survey and we are assured that the research is undergoing peer review.

In my 74+ years on this earth, I have managed to accumulate a large number of beliefs and opinions, many of which have been modified, or in some cases, thrown out. And I am always happy when I read or hear someone who agrees with me. Especially when they have survey or poll data to back them up! And this was one such case.

I actually remember coming to the conclusion, at least 40 years ago, that a “conservative” (i.e., literal) interpretation of the Bible should lead to a “liberal” application of its truths. I quickly learned, however, that I dare not share this opinion with any but Uni and a few other close friends and family members. (Although, readers of this blog may have had their suspicions.)

But now this article/survey has freed me to come out of my liberal closet. There are others like me. I am not alone!

The article refers to previous polls, such as Gallup, which asked Americans how literally they took the Bible. The conclusions usually found that the more literally one holds the Bible, the more they were apt to be moral and political conservatives.

As one who holds the Bible to be the inspired, inerrant Word of God, I have for a long time been troubled by this finding. While I agree with many moral positions taken by my literalist/conservative friends, I have found myself at odds with most of their political conservatism.

But now this new survey seems to imply that the pollsters may have been asking the wrong question. The new question has to do with whether those polled actually READ the Bible. And when this is the question, the results are surprisingly different. As the author tells us, “…, reading the Bible more often has some liberalizing effects – or at least makes the reader more prone to agree with liberals on certain issues.”

And it apparently makes little difference who those readers are: their denominational, theological or political views or even their views on biblical literalism (although they do see the Bible as authoritative).

This article goes on to describe “liberal” views held by those who read the Bible. The readers were rated on a 5-point scale as to how frequently they read the Bible. The more frequently they read the Bible, the more liberally they hold these views.

Some of the views mentioned:

· Decreased support for the Patriot Act.

· Criminal justice – less support for harsher punishment and the death penalty.

· “More likely … to believe that religion and science are compatible.”

· “Social and economic justice.”

· “Reduced consumption as a part of ethical living.”

The article attempts some explanation for this phenomenon. Why does the Bible push the reader “leftward”?

One explanation the author offers “is that readers tend to have expectations of the text prior to reading it.” I’ll agree with that. He goes on to say that “many people think they know what’s in it before they open it up. But once they start reading it on their own they are bound to be surprised by something.”

I’d say a problem may be that many do not bother to open it up. They feel they already know what’s in it, so why bother? Their preacher or teacher, or some author, has already explained it. Those other people have done all the hard work; I don’t need to. There’s a big difference between believing in the literalness of the Bible and applying it literally in my life.

Look at all the nice clean new looking Bibles carried into church. How do they stay so clean?

And then there is how people read the Bible. For many (including literalists) it’s simply a how-to book; but even here it’s easier to read other books that tell me what the Bible says or means, than to read the Bible itself.

Another explanation given is that frequent Bible readers “… tend to read it devotionally, looking for ways in which Scripture is speaking directly to them.” I’ll go along with that! In fact, I’ll add that I believe much of what the Bible convicts us of occurs by osmosis. By simply reading the text over and over, its concepts penetrate our thinking. (I’m sure the Holy Spirit has something to do with the process.)

I can think of a lovely woman whose old worn King James Bible lies open on her kitchen table next to her ash tray, and also a few others I know who are like her.

So my challenge to my conservative friends is simply: Read your Bible. Then read it again. Don’t cherry pick it. Look for its repeated themes: moral, ethical, political (?). What obligations does it place on you? You may not agree with all I’ve said, but hopefully you’ll understand where I’m coming from.

BLOODLUST?

2011-09-20T14:39:00.000-05:00

This past Sunday, on CBS Sunday Morning, we heard Nancy Giles comment on the Republican Party debates.

She began with the statement, “I watched the two Republican Party debates and something weird is going on in the audience.”

Next the scene shifts from her to the moderator who says to Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, “Your state has executed 234 death row inmates, more than any other governor in modern times.” The camera moves to Governor Perry and we hear the audience cheering even before he can reply. Ms. Giles expresses her shock and dismay: “Applause for the number of people executed in Texas?”

Next we see Congressman Ron Paul speaking disdainfully of “this whole idea that we have to take care of everybody …” The moderator says, “But congressman, are you saying that society should just let him (the uninsured person) die?” And before Ron Paul can even speak there are shouts of “Yeah” and light applause from the audience.

Ms. Giles declares clearly that she hasn’t been to church in years but she does remember the questions, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” and “Something about ‘Thou shall not kill.’”

She wants to know why no candidate, “some of whom claim their spirituality as a guiding force in their politics” did not challenge the audience about what she terms their “bloodlust.” ( Both candidates do, I believe, claim to be Christians.)

She remarks on her respect for freedom of speech. She says that this has nothing to do with party affiliation, but she can’t imagine applauding the idea of death – of either sort mentioned. She speaks of the fact that many on death row have been proven innocent – even in Texas, where there recently was a stay of execution of one man because of racist remarks by a psychologist at his sentencing hearing. She questions Ron Paul’s “do no harm” oath as a doctor.

She speaks of the fact that there “are more colors” in the United States than simply Red States and Blue States and wants to know what the clearance process was for the audience. She hopes they were not representative of the entire Republican Party.

I’m sure that Ms. Giles will be renounced (or ignored) by many as simply some left-wing basher of Republican candidates (As though they don’t do enough bashing of each other. – Uni). Or she will be criticized for not speaking up on other issues. If we can attack her and politicize her moral pronouncements we can feel safe from the demands they place on us!

But though she was critical of the candidates, her main criticism was of the audience and of the candidates’ failure to rebuke their “bloodlust.”

And I’m sure that many of my Bible-loving friends will jump on the fact that Ms. Giles misquoted and/or misapplied both Scripture passages she used. This will be, for some, a good excuse to ignore what she said.

Well, yes, the Bible doesn’t tell us explicitly that, “We are our brother’s keeper.” “Am I my brother’s keeper?” was Cain’s reply to the LORD when he was questioned about the death of Abel, whom he had just murdered. But I believe the implication is that Cain was expected to be his brother’s keeper. And what about the command to “ … love your neighbor as yourself,” found in Leviticus 19:18 and repeated throughout the New Testament by Jesus and His followers?

And yes, the verb translated “kill” in the KJV “Thou shalt not kill” should be translated “murder” and does not apply to judicial acts or acts of war. But the LORD Himself said, “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked” (Ezekiel 33:11; 18:23, 32). So how can we? And Jesus told us that even anger with our brother is murder (Matthew 5:21, 22).

I fear that the reactions of the audience at those debates may be symptomatic of where the blending of politics and religion is taking us. I fear that many of my Christian friends and acquaintances might have reacted in similar fashion had they been there. I hope I’m wrong.

Ms Giles admits that her Christianity is at best weak, yet she can somehow see the contradictory behavior of people who claim to be followers of Christ behaving more like those who crucified Him.

Brother and sisters, it ought not to be this way. I’m afraid though, that whether or not our behavior is similar to that of the audiences, we may be perceived this way, that (as Paul said of the Jews of his day), “The Name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of (us)” (Romans 2:24).

DANGEROUS DOCTRINES

2011-09-19T14:38:00.001-05:00

A few Sundays ago, our pastor mentioned in his sermon that many consider the doctrine of the security of the believer a “dangerous doctrine.” (He doesn’t.) I leaned over and whispered to Uni that any teaching about God’s grace could be considered a dangerous doctrine. On the way home she called to my attention that a person sitting next to her in Sunday school class had used these same words about something I had said in my teaching. This person’s dispute was, I believe, based on his misunderstanding of the Trinity and the Incarnation that had come up in class.

Though I was (and still am) troubled by what seemed a judgmental statement, it’s not the first time I’ve been accused of teaching dangerous doctrine or some such thing.

I suppose teaching, studying or even reading the Bible might be considered dangerous for at least two broad reasons: it challenges (or threatens) a person’s thinking; and, it challenges (or threatens) their behavior. This is true whether they consider themselves and their fellows as Christians or not. In fact, most of the flak I have received has been from those who consider themselves Christians.

I believe that much of evangelical Christendom has become fearful of thinking through our theology, as well as our ethical positions. We let the “experts” dictate what we are to believe in both areas.

I understand that fear; I have taught Bible and theology for years and many times I have played the role of “expert.” I have even “pulled rank” in some theological/doctrinal disputes. But I have also tried to teach my students to think, to be like the Bereans mentioned in the book of Acts who “were more noble minded …, who received the Word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures every day, to see if these things (Paul’s teachings) were so” (Acts 17:11).

Some doctrines that are considered dangerous by many Christians (most of these are closely related):
·        The security of the believer (the one my pastor mentioned). We’re told that if people believe they are eternally saved, they will feel free to live the way they want to.
·        Election. I’ve been told that if my salvation is totally God’s choice – if He chose me before I chose Him – that makes us robots.
·        Salvation by simple faith, trusting Christ’s work alone, without a “commitment” on the believer’s part.
·        “Grace giving” – the teaching that the believer is not under the Old Testament obligation to tithe.
·        Any teaching of the believer’s freedom from the Old Testament Law.
·        Any concessions to modern science at all; any attempt to reconcile current scientific discoveries with scriptural teaching.

I’ll not attempt to deal with these issues here. I’ve had much to say about most of them throughout this blog.

Most of these have to do with grace. And grace is threatening to one who likes structure and order. Grace gives us the freedom and responsibility to make choices; it doesn’t simply give us rules to live by.

Grace is also threatening to some pastors. It’s difficult to shepherd the flock when they are allowed to think through issues on their own. For some it’s much easier to tell people what to think and how to behave.

But it’s that danger that in many ways makes following Christ exciting!

JESUS’ AUTHORITY

2011-08-29T14:33:00.001-05:00

I received the following question in an e-mail the other day:

“Hey, I've got a question in Matthew 28:18 (NIV) when it says "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." Was there some authority that Jesus didn't have until after the resurrection? Is "has been given" a recent event at that time? Did Jesus have all authority in heaven, but not on earth? And now he has both? If he didn't have "all", who had it? And who gave it to Jesus? Did Satan have some authority until Jesus' death? Etc. Questions along Those lines. Thanks, Tom”

The following is the answer I gave, with a few changes and expansions:

Tom:

Wow -- that's a great set of questions! These are questions that are not often asked and they have to do with a very important doctrine that for some reason or other is usually ignored by evangelicals/Bible church people. Though it has been called by other names, it is the doctrine of the Exaltation of Christ.

If I may give my own definition/description of the doctrine it is this: Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, the eternal Word, humbled Himself to become Man and died as a sacrifice for the sins of all humanity. Because of this, God the Father raised Him from the dead and gave Him all authority, an authority which He did not previously have; this authority was given to Him as the God-Man.

We find the doctrine preached all through the Book of Acts. The earliest preaching was in Peter's Pentecost sermon -- the first "Christian" sermon. In Acts 2:32-36, Peter, speaking of Christ’s resurrection, quotes Psalm 110:1, "The LORD said to my Lord, sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.” Then he states, ”God has made Him both Lord and Christ -- this Jesus whom you crucified." This seems very clearly to state that the resurrection itself was God's declaration of His exaltation of the crucified Christ.

In Acts 10:42, Peter says that Jesus was "appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead." Again, this seems to be speaking of Jesus as crucified and raised. It's interesting that in Acts 2, Peter was preaching to the Jewish people, while in Acts 10, he is speaking to the ones who would become the first Gentile converts.

Then in Acts 13, in his sermon in the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch, Paul picks up the same theme, only this time basing it on Psalm 2:7. In Acts 13:33, he quotes this verse, " ... God has fulfilled this to us their children, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'You are My Son; today I have begotten You!'"

In Acts 17:31; this time speaking to pagan philosophers, Paul says, " ... He (God) has fixed a day when He will judge the whole inhabited earth in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all by raising Him from the dead." The word "appointed" here is the same word that Peter used in Acts 10:42.

Psalm 2, especially verse 7, looks to the LORD’s covenant promise to David in 2 Samuel 7 of a Descendant or “Seed” to sit on his throne. The LORD says in verse 14: “I will be a Father to him and he will be a son to me.” This was partially fulfilled in Solomon, but awaited its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus. The resurrection and ascension is the declaration of God that Jesus is His Son.

The author of Hebrews also quotes Psalm 2:7 twice. In Hebrews 1:3b-5, he ties it to Christ’s ascension to God’s right hand. In 5:5, it is connected to the declaration of Christ’s high priesthood in Psalm 110:4. Hebrew 5:1-10, places His designation as High Priest after His perfection by suffering (verses 8-10).

In Romans 1:4, Paul says that Jesus " ... was appointed (same word again) the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead ..."

In Romans 14:9, Paul says, "For this reason Christ died and came to life, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living."

I believe that the above passages make it very clear that Jesus the Christ, the God-Man received a special new position as Son, as Lord, as High Priest and as Judge, at His resurrection and ascension. It was God's "seal of approval." This is the "authority" that Jesus speaks of having been given in Matthew 28:18. And it's true, the Son as the second Person of the Trinity always did possess authority. But it as the crucified and resurrected Man, He is given a new authority which in some way He did not possess before.

This is what Paul is speaking of in Philippians 2:5-11. Because Christ emptied Himself, took human form and died on the cross, God has "highly exalted Him," through the resurrection, ascension, heavenly priesthood and ultimately His coming again to reign.

And yes, apparently Satan had authority over this world. This is seen in his offer of "all the kingdoms of the world and their glory" when he tempted Jesus in the wilderness (Matthew 4:8, 9; Luke 4:5-7). Notice that Jesus didn't correct Satan that this wasn't a valid offer.

I hope that an understanding of this doctrine gives us a greater understanding of what the great commission is all about!

Also see:
IS THE GREAT COMMISSION FOR US?
PAUL AND JESUS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

HIGH S OR LOW T?

2011-08-17T13:51:00.000-05:00

Sometimes (not often) I say something that seems profound. A few Sundays ago I said to my adult Sunday school class (most about 50ish): “It’s easy to mistake lower testosterone for spiritual maturity.” I’d made this observation a few times in the past, but this time I got such a positive reaction, that I felt I should post it on facebook. Again, a reasonably positive reaction, except for one comment that asked me to expound. So perhaps I’d better.

Well, of course, the first thing I did was to Google “low testosterone.” After making my way past all the ads offering me remedies for this affliction, I found (among a few unmentionable things) the following information:

“In many ways testosterone is the stuff that makes men men. Throughout a man’s life testosterone maintains his make characteristics”

“Testosterone levels decline steadily after age 40. The decline is relatively small, at an average rate of 1 to 2 percent per year.” (If my math is correct, that would mean that at the age of 74 I am 1/3 to 2/3 less of a man.)

Some of the symptoms:
·        Low energy or fatigue.
·        Lower sexual desire.
·        Deterioration of ability to play sports.
·        Decreased “enjoyment of life.”
·        Deterioration in work performance.
·        Increased body fat (“pot belly”).
·        Falling asleep after dinner.

On reflection, I find that to a greater or lesser extent, as I age I demonstrate all of the above symptoms. Of course, my wife Uni points out (rather smugly) that I have demonstrated that last symptom throughout our married life.

And this is the problem. Some (though not all) or these symptoms can be confused with characteristics of Spiritual maturity.

Like most men, I have struggled all my life with what the Scriptures describe as “lust.” Sometimes it is no more than a second look. I can honestly say that refraining from that second look becomes easier as I age. I find that while my desire for my wife has remained as intense as ever, I am less distracted by other women. Is this just a “symptom”?

Another issue I have struggled with is anger. I don’t blow up nearly as much as I used to. In fact, I can’t remember the last time. Is this just a side effect of the lack of competitiveness, which is seen as a “deterioration” in sports or work ability?

I spend a lot more time reading and meditating on the Scripture. Is this a sign of a closer walk with the Lord, or simply because my “low energy” prevents me from desiring more physical activity? (Of course, according to Larry the Cable Guy: “Old people read their Bibles more because they’re cramming for the Final.”)

Perhaps it’s not an either/or, but a both/and. Perhaps God in His grace allows a decrease in that which we regard as manliness so that we will be better able to concentrate on the things of the Spirit.

Could Paul have had this in mind when he said, “…though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day” (2 Corinthians 4:16)?

DO YOU SPEAK CHRISTIAN?

2011-08-11T14:58:00.001-05:00

Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, “It means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

A friend forwarded me the article: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/31/do-you-speak-christian/?hpt=hp_c2 and I was intrigued. It begins with a video repeating some thoughts from the book, Speaking Christian by Marcus Borg.

According to the video, Borg’s thesis is that words have a wide range of meaning and that the whole vocabulary of Christians (especially evangelicals) is based on a narrow usage of certain words, such as “believe,” “salvation,” etc.

The article then takes off on a different tack, citing buzz words used by Christians, before returning to Borg’s thesis. It then goes on to speak of how politicians “speak Christian” and rambles on to certain Christian buzzwords. It concludes with a quote from Borg, “Speaking Christian can become a way of suggesting a kind of spiritual status that others don’t have. It communicates a kind of spiritual elitism that holds the spiritually ‘unwashed’ at arm’s length,” followed by the statement, “By the time, they’ve reached the final stage of speaking Christian – they’ve become spiritual snobs.”

The article raises a number of issues that I have had to deal with in the past, so I feel that this is a good opportunity to express my thoughts. I agree with much that the article expresses.

I must confess at the start though, that I have little regard for Marcus Borg. I have heard or read him quoted many times and I believe I have seen him interviewed on TV. It seems ironic that he should accuse others of “spiritual elitism” or “snobbery,” when he usually is the one who comes across that way. He appears to have a great disdain for us “fundamentalists” – those who hold to biblical literalism.

I agree that words do have a wide range of meaning and we often are guilty of using them in a narrow way without respecting this range. But words do not have an infinite range of meaning; if they did, communication would be impossible.

The video/article uses the words “believe” and “salvation” as examples of how evangelicals use words incorrectly. It shreds the English words without recognizing that they are based on Hebrew and Greek words. It points out that the words “save” and “salvation” do not always refer to eternal salvation. Surprise! As if that weren’t obvious to most Bible readers.

Leaving the arguments that imply that most Bible believers are elitist ignoramuses, I do have a few things to say about “speaking Christian.”

Christians do have a special language and vocabulary, but this is nothing unusual. Every interest group has its own special vocabulary or “shoptalk” by which those inside communicate with one another. Single words and short phrases can convey large amounts of information. Engineers, architects, computer wizards, military personnel – all have their jargon. I have found “Christian” or theological speech a necessity, especially in the area of education.

But this special language brings with it a number of problems, some of which I believe are quite serious.

The first is that of obfuscation of the message. Christianity is a religion of communication. We have been given a message and have been commanded to communicate it. Clarity should be one of our objectives. And yet our jargon or (as I have called it for years) “Christianese” can make that message incomprehensible.

Jesus said, “Whoever believes in Him will not perish but will have eternal life” (John 3:16).

Paul said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31).

Evangelical Christians say:

“Let Jesus into your heart.”

“Walk the aisle.”

“Pray the sinner’s prayer.”

(See: WHATMUST I DO TO BE SAVED?)

Now I recognize that there is a need to explain the meanings of the biblical statements, but our aim should be to communicate, not to obscure. I fear that our attempts at explaining may sometimes actually shut off understanding.

Another related problem is that of division and misunderstanding between Christians, not only those of different theological or denominational persuasions, but even those of similar belief systems. The College of Biblical Studies, where I taught for years, was open to believers of all labels. Teaching there often required an understanding, not only of Greek and Hebrew, but also of the various dialects of Christianese. Many of the expressions used were taken from the Bible, while many were apparently unique to particular groups. All used their dialects as though they assumed everyone else understood them. The words were often loaded with meaning for the user, but were gibberish to those who were not “in” (sometimes including myself). Here are a few:

“anointed preaching”

“I receive that”

“cessationism”

“the Jesus in me”

“positive volition”

“receive the call”

(The reader can probably add many more of his or her own.)

And then there’s the matter of confusing language with reality, of thinking that learning and speaking the language is a sign of maturity. When I became a Christian in my late teens, I was a fast learner. I quickly began to pepper my speech with theological terms and King James’ words. I deceived myself and others into believing I was maturing as a Christian. Part of my real maturing process has involved dropping my Christianese and talking in normal English.

A fourth problem is that discerning and knowledgeable outsiders can pick up and use Christianese and God-talk and be mistaken for the real thing. This is especially true of politicians. It has always been so in America, though I believe there has been a great change in the use of Christianese by politicians in the past half century or so.

The Bible has always had a place in American speech, most likely because it was for much of our history, the most read book. Writers and public speakers of the past mined it for quotes, and many could quote vast portions from memory. The classical cadence and language of the KJV lent itself to this usage. While those who used biblical speech and Christianese were not always Christians, their language may have unintentionally given that impression. I suspect that that usage is one of the primary sources of “evidence” for those who mistakenly desire to prove that America was a Christian nation, at least in the past.

I believe that today, however, we have a new crop of political speakers who use Christianese cynically to gain a following. Even some who make no clear profession of faith in Christ have learned to speak the language and have gained a following. And of course the Bible and the flag are always good armor to wrap around oneself when one is caught with a hand in the cookie jar.

So what should we do? Should we abandon Christianese? I don’t believe we should completely, but we need to curtail much of it even when conversing among ourselves. We should tailor our speech to those with whom we are attempting to communicate; when using Christian terminology with outsiders we need to explain ourselves.

“If … all speak in tongues and untaught or unbelievers enter, will they not say you are mad?” (1 Corinthians 14:23).

And we should be discerning. We should not be fooled by those who simply use the language. “See to it that no one misleads you” (Matthew 24:4).

TRANSLATIONS

2011-07-23T18:50:00.000-05:00

“Translations are like wives; the more beautiful they are, the more apt they are to be faithful; the more faithful they are, the less apt they are to be beautiful.”

Attributed to Edward Fitzgerald, translator of The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam.

I know the above quote sounds sexist to our 21^st century ears, but I believe it gets the point across. (Of course, my wife Uni is an exception, both beautiful and faithful.)

I have received many questions regarding Bible translations, a few in just the last few days, so I feel I need to say a few things on the topic.

It seems that nowadays we are flooded with a plethora of new Bible translations, as well as updated older ones. Add to these the specialty Bibles – Bibles with notes which relate to a particular theological or social or occupational perspective. And no Bible teacher or preacher who is of any worth can get along without a “study” Bible with his or her notes to guide the reader. And, of course, each of these specialty Bibles is published in a number of translations.

It’s confusing and, I fear, discouraging to many readers. So what do we do? Where do we begin? How do we know which ones are best? And what about my dear old KJV?

The Septuagint

Well, first of all, we should note that translation is not a new phenomenon. The Bible was being translated before it was completed.

To my knowledge, the earliest translation of the Hebrew Old Testament is the one known as the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX). This was a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek. There are different theories and accounts of it origin, but we do know that it was completed by the second century B.C. That’s 200 years earlier than the events of the New Testament and its writing. The LXX is important to us for a number of reasons.
n We have manuscripts of the LXX that, until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) in 1947, were hundreds of years older than any existing Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament (known as the Masoretic Text).
n The LXX sometimes agrees with, sometimes disagrees with the Masoretic Text. In some of those areas of disagreement it agrees with the DSS.
n The LXX was frequently the text quoted by the writers of the New Testament which was written in Greek.
n The theological terms, even the names of God, used in the New Testament, are the terms and names used in the LXX.
n While we cannot claim that the text of the LXX is inspired, I believe that its use in the New Testament gives legitimacy to the use of translations.

The King James Version

As far as our dear old KJV, this is the Bible I first read (MY BIBLE). I read it at least a dozen times and have quite a few portions of it committed to memory. But I no longer use it except for occasional reference (I have a copy of the original 1611 edition on my desk) for the following reasons.
n It is one among many translations and was so even in its own day. Though many refer to it as “the Authorized Version,” it was authorized by an English King, not directly by God.
n The language, though it may sound majestic, is simply archaic. The Bible was originally written in the language of the people who could read it at that time. The New Testament especially, was written in koine or common Greek, the language that ordinary people spoke. And the KJV was written in the language spoken by the English speaking people of its day.
n It was translated from later Hebrew and Greek texts, the texts that were available in its day. Since then many older manuscripts have been discovered. These are the texts from which most of our modern translations are made.
n The NKJV, though a quite accurate translation, uses the same old texts that the original KJV was translated from, and sometimes sacrifices readability simply to keep the “feel” of the KJV.

Modern Translations and Paraphrases

Even though I do most of my study in the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament, I also use English translations. My favorite is the New American Standard Bible (NASB) which I first met forty years ago. I still believe it is the most accurate translation available. It is getting a bit old and has been updated, but many find it stiff. It was the Bible used in the Bible Study Method classes I taught at the College of Biblical Studies in Houston, because of its accuracy and because we wanted every student to be reading from the same text.

I also use the Jewish Publication Society’s edition of the Tanakh and I am currently reading the New Living Translation.

I believe that much of the frustration felt by many is the question, “Which one(s) can I believe?” If I can be a voice of hope, I can confidently say that when it comes to the basic truths of the Gospel, no translation will lead us astray. There are, as far as I know, no “conspiracies” to deceive us as some die-hard King Jamesers would have us worry about.

One of the most important considerations to note is that translations could be placed along a line from the extremely accurate to the extremely paraphrastic. For purposes of study, I believe that we should look to the more literal translations, even though they may not be easy reading.

Use the paraphrases for rapid reading. Many read like novels. I would cautiously recommend them for first-time readers. Paraphrases often attempt to replace ancient Hebrew or Greek idioms with the idioms that are more easily understood by the modern English reader, and we should remember that while this may aid in our understanding of obscure ideas, it can also introduce ideas that are foreign to the context.

Here are a few of the translations I am familiar with, from the most literal to the most paraphrastic.
n The New American Standard Bible. It is still, I believe, the most accurate, though it’s growing old and weary. One of its best features is that it attempts to consistently translate each Greek or Hebrew word by the same English word.
n The Holman Christian Standard Bible. I have not read this one, but my wife Uni has. We have had many discussions on its merits and it seems in most areas to be as accurate as the NASB, but with a bit more updated language.
n The Revised Standard Version. The RSV never received acceptance with evangelicals, because of a perceived “liberal bias” though it is quite accurate. Though it too is getting dated; the New RSV should bring it up to date.
n The New King James Version. This one has its own unique problems (see above).
n The New International Version. The NIV is extremely popular, reads well and is quite literal, though its smoothing out of rough texts can cause some misunderstandings.
n The New Living Translation seems to be an attempt at bridging the gap between a paraphrase and a translation. It is easy reading though and has clarified a few matters for me.
n The Good News Bible was popular back in the 70’s, but seems to have disappeared. It was translated using the concept of “Dynamic Equivalence,” the use of modern English idioms for ancient Greek or Hebrew ones, sometimes with humorous results. I love it.
n The Living Bible is a one man paraphrase and, as far as I know, makes no claims at being a translation.
n The Message is a popular paraphrase and is apparently easy reading, but the reader should beware and compare it with more literal translations.

The above comments are not meant to be scholarly, but come from my own experience reading, translating and comparing, as well as attempting to be of help to those who read. I believe I have a fair knowledge of both the Hebrew and Greek texts and have been reading and studying the Word for well over a half a century.

SOME RAMBLINGS ON TEACHING

2011-07-19T14:10:00.001-05:00

“Dad, I just LOVE LOVE LOVE teaching. It is so much FUN!! I never knew!! Well, that’s not quite true – I knew you and many others love it but I didn’t know I would love it and think it was such a blast. And such a learning experience for me.

Do you still think it’s fun?

Was it always fun when you taught at college?

Which is more fun: Bible studies, Sunday school, college, whatever?

I would imagine anything where people WANT to be there is better than when they HAVE to be there.”

Sherry, I’m so excited that you’ve discovered the gift and joy of teaching.

I don’t think anyone’s ever asked me questions like this before, so I’ll take advantage of the opportunity to ramble a bit.

Yes, teaching is still fun, though I feel that “fun” is too mild a word to describe the feeling. I’ve done many, many things in my life, but teaching is the one thing I’d rather do than anything else (well almost anything). I think I experience a real high when I teach. I can’t explain it, but one of the closest feelings I can compare it with is reaching the top of a long steep hill on my bike and then tearing down hill at 40 to 50 mph. In both, there is the possibility of crashing, but so far none of my crashes have been fatal.

As far as which is more fun, teaching at the Bible college was the most, perhaps because of the amount of time I got to spend at it. Imagine doing what you love for hours at a time, day after day – and I got paid for it!

For years, the College of Biblical Studies provided free tuition to anyone for the three-hour credit Bible Study Methods’ class. It was a great draw for new students as well as a ministry to the Christian community of the Houston area. And for years, I was the principal instructor for the class. I usually taught at least three classes a semester and the classes often numbered in the 60s. I actually had a few of over 90 students. Of course, as you can imagine the dropout rate was quite high.

Most of the students were older adults, “churched” people, and some were quite knowledgeable, but most had at best a patch-work knowledge of the Scripture. It was exciting to see the changes in the lives of so many. I could almost see the light bulbs flashing on over their heads as they dug in to study the Bible on their own for the first time. I strongly suspect there even may have been more than a few conversions.

I also taught New Testament classes (my major when I attended seminary) and theology, as well as ethics, spiritual life and Greek. Teaching helped clarify my thinking in all these areas.

As far as teaching Bible studies or Sunday school classes, I enjoy them all, though to me what makes teaching most exciting is when I have young or untaught students who are eager not only to absorb information, but to think it through on their own and see how it applies to their lives.

To me probably the greatest compliment I ever received was from a student who came to me after class and said,

“I’m on to you – I know what you’re trying to do to us!”

“What?” I said.

“You’re trying to make us think?”

“Oh, darn! You are on to me! Sshh! Don’t tell anyone else.”

Another area, which you didn’t mention, was mentoring. I can honestly and sadly say that I had no teachers in elementary or high school who inspired me, though there were a few in college and seminary. Perhaps that was because I was older when I went on to college and had myself been teaching for many years.

But I had plenty of mentors – men who took the time to give me “on-the-job training,” who could say, “This is how you do it.” and then show me. There were engineers and preachers, and of course, especially my father-in-law. And they taught me to do the same with others.

Another area of teaching is preaching. While teaching is a gift and has always seemed to come naturally, what is known as preaching, in my case, had to be learned in a classroom. Actually what is called preaching today is, I believe, really lecturing with a little exhortation thrown in. Though I believe I learned to preach reasonable well, I have always felt uncomfortable doing so because of the lack of immediate feedback.

Anyway, congratulations on your newly discovered gift. Gifts are given to be enjoyed! Enjoy it!

AMBASSADORS

2011-07-09T16:38:00.002-05:00

On the Friday evening news I saw what at first appeared to be a frightening scene: huge crowds of wildly shouting demonstrators on a street in some city in Syria. The commentator told us that they were demonstrating around the limousine of the American ambassador as it made its way through the city. But they were not throwing rocks! They were throwing flowers! They had smiles on their faces, not angry scowls, as we are used to seeing. Apparently our State Department had come out on their side in their struggle for freedom – some simple statement of support.

Later that evening (Friday, July 8), I watched a segment about the birthday of the new nation of South Sudan, which had been struggling for its freedom for over 50 years. There were clips giving a brief history of the struggles. One clip concerned the peace agreement brokered between the North and South ending their civil war. There among all the African leaders stood America’s then Secretary of State, Colin Powell.

Scenes like these raise genuine American pride in me. I am proud of people like our Secretaries of state and our ambassadors who seek peace and freedom in other nations. Of course, I recognize that they are working for America’s advantage, but they also seem genuinely concerned for that of those to whom they represent America.

Paul said in 2 Corinthians 5:20: “So then we are ambassadors for Christ, as of God entreating through us, ‘we are urging you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God.’”

In the devotional, Our Daily Bread for July 14 (I read ahead), Dennis Fisher made the following comment on this verse: “The ambassador must be a skilled communicator with both the country he (or she) represents and the one to which he goes. The effective Christian serves as an ambassador for the King of kings to this world.”

I wonder, do we? Do I?

I am usually impressed by America’s ambassadors and our Secretaries of State when I see them interviewed or consulted on the news. These people are smart – they know their stuff. They know not only the people and country they represent – the USA – but also the country to which they are representing the USA. (Yes, I realize there have been some colossal failures.)

Again, do we? I know of many Christians who somehow feel they are to isolate themselves from the very ones to whom we are sent as ambassadors. Many of us, I fear, are more like the young people who work the kiosks at the mall. They sit on their stools facing away from the people passing by, texting, reading, eating, talking among themselves. Aren’t they supposed to be selling their stuff to me, or least trying? It’s so refreshing to meet the occasional young woman or man who smiles and seems interested in those about them.

Paul was a man who knew and cared about those to whom he had been sent as ambassador. Even when confronting, as he did in Athens, people of a culture quite alien from his own, he could speak in their terms, even quote their authors (see: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD). I can only conclude that he had taken time to get to know about them, even to do a little advance homework and reading.

So, are we genuine ambassadors for Christ? Do we care about the people to whom He’s sent us enough to get to know them, to be interested in and concerned about their thoughts and dreams? Or are we just kiosk kids, just killing time to get through the day, oblivious to those around and their potential?

WHAT I LEARNED FROM HANK

2011-07-01T11:38:00.000-05:00

A week or so ago, I grabbed an old two-CD set entitled, “Hank Williams’ 40 Greatest Hits,” popped one in my car’s CD player and have been playing them alternately since.

I love Hank! I love to sing along with him as I drive. I believe I know all forty of these songs (and many others) by heart. As I listen and sing, memories come swarming into my consciousness. One of the great perks of old age is the ability to relive portions of my life that songs evoke.

Occasionally we read of some Christian writer or speaker telling of how their conversion was influenced by an atheist or pagan philosopher or author. Often it’s a classical thinker whose arguments or logic unintentionally pointed that person to Christ. Sometimes questions are raised that only find their answer in Christ. The other day I saw a reference to G. K. Chesterton and how Bertrand Russell had led him back to Orthodoxy. A recent article in Christianity Today was entitled, “Ann Rand Led Me to Christ.” So I think I need to give some credit to Hank.

I grew up on country music. The Grand Old Opry was on the radio every Saturday night, and country music (it was known as “hillbilly music” in those days) was regular fare. Eddy Arnold, Ernest Tubb, Roy Acuff and others whose names I can’t recall, but the greatest, of course, was Hank Williams.

He first came to my attention with “Lovesick Blues” in 1949. I was 12 years old and struggling with raging hormones and pre-teen crushes. His songs of unrequited love had appeal to me and to my peers: “Wedding Bells,” “I’m So Lonesome I Could Cry,” “Long Gone Lonesome Blues,” “I Can’t Help It If I’m Still In Love With You.” We seemed to identify with his struggles even though ours were not quite the same.

Hank’s songs weren’t all about love, requited or otherwise. Hank was a man in conflict and many (most) of his songs seemed to come out of his own experiences. He had come from a church-going home (his mother was an organist) and knew the gospel. He sang gospel songs and even composed a few -- “I Saw the Light,” “House of Gold.”

I had first heard the gospel from a rural school missionary when I was in the second grade; I knew that Jesus died for me and that all I needed to do was believe in Him. But apparently the missionary, Mr. Hartsema, was not permitted to give an invitation or deal with us personally, so I didn’t respond. Or maybe I did …

Anyway, the only gospel music I heard was on the country stations and Hank sang some good ones. But he also sang songs of inner personal conflict – “Lost Highway,” “Lonesome Whistle.” I suppose they could be considered simply part of his blues’ repertoire, but they were a real expression of his life and were fast becoming an expression of my life, as I had started “Honky-Tonkin’” early on in my teens.

Hank was only 29 years old when he died. The cause of his death was given as a coronary, but it was known that he had begun a slide years earlier, triggered by his heavy drinking combined with pain pills (taken for a back injury acquired at age 17 while rodeoing). He had been fired by the Opry and divorced by his first wife Audrey. I was just short of 16 when this happened and by this time was well on my way to following his example of rowdiness.

What happened to Hank was a jolt. Here was a man only 13 years older than I was, a man who had, it would seem, everything going for him, and who died so young.

Perhaps a few lines from his song “Lost Highway” best express the reality of his life and what it told me:

“Now boys don’t start your ramblin’ around,

On this road of sin, or you’re sorrow bound.

Take my advice or you’ll curse the day

You started rollin’ down that lost highway.”

The conflict between bowing to the Lordship of Christ and following the demands of my own desires and my peers’ desires continued with me for a few more years until finally I clearly put my faith in Christ and turned my back on the Lost Highway. Hank didn’t “lead me to Christ” but he did show me that I had to make a choice, which he seemed unable, or for some reason, unwilling to make. I have often wondered if Hank ever did respond to the “Light” before he left this world.

Anyway, I still enjoy riding in the car next to Uni with Hank blaring out of the speakers, just like we did more than a half century ago. And I still like to sing Hank’s songs to her:

“Say hey, good lookin’,

Whatcha got cookin’?

How’s about cookin’ somethin’ up with me?”

Thanks, Hank!

WHAT IS A CULT?

2011-06-29T16:58:00.000-05:00

The author of the article I reviewed on my previous post (DOMINIONISM) used the word “cult” to describe the movement she was warning against. Among many of my points of disagreement with her, was the use of this word to include what would appear to be the majority of Christians in America. Apparently her definition of “cult” is different from mine. A comment on that post made me realize I need to clarify my usage.

Webster’s 11^th Collegiate Dictionary gives a number of definitions of cult, but I believe the one Ms. Burton had in mind was number 3: “a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious”; also: “its body of adherents.”

This is a broad enough definition to include just about any group the user of the term would disagree with. After all, the definition didn’t specify who the “regarder” should be. My apologies to Ms. Burton.

The definition I had in mind is a bit more specific and is, I believe, the usual definition used by evangelicals, who popularized the word in the ‘40’s and ‘50’s to describe quasi-Christian groups. (I confess I could not find the source for my definition.)

A cult, by this definition, is a group that has at least the following three characteristics:

· It has as its authority, the Bible plus some other authority which is often claimed to be divinely inspired (such as The Book of Mormon, Science and Health and Key to the Scriptures, etc.).

· Its doctrine holds to a low view of who Jesus Christ is (A god rather than God, a glorified man, etc.).

· It is exclusive and holds that there is no salvation outside the group.

Also a cult usually has, or at least was started by, a charismatic leader and often it is numerically small, but growing and thus perceived as a threat to orthodox Christianity. There is also often some suggestion of “mind control.”

Though some groups are easy to identify by the above points, others are not always that clearly distinguished, and it seems that the word is losing its popularity among evangelicals. Perhaps it is best to simply critique a movement for its individual teachings and not simply slap a label on it.

But though evangelicals may not use the term as often anymore, it has been picked up by secular and theological liberals, as seen in the article reviewed in the previous post. And evangelical Christians have now, in their eyes, become cult members!

After all, if biblical doctrine is ignored, we do look rather cultish! Our movement was started and is led by a charismatic Leader. There is “mind control” (the Holy Spirit). And Christianity is exclusive. There is no salvation outside of Jesus!

DOMINIONISM

2011-06-23T15:44:00.000-05:00

The other day I received a reference to an article: “Following the Dominionist Threat Through the GOP’s 2012 Candidates” on the website: http://www.politicususa.com/en/dominionist-gop-2012-candidates, with the comment, “Interesting. I’d love to hear your thoughts.”

So I checked out the site Politicsusa, which claims to be “Real Liberal Politics – No Corporate Money Masters,” but I didn’t spend a lot of time there. I did a quick read of the article and e-mailed back, “I’ve known about ‘Dominion Theology’ for a long time. I’ll have to write some thoughts on it sometime. Much of what the article says is true but I don’t believe it’s as tight a conspiracy as she implies.”

As usual, once some thoughts get stuck in my brain, they refuse to leave, so I’ve been chewing on them a while and I feel that I’d better write them down.

The following thoughts are both an attempt to critique the article and to critique what the article critiques. I suppose that if I do this properly, I may offend my friends both on the right and on the left, though I don’t really intend to.

First, the article. The author is Leah Burton, of whom I know nothing except what she has revealed of herself here. She is apparently not a regular contributor to the site, but has been invited to submit a series of articles “leading up to the 2012 national elections,” because of her expertise on the topic, the movement which she refers to as “a very dangerous religious-political movement,” “religio-political extremism,” a “sect” and “a Bible-based cult,” among other things. Ms. Burton is apparently quite concerned about this movement/cult that she says “has co-opted Christianity, the Republican Party” and apparently “conservatism” in general. This is alarming, if true!

However, her broad brush strokes soon raise suspicions. In this frightening movement (conspiracy?) which she says is “known broadly as Christian Dominionists,” she tells us, are included some well-known protestant denominations as well as some lesser known. It is difficult to see how a “cult” can include the largest protestant denomination in America (the Southern Baptist Convention). I had thought that cults were usually small and well out of the mainstream. She also includes “the pre-millennialists, the post-mills” and seemingly any school of thought that could be considered evangelical. And she doesn’t say that the “cult” includes just some from these groups. Her implication is that it includes all; her use of the word “the” seems to make this clear.

By the time I’d finished reading the third paragraph, I had begun to realize that, by her definition, I would probably be considered a member of this “cult.” And sure enough, she tells us a bit further on that “you must be ‘born-again’” is “the secret decoder-ring phrase that gets you in this exclusive club.” (Didn’t Jesus say that this was the requirement for getting into the Kingdom of God?)

As she continues attacking the alleged beliefs of these “radical Christian fundamentalists,” she ends up including just about anyone whom we would consider an evangelical Christian. She warns us not to confuse these persons with “the majority of Christians in America who are mainline Christians.” Her math here is inaccurate. The members she has included in this “cult” make up the majority of Christians in America!

She goes on to attack their “end times” beliefs, their desire to fulfill the Great Commission of Matthew 28:16-20 and their pro-Israel position, which she says is “schizophrenic,” as they are Jew-haters. She attacks their anti-abortion views and sees them as only concerned about the fetus and not about the children who are born.

She concludes: “No longer do we have the luxury of simple partisan politics in America. After the infestation of the Republican Party by the political wing of the Dominionists we are now unable to think in terms of Democrat vs. Republican, or Liberal vs. Conservative – it is now a matter of freedom versus theocracy.”

This is a poorly written article. One thing it clearly demonstrates is that the right does not have a monopoly on conspiracy theories! By including such a broad spectrum of evangelical Christians in this movement/cult, she discredits her own warnings. Most of us know people who would be involved and as I mentioned, many, myself included, would be considered by her as co-conspirators.

It seems to be a broad attack on any who are evangelicals not only for their political beliefs, but for their exclusivist religious beliefs.

Ms. Burton does, however, have a pretty clear idea of what the philosophy is that she is fighting. Her definition is pretty clear. “Defined in its simplest form, Christian Dominionism is a political approach to Christian faith based on a literal interpretation of Genesis Chapter l verses 26-28 of the Christian Bible. Believers perceive themselves as the ‘chosen’ or the ‘elect,’ commanded by God to ‘subdue’ the earth and ‘have dominion’ over all living creatures.” I would only disagree with her calling the interpretation of Genesis 1:26-28 “literal.”

And here is where I must confess that I agree with her. I agree that what I’d call “Dominion Theology” is a real danger. However – and this is extremely important – it is not a conspiracy, but a philosophy, an insidious philosophy.

Ms. Burton, in her third paragraph, seems to include all the persons in these groups in this vast conspiracy. A few changes in wording would make it more accurate. Dominionism as an “umbrella” does not include all the groups mentioned, but as a philosophy has penetrated the thinking of many who are members of these groups, usually without their being conscious of it.

This is not to say that Dominion Theology is not a “movement” with organization. It is, though I would hesitate to call it a “cult.” Dominion Theology, also known as Christian Reconstructivism and Theonomy had its beginnings with Rousas Rushdoony, a Christian minister, and his organization, the Chalcedon Foundation, founded in 1965. It continues to this day through various ministries and newsletters, many of which are scholarly . While their beliefs cover a broad field, they include along with Ms. Burton’s definition above, the belief that God’s laws as enumerated in the Torah (Exodus through Deuteronomy) were not given just for the nation of Israel, but are applicable today for any nation, especially the USA.

When it comes to eschatology (the doctrine of last things), Dominionists hold, of course to postmillennialism, the belief that we the people of God are to bring on an era of peace under the law of God before Jesus returns. (Of course, Ms. Burtons’ inclusion of pre-millennialists seems ironic.)

Dominion Theology is best summed up by Gary North, one of the leaders in the movement:

“Adam forfeited his lawful inheritance when he rebelled against God. Satan appropriated this inheritance as an illegal squatter. He conquered the world in one day by Adam’s default.

Jesus’ ministry restored the inheritance to His people. He announced a worldwide ministry of conquest, based on the preaching of the gospel of peace. Christians are required to pursue the same program of world dominion which God originally assigned to Adam, and reassigned to Noah” (Genesis 9:1-17).

(Gary North, as quoted by House and Ice, Dominion Theology, pages 23, 24.)

Though the movement itself is not large (contra Ms. Burton’s claims) and few actually would call themselves by any of the labels used, its philosophy has, to a greater or lesser extent, influenced the thinking of many evangelicals, primarily, but not exclusively, those on the religious right. Some evidences of its influence:

· The attempts to rewrite history to show that America is a “Christian Nation.”

· The desire to enforce what is perceived as a biblical morality through secular law.

· The belief that social ills of any sort can be corrected through politics.

· The resurgence of postmillennial thinking among many evangelicals.

· The Great Commission is seen as a means to this end, rather than a reaction of love and obedience.

There are also of course, some serious biblical and theological problems with Dominion Theology:

· It doesn’t fully take into account the depravity of man. Humankind apart from Christ can never bring anything near perfection to this earth.

· It makes the gospel of Christ secondary, almost just a means to an end.

· It ignores the fact that the Mosaic Law was part of the Covenant that the LORD made exclusively with one nation – Israel.

· It apparently ignores the biblical history. The one nation that had the Mosaic Law given to them failed miserably – over and over.

· The biblical picture of this age is one of increasing depravity, rather than improvement.

I must admit that I have not studied this philosophy extensively. Many of the above observations would probably be rebutted by Dominionists. They have written extensively.

But I have studied it enough to know that it is dangerous. And though I personally am unacquainted with who would refer to themselves as any Dominionists, I have seen this philosophy affect the thinking of many persons I do know. This is a great danger!