Thursday, December 13, 2007
Something of interest
This one fascinated me. It seems that the very moral ethos that initially empowered women now disarms them when faced wit men who employ it against them. Enjoy the read.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Proverbs 27:12
The sensible see danger and take cover; the foolish keep going and are punished.
If I were going to paraphrase this proverb in more modern terms, I might say "A smart person sees the warning signs and heeds them; the fool goes on as if they aren't there."
There is something frustrating about watching people be foolish. People will come up to me, and tell me about the difficulties they are in. That in itself isn't frustrating; the frustration sets in they will speak as though they are so shocked to be where they are. For the life of them they cannot understand how they are where they are.
Now, as I listen I am making a mental list of all the places where they made mistakes. The mistakes are obvious. By the time the list is complete, along with the tale of woe, one thing has become clear: The individual ought reasonably to have surmised that trouble would result from their course of action.
As a counselor, the only question is whether they will accept responsibility or not. If they will, help can be effective. If not, then there is little point in offering assistance. If they want to accept responsibility, then they will heed the signs that I hold up for them. Otherwsie, they won't, and, as the Proverb puts it, be punished.
If I were going to paraphrase this proverb in more modern terms, I might say "A smart person sees the warning signs and heeds them; the fool goes on as if they aren't there."
There is something frustrating about watching people be foolish. People will come up to me, and tell me about the difficulties they are in. That in itself isn't frustrating; the frustration sets in they will speak as though they are so shocked to be where they are. For the life of them they cannot understand how they are where they are.
Now, as I listen I am making a mental list of all the places where they made mistakes. The mistakes are obvious. By the time the list is complete, along with the tale of woe, one thing has become clear: The individual ought reasonably to have surmised that trouble would result from their course of action.
As a counselor, the only question is whether they will accept responsibility or not. If they will, help can be effective. If not, then there is little point in offering assistance. If they want to accept responsibility, then they will heed the signs that I hold up for them. Otherwsie, they won't, and, as the Proverb puts it, be punished.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
God
How to describe God? My first inclination is to be as short possible. God is such that the longer I go on, the likelier I am to say something wrong. Verbosity can lead to heresy, as it were.
Still, I did say I would go into the topic, so...
I could present a lengthy list of attributes, but that wouldn't be what I am about here. Rather than talk about what God is, I am more concerned with God as He relates to us. And how doe He do that?
1) As a Father.
With apologies to those who find the idea of God as a male figure, the reality is that God has chosen to relate to us primarily as our Heavenly Father. That does not mean that there are not feminine aspects to God, but those are clearly secondary. As a father he seeks to protect and provide for us. He seeks to be generous, giving to us out of the bounty of His love for His children. He also is concerned for our growth and development in terms of character. To that end, He is our disciplinarian and teacher.
2) As a Judge.
Some might think that relating to us as a a Judge is incompatible with relating to us as a Father. I find the two to be nicely complementary. As our Father, God knows us perfectly, and so is perfectly able to judge us. How can we expect to get more fairness than from a Judge who both knows us perfectly and still loves us perfectly? That fairness does not guarantee a verdict in our favor on all issues; He will call us on our bad behavior whenever it occurs. But we know that our discipline will be truly commensurate with our crime, and we can take comfort that the disciple comes from someone who is neither arbitrary nor uncaring. Quite the contrary.
If any of this sounds familiar, it is because I have basically posted how God's love and God's justice hold together. Many times I hear people ask how God can be loving if He is willing to allow people to go to Hell.
Hopefully the above shows how God is not only perfectly able to do that, He is the only ONe we should want to do so.
Still, I did say I would go into the topic, so...
I could present a lengthy list of attributes, but that wouldn't be what I am about here. Rather than talk about what God is, I am more concerned with God as He relates to us. And how doe He do that?
1) As a Father.
With apologies to those who find the idea of God as a male figure, the reality is that God has chosen to relate to us primarily as our Heavenly Father. That does not mean that there are not feminine aspects to God, but those are clearly secondary. As a father he seeks to protect and provide for us. He seeks to be generous, giving to us out of the bounty of His love for His children. He also is concerned for our growth and development in terms of character. To that end, He is our disciplinarian and teacher.
2) As a Judge.
Some might think that relating to us as a a Judge is incompatible with relating to us as a Father. I find the two to be nicely complementary. As our Father, God knows us perfectly, and so is perfectly able to judge us. How can we expect to get more fairness than from a Judge who both knows us perfectly and still loves us perfectly? That fairness does not guarantee a verdict in our favor on all issues; He will call us on our bad behavior whenever it occurs. But we know that our discipline will be truly commensurate with our crime, and we can take comfort that the disciple comes from someone who is neither arbitrary nor uncaring. Quite the contrary.
If any of this sounds familiar, it is because I have basically posted how God's love and God's justice hold together. Many times I hear people ask how God can be loving if He is willing to allow people to go to Hell.
Hopefully the above shows how God is not only perfectly able to do that, He is the only ONe we should want to do so.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Who are we, anyway?
Lately I have been reading a book by Miroslav Volf called Free of Charge: Giving and Forgiving in a Culture Stripped of Grace. In it, Volf goes into who we are. He is clear in pointing out that with respect to God, we are receivers. We have nothing to offer God that He needs. We have nothing that isn't already His. We cannot even be unless God gives us the gift of our next breath.
As Volf points out, this brings us very close to Luther's notion that we are "beggars all". Many might suppose that being such is utterly demeaning and denigrating our dignity as human beings, that to respond in faith to such a being is wrong. Volf responds:
As Volf points out, this brings us very close to Luther's notion that we are "beggars all". Many might suppose that being such is utterly demeaning and denigrating our dignity as human beings, that to respond in faith to such a being is wrong. Volf responds:
But that feeling of diminishment and humiliation comes from wrongly conceiving our relationship to God. If we were independent from God the way we are independent from each other, and God expected us to just receive, God would be like an overbearing father who always knows better and will not let his daughter do anything on her own. But we are not independent in relation to God. Our power to be and to act comes from God. Faith merely recognizes this. Hence faith doesn't tell us how little we are and what we can't do. On the contrary, it celebrates what we most properly are - God's empowered creatures- and it frees us to our greatest accomplishment.So we are receivers with respect to God. But that reality doesn't threaten our dignity; it makes it. If we fear looking small and silly, then we might consider how it appears to God when we struggle to assert ourselves independently from God.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
What Is Man?
When I was in seminary, I had many discussions that centered on the question of Pilate: "What is truth?"
There were, and are, many ways to understand that question, and many ways of answering it. Most of those have to do with what we understand the "truth" to be, and how we communicate it to unbelievers such as Pilate was.
These days however I am coming to believe that the key question is not "what is truth?", but "what is man?" That is, the key question is not what truth is as such, as though truth were primarily an existential matter, but what the truth is about us. If we correctly understand what we are we can better understand what the gospel is, and why it is what it is.
I believe that the gospel is what it is because that is the way it has to be in order for us to be saved. Given who and what we are, and Who and What God is, the gospel could only be what is.
So that's what I am thinking. Next time I will go into who and what we are. After that, I'll go into Who and What God is.
There were, and are, many ways to understand that question, and many ways of answering it. Most of those have to do with what we understand the "truth" to be, and how we communicate it to unbelievers such as Pilate was.
These days however I am coming to believe that the key question is not "what is truth?", but "what is man?" That is, the key question is not what truth is as such, as though truth were primarily an existential matter, but what the truth is about us. If we correctly understand what we are we can better understand what the gospel is, and why it is what it is.
I believe that the gospel is what it is because that is the way it has to be in order for us to be saved. Given who and what we are, and Who and What God is, the gospel could only be what is.
So that's what I am thinking. Next time I will go into who and what we are. After that, I'll go into Who and What God is.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Imperfections... Must Sterilize
That line is from a classic Star Trek episode. The speaker is a freaked out piece of machinery who holds that its programmed mission is to seek out and sterilize imperfections. It is absolutely maniacal about its mission. It cannot stand imperfection.
On the other end of the spectrum is something which says "we must not be perfect." Really I think the intent is to say we must not act perfect when we are not. But what exactly does that mean, practically? Does it mean that we must be willing to acknowledge that we still have a way to go before being fully sanctified? Minimally that should be so. Such admissions would be healthy for one's spiritual life; they ensure that you do not become over-confident with respect to one's spiritual growth and maturity.
But what if it means something more than that? What if it means that if you don't say you are somehow dysfunctional, or have some kind of imbalance, then you are hiding something?
The implications are not at all pleasant. Those who are more spiritually mature end up being marginalized, even viewed as aberrant. The norm would be dysfunctional spiritually immature people.
Really, the goal should not be to emphasize what is a given, that we are imperfect. Rather, we should emphasize what we should be, and will one day be (perfect). Doing so may highlight for some the fact of our imperfection, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. We should not try going through our walk with Christ thinking that we are something other than we are: sinful.
Yes, the "S" word. We tend to think of ourselves as "broken" or "disconnected". We are those things, but only because we are sinful. We should not confuse the symptoms with the disease.
Besides, there is nothing wrong with admitting we are sinful, ungodly. Paul seems to think that God is in the business of justifying such people. Jesus said that he came to save sinners.
If we don't think of ourselves that way, how can we expect to be saved?
On the other end of the spectrum is something which says "we must not be perfect." Really I think the intent is to say we must not act perfect when we are not. But what exactly does that mean, practically? Does it mean that we must be willing to acknowledge that we still have a way to go before being fully sanctified? Minimally that should be so. Such admissions would be healthy for one's spiritual life; they ensure that you do not become over-confident with respect to one's spiritual growth and maturity.
But what if it means something more than that? What if it means that if you don't say you are somehow dysfunctional, or have some kind of imbalance, then you are hiding something?
The implications are not at all pleasant. Those who are more spiritually mature end up being marginalized, even viewed as aberrant. The norm would be dysfunctional spiritually immature people.
Really, the goal should not be to emphasize what is a given, that we are imperfect. Rather, we should emphasize what we should be, and will one day be (perfect). Doing so may highlight for some the fact of our imperfection, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. We should not try going through our walk with Christ thinking that we are something other than we are: sinful.
Yes, the "S" word. We tend to think of ourselves as "broken" or "disconnected". We are those things, but only because we are sinful. We should not confuse the symptoms with the disease.
Besides, there is nothing wrong with admitting we are sinful, ungodly. Paul seems to think that God is in the business of justifying such people. Jesus said that he came to save sinners.
If we don't think of ourselves that way, how can we expect to be saved?
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Odds and Ends
I have not had time to get too far in the Revelation work due to stuf at home. But a couple fo things have caught my attention lately.
First is how far our culture, even the Christian sub-culture, has strayed from an interest in being edified to a hunger for being entertained. This puts me in mind of what Paul tells Timothy about how in the last days people will turn to teachers who will teach what they want to hear. Traditionally I have taken this to refer to the propensity of people to ignore sound teaching for false teaching because tey prefer the lie to the truth. But it could be that the lie is turned to just because it is more entertaining than the truth.
Ho do we respond to that?
Certainly there have been times when the Christian Church has been out of step with the culture and managed to turn good news into "o.k. news" through being boring in its delivery. I don't think that this can be said of preaching today, though; many churches feature cutting edge multi media presentations on a regular basis.
The church however may be a victim of its own success in this area. We may just be addicting attenders to the medium at the expense f the message. We may be training people to expect entertainment rather than edification. We may wind up altering our services so that they titillate rather than transform.
This is entirely unintentional, but that may be the scariest part. For this to happen without our notice, or perhaps without our forethought, says a bit about the way we are trying to reach the culture. We are simply looking for the next big thing, the next fad that we can ape and imitate. But isn't the Holy Spirit creative, rather than imitative? Does this not mean we should be setting trends in some sense rather than reacting to them?
Something to think about.
First is how far our culture, even the Christian sub-culture, has strayed from an interest in being edified to a hunger for being entertained. This puts me in mind of what Paul tells Timothy about how in the last days people will turn to teachers who will teach what they want to hear. Traditionally I have taken this to refer to the propensity of people to ignore sound teaching for false teaching because tey prefer the lie to the truth. But it could be that the lie is turned to just because it is more entertaining than the truth.
Ho do we respond to that?
Certainly there have been times when the Christian Church has been out of step with the culture and managed to turn good news into "o.k. news" through being boring in its delivery. I don't think that this can be said of preaching today, though; many churches feature cutting edge multi media presentations on a regular basis.
The church however may be a victim of its own success in this area. We may just be addicting attenders to the medium at the expense f the message. We may be training people to expect entertainment rather than edification. We may wind up altering our services so that they titillate rather than transform.
This is entirely unintentional, but that may be the scariest part. For this to happen without our notice, or perhaps without our forethought, says a bit about the way we are trying to reach the culture. We are simply looking for the next big thing, the next fad that we can ape and imitate. But isn't the Holy Spirit creative, rather than imitative? Does this not mean we should be setting trends in some sense rather than reacting to them?
Something to think about.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Revelation: The Beginning
As promised, I am beginning a series on Revelation. I will be using material I have collected for the purpose of teaching a Young Adult Sunday School Class.
As a kind of prologue, I would like to make a few opening comments of a general nature:
1) Although I do have a definite opinion on issues such as the Tribulation and Millennium, I do not intend to present this study as a means of forwarding those opinions. In fact, I intend to say rather little about particular eschatological schemata.
2) While I intend to be somewhat scholarly in my approach, bringing forth the various options for disputed passages, my goal is to make a presentation with potential for personal application, and informed by pastoral concerns.
3) My belief is that Revelation has two primary thrusts: pastoral and ethical. Revelation is written to and for people enduring persecution. It is under such circumstances that the question "How do we live our faith?" is being asked and answered.
4) My format will be a mixture of verse for verse and paragraph for paragraph exegesis. There are times when verse for verse is entirely appropriate, even necessary, to bring out the full meaning of the text. Yet there are also times when verse by verse can encourage one to become bogged down with minutiae that do not really make a contribution to our understanding commensurate with the time and energy they require. I will strive to strike an appropriate balance.
Next time, we will begin with the first few verses of Revelation 1.
As a kind of prologue, I would like to make a few opening comments of a general nature:
1) Although I do have a definite opinion on issues such as the Tribulation and Millennium, I do not intend to present this study as a means of forwarding those opinions. In fact, I intend to say rather little about particular eschatological schemata.
2) While I intend to be somewhat scholarly in my approach, bringing forth the various options for disputed passages, my goal is to make a presentation with potential for personal application, and informed by pastoral concerns.
3) My belief is that Revelation has two primary thrusts: pastoral and ethical. Revelation is written to and for people enduring persecution. It is under such circumstances that the question "How do we live our faith?" is being asked and answered.
4) My format will be a mixture of verse for verse and paragraph for paragraph exegesis. There are times when verse for verse is entirely appropriate, even necessary, to bring out the full meaning of the text. Yet there are also times when verse by verse can encourage one to become bogged down with minutiae that do not really make a contribution to our understanding commensurate with the time and energy they require. I will strive to strike an appropriate balance.
Next time, we will begin with the first few verses of Revelation 1.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Return of the OP
The Oddball Pastor has returned. It is time to resume blogging on matters of theology.
Where have I been? I have written a devotional commentary on James. Called, "Being Consistently Christian", it is based on research I have done using commentaries in the Tyndale, Pillar, NIV Application and Expositor's series.
Currently I am looking at publishing options.
So what now? Now I am dealing with the impact of a deep study in Revelation. I am convinced that Revelation is a book with far more relevance than those who think only in terms of end-times charts might guess. It is a book deeply concerned with ethics. It has a lot to say about worship, martyrdom, the nature of our victory over evil in this world, and the unity of the Father and the Son. That is just in the first 7 chapters.
I will be blogging the insights I have gained from this study, plus whatever else pops into my head.
Kudos to Tertium Quid on his "promotion" to "Team Apologian."
Where have I been? I have written a devotional commentary on James. Called, "Being Consistently Christian", it is based on research I have done using commentaries in the Tyndale, Pillar, NIV Application and Expositor's series.
Currently I am looking at publishing options.
So what now? Now I am dealing with the impact of a deep study in Revelation. I am convinced that Revelation is a book with far more relevance than those who think only in terms of end-times charts might guess. It is a book deeply concerned with ethics. It has a lot to say about worship, martyrdom, the nature of our victory over evil in this world, and the unity of the Father and the Son. That is just in the first 7 chapters.
I will be blogging the insights I have gained from this study, plus whatever else pops into my head.
Kudos to Tertium Quid on his "promotion" to "Team Apologian."
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Blog siting!
I came across this blog, and I just had to point it out. It is funny, if irreverant.
purgatorio - a panoply of evangelical eccentricities, un-orthodox oddities & christian cultural curiosities
purgatorio - a panoply of evangelical eccentricities, un-orthodox oddities & christian cultural curiosities
Saturday, August 12, 2006
This Man Went Down to His House Justified
Every once in a while I come across a sermon that really gets to te heart of the mater. This is definitely one of those.
Thank God for John Piper.
This Man Went Down to His House Justified
Thank God for John Piper.
This Man Went Down to His House Justified
Friday, August 11, 2006
New Books!
I love to read. I probably read for 3 hours each day and would read more if I could, but that would mean more or less detaching from everything around me. Not good.
Anyway, I have received a new shipment of commentaries. I purchased Grant Osborne's commentary on Revelation (Baker), Darrell Bock's 2 volume set on Luke (Baker), Don Hagner's 2 volume set on Matthew (Word), and Edwards on Marl (Pillar). Added to what I already own (Carson [Matthew and John], Evans [Luke], Lane [also Mark] I'd say I now have the gospels well covered.
I'll offer reviews as time allows.
I am still reading through John and a couple of commentaries on John. Interesting to see how people used to think John was so Greek, but now are coming to think his gospel is the most Jewish.
I am also reading Elmer Martens book on OT Theology called "God's Design". So far, so good.
After this I will probably get to Revelation for the sake of teaching it, since that is always a popular request.
Anyway, I have received a new shipment of commentaries. I purchased Grant Osborne's commentary on Revelation (Baker), Darrell Bock's 2 volume set on Luke (Baker), Don Hagner's 2 volume set on Matthew (Word), and Edwards on Marl (Pillar). Added to what I already own (Carson [Matthew and John], Evans [Luke], Lane [also Mark] I'd say I now have the gospels well covered.
I'll offer reviews as time allows.
I am still reading through John and a couple of commentaries on John. Interesting to see how people used to think John was so Greek, but now are coming to think his gospel is the most Jewish.
I am also reading Elmer Martens book on OT Theology called "God's Design". So far, so good.
After this I will probably get to Revelation for the sake of teaching it, since that is always a popular request.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
At the Well
Sometimes to get the most out of a gospel you have to make comparisons and contrasts within it.
For example, it is instructive to compare and contrast Nicodemus and the Samaritan Woman at the Well.
Nicodemus was a man. The Samaritan was a woman.
Nicodemus was well educated, the Samaritan woman was not.
Nicodemus was powerful among his people. The Samaritan woman was not.
Nicodemus was respected by his people. The Samaritan woman would not have been at the well when she was were she respected. She was likely despised.
Nicodemus was orthodox in his beliefs. The Samaritan woman's beliefs were deficient.
The two characters could hardly be more different. Yet both of them get the same message of salvation.
There is a lesson to be had there.
For example, it is instructive to compare and contrast Nicodemus and the Samaritan Woman at the Well.
Nicodemus was a man. The Samaritan was a woman.
Nicodemus was well educated, the Samaritan woman was not.
Nicodemus was powerful among his people. The Samaritan woman was not.
Nicodemus was respected by his people. The Samaritan woman would not have been at the well when she was were she respected. She was likely despised.
Nicodemus was orthodox in his beliefs. The Samaritan woman's beliefs were deficient.
The two characters could hardly be more different. Yet both of them get the same message of salvation.
There is a lesson to be had there.
Friday, July 28, 2006
John the (Humble) Baptist. (John 3:22-30)
We all would like to be popular to one degree or another. We would like to have people pay attention to us. How we behave when we get what we want can say a lot about our character. What can tell more though is how we handle competition.
John the Baptist was one of the most famous figures of his day. He had a big following. But one day it became clear that his prominence was being eclipsed by another; Jesus of Nazareth. Many people would have become jealous. Many would have decided to oppose Jesus. Not John though. He simply said: "He must become greater; I must become less."
There's a lot packed into that.
One thing that strikes me is that here is no causal relationship. John is not saying that Jesus' becoming greater depends on John's becoming less, as though John's voluntary capitulation was required for Jesus' greatness to grow. John is simply stating the fact that as Jesus becomes greater, he, John, will become less.
There is no hint of regret or anger in that admission of inevitability either. John accepts this as the end result of his ministry. He accepts this as being the fulfillment of all his work. So why then should he be upset? He has done all that he wanted, all that he was born to do.
If I may speculate for a moment: John had something that we typically lack; a sense of destiny. He had a strong sense, a specific sense of why he was alive. He knew specifically what his ministry was about, and when it was finished, when it had accomplished its goal.
The fact that John did not live long afterwards probably didn't bother him; he had done the greatest thing any of us can; fulfill life's purpose. Why would we want to live long after that?
John the Baptist was one of the most famous figures of his day. He had a big following. But one day it became clear that his prominence was being eclipsed by another; Jesus of Nazareth. Many people would have become jealous. Many would have decided to oppose Jesus. Not John though. He simply said: "He must become greater; I must become less."
There's a lot packed into that.
One thing that strikes me is that here is no causal relationship. John is not saying that Jesus' becoming greater depends on John's becoming less, as though John's voluntary capitulation was required for Jesus' greatness to grow. John is simply stating the fact that as Jesus becomes greater, he, John, will become less.
There is no hint of regret or anger in that admission of inevitability either. John accepts this as the end result of his ministry. He accepts this as being the fulfillment of all his work. So why then should he be upset? He has done all that he wanted, all that he was born to do.
If I may speculate for a moment: John had something that we typically lack; a sense of destiny. He had a strong sense, a specific sense of why he was alive. He knew specifically what his ministry was about, and when it was finished, when it had accomplished its goal.
The fact that John did not live long afterwards probably didn't bother him; he had done the greatest thing any of us can; fulfill life's purpose. Why would we want to live long after that?
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
No Heaven Without Faith in Christ
In John 3:15 John makes the comment that the purpose of Jesus' being lifted up is so that "those who believe might have life in him."
A couple of things come to mind. First, the verb "believe" is used with no object. Taken on its own one might be tempted to think that one must simply be "a person of faith" in order to qualify for eternal life. Surely that is the theological direction that some denominations, most notably the RCC, are drifting towards. This would then promote the idea that being a sincerely religious person is enough. Because you are person who at least believes (apparently this is a meritorious virtue) God will grant you a pass for believing the wrong things.
But this is a good example of why we need to keep verses in context. Doing so helps us to see that we are not free to simply assume that there is no defined content to "believing". For in John 3:12 we see that Jesus includes, at least, trust and faith in himself and his teaching.
That, incidentally, is why I don't think we can say that Nicodemus is, at this point, a believer in Christ. He can say that Jesus is from God, but doesn't understand how much of an understatement that is. He s in fact incredulous about some of what Jesus teaches, and disbelieves some as well. The examples are not deep or minute theological details either, they are basics.
We really do need to be on guard against the notion that sincerity covers a multitude of sins. We need to believe, yes, but we have to believe in something, someone, specific in order to be saved.
The RCC is, IMO, leading people down the garden path in this aspect.
The RCC has this notion of a "baptism of desire" which posits that if a person is sincere they would want to be baptized (they believe baptism regenerates the person, is the instrument of the New Birth Jesus speaks of) and that's what counts. That's rather patronizing. Sincere practitioners a of other beliefs are not Christians, but they will be some day, regardless of what they believe now.
That, as far as I am concerned, is hogwash. There is nothing virtuous about being a person of faith as such in terms of salvation. The Essenes were sincere practitioners of their faith, and the Sadducees were as well. The sadducees were still taken to task by Jesus.
There is no substitute for a real, personal faith. Not in God's eyes.
A couple of things come to mind. First, the verb "believe" is used with no object. Taken on its own one might be tempted to think that one must simply be "a person of faith" in order to qualify for eternal life. Surely that is the theological direction that some denominations, most notably the RCC, are drifting towards. This would then promote the idea that being a sincerely religious person is enough. Because you are person who at least believes (apparently this is a meritorious virtue) God will grant you a pass for believing the wrong things.
But this is a good example of why we need to keep verses in context. Doing so helps us to see that we are not free to simply assume that there is no defined content to "believing". For in John 3:12 we see that Jesus includes, at least, trust and faith in himself and his teaching.
That, incidentally, is why I don't think we can say that Nicodemus is, at this point, a believer in Christ. He can say that Jesus is from God, but doesn't understand how much of an understatement that is. He s in fact incredulous about some of what Jesus teaches, and disbelieves some as well. The examples are not deep or minute theological details either, they are basics.
We really do need to be on guard against the notion that sincerity covers a multitude of sins. We need to believe, yes, but we have to believe in something, someone, specific in order to be saved.
The RCC is, IMO, leading people down the garden path in this aspect.
The RCC has this notion of a "baptism of desire" which posits that if a person is sincere they would want to be baptized (they believe baptism regenerates the person, is the instrument of the New Birth Jesus speaks of) and that's what counts. That's rather patronizing. Sincere practitioners a of other beliefs are not Christians, but they will be some day, regardless of what they believe now.
That, as far as I am concerned, is hogwash. There is nothing virtuous about being a person of faith as such in terms of salvation. The Essenes were sincere practitioners of their faith, and the Sadducees were as well. The sadducees were still taken to task by Jesus.
There is no substitute for a real, personal faith. Not in God's eyes.
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Yes, A New Birth
While I often hear Christians refer to being "born again", I wonder if they have given much thought to what it means?
Some seem to equate it with some ritual or other they went through at some time, be it a baptism or an event where they "went forward" and said a "sinner's prayer."
But is that what Jesus was referring to when he spoke of being "born again"?
First, I'd like to point out that Jesus probably did not say that Nicodemus had to be "born again" but "born from above". The word "again" translates a Greek word which, every other time in John, means "from above." That's how we should take it here. Being born from above implies something that comes from God, not something that we do, and and implies a real and radical spiritual event.
Second, I think its important for us to recognize the importance of Jesus' switching terms in 3:5. There Jesus speaks of being born from above in terms of being born of water and spirit. It would be easy to think that Jesus is referring to two births, here, one of water, and the other by the Spirit. I don't think that's accurate though. I think Jesus is referring to a single birth by two modes.
In the OT water refers (figuratively) to renewal and cleansing, while Spirit is the divine principle of life, which, according to Joel 2:28, the Jews (like Nicodemus) were supposed to look forward to in the New Covenant. The two are linked in passages like Ps. 51:9,10; Is. 32:15; 44:3-5; 55:1-3. Most telling of all is Ezekiel 36:25-27. It is this passage which I think lies behind Jesus teaching about a birth that is of water and spirit. It speaks to the radical nature of the effect of being born from above.
But do we appreciate that?
I honestly have to say that it feels like we don't when we too readily associate it with going forward at a rally or crusade or a ritual like baptism. It feels like we are making something radical into something religious. But Nicodemus was of the religious establishment...
Something to think about.
Some seem to equate it with some ritual or other they went through at some time, be it a baptism or an event where they "went forward" and said a "sinner's prayer."
But is that what Jesus was referring to when he spoke of being "born again"?
First, I'd like to point out that Jesus probably did not say that Nicodemus had to be "born again" but "born from above". The word "again" translates a Greek word which, every other time in John, means "from above." That's how we should take it here. Being born from above implies something that comes from God, not something that we do, and and implies a real and radical spiritual event.
Second, I think its important for us to recognize the importance of Jesus' switching terms in 3:5. There Jesus speaks of being born from above in terms of being born of water and spirit. It would be easy to think that Jesus is referring to two births, here, one of water, and the other by the Spirit. I don't think that's accurate though. I think Jesus is referring to a single birth by two modes.
In the OT water refers (figuratively) to renewal and cleansing, while Spirit is the divine principle of life, which, according to Joel 2:28, the Jews (like Nicodemus) were supposed to look forward to in the New Covenant. The two are linked in passages like Ps. 51:9,10; Is. 32:15; 44:3-5; 55:1-3. Most telling of all is Ezekiel 36:25-27. It is this passage which I think lies behind Jesus teaching about a birth that is of water and spirit. It speaks to the radical nature of the effect of being born from above.
But do we appreciate that?
I honestly have to say that it feels like we don't when we too readily associate it with going forward at a rally or crusade or a ritual like baptism. It feels like we are making something radical into something religious. But Nicodemus was of the religious establishment...
Something to think about.
Friday, July 21, 2006
Little Nicky
As in "Little Nicodemus."
That's what Nicodemus thought Jesus was trying to create; a little physically reborn Nicky!
That of course comes from Nicodemus' interview with Jesus in John 3, which I have recently been studying.
There are many possible ideas as to why Nic would say "How can this be?" when Jesus told him that he needed to be born again, but I frankly find that Nic just didn't get it. He just could not grasp or believe that new birth was a requirement for entrance into the Kingdom of God. He figured, as he had been taught, that he had only to be obedient to the law already being a Jew, and hence, favored.
But Jesus was clear; the problem is not one that can be touched by rituals and such. Only a radical transformation of the entire person can make a person fit for the Kingdom.
Nicodemus' inability to understand says a lot about Jesus' words to him. Nicodemus had said "we see that you are from God". Jesus' response "that unless you are born again you won't see the Kingdom of God" implied that they didn't really see as much as they thought. In fact they could not, having not been born again. Nicodemus' lack of understanding simply confirmed Jesus words.
Its a nice bit of irony really, and highly applicable to us today:
We tend to think that we need to conform rather than be transformed. The fact is we can't conform to God's pattern apart from being transformed (Ro. 12:1-3). We can try to conform otherwise, but then we'll be like Nicodemus.
The problem of course is that, unless we have someone to tell us we don't see like we think we do because we are in need of transformation, we probably won't get it when we go to the Judgment and are found wanting.
That's not ironic though. Its tragic.
That's what Nicodemus thought Jesus was trying to create; a little physically reborn Nicky!
That of course comes from Nicodemus' interview with Jesus in John 3, which I have recently been studying.
There are many possible ideas as to why Nic would say "How can this be?" when Jesus told him that he needed to be born again, but I frankly find that Nic just didn't get it. He just could not grasp or believe that new birth was a requirement for entrance into the Kingdom of God. He figured, as he had been taught, that he had only to be obedient to the law already being a Jew, and hence, favored.
But Jesus was clear; the problem is not one that can be touched by rituals and such. Only a radical transformation of the entire person can make a person fit for the Kingdom.
Nicodemus' inability to understand says a lot about Jesus' words to him. Nicodemus had said "we see that you are from God". Jesus' response "that unless you are born again you won't see the Kingdom of God" implied that they didn't really see as much as they thought. In fact they could not, having not been born again. Nicodemus' lack of understanding simply confirmed Jesus words.
Its a nice bit of irony really, and highly applicable to us today:
We tend to think that we need to conform rather than be transformed. The fact is we can't conform to God's pattern apart from being transformed (Ro. 12:1-3). We can try to conform otherwise, but then we'll be like Nicodemus.
The problem of course is that, unless we have someone to tell us we don't see like we think we do because we are in need of transformation, we probably won't get it when we go to the Judgment and are found wanting.
That's not ironic though. Its tragic.
Saturday, July 15, 2006
Destroy This Temple
I mentioned yesterday that I had noted two things about the whole cleansing of the temple discourse in John's gospel. The first had to do with the propriety of commerce of any kind in our churches. Today I want to focus on a second aspect of the cleansing of the temple.
Let me explain. I am referring to the portion of John 2 where Jesus is being questioned about his activity in cleansing the temple. Such a cleansing was not automatically a bad thing, but it was exceptional. It was the sort fo thing that would be taken on by a prophet from God the likes of which would not have been seen for many decades if not, indeed, centuries. The people questioning Jesus were wanting to know about Jesus credentials as a prophet for cleansing the temple.
Jesus' response is a bit confusing to those speaking with him. He effectively lays out a challenge; if they want to know about his credentials, then all they have to do is "Destroy this temple" and Jesus will raise it up in three days. This, presumably, would be a sign that would confirm his credentials.
The inquisitors assumed that by "this temple" Jesus was referring to the physical temple. IN fact he meant his own body. A few things are stirred in my mind as I consider this.
1) Although "the Jews" did not immediately call what they probably assumed was a bluff on Jesus' part, they ultimately did. They would eventually kill Jesus, thus destroying the temple of his body, and Jesus did raise it up in three days.
2) There seems to be a connection between the actual temple and the temple of Jesus' body, one that actually plays up the deity of Jesus. The temple in Judaism was very much the special place where God made His presence felt on earth. But Jesus is God made flesh. That means that when Jesus refers to His body as the temple he is saying that in his flesh you have God's presence uniquely manifested. That speaks both to the incarnation spoken of in John 1 (especially about revealing the Father), and to his statements equating seeing Jesus in the flesh with seeing the Father in John 14.
In a very real sense then, we should think about Jesus as a replacement for the Temple under the New Covenant.
One might be tempted to think that this should make what happens in our church buildings less important, but I am inclined to think in exactly the opposite way. We are now the temple of God on earth, both individually and corporately, manifesting the presence of God. (1Co. 3:16; 1Co. 6:19; cf. Eph. 2:22). What happen in us, around us and to us as we gather for worship then becomes at least as important, if not moreso, sine the temple of Jesus' day was but a shadow. We embody the reality that the shadow was pointing to.
It is worth thinking about, anyway.
Let me explain. I am referring to the portion of John 2 where Jesus is being questioned about his activity in cleansing the temple. Such a cleansing was not automatically a bad thing, but it was exceptional. It was the sort fo thing that would be taken on by a prophet from God the likes of which would not have been seen for many decades if not, indeed, centuries. The people questioning Jesus were wanting to know about Jesus credentials as a prophet for cleansing the temple.
Jesus' response is a bit confusing to those speaking with him. He effectively lays out a challenge; if they want to know about his credentials, then all they have to do is "Destroy this temple" and Jesus will raise it up in three days. This, presumably, would be a sign that would confirm his credentials.
The inquisitors assumed that by "this temple" Jesus was referring to the physical temple. IN fact he meant his own body. A few things are stirred in my mind as I consider this.
1) Although "the Jews" did not immediately call what they probably assumed was a bluff on Jesus' part, they ultimately did. They would eventually kill Jesus, thus destroying the temple of his body, and Jesus did raise it up in three days.
2) There seems to be a connection between the actual temple and the temple of Jesus' body, one that actually plays up the deity of Jesus. The temple in Judaism was very much the special place where God made His presence felt on earth. But Jesus is God made flesh. That means that when Jesus refers to His body as the temple he is saying that in his flesh you have God's presence uniquely manifested. That speaks both to the incarnation spoken of in John 1 (especially about revealing the Father), and to his statements equating seeing Jesus in the flesh with seeing the Father in John 14.
In a very real sense then, we should think about Jesus as a replacement for the Temple under the New Covenant.
One might be tempted to think that this should make what happens in our church buildings less important, but I am inclined to think in exactly the opposite way. We are now the temple of God on earth, both individually and corporately, manifesting the presence of God. (1Co. 3:16; 1Co. 6:19; cf. Eph. 2:22). What happen in us, around us and to us as we gather for worship then becomes at least as important, if not moreso, sine the temple of Jesus' day was but a shadow. We embody the reality that the shadow was pointing to.
It is worth thinking about, anyway.
Friday, July 14, 2006
Zeal For Your House
I've been reflecting on the implications of Jesus' actions in the temple.
(Just in case someone cares: I think that there are two cleansings, not one. John describes the one at the beginning of his ministry, the Synoptics referring to one 2 or three years later.)
There are, I think, two aspects to Jesus' actions, at least one of which doesn't get enough attention.
The first aspect is the implication for what is becoming a common church practice. We make a habit of inviting people, usually musicians and/or singers, and we allow them to set up a promotional table somewhere and sell their wares.
Is this really allowable given the temple cleansings?
The excuse is usually something like this: Jesus problem was with the exorbitant prices being charged, which amounted to practical barrier to people coming into the presence of God. That's why Jesus wanted them out; they were gouging.
Is that true? Not in the first cleansing. In John, Jesus says nothing about the particulars of their business practice; he just says they don't belong in the temple courts at all. In John it seems clear that Jesus does not think commerce is appropriate in the outer courts, regardless of whether they are honest businessmen or not. It seems more that Jesus is saying that business is for the market and the temple is for worship, and we ought not mix the two.
It isn't even true in the second cleansing. People et the idea about dishonest business practices from Jesus' words about turning the temple into a den of thieves. But this misses the fact that the Greek expression implies zealotry and not robbery. As D.A. Carson notes, "by setting up in the court of the Gentiles, they have excluded the Gentiles who might have come to pray...". In that case, it really doesn't matter whether they were using fair business practices or not; they didn't belong there.
So there seems no good reason to permit these vendor tables in our churches.
What reinforces this is the fact that Jesus actions and words probably allude to passages like Zech. 14:21 and Mal. 3:1,3. The whole thing has to do with purity of worship. With that in mind we can see that having vendors is not conducive to worshipping with an undivided and undistracted heart.
That's the first aspect. The second I will deal with tomorrow.
(Just in case someone cares: I think that there are two cleansings, not one. John describes the one at the beginning of his ministry, the Synoptics referring to one 2 or three years later.)
There are, I think, two aspects to Jesus' actions, at least one of which doesn't get enough attention.
The first aspect is the implication for what is becoming a common church practice. We make a habit of inviting people, usually musicians and/or singers, and we allow them to set up a promotional table somewhere and sell their wares.
Is this really allowable given the temple cleansings?
The excuse is usually something like this: Jesus problem was with the exorbitant prices being charged, which amounted to practical barrier to people coming into the presence of God. That's why Jesus wanted them out; they were gouging.
Is that true? Not in the first cleansing. In John, Jesus says nothing about the particulars of their business practice; he just says they don't belong in the temple courts at all. In John it seems clear that Jesus does not think commerce is appropriate in the outer courts, regardless of whether they are honest businessmen or not. It seems more that Jesus is saying that business is for the market and the temple is for worship, and we ought not mix the two.
It isn't even true in the second cleansing. People et the idea about dishonest business practices from Jesus' words about turning the temple into a den of thieves. But this misses the fact that the Greek expression implies zealotry and not robbery. As D.A. Carson notes, "by setting up in the court of the Gentiles, they have excluded the Gentiles who might have come to pray...". In that case, it really doesn't matter whether they were using fair business practices or not; they didn't belong there.
So there seems no good reason to permit these vendor tables in our churches.
What reinforces this is the fact that Jesus actions and words probably allude to passages like Zech. 14:21 and Mal. 3:1,3. The whole thing has to do with purity of worship. With that in mind we can see that having vendors is not conducive to worshipping with an undivided and undistracted heart.
That's the first aspect. The second I will deal with tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)