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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)