If you've been following the news recently, a Philadelphia court has banned the teaching of Intelligent Design theories (ID) in public schools. The judge said "that while intelligent design, or ID, arguments 'may be true, a proposition on which the court takes no position, ID is not science.' Among other things, he said intelligent design 'violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation'; it relies on 'flawed and illogical' arguments; and its attacks on evolution 'have been refuted by the scientific community'"(MSNBC). These are the same rebuttals the Neo-Darwinians have been throwing in the air for twenty years, but they're just not true. And I find this all the more annoying, being myself a high school biology teacher.
1. "ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science." But there are two ways in which Evolutionists (my name for those who hold to Darwin's theory of "Descent with Modification by Natural Selection") also violate the "ground rules" of empiricism: (1) Things can only be stated as facts that have occurred (1) during the time of experimentation, observation, or recoding. Thus their absolute claims upon past events prior to, say, the 1870s, are illegitimate. (2) Scientific patterns of cause-and-effect can only conclusively be determined within the boundaries of a controlled experiment. Outside of the exact time and conditions of a given experiment, we cannot make definitive causal statements.
2. "ID relies on flawed and illogical arguments." For an easy way to blow this statement out of the water, one only has to read Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: Touchstone, 1996). His biochemical analyses of "irreducibly complex" biological systems such as the blood clotting cascade make it incredibly difficult to attribute such systems to random genetic changes acted upon by natural selection. Also, his mathematical analyses of the formation of functional classes of proteins sock Evolution in the jaw.
Beyond biochemistry lies the ultimate aim of both ID and, unadmittedly, Evolution: origins. And here is where ID shines or, more accurately, Evolution's demand for scientific naturalism and materialism falls to pieces. Over the past several decades, the Big Bang theory has become widely accepted and confirmed as showing that the universe had an origin in time. Its chief competitor, Steady State theory, has been all but wholly dismissed. (Although nowadays new theories about a "cycling" universe of continual expansion-contraction-expansion are developing.)
You see, any chemist will tell you that if within a system of atoms or molecules, if all the given forces at work are truly balanced, no reaction will happen. The system is at equilibrium. But as soon as there is a disruption, then reactions happen. Now according to laws of thermodynamics, unless outside energy is added to a system (in the case of the Big Bang, the whole of the universe), no reaction will occur within a truly homogenous, stable system. So if the universe's matter just happened to exist in a truly homogenous state with no unbalanced forces, the Big Bang could have only occurred with the assist of a "nudge" from some extra-cosmic Mover, an impetus or source of energy from outside of the universe itself. Or, to look at it from a different angle, if no such "push" occurred, then for the Big Bang to have happened, the universe's matter could never have eternally existed in some homogenous state. So it had to have a creation point. Either way, we see that a Being either had to have existed prior to matter and has brought matter forth (creationism, spiritualism/supermaterialism, and supernaturalism), or this Mover had to exist separate from matter and has acted upon it (supernaturalism and supermaterialism). And I won't even get into the Big Bang and the law of efficient causality.
I'm not saying ID is the answer. From a purely scientific basis, it probably isn't. But the dogmatism with which Evolution is taught and its necessary presuppositions of materialism and naturalism have got to go. Even when we don't have a better answer, we can't say something is true simply because it's "the best we've got."
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Silent Night
The other night while praying, something came to my mind. I pictured a small church in a snowy countryside at nighttime, with a warm glow coming through its stained glass windows. Inside, the faithful sat (or stood) in the wooden pews, singing the carols and hymns they'd known since childhood and were eager to hear the Christmas story yet again. Something about this image really warmed my heart.
Now this isn't far off from my own experience, having grown up in a pretty conservative Lutheran church. (Shoot, the pastor wears robes and we still use a centuries-old liturgy!) For as much good as it can do to have varied styles of worship services that seek to bring the gospel of Jesus Christ to people in fresh way, I think a lot is to be said for the traditional (or is that timeless?), "culturally irrelevant" churches out there. What good is it when a church has organ music, lots of older people, and the King James Version? I think what it tells me is that there are people for whom the gospel has proved its lasting worth, and that it's not just the latest fad. New crazes in culture come and go, and if the church is too tied up in these, what makes it any different than grunge rock, a new pair of jeans, or L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics (i.e., Scientology)? This is why I'm often leery of the "emergent" movement. And yeah, perhaps pews and crying babies aren't quite like having a church that serves lattes and has fancy PowerPoint presentations, but it shows me that coming to church is more about Christ and community than about entertainment and ease. Faithfully attending such a church is itself an act of worship and death to self, an esteeming of God above allother pleasantries.
I guess this just all led me to praise God's constancy and unchanging love. It's so common to quote Psalm 23 or John 10, but it's really true. It was nearly in tears at the knowledge that God never changes and that the gospel isn't more new than true, and even when I'm nervous or tired or scared or ware of nothing by my sin, all I need to do is get on my knees and know that our Jesus "will sustain [us] to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord" (1 Cor 1.8-9).
Now this isn't far off from my own experience, having grown up in a pretty conservative Lutheran church. (Shoot, the pastor wears robes and we still use a centuries-old liturgy!) For as much good as it can do to have varied styles of worship services that seek to bring the gospel of Jesus Christ to people in fresh way, I think a lot is to be said for the traditional (or is that timeless?), "culturally irrelevant" churches out there. What good is it when a church has organ music, lots of older people, and the King James Version? I think what it tells me is that there are people for whom the gospel has proved its lasting worth, and that it's not just the latest fad. New crazes in culture come and go, and if the church is too tied up in these, what makes it any different than grunge rock, a new pair of jeans, or L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics (i.e., Scientology)? This is why I'm often leery of the "emergent" movement. And yeah, perhaps pews and crying babies aren't quite like having a church that serves lattes and has fancy PowerPoint presentations, but it shows me that coming to church is more about Christ and community than about entertainment and ease. Faithfully attending such a church is itself an act of worship and death to self, an esteeming of God above allother pleasantries.
I guess this just all led me to praise God's constancy and unchanging love. It's so common to quote Psalm 23 or John 10, but it's really true. It was nearly in tears at the knowledge that God never changes and that the gospel isn't more new than true, and even when I'm nervous or tired or scared or ware of nothing by my sin, all I need to do is get on my knees and know that our Jesus "will sustain [us] to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord" (1 Cor 1.8-9).
Friday, December 16, 2005
"Now we know only in part ..."
As I was writing an e-mail this morning to friend who's wrestling with understanding belief in the deity of Christ and how we can truly know an "invisible" God, I began to ponder the nature of biblical revelation.
The revelation God has mercifully given to us in his Word is sufficient for all of salvation, life, and doctrine: it is "able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3.15-17). But it's not a complete revelation, according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 3.9-13: "[Now] we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end. . . . For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known" (NRSV). In addition to that, we know God withholds revelation: "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law" (Deut 29.29). "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter" (Prov 25.2).
I've long been trusting that we can and must use the whole of the Bible to interpret the rest of the Bible (e.g., that Jesus' body and blood must be "eaten" and "drunk"). But can we actually do so? That is to say, is what is written ultimately able to be synthesized into coherent and whole theologies of eschatology, the person and work of Christ, the nature of man, et cetera? Scripture does come from and reflect the mind and voice of an immutable God perfect in wisdom. But is what he has revealed in it complete enough so that all contradictions and inconsistencies can be resolved internally (insofar as the concerned parties conduct their study in humility and prayer)? Or is it that we must take each book or writing at its face value and not attempt to resolve seeming contradictions or vagueries in Scripture because it doesn't promise (or perhaps demand) such smoothed-out resolutions itself? Or even if Scripture maintains complete internal coherence, are we limited by our own finite minds and cultural distance? On the one hand, "we have the mind of Christ" (1 Cor 2.16), but God's ways and thoughts are, ultimately, unattainable (Isa 55.8-9).
Your thoughts would be appreciated.
On another note, I like what Kevin VanHoozer writes on the nature of doctrine:
"Are doctrines informative truth claims or propositions about objective realities (the traditional view), or are they articulations of human feelings and experiences set forth in speech for church language and church life ([George] Lindbeck's own 'cultural-linguistic' view)? Clearly, if the aim is to develop doctrine from Scripture, one first has to decide what doctrine is.
"My own view is that doctrine is direction for the church's fitting participation in the ongoing drama of redemption. Doctrine has a cognitive component, for we must understand what God has done in Christ for our salvation (and this includes getting the identity of the divine dramatis personae right), but the thrust of Christian doctrine is not mere knowledge, but rather wisdom: we demonstrate our understanding by speaking and acting in manners that correspond to reality as it is disclosed by (and being conformed to) Jesus Christ. . . . I believe that this understanding of doctrine yields a theodramatic principle for continuing (I won't say 'going beyond') Scripture in new contexts." *
________________________
* I. Howard Marshall, Beyond the Bible: Moving From Scripture to Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2004), 87-88.
The revelation God has mercifully given to us in his Word is sufficient for all of salvation, life, and doctrine: it is "able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3.15-17). But it's not a complete revelation, according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 3.9-13: "[Now] we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end. . . . For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known" (NRSV). In addition to that, we know God withholds revelation: "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law" (Deut 29.29). "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter" (Prov 25.2).
I've long been trusting that we can and must use the whole of the Bible to interpret the rest of the Bible (e.g., that Jesus' body and blood must be "eaten" and "drunk"). But can we actually do so? That is to say, is what is written ultimately able to be synthesized into coherent and whole theologies of eschatology, the person and work of Christ, the nature of man, et cetera? Scripture does come from and reflect the mind and voice of an immutable God perfect in wisdom. But is what he has revealed in it complete enough so that all contradictions and inconsistencies can be resolved internally (insofar as the concerned parties conduct their study in humility and prayer)? Or is it that we must take each book or writing at its face value and not attempt to resolve seeming contradictions or vagueries in Scripture because it doesn't promise (or perhaps demand) such smoothed-out resolutions itself? Or even if Scripture maintains complete internal coherence, are we limited by our own finite minds and cultural distance? On the one hand, "we have the mind of Christ" (1 Cor 2.16), but God's ways and thoughts are, ultimately, unattainable (Isa 55.8-9).
Your thoughts would be appreciated.
* * *
On another note, I like what Kevin VanHoozer writes on the nature of doctrine:
"Are doctrines informative truth claims or propositions about objective realities (the traditional view), or are they articulations of human feelings and experiences set forth in speech for church language and church life ([George] Lindbeck's own 'cultural-linguistic' view)? Clearly, if the aim is to develop doctrine from Scripture, one first has to decide what doctrine is.
"My own view is that doctrine is direction for the church's fitting participation in the ongoing drama of redemption. Doctrine has a cognitive component, for we must understand what God has done in Christ for our salvation (and this includes getting the identity of the divine dramatis personae right), but the thrust of Christian doctrine is not mere knowledge, but rather wisdom: we demonstrate our understanding by speaking and acting in manners that correspond to reality as it is disclosed by (and being conformed to) Jesus Christ. . . . I believe that this understanding of doctrine yields a theodramatic principle for continuing (I won't say 'going beyond') Scripture in new contexts." *
________________________
* I. Howard Marshall, Beyond the Bible: Moving From Scripture to Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2004), 87-88.
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Konstantinos in Konstantinopolis
"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for yousince the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger, and you invited me in, I needed clothes, and you clothed me, I was sick, and you looked after me, I was in prison, and you came to visit me.' ... The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me' " (Matthew 25.34-36, 40).
Praise God! Dang it! Oddly, these were the back-to-back attitudes I had this afternoon. At church I met a very thin man of about eighty years of age named Konstantinos. We invited him out to lunch with us and talked with him over lentil soup and spicy lamb stew. He's among the third and final generation of his family living in Istanbul, and in 1980 he moved back to Greece to try to get his rightful share of his aunt's inheritance. But his uncle forged the legal documents and conned his way into taking his share of the inheritance. Since his return to Istanbul in 1996, Konstantinos has been without family. He has spent several years now living by himself in a sometimes-warm hotel often frequented by a rather seedy cast of vagabonds.
After lunch I walked him back to Taksim Square so that he wouldn't have to brave the dense crowds and repaving efforts by himself. Independence Street in Taksim is not a good place for slow-moving elderly men. I really felt a love for this man, and I wanted to spend more time with him and show him Jesus' love. Praise God for his work in me that made me really want to help him out and give him some companionship. But when he asked me if I wanted to go to McDonalds and get a cup of coffee with him, I gratefully declined. He energetically thanked me for walking with him and taking him to lunch, and he smiled (as much as a person can smile without front teeth) and told me I was such "a good boy."
But I actually declined his invitation because I had plans to go and spend some time reading by myself before meeting some German friends for a Weinachtsfest, a Christmas party. We made desserts, sang German hymns in four-part harmony (I sang tenor), and had fun. I felt sickly evil while I sent Konstantinos on his way, receiving his blessing while my duplicitous, selfish heart lay hidden underneath my wool winter coat. "Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?" Here was a gentle, lonely old man living in crappy conditions. I had the opportunity to show him he's valued and worthy of God's love and mine, yet I chose my own pursuits instead. Dang it. Yet in God's abundant grace, I had a great afternoon and had a lot of fun at the party.
Coincidentally, my friend Ryan wrote about "compassion pharisaism" and how easily we simply look for limits to how good we need to be to gain another pat on the back from God or, perhaps more accurately, from ourselves. Funny, I actually thought to myself this afternoon as Konstantinos and I parted, I've done enough. Enough for what? The real call is to "be imitators of God ... and live a life of love" (Eph 5.1-2). "God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him" (1 John 4.16b-17). Live (or 'abide') in love; be immersed in it and never leave it, letting all our actions be conducted in a sphere of other-centeredness. Living in love would make serving others as spontaneous as exhaling. And through Christ's presence in us--blessed be God--this does work itself into our lives as we are drawn to the cross. The source of and pattern for all love is God-in-Jesus upon the cross. Paul finishes his thought by saying to "live a life of love, just as Jesus loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God." And John does likewise: "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as the one who would turn aside his wrath, taking away our sins. ... We love because God first loved us" (1 John 4.10, 20; cf. 3:16).
Dear Jesus, our only hope both now and forevermore, help us to know you and the depths of your love for us, that we may live in it as you are formed in us (Gal 1.15; 4.19). Amen.
Praise God! Dang it! Oddly, these were the back-to-back attitudes I had this afternoon. At church I met a very thin man of about eighty years of age named Konstantinos. We invited him out to lunch with us and talked with him over lentil soup and spicy lamb stew. He's among the third and final generation of his family living in Istanbul, and in 1980 he moved back to Greece to try to get his rightful share of his aunt's inheritance. But his uncle forged the legal documents and conned his way into taking his share of the inheritance. Since his return to Istanbul in 1996, Konstantinos has been without family. He has spent several years now living by himself in a sometimes-warm hotel often frequented by a rather seedy cast of vagabonds.
After lunch I walked him back to Taksim Square so that he wouldn't have to brave the dense crowds and repaving efforts by himself. Independence Street in Taksim is not a good place for slow-moving elderly men. I really felt a love for this man, and I wanted to spend more time with him and show him Jesus' love. Praise God for his work in me that made me really want to help him out and give him some companionship. But when he asked me if I wanted to go to McDonalds and get a cup of coffee with him, I gratefully declined. He energetically thanked me for walking with him and taking him to lunch, and he smiled (as much as a person can smile without front teeth) and told me I was such "a good boy."
But I actually declined his invitation because I had plans to go and spend some time reading by myself before meeting some German friends for a Weinachtsfest, a Christmas party. We made desserts, sang German hymns in four-part harmony (I sang tenor), and had fun. I felt sickly evil while I sent Konstantinos on his way, receiving his blessing while my duplicitous, selfish heart lay hidden underneath my wool winter coat. "Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?" Here was a gentle, lonely old man living in crappy conditions. I had the opportunity to show him he's valued and worthy of God's love and mine, yet I chose my own pursuits instead. Dang it. Yet in God's abundant grace, I had a great afternoon and had a lot of fun at the party.
Coincidentally, my friend Ryan wrote about "compassion pharisaism" and how easily we simply look for limits to how good we need to be to gain another pat on the back from God or, perhaps more accurately, from ourselves. Funny, I actually thought to myself this afternoon as Konstantinos and I parted, I've done enough. Enough for what? The real call is to "be imitators of God ... and live a life of love" (Eph 5.1-2). "God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him" (1 John 4.16b-17). Live (or 'abide') in love; be immersed in it and never leave it, letting all our actions be conducted in a sphere of other-centeredness. Living in love would make serving others as spontaneous as exhaling. And through Christ's presence in us--blessed be God--this does work itself into our lives as we are drawn to the cross. The source of and pattern for all love is God-in-Jesus upon the cross. Paul finishes his thought by saying to "live a life of love, just as Jesus loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God." And John does likewise: "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as the one who would turn aside his wrath, taking away our sins. ... We love because God first loved us" (1 John 4.10, 20; cf. 3:16).
Dear Jesus, our only hope both now and forevermore, help us to know you and the depths of your love for us, that we may live in it as you are formed in us (Gal 1.15; 4.19). Amen.
Thursday, December 8, 2005
Zechariah 4: Kingdom building through earthly losers
Sorry, folks; I know you've been eagerly waiting for my next post on the rarely-read and even more rarely-understood oracles by the prophet Zechariah, who served to encourage the post-exilic remnant in rebuilding Jerusalem and the temple as part of a new dawn for Yahweh Tsavaoth's kingdom on earth. Or maybe you haven't been as anxious for this as I am to open the birthday present my uncle mailed me (eight more days!). But here it comes nonetheless.
Zechariah chapters 3 and 4 represent the 4th and 5th night visions the prophet receives, and these form the center of the message(s) of what GOD-of-the-Angel-Armies gives to strengthen his people in the midst of external opposition, financial destitution, internal despair, nostalgia, and one huge ol' heap of rubble. And--might I add--I think it's of no minor importance that the core of God's kingdom-building work on Earth deals not with the nations or wrath, but his gracious work within his people's lives. This 5th vision essentially consists of a vision that is explained (vv. 1-5, 10b-14), with a prophetic oracle placed in the middle, like chapter 2, and similar to chapter 6.
Because of it's seeming back-and-forth jumbledness, normal flow of thought is pretty well done away with. This is no epistle to the Romans; it's a vivid, hope-giving illustration. So I'll just go ahead and define the main elements: the lampstand (likely the temple building project; vv. 9-10), seven lamp spouts ("the eyes of the LORD which range to and fro throughout the earth;" v. 10), fresh olive oil (the Holy Spirit; v. 6), and two clusters of olives ("sons of fresh oil;" v. 14).
Lamps were fueled by a refined oil made from olives, and God gives a vision of whole olive trees funneling oil directly into the bowl with seven lamps. You see, God's Spirit is being poured out right into the temple rebuilding in abudant supply that won't run out soon (cf. 1 Chr 28.20). This is no ordinary work. To the Jews, God's temple has long been not only the symbol of his promise to dwell among his people, but also the seat from which his reign and redemption flow over the earth. Hence we have here the wide-ranging "eyes of the LORD" coming from his temple, showing the seat of his judging and rewarding presence upon earth seated at the temple (see 2 Chr 16.9).
But before this temple gets rebuilt, some tremendous obstacles need to be cleared (see above). But over against all these God mocks, "What are you, O great mountain? Before Zerubbabel you will become a plain; and he will bring forth the top stone with shouts of, 'Grace, grace to it!'" Now, this whole mountains-becoming-level seems quite familiar to those of us acquainted with the gospels. Jesus spoke of the overcoming of the power of wordly enemies* by faith (Mt 21.18-22), and John the Baptist called people to repentance as to make level the paths for God's salvation in the Messiah (Lk 3.3-6). Well, this is all actually from Isaiah's foretelling of the coming of the kingdom of God (40.4; 41.15; 49.11). And it's no different today: our best efforts to the contrary aside, the Lord Almighty has acted and is now acting to bring his just rule into this world. And he calls us to embrace him and his work through repentance and faith.
But wait a second, it's through Zerubbabel that God will build his temple? Are you kidding? This guy was a powerless governor established by Cyrus and was ultimately rejected by his people. Besides, he was the governor who left the temple rebuilding lie fallow for sixteen years! But this works because it is "not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit," says God. (And boy, do I fail to believe this. But there's no room for me to go into that here.) What is more, Zerubbabel isn't the only participant in the temple building effort. We see two "anointed ones" (literally "sons of fresh oil", and this word for oil is not used in the OT for anointing) who stand by the Lord, through whom the oil of the Spirit flows into the lamp. Many people favor these as being Joshua and Zerubbabel, but I find that they are rather prophets, probably Zechariah and Haggai.* Now, the LORD of hosts, he who created ex nihilo, could use any means at all to accomplish his purposes on earth, but he chooses to use his people as his agents upon earth. Surely, as seen above, he desires repentant, faithful, people committed to him (see Zech 1.1-6 and above). And there's also a clear primacy upon prophecy, that is, speaking forth the mind and counsel of God through communicating his written Word (see also Acts 2.17-21; Rev 11. 3-6).
Lastly comes the enigmatic verse 10: "For who has despised the day of small things? But these seven will be glad when they see the plumb line [lit. 'stone of tin'] in the hand of Zerubbabel--these are the eyes of the LORD which range to and fro throughout the earth" (NASB; similar NKJV; but see ESV/NIV). God encourages his people in the temple work because his eyes, which test all men's hearts, rejoices in seeing even "small things" done in his name. As of this point, only the foundation had been laid on the newer, smaller and less glorious incarnation of the temple. But God isn't so small and helpless as to fret or crack the whip; no, his Spirit is at work with abundant provision! So he puts himself within people like Zerubbabel who, though weak, cling to God and are filled with his Spirit, to do his work on earth. Work done for God's honor and pleasure (Hag 1.8), done in his name and by faith, will never lack for promise and God's empowering.
So as we preach and teach the gospel of Christ incarnate, crucified, and risen, as we seek to see people come to faith in him and grow to maturity, as we strive to help the needy, as we labor to be stewards of this planet's resources and living things, we must not despair in the seeming triviality of what we're doing or the "great mountains" we face. God is using us and strengthening us to do his will and elicit his praise, with unlimited supply of his Spirit and his strong support.
_______________________
*If you really want me to explain these, please e-mail me at thedrewhallkid@hotmail.com.
Zechariah chapters 3 and 4 represent the 4th and 5th night visions the prophet receives, and these form the center of the message(s) of what GOD-of-the-Angel-Armies gives to strengthen his people in the midst of external opposition, financial destitution, internal despair, nostalgia, and one huge ol' heap of rubble. And--might I add--I think it's of no minor importance that the core of God's kingdom-building work on Earth deals not with the nations or wrath, but his gracious work within his people's lives. This 5th vision essentially consists of a vision that is explained (vv. 1-5, 10b-14), with a prophetic oracle placed in the middle, like chapter 2, and similar to chapter 6.
Because of it's seeming back-and-forth jumbledness, normal flow of thought is pretty well done away with. This is no epistle to the Romans; it's a vivid, hope-giving illustration. So I'll just go ahead and define the main elements: the lampstand (likely the temple building project; vv. 9-10), seven lamp spouts ("the eyes of the LORD which range to and fro throughout the earth;" v. 10), fresh olive oil (the Holy Spirit; v. 6), and two clusters of olives ("sons of fresh oil;" v. 14).
Lamps were fueled by a refined oil made from olives, and God gives a vision of whole olive trees funneling oil directly into the bowl with seven lamps. You see, God's Spirit is being poured out right into the temple rebuilding in abudant supply that won't run out soon (cf. 1 Chr 28.20). This is no ordinary work. To the Jews, God's temple has long been not only the symbol of his promise to dwell among his people, but also the seat from which his reign and redemption flow over the earth. Hence we have here the wide-ranging "eyes of the LORD" coming from his temple, showing the seat of his judging and rewarding presence upon earth seated at the temple (see 2 Chr 16.9).
But before this temple gets rebuilt, some tremendous obstacles need to be cleared (see above). But over against all these God mocks, "What are you, O great mountain? Before Zerubbabel you will become a plain; and he will bring forth the top stone with shouts of, 'Grace, grace to it!'" Now, this whole mountains-becoming-level seems quite familiar to those of us acquainted with the gospels. Jesus spoke of the overcoming of the power of wordly enemies* by faith (Mt 21.18-22), and John the Baptist called people to repentance as to make level the paths for God's salvation in the Messiah (Lk 3.3-6). Well, this is all actually from Isaiah's foretelling of the coming of the kingdom of God (40.4; 41.15; 49.11). And it's no different today: our best efforts to the contrary aside, the Lord Almighty has acted and is now acting to bring his just rule into this world. And he calls us to embrace him and his work through repentance and faith.
But wait a second, it's through Zerubbabel that God will build his temple? Are you kidding? This guy was a powerless governor established by Cyrus and was ultimately rejected by his people. Besides, he was the governor who left the temple rebuilding lie fallow for sixteen years! But this works because it is "not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit," says God. (And boy, do I fail to believe this. But there's no room for me to go into that here.) What is more, Zerubbabel isn't the only participant in the temple building effort. We see two "anointed ones" (literally "sons of fresh oil", and this word for oil is not used in the OT for anointing) who stand by the Lord, through whom the oil of the Spirit flows into the lamp. Many people favor these as being Joshua and Zerubbabel, but I find that they are rather prophets, probably Zechariah and Haggai.* Now, the LORD of hosts, he who created ex nihilo, could use any means at all to accomplish his purposes on earth, but he chooses to use his people as his agents upon earth. Surely, as seen above, he desires repentant, faithful, people committed to him (see Zech 1.1-6 and above). And there's also a clear primacy upon prophecy, that is, speaking forth the mind and counsel of God through communicating his written Word (see also Acts 2.17-21; Rev 11. 3-6).
Lastly comes the enigmatic verse 10: "For who has despised the day of small things? But these seven will be glad when they see the plumb line [lit. 'stone of tin'] in the hand of Zerubbabel--these are the eyes of the LORD which range to and fro throughout the earth" (NASB; similar NKJV; but see ESV/NIV). God encourages his people in the temple work because his eyes, which test all men's hearts, rejoices in seeing even "small things" done in his name. As of this point, only the foundation had been laid on the newer, smaller and less glorious incarnation of the temple. But God isn't so small and helpless as to fret or crack the whip; no, his Spirit is at work with abundant provision! So he puts himself within people like Zerubbabel who, though weak, cling to God and are filled with his Spirit, to do his work on earth. Work done for God's honor and pleasure (Hag 1.8), done in his name and by faith, will never lack for promise and God's empowering.
So as we preach and teach the gospel of Christ incarnate, crucified, and risen, as we seek to see people come to faith in him and grow to maturity, as we strive to help the needy, as we labor to be stewards of this planet's resources and living things, we must not despair in the seeming triviality of what we're doing or the "great mountains" we face. God is using us and strengthening us to do his will and elicit his praise, with unlimited supply of his Spirit and his strong support.
_______________________
*If you really want me to explain these, please e-mail me at thedrewhallkid@hotmail.com.
Monday, December 5, 2005
Cyclocross
October is the most beautiful of months, with bright foliage, crisp air, and harvest time. But the months that follow can be just nasty. That in-between time prior to the consistent snowfalls of January and February leave wretched 35-degree weather, wind, and rain with the remains of dead leaves. There is little for any of the senses to revel in. But there is one thing left for me: cyclocross.
Cyclocross is the craziest of cycling sports, the bastard child of European road racing. It began in the 1940s and '50s as racers would shod their bikes with wider tires for better handling on the wet winter roads. Because northern France, Belgium, and the Netherlands are home to a lot of farmland, cyclists would occasionally need to get off their bikes and carry them through fields or ditches in search of better roads to ride while logging thousands of off-season miles. Now, decades later, this has evolved into an organized sport. On any given weekend in the Netherlands, Belgium, New England, or California's Bay Area, you can find one of such events.
What is cyclocross (CX)? Well, it's mostly contested on short (1-3 miles) courses that may contain pavement, sand, gravel, and grass. Well, that is, before the season's rain or snow turn it into a pit of mud. In order to replicate the trekking through ditches and whatnot, racers must dismount their bikes at high speed and run over natural or man-made barriers or up steep embankments. Races are often short for a cycling event (45-60 minutes), but oh, the pain! And unlike two-hour mountain bike races, these are often hotly contested, with races being decided in only the final lap.
Now, this wouldn't be quite so bad if it were all contested on fat-tired mountain bikes with shock absorbers. But those would be far too slow; and besides, we must keep with its tradition in evolving from road cycling. Imagine riding on 1"-wide tires with downcurved handlebars, no shock absorption, and brakes that will barely stop the weight of your wheels once they get clogged with mud. It gets even more fun riding sidehill on wet grass, hugging tight curves through mud and slush, or slogging through deep sand pits. Add to that the hills and barriers that must be run over in the 40-degree weather, and you've got yourself one helluva psychotic affair. And maybe therein lies why lovers of bike racing like me are so drawn to it.
And what are such CX fans like? Who are these lunatics who brave all kinds of natural phenomena to cheer on the competitors? The general portrait would be a Dutch man who worked on a fishing wharf since he was twelve. After filling himself with sausage and beer, he and his best buds grab their cowbells, rain jackets, and galoshes and head for the top of the course's steepest hill. What sport would be complete without such great fans? And if there is any sport with more color and character than cycling--well, there just isn't.
So, there you have it. That's 'cross. Why did I write a post about it, knowing no one cares? 'Don't know. But it's just damn cool, and I'll always love cycling. Long live December.
VeloNews: your source for bicycle racing coverage.
Cyclocross is the craziest of cycling sports, the bastard child of European road racing. It began in the 1940s and '50s as racers would shod their bikes with wider tires for better handling on the wet winter roads. Because northern France, Belgium, and the Netherlands are home to a lot of farmland, cyclists would occasionally need to get off their bikes and carry them through fields or ditches in search of better roads to ride while logging thousands of off-season miles. Now, decades later, this has evolved into an organized sport. On any given weekend in the Netherlands, Belgium, New England, or California's Bay Area, you can find one of such events.
What is cyclocross (CX)? Well, it's mostly contested on short (1-3 miles) courses that may contain pavement, sand, gravel, and grass. Well, that is, before the season's rain or snow turn it into a pit of mud. In order to replicate the trekking through ditches and whatnot, racers must dismount their bikes at high speed and run over natural or man-made barriers or up steep embankments. Races are often short for a cycling event (45-60 minutes), but oh, the pain! And unlike two-hour mountain bike races, these are often hotly contested, with races being decided in only the final lap.
Now, this wouldn't be quite so bad if it were all contested on fat-tired mountain bikes with shock absorbers. But those would be far too slow; and besides, we must keep with its tradition in evolving from road cycling. Imagine riding on 1"-wide tires with downcurved handlebars, no shock absorption, and brakes that will barely stop the weight of your wheels once they get clogged with mud. It gets even more fun riding sidehill on wet grass, hugging tight curves through mud and slush, or slogging through deep sand pits. Add to that the hills and barriers that must be run over in the 40-degree weather, and you've got yourself one helluva psychotic affair. And maybe therein lies why lovers of bike racing like me are so drawn to it.
And what are such CX fans like? Who are these lunatics who brave all kinds of natural phenomena to cheer on the competitors? The general portrait would be a Dutch man who worked on a fishing wharf since he was twelve. After filling himself with sausage and beer, he and his best buds grab their cowbells, rain jackets, and galoshes and head for the top of the course's steepest hill. What sport would be complete without such great fans? And if there is any sport with more color and character than cycling--well, there just isn't.
So, there you have it. That's 'cross. Why did I write a post about it, knowing no one cares? 'Don't know. But it's just damn cool, and I'll always love cycling. Long live December.
VeloNews: your source for bicycle racing coverage.
Saturday, December 3, 2005
The Skewed Perspective?
If you're a theology nut, or at least you pretend to be one (like me), you may have run across something known as The New Perspective on Paul. Its proponents (E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, Don Garlington, N. T. Wright, Gordon Fee) aim to restore Pauline theology and his definition of the gospel back to its proper first-century Jewish roots. One's readings of his letters, chiefly Romans and Galatians, is altered greatly by it.
Basically, it all has to do with the function of the Law within God's community: Torah was never meant as a means of meriting God's favor, but as a way of showing that you are part of God's covenant community. This is consistent with the stipulations of the suzerain-vassal covenant form of the Mosaic Law, i.e., a king offers gracious benefits of protection and blessing upon a people, in exchange for which, they embrace their partnership in the covenant by adhereing to the king's resulting stipulations. Thus obeying the Law is not meant as a means of entering into the covenant, but rather serves as a means of identification with the God of the covenant in which you are included. This is defined by Sanders as "covenantal nomism."
Without laboring through all the details, the issue of concern in Paul's letter to the churches in Galatia becomes not one of the use of "works of the law" as a means of meriting righteousness before God (the traditional Reformation view). Rather the concern was the use of specific "works of the law" such as circumcision, New Moon observations, regulations concerning meat, etc. to define who was actually part of God's community as who was not. The Judaizers, then, were using the Law as a means of erecting borders between Gentile and Jew in God's community.
The NPP does a lot of good for several reasons: (1)Even today this crap goes on, bickering about who's in, who's not in on account of worship styles, liturgies (or lack thereof), whether or not Christ's physical body and blood are present in the Eucharist, consumption of alcohol, giftings of the Spirit, etc. (2) We do need the greater emphasis on covenant inclusion used by NPP advocates. (3) We need to be reminded not to read our present experiences into Scripture, but instead interpret it within its historical context. So far, so good. Well, mostly.
But this New Perspective also, in its heart, entails that there may not be a truly fallen nature to mankind. This explains why Paul, although not denying his incompletion or imperfections, often displays a distinct air of confidence in his acceptance by God. NPP proponents claim that the Jewish/Scriptural idea of "the righteousness of God" in Romans 1:17 is his just declarations in saying who belongs, by faith, to his covenant community (cf. Psalm 50.6; 51;4). God's right declaration exists in his conferring citizenship upon those who by faith acknowledge the gospel of Christ's resurrection, reign, and rule as the new Lord and King of the world (see Romans 1:1-4). And in this King's cross, God has dealt with universal sin and makes forgiveness a reality. BUT it is not that the faithful are imputed with Christ's (that is, God's) own righteousness. They are merely cleared of sin's guilt and left with their life's covenant fidelity. And it is in this matter that I greatly digress for now.
I really don't know much about the NPP or the corpus of Pauline theology, but if the NPP is true, how do we make sense of such a statement as "Christ Jesus . . . became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, 'Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord'" (1 Cor 1:30-31)? If Christ's merit before God is not imputed to us through union with him by faith, how then can he become our righteousness? Or what about 2 Cor 5:21, which says that God made Christ "who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him"? If all of salvation-history balances upon Christ, how can we become God's righteousness" if no alien (external) righteousness is given to us? Or, what I see as the death blow to NPP righteousness, stands Romans 10.2-4: "For I testify about them [the Jews] that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end [telos: goal or fulfillment] of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." Here there is a clear distinction between our own righteousness and that of Christ, who seems to fulfill the law's demands of Israel. His righteousness is then "[given] to everyone who believes." This indicates the imputation of an alien righteousness through faith, unless I'm totally misreading this.
These matters are tough for me, since I like to pretend I already know everything there is to know without carefully investigating all sides of the story. This gets even tougher when having lived now for a second year with advocates of some form of the NPP, and my propensity to bicker and demand that my ways are always right. When something comes along that fits a logical argument currently outside the boundaries of my knowledge or abilities to thoughtfully investigate, I either (a) waver and wonderwhat it is I really believe in the first place, or (b) get whiny and prideful and root down in the trenches of my Lutheran/Reformed understandings--which are neither inherently bad or good, but simply the conclusions to which my reading of God's Word has currently brought me. Peter writes that all of Paul's letters contain "some things hard to understand" (2 Pet 3.16). True.
At any rate, you probably think I'm nuts for caring about this stuff. But, trust me, it really does matter. If you've got an hour to give to this, please check out an informative page about NPP at http://www.thepaulpage.com/Summary.html. There is also a tremendous amount of critical response to Wright posted at http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/new_perspective.html. Cheers.
Basically, it all has to do with the function of the Law within God's community: Torah was never meant as a means of meriting God's favor, but as a way of showing that you are part of God's covenant community. This is consistent with the stipulations of the suzerain-vassal covenant form of the Mosaic Law, i.e., a king offers gracious benefits of protection and blessing upon a people, in exchange for which, they embrace their partnership in the covenant by adhereing to the king's resulting stipulations. Thus obeying the Law is not meant as a means of entering into the covenant, but rather serves as a means of identification with the God of the covenant in which you are included. This is defined by Sanders as "covenantal nomism."
Without laboring through all the details, the issue of concern in Paul's letter to the churches in Galatia becomes not one of the use of "works of the law" as a means of meriting righteousness before God (the traditional Reformation view). Rather the concern was the use of specific "works of the law" such as circumcision, New Moon observations, regulations concerning meat, etc. to define who was actually part of God's community as who was not. The Judaizers, then, were using the Law as a means of erecting borders between Gentile and Jew in God's community.
The NPP does a lot of good for several reasons: (1)Even today this crap goes on, bickering about who's in, who's not in on account of worship styles, liturgies (or lack thereof), whether or not Christ's physical body and blood are present in the Eucharist, consumption of alcohol, giftings of the Spirit, etc. (2) We do need the greater emphasis on covenant inclusion used by NPP advocates. (3) We need to be reminded not to read our present experiences into Scripture, but instead interpret it within its historical context. So far, so good. Well, mostly.
But this New Perspective also, in its heart, entails that there may not be a truly fallen nature to mankind. This explains why Paul, although not denying his incompletion or imperfections, often displays a distinct air of confidence in his acceptance by God. NPP proponents claim that the Jewish/Scriptural idea of "the righteousness of God" in Romans 1:17 is his just declarations in saying who belongs, by faith, to his covenant community (cf. Psalm 50.6; 51;4). God's right declaration exists in his conferring citizenship upon those who by faith acknowledge the gospel of Christ's resurrection, reign, and rule as the new Lord and King of the world (see Romans 1:1-4). And in this King's cross, God has dealt with universal sin and makes forgiveness a reality. BUT it is not that the faithful are imputed with Christ's (that is, God's) own righteousness. They are merely cleared of sin's guilt and left with their life's covenant fidelity. And it is in this matter that I greatly digress for now.
I really don't know much about the NPP or the corpus of Pauline theology, but if the NPP is true, how do we make sense of such a statement as "Christ Jesus . . . became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, 'Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord'" (1 Cor 1:30-31)? If Christ's merit before God is not imputed to us through union with him by faith, how then can he become our righteousness? Or what about 2 Cor 5:21, which says that God made Christ "who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him"? If all of salvation-history balances upon Christ, how can we become God's righteousness" if no alien (external) righteousness is given to us? Or, what I see as the death blow to NPP righteousness, stands Romans 10.2-4: "For I testify about them [the Jews] that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end [telos: goal or fulfillment] of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." Here there is a clear distinction between our own righteousness and that of Christ, who seems to fulfill the law's demands of Israel. His righteousness is then "[given] to everyone who believes." This indicates the imputation of an alien righteousness through faith, unless I'm totally misreading this.
These matters are tough for me, since I like to pretend I already know everything there is to know without carefully investigating all sides of the story. This gets even tougher when having lived now for a second year with advocates of some form of the NPP, and my propensity to bicker and demand that my ways are always right. When something comes along that fits a logical argument currently outside the boundaries of my knowledge or abilities to thoughtfully investigate, I either (a) waver and wonderwhat it is I really believe in the first place, or (b) get whiny and prideful and root down in the trenches of my Lutheran/Reformed understandings--which are neither inherently bad or good, but simply the conclusions to which my reading of God's Word has currently brought me. Peter writes that all of Paul's letters contain "some things hard to understand" (2 Pet 3.16). True.
At any rate, you probably think I'm nuts for caring about this stuff. But, trust me, it really does matter. If you've got an hour to give to this, please check out an informative page about NPP at http://www.thepaulpage.com/Summary.html. There is also a tremendous amount of critical response to Wright posted at http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/new_perspective.html. Cheers.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
I'm better than you . . .
Well, that's not really true, but I am "published" now. (Although, Cassie, I think you stole my thunder in the race to be the first '04 MSU grad among us to get something sciency published. Blast!) That is, of course, only if you consider the Michigan Science Teachers Assocation Journal as being "published." It's really low-key. But I'm excited nonetheless. This past summer I spent six weeks working in a lab in the Plant Biology department at MSU studying a group of single-celled, photosynthetic freshwater algae called euglenoids. They're incredibly ancient--one of the first known eukaryotes (organisms whose cells have a nucleus) and, accordingly, incredibly diverse. As a side project I developed these activities as a (hopefully) fun and interesting way to allow students to learn about animals' response to their environment. Check it out, y'all: http://www.msta-mich.org/publications/index.php - Then click on "Phototaxis in Euglenoids."
Coincidentally, I find it interesting that I split the bill with yet another piece concerning the teaching of evolution through natural selection and of Intelligent Design. I am becoming increasingly critical of Darwinian Evolution, because not only mathematic probabilities but also the rules of scientific empiricism are violated by a number of the claims its adherents (often unnecessarily) make. Yet I am actually in favor of rejecting Michigan House Bill 5251, as is the MSTA. There is no need to single out Evolution and global warming as targets of critical study as to their arguments' strength or weaknesses, though I do plan on using Evolution as an area of greater scrutiny with my students.
Coincidentally, I find it interesting that I split the bill with yet another piece concerning the teaching of evolution through natural selection and of Intelligent Design. I am becoming increasingly critical of Darwinian Evolution, because not only mathematic probabilities but also the rules of scientific empiricism are violated by a number of the claims its adherents (often unnecessarily) make. Yet I am actually in favor of rejecting Michigan House Bill 5251, as is the MSTA. There is no need to single out Evolution and global warming as targets of critical study as to their arguments' strength or weaknesses, though I do plan on using Evolution as an area of greater scrutiny with my students.
Monday, November 28, 2005
Beauty
It began this weekend in Rome--a new opening of my eyes to see the beauty God has been working into his creation, that is. Because our visas here are only valid for three months, we have to leave the country to renew them. I ended up choosing Rome over Budapest, and I was not disappointed. Within the limits of my current experience, Rome is hands-down the most beautiful city in the world. It seems as if architects and fashion designers alike have thrown things such as restraint, efficiency, cost, or even functionality to the wind in favor of form, beauty, class, excess, and pure aesthetic pleasure. Probably the best part for me was St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican. In and of itself it is awe-inspiring, but being there during evening Mass made it even better. The Latin chants and melodies echoed in an eerily beautiful way, giving me the impression that the sanctuary was no longer filled with air, but with a physical manifestation of the music. I wanted to pray and be near to God. And I was, as always, thanks to his Spirit whom he has given to dwell inside the sanctuary of my own body.
With my teammates at the Colosseum
On the return flight from Rome to Zurich, I sat next to a girl named Natalie, who is studying brass arrangement at the Berklee School of Music. After trading pleasantries and sharing our musical interests, we were both captured by the view of the Apennines, over which we cruised at 500 mph. Winter there had long begun its semi-permanent residence, leaving several thousand feet of mountainside above the treeline decorated for the Advent season in its finest white. Their jagged peaks spread for miles, like so many tents set up by an army of titans, contrastedly sharply by the flat, blue surface of their immediate neighbor, the Tyrrhenian Sea (or perhaps it was the Ligurian Sea at that point).
The lower cupola atop St. Peter's at duskAccording to the Genesis account, God made man and woman last of all, the pinnacle of his creation. The inner beauty of the human mind and heart aside, even the physical form of us humans ought to be atop the list of physical creation in which to revel, far above the Grand Canyon or autumn in the Catskills. For that moment today on the plane, that truth was clear. I suppose the Romans had it right, after all: for over two millenia, their art has been fixed upon the human form, although sometimes eschewing the graceful slopes of Grecian art for defined musculature. But the attention their artists have paid to the details of even toe and tendon, bellybutton and eyelid speaks a strong word nonetheless.
Michaelangelo's Pieta. I admire this greatly for how one can see that every last ounce of life has been exhausted from Jesus' body, now lying in his mother's arms. "And a sword shall pierce your own soul, too."
The clouds over northern Rome at sunsetFrom the dizzying, buzzing complexities of subatomic particles to the hulking masses of mountains and everything in between--the curves of a woman's back included--beauty is everywhere. May the Lord grant us all inquisitive, perceptive eyes to see it and grateful, wondering hearts to cherish it. Yes, even here in Istanbul. Or Detroit. Or Modesto. But everything we see here is only a dim reflection of what we'll see in God's face in heaven.
______________________
*Annie Dillard, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek (New York: Harper Collins, 1999, 128).
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Zechariah 3, part 2: God will remove guilt in a single day
As we've seen in my last post on Zechariah's 4th vision, God has spoken in favor of Joshua and Jerusalem in spite of his utter wretchedness. He now, the symbol of the priesthood through whom all Jerusalem could enter into God's presence, gains hope through hearing these words. How could his heart help but burn within him upon hearing God speak of his gracious approval (v. 2)? Yet his head still hangs low as he stands before the altar in service to God. When this vision was preached in February 519, Haggai had already delivered a stinging rebuke of the priesthood months before (Hag 2.10-14). Will God accept him and his offerings? He is still dirty and helpless.
But God comes and removes his filthy garments, saying to him, "See, I have taken your iniquity away from you and will clothe you in festal robes." The priesthood has been restored! The hands of God have removed his guilt and clothed him in bright white, in new robes radiant with the splendor reserved for God's own attendants in the heavenly courts. Ah, such grace! We who are equally powerless and defiled have our sins washed away by Christ's blood and are wrapped in pure garments, those of Christ himself, in whom we are hidden before God (Is 1.18; Rev 7.14).
The priesthood has been restored. There is gracious renewal. These are the words of God, the defining characteristics of his actions in history. Is it a wonder that the Bible only contains two chapters on creation, one on the fall, and two on recreation? Everything in between is the story of his redemptive work in history in spite of man's failures.* And here the priesthood is restored: now right sacrifices can be made, paving the way for the God of glory to again dwell with his people (cf. Ex 29.44-46). Hope springs anew for the people of God in light of his incredible mercies.
But sinful, human priests can offer only the blood of goats and calves, which can never fully atone for man's sin (Heb 10.11). If the scope of God's forgiveness and reconciliation are to be in accord with his revealed nature, there must be something better to come. Isaiah spoke of a servant, a tender shoot, who would come and bear Israel's iniquity (52.13 - 53.12). Those words of his were focused on things yet to come. And here God again calls his people toward a blessed future hope: "Now listen, Joshua the high priest, you and your friends who are sitting in front of you [the other priests]--indeed they are men who are a symbol, for behold, I am going to bring My servant the Branch. For behold, the stone that I have set before Joshua; on one stone are seven eyes [or facets]. Behold, I will engrave an inscription on it ... and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day.
Joshua, the now-"sinless" mediator, points ahead toward God's servant, the Branch. But just who is he? Walter Kaiser points out how all four occurrences of the Branch (Heb. tsemah) correspond with the portraits of Jesus of Nazareth in each of the four Gospels: tsemah as King (Jer 23.5; Matthew); tsemah as Servant (Zech 3.8; Mark); tsemah as fully Man (Zech 6.12; Luke); and tsemah as fully God (Is 4.2; John).** And he is also a stone (cf. Ps 118.22-23; Dan 2.35, 45) with seven facets, which could easily represent either the sevenfold Spirit given to the Messiah (a 'shoot' and a 'branch') in Is 11.1-2, or it could be a poetic representation of the completeness of the coming Messiah in whom is no deficiency. He is wholly competent to save, something Paul is quick to point out in his letter to the Colossian church.
History has revealed that this Branch has been fulfilled in the King of the Jews, the Son of Man and of God, who came to serve and to give his life as a bloody ransom for many. In his death upon barren Golgotha, he bore in his own body the guilt of God's chosen ones, his Jerusalem (Zech 3.2). He now gives us the fulfilled promise of acceptance by God in spite of being lifelong sinners. The removal of guilt and shame in that seems implausible in man's eyes, both to the remnant returning from exile and to us, has taken place and is a true offer to all to be received by faith (Rom 3.25-26). Through Christ, our great and enduring high priest, our sins have been taken away for all time (Heb 10.12).
This gospel leads us to live out our duties to God and to others (and is not the latter inseparable from the former?) "in view of God's mercy" (Rom 12.1, NIV). Christian living in holiness and obedient service to God must always be preached as the result of God's grace toward us, not the other way around. Notice how the charge to Joshua (v. 7) comes after God's forgiveness of him. Anything else is deadly moralism, which benefits us none.
Zechariah's message was for a community and was to result in communal encouragement and peace. What, then, is the communal result of such blessing and comforting grace? "In that day ... every one of you will invite his neighbor to sit under his vine and under his fig tree" (Zech 3.10). The result is a sharing of blessing, an extension of received grace to others in need. And so it goes in the kingdom of God. Oh, for the day when faith shall become sight!
________________________
* This was pointed out by Kevin DeYoung in his sermon "A Survey of Genesis", delivered at University Reformed Church, East Lansing, Mich., on February 6, 2005.
** Walter Kaiser, The Preacher's Commentary: Micah - Malachi. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1992, 334-35).
But God comes and removes his filthy garments, saying to him, "See, I have taken your iniquity away from you and will clothe you in festal robes." The priesthood has been restored! The hands of God have removed his guilt and clothed him in bright white, in new robes radiant with the splendor reserved for God's own attendants in the heavenly courts. Ah, such grace! We who are equally powerless and defiled have our sins washed away by Christ's blood and are wrapped in pure garments, those of Christ himself, in whom we are hidden before God (Is 1.18; Rev 7.14).
The priesthood has been restored. There is gracious renewal. These are the words of God, the defining characteristics of his actions in history. Is it a wonder that the Bible only contains two chapters on creation, one on the fall, and two on recreation? Everything in between is the story of his redemptive work in history in spite of man's failures.* And here the priesthood is restored: now right sacrifices can be made, paving the way for the God of glory to again dwell with his people (cf. Ex 29.44-46). Hope springs anew for the people of God in light of his incredible mercies.
But sinful, human priests can offer only the blood of goats and calves, which can never fully atone for man's sin (Heb 10.11). If the scope of God's forgiveness and reconciliation are to be in accord with his revealed nature, there must be something better to come. Isaiah spoke of a servant, a tender shoot, who would come and bear Israel's iniquity (52.13 - 53.12). Those words of his were focused on things yet to come. And here God again calls his people toward a blessed future hope: "Now listen, Joshua the high priest, you and your friends who are sitting in front of you [the other priests]--indeed they are men who are a symbol, for behold, I am going to bring My servant the Branch. For behold, the stone that I have set before Joshua; on one stone are seven eyes [or facets]. Behold, I will engrave an inscription on it ... and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day.
Joshua, the now-"sinless" mediator, points ahead toward God's servant, the Branch. But just who is he? Walter Kaiser points out how all four occurrences of the Branch (Heb. tsemah) correspond with the portraits of Jesus of Nazareth in each of the four Gospels: tsemah as King (Jer 23.5; Matthew); tsemah as Servant (Zech 3.8; Mark); tsemah as fully Man (Zech 6.12; Luke); and tsemah as fully God (Is 4.2; John).** And he is also a stone (cf. Ps 118.22-23; Dan 2.35, 45) with seven facets, which could easily represent either the sevenfold Spirit given to the Messiah (a 'shoot' and a 'branch') in Is 11.1-2, or it could be a poetic representation of the completeness of the coming Messiah in whom is no deficiency. He is wholly competent to save, something Paul is quick to point out in his letter to the Colossian church.
History has revealed that this Branch has been fulfilled in the King of the Jews, the Son of Man and of God, who came to serve and to give his life as a bloody ransom for many. In his death upon barren Golgotha, he bore in his own body the guilt of God's chosen ones, his Jerusalem (Zech 3.2). He now gives us the fulfilled promise of acceptance by God in spite of being lifelong sinners. The removal of guilt and shame in that seems implausible in man's eyes, both to the remnant returning from exile and to us, has taken place and is a true offer to all to be received by faith (Rom 3.25-26). Through Christ, our great and enduring high priest, our sins have been taken away for all time (Heb 10.12).
This gospel leads us to live out our duties to God and to others (and is not the latter inseparable from the former?) "in view of God's mercy" (Rom 12.1, NIV). Christian living in holiness and obedient service to God must always be preached as the result of God's grace toward us, not the other way around. Notice how the charge to Joshua (v. 7) comes after God's forgiveness of him. Anything else is deadly moralism, which benefits us none.
Zechariah's message was for a community and was to result in communal encouragement and peace. What, then, is the communal result of such blessing and comforting grace? "In that day ... every one of you will invite his neighbor to sit under his vine and under his fig tree" (Zech 3.10). The result is a sharing of blessing, an extension of received grace to others in need. And so it goes in the kingdom of God. Oh, for the day when faith shall become sight!
________________________
* This was pointed out by Kevin DeYoung in his sermon "A Survey of Genesis", delivered at University Reformed Church, East Lansing, Mich., on February 6, 2005.
** Walter Kaiser, The Preacher's Commentary: Micah - Malachi. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1992, 334-35).
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Ghosts
Yesterday afternoon I stayed back from campus in order to pray for my teammates and their time on campus. While I was sitting on the rocks along the Moda shoreline, I saw what appeared to be a large layer of scum floating atop the water. Because the Bosphorus is filled with all kinds of junk, I shrugged it off. But upon closer inspection, I noticed it was actually a large school of jellyfish. Yup, the Bosphorus is chock-full of these guys. Now, being a biology teacher, I am absolutely fascinated by them, and I eagerly search for jellyfish every day on the boat. There are two types I see here: a large (10-14"), dense one with purple gossamer lacework along its edges, and a smaller (5-8"), more translucent and less-featured variety.
In the jet-black water, their translucent whitishness stood in stark contrast. Gliding smoothly as they were gently lifted and set down again by the incoming waves, they appeared to me as if they were scores of ghosts floating through the moonlight night. It was both an eerie, haunting sight, and yet it possessed a strange beauty that beckoned me to draw ever nearer. I probably watched them for ten minutes. (Sad, huh, how to us Americans that's a long time.) If it weren't for the steep, wet, algae-covered rocks and my uncertainty as to their harmlessness (although they were tentacle-free), I would surely have ventured into the Sea of Marmara to grab one and examine its delicate features.
Upon seeing a similarly beautiful sight of a frenzy of sharks, author Annie Dillard wrote: "We don't know what's going on here. If these tremendous events are random combinations of matter run amok, the yield of millions of monkeys at millions of typewriters, then what is it in us, hammered out of those same typewriteres, that they ignite? We don't know. Our life is a faint tracing on the surface of mystery, like the idle, curved tunnels of leaf miners on the face of a leaf" (Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, pp. 10-11).
That same logic ran through my mind two years ago while watching the sun set in Ocean City, NJ: If all we are is the product of a process and not a Person, from where does our ability to see and long for beauty come? And if my life is dictated, ultimately, by the rules of the 'survival-of-the-fittest' game, why didn't I instinctively shrink back from the potentially harmful marine life I observed today? If there is no creator of this world, it would require the denila of all I have ever felt upon hearing the sound of a November wind or upon feeling the coolness of the morning dew upon my bare feet, upon watching damselflies mate or spiders spinning their webs in hopes of catching a passerby unawares. God must be.
In the jet-black water, their translucent whitishness stood in stark contrast. Gliding smoothly as they were gently lifted and set down again by the incoming waves, they appeared to me as if they were scores of ghosts floating through the moonlight night. It was both an eerie, haunting sight, and yet it possessed a strange beauty that beckoned me to draw ever nearer. I probably watched them for ten minutes. (Sad, huh, how to us Americans that's a long time.) If it weren't for the steep, wet, algae-covered rocks and my uncertainty as to their harmlessness (although they were tentacle-free), I would surely have ventured into the Sea of Marmara to grab one and examine its delicate features.
Upon seeing a similarly beautiful sight of a frenzy of sharks, author Annie Dillard wrote: "We don't know what's going on here. If these tremendous events are random combinations of matter run amok, the yield of millions of monkeys at millions of typewriters, then what is it in us, hammered out of those same typewriteres, that they ignite? We don't know. Our life is a faint tracing on the surface of mystery, like the idle, curved tunnels of leaf miners on the face of a leaf" (Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, pp. 10-11).
That same logic ran through my mind two years ago while watching the sun set in Ocean City, NJ: If all we are is the product of a process and not a Person, from where does our ability to see and long for beauty come? And if my life is dictated, ultimately, by the rules of the 'survival-of-the-fittest' game, why didn't I instinctively shrink back from the potentially harmful marine life I observed today? If there is no creator of this world, it would require the denila of all I have ever felt upon hearing the sound of a November wind or upon feeling the coolness of the morning dew upon my bare feet, upon watching damselflies mate or spiders spinning their webs in hopes of catching a passerby unawares. God must be.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Zechariah 3, part 1: We're free from accusation because God has chosen us
Upon a wall in the Wartburg Castle in Saxony, Germany, is an infamous ink spot where, according to legend, Martin Luther hurled an inkwell in an argument with the devil. Luther said he had a dream in which Satan unfurled a scroll upon which were written all of his life's misdeeds, for which he stood eternally guilty before God's holiness and justice. In a 1521 letter to Philip Melancthon, Luther wrote: "I do see myself insensible and hardened, a slave to sloth, rarely, alas!--praying, unable even to utter a groan for the Church, while my untamed flesh burns with devouring flame."* Accused and attacked by Satan, Luther knew the depths of his sin and unworthiness before God. He knew he deserved the flames of hell.
The reality of wrath and anger as the outflowing results of offenses to God's holinesswere perhaps even better known to the community of Jews returning from the exile, to whom Zechariah preached. Their infidelity to God's covenant had resulted in bloody slaughter, the tearing open of pregnant women, being skinned alive, and even famine so bad that people ate their own children. In the first three night visions given to Zechariah recorded in 1.7 - 2.13, God reassures his remnant of his love and his exceeding passion for them. He is sovereign and aware of their plight and will by no means leave wrongs undone. The day of his glorious return to his people is coming. But how can an unworthy people possibly be met favorably by the God of glory? They knew his manifest presence in the temple was dependent upon holy sacrifices offered by consecrated priests (Ex 29.44-46; 38.28; Lev 16.21). But what happens when even the priestly mediators are now grossly defiled? Is there any hope for man?
The fourth night vision comes like a healing salve. The high priest Joshua ("Yahweh is salvation"), whom we will see more fully in chapter six, is seen standing before God in "filthy" garments. The Hebrew word here is related to the words referring to human excrement and vomit. Such is the vile stench of the priesthood's sin before God! The Accuser (Heb. satan) stands beside him to point out his every shameful deed to God, and rightly so (cf. Rev 12.10).
But look! God doesn't nod in assent or wag a judging finger. No, he says, "The LORD rebuke you, Satan! Indeed, the LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?" Oh, what beauty is in these words! For God is not against such sinners, but he is for them! Why? First, we see God has "chosen Jerusalem." Mercy to the uttermost will be shown upon filty Jerusalem because of God's election. Wherever goodness and mercy flow, they must come from a Source, whose decision to release them must always be prevenient. Because God's mercy rests upon his choice and not our cleanness--"God demonstrates His own love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom 5.8)--we can therefore rejoice along with Paul in saying, "If God is for us, who is against us? ... Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns?" (Rom 8.31, 33-34).**
Second, we hear God say that Jerusalem is a "brand [a burning stick] plucked from the fire." The sovereign God who holds the nations in his hands never planned to totally consume the remnant of the Jews, but rather to refine and purify them for service (esp. the priesthood; see Mal 3.3) and turn them back to himself from their bankrupt pursuits (Zech 1.1-6). We who trust in Christ alone have the same assurance: God "has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Ths 5.9). We can never know for sure why painful trials come in our lives, but we can know they are not for judgment; rather, they always come to cause us to fall upon our Lord in helplessness and in need of his abudant mercies.
----------------
*As found in Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., The Preacher's Commentary, Vol. 23: Micah - Malachi (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1992, 330).
**On vv. 1-2 John Calvin writes: "Let us therefore know, that God is not simply the enemy of Satan, but also one who has taken us under his protection and who will preserve us safe to the end. Hence God, as our Redeemer and the eternal guardian of our salvation, is armed against Satan in order to restrain him. The warfare then is troublesome and difficult, but the victory is not doubtful, for God ever stands on our side.
"But we are at the same time reminded, that we are not to regard what we have deserved in order to gain help from God; for this wholly depends on his gratuitous adoption. Hence, though we are unworthy that God should fight for us, yet his election is sufficient, as he proclaims war against Satan in our behalf. Let us then learn to rely on the gratuitous adoption of God, if we would boldly exult against Satan and all his assaults. It hence follows, that those men who at this day obscure, and seek, as far as they can, to extinguish the doctrine of election, are enemies to the human race; for they strive their utmost to subvert every assurance of salvation" (John Calvin, from his commentary on Zechariah-Malachi located at http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol30/htm/TOC.htm.)
The reality of wrath and anger as the outflowing results of offenses to God's holinesswere perhaps even better known to the community of Jews returning from the exile, to whom Zechariah preached. Their infidelity to God's covenant had resulted in bloody slaughter, the tearing open of pregnant women, being skinned alive, and even famine so bad that people ate their own children. In the first three night visions given to Zechariah recorded in 1.7 - 2.13, God reassures his remnant of his love and his exceeding passion for them. He is sovereign and aware of their plight and will by no means leave wrongs undone. The day of his glorious return to his people is coming. But how can an unworthy people possibly be met favorably by the God of glory? They knew his manifest presence in the temple was dependent upon holy sacrifices offered by consecrated priests (Ex 29.44-46; 38.28; Lev 16.21). But what happens when even the priestly mediators are now grossly defiled? Is there any hope for man?
The fourth night vision comes like a healing salve. The high priest Joshua ("Yahweh is salvation"), whom we will see more fully in chapter six, is seen standing before God in "filthy" garments. The Hebrew word here is related to the words referring to human excrement and vomit. Such is the vile stench of the priesthood's sin before God! The Accuser (Heb. satan) stands beside him to point out his every shameful deed to God, and rightly so (cf. Rev 12.10).
But look! God doesn't nod in assent or wag a judging finger. No, he says, "The LORD rebuke you, Satan! Indeed, the LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?" Oh, what beauty is in these words! For God is not against such sinners, but he is for them! Why? First, we see God has "chosen Jerusalem." Mercy to the uttermost will be shown upon filty Jerusalem because of God's election. Wherever goodness and mercy flow, they must come from a Source, whose decision to release them must always be prevenient. Because God's mercy rests upon his choice and not our cleanness--"God demonstrates His own love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom 5.8)--we can therefore rejoice along with Paul in saying, "If God is for us, who is against us? ... Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns?" (Rom 8.31, 33-34).**
Second, we hear God say that Jerusalem is a "brand [a burning stick] plucked from the fire." The sovereign God who holds the nations in his hands never planned to totally consume the remnant of the Jews, but rather to refine and purify them for service (esp. the priesthood; see Mal 3.3) and turn them back to himself from their bankrupt pursuits (Zech 1.1-6). We who trust in Christ alone have the same assurance: God "has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Ths 5.9). We can never know for sure why painful trials come in our lives, but we can know they are not for judgment; rather, they always come to cause us to fall upon our Lord in helplessness and in need of his abudant mercies.
----------------
*As found in Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., The Preacher's Commentary, Vol. 23: Micah - Malachi (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1992, 330).
**On vv. 1-2 John Calvin writes: "Let us therefore know, that God is not simply the enemy of Satan, but also one who has taken us under his protection and who will preserve us safe to the end. Hence God, as our Redeemer and the eternal guardian of our salvation, is armed against Satan in order to restrain him. The warfare then is troublesome and difficult, but the victory is not doubtful, for God ever stands on our side.
"But we are at the same time reminded, that we are not to regard what we have deserved in order to gain help from God; for this wholly depends on his gratuitous adoption. Hence, though we are unworthy that God should fight for us, yet his election is sufficient, as he proclaims war against Satan in our behalf. Let us then learn to rely on the gratuitous adoption of God, if we would boldly exult against Satan and all his assaults. It hence follows, that those men who at this day obscure, and seek, as far as they can, to extinguish the doctrine of election, are enemies to the human race; for they strive their utmost to subvert every assurance of salvation" (John Calvin, from his commentary on Zechariah-Malachi located at http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol30/htm/TOC.htm.)
Tuesday, November 8, 2005
faith:response
When I first began this blog back in June or whatever, I gave it the title Beloved Before Time. Why? Because, as you can see in the little description thingie to the right, I am coming to see true life as being something already fully accomplished, things that are "done deals." Wait a second, you ask, I've (hopefully) got many years yet to come. How can you say this?
Well, in reality, the Bible makes it clear that when it comes to being accepted by God and being loved by him, or living a God-honoring life in sync with how we were meant to live, everything is a matter of hearing God speak about what he has already done, is doing, or will certainly do, or what he has declared about us, and simply embracing its reality. God decided to adopt us as his children before time began (Eph 1.4-5). The covenant of blood securing our justification before God is equally ancient (Heb. 13.20-21). The decisive moment in history in which evil, sin, and the world were declared bankrupt of any lasting authority happened 1970 years ago upon a barren hillside outside of Jerusalem. Our sanctification is already complete (Heb 10.14). The apostle Paul even speaks of our future glorification in the past tense, a done deal (Rom 8.29-30). When Jesus cried out upon the cross, "It is finished," he wasn't talking about his life. Rather, he was talking about the moment in history to which all other moments point; the moment upon which all of the world's history past, present, and future will either be pierced unto death or unto repentance and life overflowing.
What God calls us to do is simply to embrace these realities. On the past event of the cross, we see the judgment of sin and the fact that God loves and forgives us. In the past event of the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, we see that eternal life is a reality to accept. It goes on like this. Even when Jeremiah was called into his prophetic role, he didn't hem and haw and fret nervously over what he should do. No, he learned that even before he was born God knew him and declared him to be a prophet to the nations (Jer 1.5). He found his life by responding to the already-conceived and declared word of God. Is this not the same for all of us?
I could wax about the beauty of the sacraments and they give our faith new life by serving as concrete symbols pointing us back to the cross and the purification purchased therein. Or I could go on with how I've been seeing this work out in the visions and oracles given to Zechariah--and I will. But until then I'll leave you with some related words from one of my favorite observers of life, Eugene Peterson:
Worship is the essential and central act of the Christian. We do many other things in preparation for and as a result of worship: sing, write, witness, heal, teach, paint, serve, help, build, clean, smile. But the centering act is worship. Worship is the act of giving committed attention to the being and action of God [not ourselves!]. The Christian life is posited on the faith that God is in action. When we worship, it doesn't look like we are doing much--and we aren't. We are looking at what God is doing and orienting our action to the compass points of creation and covenant, judgment and salvation (Reversed Thunder, pp. 140-141).*
The cry for and questioning of God's judgment, "How long?" is now established in its proper context, the act of worship. Judgment is ... experienced as the long-ago launched, deeply worked out, thoroughly accomplished action of God which we entered into through our baptism, the consequences of which we share in our salvation, which we participate in by means of our worship, and the completion of which we already celebrate by means of word and sacrament (ibid, p. 144).
*Eugene H. Peterson, Reversed Thunder: The Revelation of John & the Praying Imagination (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1988).
Well, in reality, the Bible makes it clear that when it comes to being accepted by God and being loved by him, or living a God-honoring life in sync with how we were meant to live, everything is a matter of hearing God speak about what he has already done, is doing, or will certainly do, or what he has declared about us, and simply embracing its reality. God decided to adopt us as his children before time began (Eph 1.4-5). The covenant of blood securing our justification before God is equally ancient (Heb. 13.20-21). The decisive moment in history in which evil, sin, and the world were declared bankrupt of any lasting authority happened 1970 years ago upon a barren hillside outside of Jerusalem. Our sanctification is already complete (Heb 10.14). The apostle Paul even speaks of our future glorification in the past tense, a done deal (Rom 8.29-30). When Jesus cried out upon the cross, "It is finished," he wasn't talking about his life. Rather, he was talking about the moment in history to which all other moments point; the moment upon which all of the world's history past, present, and future will either be pierced unto death or unto repentance and life overflowing.
What God calls us to do is simply to embrace these realities. On the past event of the cross, we see the judgment of sin and the fact that God loves and forgives us. In the past event of the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, we see that eternal life is a reality to accept. It goes on like this. Even when Jeremiah was called into his prophetic role, he didn't hem and haw and fret nervously over what he should do. No, he learned that even before he was born God knew him and declared him to be a prophet to the nations (Jer 1.5). He found his life by responding to the already-conceived and declared word of God. Is this not the same for all of us?
I could wax about the beauty of the sacraments and they give our faith new life by serving as concrete symbols pointing us back to the cross and the purification purchased therein. Or I could go on with how I've been seeing this work out in the visions and oracles given to Zechariah--and I will. But until then I'll leave you with some related words from one of my favorite observers of life, Eugene Peterson:
Worship is the essential and central act of the Christian. We do many other things in preparation for and as a result of worship: sing, write, witness, heal, teach, paint, serve, help, build, clean, smile. But the centering act is worship. Worship is the act of giving committed attention to the being and action of God [not ourselves!]. The Christian life is posited on the faith that God is in action. When we worship, it doesn't look like we are doing much--and we aren't. We are looking at what God is doing and orienting our action to the compass points of creation and covenant, judgment and salvation (Reversed Thunder, pp. 140-141).*
The cry for and questioning of God's judgment, "How long?" is now established in its proper context, the act of worship. Judgment is ... experienced as the long-ago launched, deeply worked out, thoroughly accomplished action of God which we entered into through our baptism, the consequences of which we share in our salvation, which we participate in by means of our worship, and the completion of which we already celebrate by means of word and sacrament (ibid, p. 144).
*Eugene H. Peterson, Reversed Thunder: The Revelation of John & the Praying Imagination (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1988).
Thursday, November 3, 2005
Zechariah 1.7-17: God is aware and cares!
In the year 519 B.C., the prophet/priest Zechariah ("Yahweh remembers") delivers a series of visions and oracles given to him by God sometime in the past (Zech 1.7 – 6.15). His goal is on one plane, like his contemporary Haggai, to encourage the temple rebuilding; but it is also to point the people toward the need for personal and community renewal in order to embrace the totality of God's redemptive work among his people.
In the first night vision (1.7-17) delivered on February 15, 519, Zechariah is shown a shadowy, nighttime military reconnaissance mission in which several (likely manned) horses who have returned from patrolling the earth. There is a man, probably the same as the angel of the LORD in v. 11, seated upon a red horse among myrtle trees, an ancient symbol of both
In verses 12-17 we see the heart of God and the promised future for his people in
The question is answered: Is God gone? Does he care anymore? Was it really true when the psalmist wrote "precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of His godly ones" (Ps 116.5)? Why is everyone else at peace while our lives are in turmoil? God answers the second angel, who is speaking with Zechariah, with "gracious words, comforting words" that are heard in vv. 14-17, but they are developed and laid out in picture and promise in the ensuing visions.
God did, in fact, purpose to bring a painful lesson to
Then God promises to return to
As I write this, I'm listening to one of my favorite CD's, Everyone's Beautiful by Waterdeep. Every song points to the sad, fragmented lives we live--but even more to the love of a caring Savior who will not break a bruised reed or snuff a smoldering wick. I see in this a need to seek and find comfort in the community of God. God is "the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort" (2 Cor 1.3, NIV), and here he links his comfort with his presence centered in his temple. We can know and trust that God is ready with open arms to hear our cries of pain and unfulfilled longings, and he promises to comfort us and daily bear our burdens (Ps 68.19; Isa 46.3-4). Jeremiah, plagued by his foes, lamented, "O my Comforter in sorrow, my heart is faint within me" (Jer 8.18, NIV). And we can take comfort in knowing that he is aware of our circumstances and is fully able to change them, as we see in vv. 9-11, although sometimes there may be a seemingly interminable delay. God readily and truly ministers his comforting and strengthening presence to us in personal prayer and reading of the Scriptures, but his Spirit indwells his new temple, the body of Christ, the church. As God's people in community, we ought to be a source of comfort to one another, and we ought to be able to find comfort and help in bearing our sorrows in the listening ears, words, hugs, and helping hands of our brothers and sisters in the Lord. And I don't even know where to begin.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Happy Halloween, er, Reformation Day!
I love October, and it's only natural that my favorite month is capped by my favorite holiday: Halloween (All Hallows' [Saints'] Evening). As a child and to this day, I love tales of ancient British mythology, of ghouls and ghosts and druids and banshees, of eerie lights and howls in the night. But this day has an even greater dearness to me.
On this day, October 31, in 1517 an Augustinian monk named Martin Luther took advantage of the All Saints' (Hallows') Day traffic in Wittenberg, Germany, and nailed his "95 theses" to the cathedral door in Wittenberg, as sort of public bulletin board. His theses regarded the unbiblical nature the current practices of the Roman Catholic Church, namely, in regards to the sale of indulgences. Indulgences were these slips of paper that were sold as tickets to get yourself or a loved one out of years of purgatory--all for a few Deutschmarks or seeing some holy relic! As Luther pondered St. Paul's message to the Romans, esp. 1.16-17, he "beat importunately upon Paul" wondering what it meant that "in [the gospel] the righteousness of [or from] God is revealed." Alas! He discovered that a man's right standing before God is dependent on God's declaration of him as accepted on account of the perfect standing of his Son Jesus Christ, whose sufficient merits are imputed to us through faith. No indulgences, no allegiance to the papacy, no visitation of relics were needed; indeed, such are evil. Luther saw the need for reform, and made it known upon the cathedral door in Wittenberg.
Luther once wrote the following in a 1521 letter to Philip Melancthon, another 16th-century Reformer:
If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and sin strongly, but trust in Christ more strongly still, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice abides. We, however, says Peter (2 Peter 3.13) are looking forwared to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God's glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.
Duh, we were never meant to be perfect! This world is a fallen place wherein we all need restoration and redemption. Though we are far too gone to fix ourselves by our own efforts through good deeds, pentitential prayers, flaggelation, self-aggrandization, sacrifices, or enlightened philosophies, we have a sure hope: We have been purchased for God with the imperishable, precious blood of Jesus Christ, on account of which we are now forgiven, accepted, given Christ's own righteousness, and sealed in the Holy Spirit (Eph 1.3-14; 2 Cor 5.21). We no longer need to fulfill the righteous demands of God's law, for Christ has become to us Israel, fulfilling God's demands and being perfected through what he suffered. He has taken our sinful natures in exchange for his own righteousness before God. It's finished, indeed.
So when you grumble at your roommates, fail to pray for your family, made a snide remark to someone, feel ungrateful that you can know God, or have sex with your girlfriend/boyfriend, know this: You are a sinner under God's divine wrath, but Jesus has borne your punishment so fully that all that is left to you is God's mercy, love, and acceptance. Run to him, cling to him, embrace this glorious, comforting truth!
I love what Dietrich Bonhoeffer writes in regard to sin and confession in the Christian fellowship:
The pious fellowship permits no one to be a sinner. So everybody must conceal his sin from himself and from the fellowship. We dare not be sinners. Many Christians are unthinkably horrified when a real sinner is suddenly discovered among the righteous. So we remain alone with our sin, living in lies and hypocrisy. The fact is that we are sinners!
But it is the grace of the Gospel, which is so hard for the pious to understand, that it confronts us with the truth and says: You are a sinner, a great, desperate sinner; now come, as the sinner that you are, to God who loves you. He wants you as you are; He does not want anything from you, a sacrifice, a work; He wants you alone. . . . You do not have to go on lying to yourself and your brothers, as if you were without sin; you can dare to be a sinner. Thank God for that; He loves the sinner but He hates sin" (Life Together, pp. 110-111).
For a related article on "the righteousness of God", see here.
On this day, October 31, in 1517 an Augustinian monk named Martin Luther took advantage of the All Saints' (Hallows') Day traffic in Wittenberg, Germany, and nailed his "95 theses" to the cathedral door in Wittenberg, as sort of public bulletin board. His theses regarded the unbiblical nature the current practices of the Roman Catholic Church, namely, in regards to the sale of indulgences. Indulgences were these slips of paper that were sold as tickets to get yourself or a loved one out of years of purgatory--all for a few Deutschmarks or seeing some holy relic! As Luther pondered St. Paul's message to the Romans, esp. 1.16-17, he "beat importunately upon Paul" wondering what it meant that "in [the gospel] the righteousness of [or from] God is revealed." Alas! He discovered that a man's right standing before God is dependent on God's declaration of him as accepted on account of the perfect standing of his Son Jesus Christ, whose sufficient merits are imputed to us through faith. No indulgences, no allegiance to the papacy, no visitation of relics were needed; indeed, such are evil. Luther saw the need for reform, and made it known upon the cathedral door in Wittenberg.
Luther once wrote the following in a 1521 letter to Philip Melancthon, another 16th-century Reformer:
If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and sin strongly, but trust in Christ more strongly still, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice abides. We, however, says Peter (2 Peter 3.13) are looking forwared to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God's glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.
Duh, we were never meant to be perfect! This world is a fallen place wherein we all need restoration and redemption. Though we are far too gone to fix ourselves by our own efforts through good deeds, pentitential prayers, flaggelation, self-aggrandization, sacrifices, or enlightened philosophies, we have a sure hope: We have been purchased for God with the imperishable, precious blood of Jesus Christ, on account of which we are now forgiven, accepted, given Christ's own righteousness, and sealed in the Holy Spirit (Eph 1.3-14; 2 Cor 5.21). We no longer need to fulfill the righteous demands of God's law, for Christ has become to us Israel, fulfilling God's demands and being perfected through what he suffered. He has taken our sinful natures in exchange for his own righteousness before God. It's finished, indeed.
So when you grumble at your roommates, fail to pray for your family, made a snide remark to someone, feel ungrateful that you can know God, or have sex with your girlfriend/boyfriend, know this: You are a sinner under God's divine wrath, but Jesus has borne your punishment so fully that all that is left to you is God's mercy, love, and acceptance. Run to him, cling to him, embrace this glorious, comforting truth!
* * *
I love what Dietrich Bonhoeffer writes in regard to sin and confession in the Christian fellowship:
The pious fellowship permits no one to be a sinner. So everybody must conceal his sin from himself and from the fellowship. We dare not be sinners. Many Christians are unthinkably horrified when a real sinner is suddenly discovered among the righteous. So we remain alone with our sin, living in lies and hypocrisy. The fact is that we are sinners!
But it is the grace of the Gospel, which is so hard for the pious to understand, that it confronts us with the truth and says: You are a sinner, a great, desperate sinner; now come, as the sinner that you are, to God who loves you. He wants you as you are; He does not want anything from you, a sacrifice, a work; He wants you alone. . . . You do not have to go on lying to yourself and your brothers, as if you were without sin; you can dare to be a sinner. Thank God for that; He loves the sinner but He hates sin" (Life Together, pp. 110-111).
For a related article on "the righteousness of God", see here.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Spam
Do any of you know how to prevent getting spammed in my comments? Every post of mine seems to get spammed.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Zechariah 2: God's glory will dwell with us -- so return to him!
Okay, Mollie, I'm going to follow suit and put up some lengthy post outlining the message of a biblical passage. My choice: Zechariah's third night vision (2.1-13). In 1.7-17 we see Zechariah receive a message from God that he is angry with the nations who took their punishment of his people too far. God is passionate for his people and will deal out retribution and restore his people and their city Jerusalem, blessing it with his presence. And to pave the way for such blessing, he calls his people to return to him (1.1-6).
Some commentators break this up into a vision (2.1-5) and a resulting oracle delivered by Zechariah (2.6-13). I beg to differ (along iwth Walter Kaiser and John Calvin): its entirety is in the vision, and the "me" of vv. 8, 9, and 11 is the "another angel" of v. 3, that is, the Angel of the LORD (1. 12), who throughout the OT is a manifestation of the preincarnate Son of God. Basically, vv. 1-5 and 10-13 are a continued message, with vv. 6-9 seriving as a parenthesis concerning the fate of Babylon, hearkening back to its promised ruin in 1.15, 18-21.
VERSES 1-5, 10-13
Zechariah sees a man carrying a surveyor's line, who is planning on measuring Jerusalem. When the Jews returned from exile beginning in 538 B.C. (this message was delivered to the people in 519 B.C.), the city was in shambles--the temple included. The people believed that this meant their complete rejection by God; even Jesus' disciples thought the temple's destruction would mean the end of the world (see Matt 24.1-3). The people despaired when they began rebuilding the temple and the city because of how small it was and because of the ever-present oppression of neighboring peoples (Ezra 3.12; 4.1-5; Hag 2.3). The anel sends a message to the man telling him to drop any thoughts about measuring the city. In other words, "Don't look at the city's present size, however small it may be right now. Don't look to the current visible situation, but to the glory to come!" "Jerusalem will be inhabited without walls [lit. like unwalled villages] because of the multitude of men and cattle within it." Why? Because God promises to be a "wall of fire around her" and her glory within.
In vv. 10-11 God declares that in the time of Jerusalem's restoration "many nations will join themselves to the LORD in that day and will become My people. Then I will dwell in your midst." From numerous other places in Scripture referring to the post-exilic restoration of Jerusalem, this influx of people isn't limited to the Jews coming back from being scattered to the four winds in the diaspora (v. 6), but also that persons from many peoples will join themselves to God and enter into covenant relationship with him (Isa 11.10-16; 49.19-20; 56.6-8). We see this fulfillment not in some distant "millenium," but right here and how in the building of the church. We can see that the "multitude" of v. 4 is reflected in John's heavenly vision of the church in Rev 7.9-10. And the parallel account of the restoration of Israel followed by the destruction of Babylon (Gog and Magog) in Ezekiel 38 (also Rev 19.17-21; 20.7-10) clearly portrays the church era. Why? We see in Ezekiel a great eschatological battle following the close of the "millenium" in which Gog (Babylon) battles the "land of unwalled villages" (38.11; see Zech 2.4). The battles described in Rev 19.17-21 and 20.7-10 are one and the same, both being records of the downfall of Babylon/Gog, the worldly and spiritual powers set up against the kingdom of Christ.*
Such ruin upon Babylon will come "after glory" (Zech 2.6), that is, after the time of glory promised in v. 5. So it will come after God gathers a multitude of people from among the nations to become his partners in the new covenant (cf. the gathering of the elect from the four winds, Matt 24.31).
The Jews thought too small; they looked to physical walls and boundaries. Were they not just as blind to the inclusion of the Gentiles as well, believing that there are barriers of ethnicity preventing their inclusion? This is exactly what God is calling them to reject here. City walls were not only for defining boundaries; their chief goal was protection from enemies. We need to see things from a God-sized perspective in which the "GOD-of-the-Angel-Armies" (Msg.) is in control of things and is working to bring about his glory among the nations of the world. He cannot and will not be thwarted by anyone in bringing people to himself and slaying all physical and spiritual powers set up against his kingdom--a verdict already cast and accomplished in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Yet without the eyes of faith, all we can see is opposition. But God promises us much more: he is creating an expansive people no longer defined by earthly walls and borders, in need of the protection of the weapons of man ("Jerusalem will be a city without walls"). On the contrary, his people are now marked by the fire of his purifying and protecting presence, namely, that of his Holy Spirit ("I will be a wall of fire around her, and I will be the glory in her midst"; cf Isa 4.2-6; Acts 2.3).
Let us dream big and trust in the LORD of hosts in bringing even the most unexpected people to himself. He makes no limits to whom he can and will include, and his promised protection of an impenetrable wall of fire is with us.
VERSES 6-9
God here calls his people to flee Bablyon because of (1) the promise of blessing upon Judah (1.16-17; 2.4-5, 10-13) and (2) the coming judgment of Babylon. The God who is "exceedingly jealous" for his people is aroused from his holy dwelling, irate against those who have sought to harm the "apple of His eye." Babylon's destruction never did totally occur yet: Cyrus king of Persia overthrew it in 539 B.C., and Darius of Persia later chastized it severely for its rebellions (521), but destruction was hardly the right word -- at least nothing like what happened to Jerusalem. The reality is that the true judgment of Babylon is yet to come by the sword of Christ the Victor (Rev 19.17-21). So God calls to his people: "Ho, Zion! Escape, you who are living with the daughter of Babylon."
We see this same call echoed in Rev 18.4-8, where we see Babylon as representative of sin and rebellion against God. In the 6th century B.C., life in Babylon and Persia was more prosperous than in the province of Yehud and the frail city of Jerusalem. Not only that, but a long, tiring journey was required to make the trip back home. We, too, are called to leave our patterns of sin and return to the dwelling and presence of God, our hearts' true home. This often comes with a loud wake-up call of "Ho there!" (Zech 2.6; Isa 55.1) or "Awake, O sleeper!" (Eph 5.14). The promise stands for us to enter into relationship to God through faith and repentance: "Return to me, and I will return to you" (Zech 1.3).
- - -
*This, therefore, reveals that the "thousand years" of Rev 20.1-6 are actually the present age inaugurated by the life of Jesus and culminated by his second advent. This stance is known as "amillenialism" or "realized millenialism."
Some commentators break this up into a vision (2.1-5) and a resulting oracle delivered by Zechariah (2.6-13). I beg to differ (along iwth Walter Kaiser and John Calvin): its entirety is in the vision, and the "me" of vv. 8, 9, and 11 is the "another angel" of v. 3, that is, the Angel of the LORD (1. 12), who throughout the OT is a manifestation of the preincarnate Son of God. Basically, vv. 1-5 and 10-13 are a continued message, with vv. 6-9 seriving as a parenthesis concerning the fate of Babylon, hearkening back to its promised ruin in 1.15, 18-21.
VERSES 1-5, 10-13
Zechariah sees a man carrying a surveyor's line, who is planning on measuring Jerusalem. When the Jews returned from exile beginning in 538 B.C. (this message was delivered to the people in 519 B.C.), the city was in shambles--the temple included. The people believed that this meant their complete rejection by God; even Jesus' disciples thought the temple's destruction would mean the end of the world (see Matt 24.1-3). The people despaired when they began rebuilding the temple and the city because of how small it was and because of the ever-present oppression of neighboring peoples (Ezra 3.12; 4.1-5; Hag 2.3). The anel sends a message to the man telling him to drop any thoughts about measuring the city. In other words, "Don't look at the city's present size, however small it may be right now. Don't look to the current visible situation, but to the glory to come!" "Jerusalem will be inhabited without walls [lit. like unwalled villages] because of the multitude of men and cattle within it." Why? Because God promises to be a "wall of fire around her" and her glory within.
In vv. 10-11 God declares that in the time of Jerusalem's restoration "many nations will join themselves to the LORD in that day and will become My people. Then I will dwell in your midst." From numerous other places in Scripture referring to the post-exilic restoration of Jerusalem, this influx of people isn't limited to the Jews coming back from being scattered to the four winds in the diaspora (v. 6), but also that persons from many peoples will join themselves to God and enter into covenant relationship with him (Isa 11.10-16; 49.19-20; 56.6-8). We see this fulfillment not in some distant "millenium," but right here and how in the building of the church. We can see that the "multitude" of v. 4 is reflected in John's heavenly vision of the church in Rev 7.9-10. And the parallel account of the restoration of Israel followed by the destruction of Babylon (Gog and Magog) in Ezekiel 38 (also Rev 19.17-21; 20.7-10) clearly portrays the church era. Why? We see in Ezekiel a great eschatological battle following the close of the "millenium" in which Gog (Babylon) battles the "land of unwalled villages" (38.11; see Zech 2.4). The battles described in Rev 19.17-21 and 20.7-10 are one and the same, both being records of the downfall of Babylon/Gog, the worldly and spiritual powers set up against the kingdom of Christ.*
Such ruin upon Babylon will come "after glory" (Zech 2.6), that is, after the time of glory promised in v. 5. So it will come after God gathers a multitude of people from among the nations to become his partners in the new covenant (cf. the gathering of the elect from the four winds, Matt 24.31).
The Jews thought too small; they looked to physical walls and boundaries. Were they not just as blind to the inclusion of the Gentiles as well, believing that there are barriers of ethnicity preventing their inclusion? This is exactly what God is calling them to reject here. City walls were not only for defining boundaries; their chief goal was protection from enemies. We need to see things from a God-sized perspective in which the "GOD-of-the-Angel-Armies" (Msg.) is in control of things and is working to bring about his glory among the nations of the world. He cannot and will not be thwarted by anyone in bringing people to himself and slaying all physical and spiritual powers set up against his kingdom--a verdict already cast and accomplished in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Yet without the eyes of faith, all we can see is opposition. But God promises us much more: he is creating an expansive people no longer defined by earthly walls and borders, in need of the protection of the weapons of man ("Jerusalem will be a city without walls"). On the contrary, his people are now marked by the fire of his purifying and protecting presence, namely, that of his Holy Spirit ("I will be a wall of fire around her, and I will be the glory in her midst"; cf Isa 4.2-6; Acts 2.3).
Let us dream big and trust in the LORD of hosts in bringing even the most unexpected people to himself. He makes no limits to whom he can and will include, and his promised protection of an impenetrable wall of fire is with us.
VERSES 6-9
God here calls his people to flee Bablyon because of (1) the promise of blessing upon Judah (1.16-17; 2.4-5, 10-13) and (2) the coming judgment of Babylon. The God who is "exceedingly jealous" for his people is aroused from his holy dwelling, irate against those who have sought to harm the "apple of His eye." Babylon's destruction never did totally occur yet: Cyrus king of Persia overthrew it in 539 B.C., and Darius of Persia later chastized it severely for its rebellions (521), but destruction was hardly the right word -- at least nothing like what happened to Jerusalem. The reality is that the true judgment of Babylon is yet to come by the sword of Christ the Victor (Rev 19.17-21). So God calls to his people: "Ho, Zion! Escape, you who are living with the daughter of Babylon."
We see this same call echoed in Rev 18.4-8, where we see Babylon as representative of sin and rebellion against God. In the 6th century B.C., life in Babylon and Persia was more prosperous than in the province of Yehud and the frail city of Jerusalem. Not only that, but a long, tiring journey was required to make the trip back home. We, too, are called to leave our patterns of sin and return to the dwelling and presence of God, our hearts' true home. This often comes with a loud wake-up call of "Ho there!" (Zech 2.6; Isa 55.1) or "Awake, O sleeper!" (Eph 5.14). The promise stands for us to enter into relationship to God through faith and repentance: "Return to me, and I will return to you" (Zech 1.3).
- - -
*This, therefore, reveals that the "thousand years" of Rev 20.1-6 are actually the present age inaugurated by the life of Jesus and culminated by his second advent. This stance is known as "amillenialism" or "realized millenialism."
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
The cross in ministry
God's word is living and active indeed. Despite being spoken through his prophet Haggai in 520 B.C., his words are still having an impact on me.
Turkey was once where Christianity was officially given acceptance by the Roman Empire under Emperor Constantine. Amazing churches such as the Hagia Sophia were built here, and Jesus Christ was known and worshiped here for over a millenium. All of the churches to whom John wrote his apocalypse were here. Yet nowadays it stands as a nation of 72 million people, most of whom are cultural Muslims, with only 3500 or so known Turkish or Kurdish believers. "Who is left among you who saw this temple in its former glory? And how do you see it now? Does it not seem to you like nothing in comparison?" (Hag 2.3).
It's a little disappointing to me to work here and see relatively little fruit. I know it's really early in the year, but still. I start making comparisons to ministry in the States, where so many of the barriers--most notably not living in an Islamic culture--are gone. Here churches have maybe fifty people.
God sent Haggai to give hope to people who were engaged in the Lord's work and worship in rebuilding the temple. Yet when they looked at how difficult their task was and how much smaller and less glorious the newer incarnation of the temple was, they were saddened and in despair (2.3; cf Ezra 3.12). But could it also be that they dreamt of being where the glory and action were? That's much easier than faithfully trusting God's call and provision regardless of how insignificant the work may appear.
Luther was right when he summed up Christian living as centered on a theology of the cross, not a theology of glory. Such applies here: (1) The life that embraces the cross embraces shame in the eyes of the world. While some pastors have megachurches--not a bad thing at all in itself--we instead get seven students to show up to a weekly "YY" meeting. Our work may be humble and unnoticed now, but so goes the cross. Yet glory will come later (Hag 2.6-9)! (2) This work also requires the cross in another way, namely, dying on my own. I want things to be easier, more comfortable, and more fruitful, but I don't get that. I remember back to the summer of 2003 when I surrendered and committed to coming here. It gave me a lot of peace. Now Christ calls me to take up my cross and die again. But only herein does he say I will find true, abundant life (Luke 9.23-24).
"Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord" (1 Cor 15.58).
Turkey was once where Christianity was officially given acceptance by the Roman Empire under Emperor Constantine. Amazing churches such as the Hagia Sophia were built here, and Jesus Christ was known and worshiped here for over a millenium. All of the churches to whom John wrote his apocalypse were here. Yet nowadays it stands as a nation of 72 million people, most of whom are cultural Muslims, with only 3500 or so known Turkish or Kurdish believers. "Who is left among you who saw this temple in its former glory? And how do you see it now? Does it not seem to you like nothing in comparison?" (Hag 2.3).
It's a little disappointing to me to work here and see relatively little fruit. I know it's really early in the year, but still. I start making comparisons to ministry in the States, where so many of the barriers--most notably not living in an Islamic culture--are gone. Here churches have maybe fifty people.
God sent Haggai to give hope to people who were engaged in the Lord's work and worship in rebuilding the temple. Yet when they looked at how difficult their task was and how much smaller and less glorious the newer incarnation of the temple was, they were saddened and in despair (2.3; cf Ezra 3.12). But could it also be that they dreamt of being where the glory and action were? That's much easier than faithfully trusting God's call and provision regardless of how insignificant the work may appear.
Luther was right when he summed up Christian living as centered on a theology of the cross, not a theology of glory. Such applies here: (1) The life that embraces the cross embraces shame in the eyes of the world. While some pastors have megachurches--not a bad thing at all in itself--we instead get seven students to show up to a weekly "YY" meeting. Our work may be humble and unnoticed now, but so goes the cross. Yet glory will come later (Hag 2.6-9)! (2) This work also requires the cross in another way, namely, dying on my own. I want things to be easier, more comfortable, and more fruitful, but I don't get that. I remember back to the summer of 2003 when I surrendered and committed to coming here. It gave me a lot of peace. Now Christ calls me to take up my cross and die again. But only herein does he say I will find true, abundant life (Luke 9.23-24).
"Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord" (1 Cor 15.58).
Our God is a consuming . . . summer breeze?
Over the weekend God has continued to teach me more--but not what my flesh desires. I've been rather frustrated with my time here in Turkey so far. I miss a lot of the comforts of home, the ease of conversing in English with no difficulties in comprehension or communication, and the fact that things make sense. I haven't really been able to have much in the way of opportunities to share the gospel so far, and I'm really itching for that. It seems like everyone I can actually talk with is a committed Muslim who stops at the belief that the Bible has been changed and is no longer trustworthy (prophecies foretelling the coming of Muhammad notwithstanding). Add all that together and it leaves me frustrated and angry with this place.
Elijah, similarly irate with the idolatry and stubbornness around him, fled to Mount Horeb and vented his frustrations to God (1 Kings 19). I think he wanted God to send his fire to consume his enemies and put an end to his sources of frustration, as he had done on Mount Carmel not long before (1 Kings 18). Yet God does not come in a violent wind, an earthquake, or fire, but rather in a gentle blowing (or "still, small voice", KJV).
Elijah obviously didn't get it: he repeated his complaints to God. Yet in showing himself not in fierce judgment but in a quiet whisper, in gentleness and restraint, God reveals his mercy to Elijah. He would've been fully justified in destroying the ungodly, but it wasn't the time. So Elijah had to carry on his mission for the rest of his life, even appointing another to carry on his prophetic work after his departure from this earth.
God is restraining his judgment for the sake of salvation, not out of weakness or ignorance (2 Peter 3.9). He is a God who has incredible compassion and wills that all men hear the gospel and respond in repentance and faith. Duh, this is why I'm here in the first place! It's precisely because his mercy is true and because he is full of compassion and love that I wish for others to know him. But instead I want him to nuke this place so I can go home. I want to hear, "You can go home now; I'm going to cut off these people." It's amazing how stupid I've become in taking my own salvation for granted. After all, if God had not been patient with America and with me, I too would be subject to the fullness of his wrath.
Elijah, similarly irate with the idolatry and stubbornness around him, fled to Mount Horeb and vented his frustrations to God (1 Kings 19). I think he wanted God to send his fire to consume his enemies and put an end to his sources of frustration, as he had done on Mount Carmel not long before (1 Kings 18). Yet God does not come in a violent wind, an earthquake, or fire, but rather in a gentle blowing (or "still, small voice", KJV).
Elijah obviously didn't get it: he repeated his complaints to God. Yet in showing himself not in fierce judgment but in a quiet whisper, in gentleness and restraint, God reveals his mercy to Elijah. He would've been fully justified in destroying the ungodly, but it wasn't the time. So Elijah had to carry on his mission for the rest of his life, even appointing another to carry on his prophetic work after his departure from this earth.
God is restraining his judgment for the sake of salvation, not out of weakness or ignorance (2 Peter 3.9). He is a God who has incredible compassion and wills that all men hear the gospel and respond in repentance and faith. Duh, this is why I'm here in the first place! It's precisely because his mercy is true and because he is full of compassion and love that I wish for others to know him. But instead I want him to nuke this place so I can go home. I want to hear, "You can go home now; I'm going to cut off these people." It's amazing how stupid I've become in taking my own salvation for granted. After all, if God had not been patient with America and with me, I too would be subject to the fullness of his wrath.
Monday, October 17, 2005
Lift up your heads
World Wars I & II.
Nuclear weaponry.
September 11, 2001.
The tsunami.
Hurricane Katrina.
Guatemalan landslides.
Pakistani earthquake.
What do these all have in common? Three things:
(1) Our world is fallen and sinful. We cannot know for sure whether or not these things happened as a result of sin--indeed, calamity often does not (see Luke 13.2,4). But we do know that much of this futility and destruction we experience is the direct consequence of our sinfulness (cf Gen 3.17-19).
(2) The end of the world as we know it is drawing ever nearer. Not even the Son of Man himself knows the day when he will be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire (2 Thess 1.7). Yet he himself said that these last days will be marked with natural disasters and wars: "Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom and there will be great earthquakes, and in various places plagues and famines . . . and on the earth dismay among the nations, in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and waves" (Luke 21.10-11,25). Now I'm not one at all for Tim Lahaye novels and all that kind of time-wasting crap--c'mon, I'm a covenant amill--but I do know that Jesus has linked such events inextricably with his second coming (Luke 21.26-28). "When these things begin to take place, straighten up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near!"
(3) Because we live in a fallen world full of sin and unbelief, Christ will come "dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power" (2 Thess 1.8-9). Maybe we haven't yet been affected by terrorist attacks or natural disasters, but those who do not repent and embrace the risen Christ will all likewise perish (Luke 13.1-5)!
(I'm sorry that this isn't exactly an entertaining post, but it's just plain true and has caught my attention even more in light of the 54,000+ deaths in Pakistan. Is it mere coincidence that such horrendous things have been happening with increasing frequency?)
Nuclear weaponry.
September 11, 2001.
The tsunami.
Hurricane Katrina.
Guatemalan landslides.
Pakistani earthquake.
What do these all have in common? Three things:
(1) Our world is fallen and sinful. We cannot know for sure whether or not these things happened as a result of sin--indeed, calamity often does not (see Luke 13.2,4). But we do know that much of this futility and destruction we experience is the direct consequence of our sinfulness (cf Gen 3.17-19).
(2) The end of the world as we know it is drawing ever nearer. Not even the Son of Man himself knows the day when he will be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire (2 Thess 1.7). Yet he himself said that these last days will be marked with natural disasters and wars: "Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom and there will be great earthquakes, and in various places plagues and famines . . . and on the earth dismay among the nations, in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and waves" (Luke 21.10-11,25). Now I'm not one at all for Tim Lahaye novels and all that kind of time-wasting crap--c'mon, I'm a covenant amill--but I do know that Jesus has linked such events inextricably with his second coming (Luke 21.26-28). "When these things begin to take place, straighten up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near!"
(3) Because we live in a fallen world full of sin and unbelief, Christ will come "dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power" (2 Thess 1.8-9). Maybe we haven't yet been affected by terrorist attacks or natural disasters, but those who do not repent and embrace the risen Christ will all likewise perish (Luke 13.1-5)!
(I'm sorry that this isn't exactly an entertaining post, but it's just plain true and has caught my attention even more in light of the 54,000+ deaths in Pakistan. Is it mere coincidence that such horrendous things have been happening with increasing frequency?)
Sunday, October 16, 2005
"A Poem on Law & Gospel" by Ralph Erskine, 1745
The law supposing I have all,
Does ever for perfection call;
The gospel suits my total want,
And all the law can seek does grant.The law could promise life to me,
If my obedience perfect be;
But grace does promise life upon
My Lord's obedience alone.The law says, Do, and life you'll win;
But grace says, Live, for all is done;
The former cannot ease my grief,
The latter yields me full relief.The law will not abate a mite,
The gospel all the sum will quit;
There God in thret'nings is array'd
But here in promises display'd.The law excludes not boasting vain,
But rather feeds it to my bane;
But gospel grace allows no boasts,
Save in the King, the Lord of Hosts.The law brings terror to molest,
The gospel gives the weary rest;
The one does flags of death display,
The other shows the living way.The law's a house of bondage sore,
The gospel opens prison doors;
The first me hamer'd in its net,
The last at freedom kindly set.An angry God the law reveal'd
The gospel shows him reconciled;
By that I know he was displeased,
By this I see his wrath appeased.The law still shows a fiery face,
The gospel shows a throne of grace;
There justice rides alone in state,
But here she takes the mercy-seat.Lo! in the law Jehovah dwells,
But Jesus is conceal'd;
Whereas the gospel's nothing else
But Jesus Christ reveal'd.
Saturday, October 15, 2005
Leadership, Jesus-style
Everywhere I go, I see the face of perhaps the greatest political and societal revolutionary/reformer of the past few centuries: Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Not only did he lead Turkey to independence from Greece and other foreign powers in 1923, but he instituted many sweeping changes that brought Turkey from being an ineffective and obscure Near Eastern agricultural country to being a modern force with which to be reckoned in both Europe and Asia. Changing the Turkish alphabet, banning Islamic rule, changing people's normal attire, and setting up a quasi-democratic government (that is, until the military decides the country is heading in the wrong direction and intervenes or performs yet another violent coup because they're apparently much wiser than the people) are but a few of his accomplishments.
Yet while I look at his picture, I see someone esteemed greatly in the eyes of man, not on account of his humility, meekness, or peacefulness, but on account of his military conquests, intelligence, resourcefulness, and charisma. Yet in the eyes of Jesus, true authority and greatness looks far different: "Whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10.43-45). Why are these such hard words, when indeed they're the only ones that truly make sense?
In one of his sermons on leadership lessons from Nehemiah, my pastor said that no one can consider himself to be a leader unless he has people actually following him. Being a leader--whether in a place of business, the government, civic office, classroom, church, or household--demands that people trust you and want to follow you because they know they will be cared for and have their needs met. As noted by philosopher Blaise Pascal, one's every decision is for the sake of gaining and increasing his happiness; even those followers of Hitler or Pol Pot acted thus. This demands that leaders serve those under them. This is the reason why the roles and responsibilities of husbands, fathers, and bosses can really work (Eph 5.22 - 6.9). And because we've all been entrusted with the guidance and care of one another within the body of Christ, we are all called to be the servant of all.
In his book Life Together, Dietrich Bonhoeffer sums up the need for loving service to our brothers as the prerequisite for the highest of services: speaking the Word of God to one another:
The speaking of that Word is beset with infinite perils. If it is not accompanied by worthy listening, how can it really be the right word for another person? If it is contradicted by one's own lack of active helpfulness, how can it be a convincing and sincere word? If it issues, not from a spirit of bearing and forebearing, but from impatience and the desire to force its acceptance, how can it be the liberating and healing word? (p. 104)
Why is this so hard for us? What is in our human nature that so quickly dismisses these words of Jesus so that we can get on with boosting our egos and receiving praise from others? Jesus clearly warns us that seeking honor from men hinders our faith (John 5.44). And wherein does our faith lie? Is it not indeed in a God who condescended and shook off his rights in order to get whipped, mocked, hung from a wooden beam, and fed vinegar? The only profitable faith lies fixed upon the cross of Christ, and thus the life of faith must equally be an embracing of this cross in daily life. Let us be servants to all.
Yet while I look at his picture, I see someone esteemed greatly in the eyes of man, not on account of his humility, meekness, or peacefulness, but on account of his military conquests, intelligence, resourcefulness, and charisma. Yet in the eyes of Jesus, true authority and greatness looks far different: "Whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10.43-45). Why are these such hard words, when indeed they're the only ones that truly make sense?
In one of his sermons on leadership lessons from Nehemiah, my pastor said that no one can consider himself to be a leader unless he has people actually following him. Being a leader--whether in a place of business, the government, civic office, classroom, church, or household--demands that people trust you and want to follow you because they know they will be cared for and have their needs met. As noted by philosopher Blaise Pascal, one's every decision is for the sake of gaining and increasing his happiness; even those followers of Hitler or Pol Pot acted thus. This demands that leaders serve those under them. This is the reason why the roles and responsibilities of husbands, fathers, and bosses can really work (Eph 5.22 - 6.9). And because we've all been entrusted with the guidance and care of one another within the body of Christ, we are all called to be the servant of all.
In his book Life Together, Dietrich Bonhoeffer sums up the need for loving service to our brothers as the prerequisite for the highest of services: speaking the Word of God to one another:
The speaking of that Word is beset with infinite perils. If it is not accompanied by worthy listening, how can it really be the right word for another person? If it is contradicted by one's own lack of active helpfulness, how can it be a convincing and sincere word? If it issues, not from a spirit of bearing and forebearing, but from impatience and the desire to force its acceptance, how can it be the liberating and healing word? (p. 104)
Why is this so hard for us? What is in our human nature that so quickly dismisses these words of Jesus so that we can get on with boosting our egos and receiving praise from others? Jesus clearly warns us that seeking honor from men hinders our faith (John 5.44). And wherein does our faith lie? Is it not indeed in a God who condescended and shook off his rights in order to get whipped, mocked, hung from a wooden beam, and fed vinegar? The only profitable faith lies fixed upon the cross of Christ, and thus the life of faith must equally be an embracing of this cross in daily life. Let us be servants to all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)