Christianity for Thinking People

What Freud Taught Me About Faith

2011-03-18T20:58:00.000-04:00

I have been fascinated with Sigmund Freud since my first encounter with his writings while attending a small Christian liberal arts college (1985-1989) in preparation for ministry. The following passage seared its way indelibly into my new-forming pastoral psyche.

We know already that the terrifying effect of infantile helplessness aroused the need for protection -- protection through love -- which the father relieved, and that the discovery that this helplessness would continue through the whole of life made it necessary to cling to the existence of a father - but this time a more powerful one.[1]

That idea literally exploded in my mind. What? Is he saying that religion is rooted in the infantile wish to be protected from the dangers of life by a divine father. What a wonderfully subversive idea! I wasn't quite sure how to respond to that criticism of my faith but I knew instinctively that I couldn't ignore it. The idea struck me with all the force of a divine revelation and has continued to shape my faith from that moment to the present.

The idea that religion is a childish illusion that keeps humanity from falling into the abyss of despair touched a deep nerve in me. In retrospect, I understand now that on that day Freud became my lifelong teacher, a creative catalyst that opened a door in my mind, altered my thinking and enlarged my understanding. Freud taught me that there is a vital connection between our beliefs and our deep-seated needs and desires.

That single sentence started a long process in which I began to think about the the inner significance of my religious ideas. Thanks to Freud, I have no doubt that the idea of a divine heavenly father speaks to the human need for security and protection. Such faith can be part of a healthy life as long as it doesn't lock us into childish ways of thinking that keep us from developing a mature perspective and taking responsibility for our lives.

[1] Freud, Sigmund. "The Future of an Illusion," The Treasury of Modern Religious Thought, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan (Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, 1990); 75.

When Science Kisses Religion

2011-03-07T16:07:00.008-05:00

I've been thinking lately about the relationship between religion and science. We often see these as competing systems of thought but that battle just seems tired and outdated even though people on both sides keep going at it. Over the years I've come to realize that science and religion are really just two distinct ways that human beings try to understand the world and our place in it. So instead of pitting them against each other as so often happens in the theism/atheism and the creation/evolution debate we should listen to each as a distinctly and legitimately human way to find meaning and purpose for our lives.

Here is what I think religion has to gain by embracing the type of thinking that undergirds scientific discovery.

1. Science is hypothetical and based on observation. As such there are ultimately no sacred ideas or theories. Everything is open to question and part of the joy of genuine discovery lies in demonstrating the inadequacy of all prior hypotheses. It just feels good to tear an old theory down! If religion would recognize this it would allow people the freedom to examine their beliefs in a playful and creative way. If we can recognize that our religious ideas are hypothetical contructs then we can experience freedom from the fear that stifles spiritual creativity.

2. Science is subject to falsification. This one is a bit tricky because most religions like to think that they have the "truth" in an absolute sense. However, this is a misconception. Ultimately, no human idea is ultimate or absolute because the human mind is not ultimate or absolute. Just like the eye cannot see infrared rays so the mind is not aware of much of the reality that exists in the universe. Because of this limitation in the structure of our thinking it is necessary to recognize that our religious ideas are likely to contain as much error as truth.

3. Science makes progress through controlled dissent. There is no real development or progress without the ability to disagree. Scientists like to engage in what they call, "discussion without domination." This is exactly the kind of thinking that is required in a healthy religious environment. Even the Bible itself contains writings that express dissent against the status quo of religious tradition. For example, Proverbs says that the world reflects a just order in which sin is punished and obedience is rewarded. However, the author of Ecclesiastes observes that often the wicked get what the righteous deserve and vice versa. So we have some dissonance even in our venerated religious text. But as in music the dissonance is as a much a part of the song as the harmony.

I would encourage you not to leave your critical thinking at the door of your religious texts and experiences. Instead take your whole self, including the rational and scientific part, into an engagement with your spiritual traditions!

How to Save Your Kids Without Having to Kill Them!

2008-10-22T17:52:00.007-04:00

Rick and Sandy had a solid marriage. They had been friends since high school, and began dating in college. Sandy was ecstatic when Rick asked her to marry him during their senior year. They had so much in common. They both liked listening to and performing classical music. They both loved to read and hike. But their most beloved hobby was gardening and horticulture. Rick had won several competitions at the state fair for his prize butternut squash, while Sandy was more of a flower person. So when they got married it was a match made in heaven – or perhaps the garden.

After several years of successful and award-winning gardening together, Rick and Sandy decided to move beyond the plant kingdom, and have children. Over the next several years they had 7 children together. While many hobbies and activities were laid aside to raise their children, they still kept up the gardening together, especially Rick's prized butternut squash.

As the children grew older, Rick and Sandy followed the counsel of "few rules, well enforced". This allowed them to have a close and positive relationship with all their children. Of course, the most important rule was "don't mess with Dad's butternut squash" – don't play in it, don't eat it, don't even touch it, just to be on the safe side. The children weren't exactly sure what the consequences would be, but from the look on Dad's face and the tone of his voice, it looked pretty terrible, and they didn't want to find out.

Unfortunately, as with all children, the draw of the "off limits" pulled at them. They wondered, "What is so special about the butternut squash. I wonder what it tastes like. I wonder what it feels like. It looks like it would be fun to play with, almost like a football." Surely it wouldn't hurt to play with just a couple of them. After all, there were dozens of plants and squash in that special section of the garden. What difference would losing one or two make?

Finally, one afternoon, when Rick and Sandy were out ingathering in the neighborhood, Lucy, the oldest daughter and second child overall, said it was time to check out the butternut squash. After all, squash is good for us, and will boost our immune systems. Michael, the oldest, warned against it. "You know that's the one thing that father would definitely be angry about Lucy," said Michael. But, as Lucy had great influence with the younger children, and even with Michael, they all ended up playing in the butternut squash patch, and even eating a few of them. After eating a raw squash though, they had no desire for them anymore, and they slowly began to feel a sense of fear and dread about the return of their parents. On this afternoon, instead of greeting Mom & Dad when they came home as they usually did, all the children were in their rooms – quiet.

When Rick and Sandy inquired why they hadn't been greeted at the door, the squirming and downcast looks of the children caused Rick to inquire about his butternut squash. Soon the whole sad tale came out with accusations against Lucy as the instigator by Michael, and counter accusations that Michael was the oldest and should have controlled things.

From the devastated and distraught looks on the faces of Mom and Dad, the children really became afraid of the consequences of violating the butternut squash law. Sadly and carefully, Dad began to explain that because he was not only a loving Dad, but also a just Dad, he couldn't just forgive their trespass, even if they were truly repentant. They had violated the most vital of rule in their home, and even if he wanted to, he couldn't just forgive them, because he was a just and righteous father. The rules of the home had been violated, and the penalties must be dispensed – or he wouldn't be a just and right father.

First of all, because of their violation, he could no longer allow them to stay in the presence of him and Sandy, because misbehavior and good behavior could not dwell together. From now on, they would have to live in the shed, with the dogs – Winston & Chester.

Second of all, the penalty of their crime must be paid, in order for them to even continue to live on the property at all, even in the shed. Dad explained to them that long before they had had children, he and Mom had decided that if any, or all, of their children should violate this vital family law, then Mom would pay the price necessary for them to continue to live in the shed. She would bear the penalty for them. And then, if they accepted Mom's sacrifice in their behalf, and demonstrated an appreciation of Mom's sacrifice, they would eventually be allowed back in the house.

Sadly and slowly, father, mother, and children trudged out to the garden. There, Dad took one of the broken vines of the butternut squash plant. And as Mom stood under the apple tree, Dad made a noose in the vine, placed it around Mom's neck, threw the free end over a branch, and pulled until Mom's feet were dangling off the ground. Slowly Mom asphyxiated, and died.

Dad turned to the children and said, "Now my justice is satisfied, the price has been paid, the penalty I set is exhausted. You will now be able to come back and live in the house someday. Mom and I did this because we love you. The demands of the law were met."

Now a father and his children could be AT-ONE. Do you want to move back home with Dad?

================================================================================

Where "atonement" came from

The word atonement was first used in 1513, it was soon employed by Tyndale in his translation of the Bible in 1526. The word atone, from which atonement looks like it was derived, did not come along until 1555, through "back formation" from atonement. So what did it mean? The story you've heard is true: atonement really means at-one-ment. The idea of being at one, in harmony. It is a "made-up" word, formed by running at and one together, as the rather free writers of the time were fond of doing. To quote An Etymological Dictionary of Modern English: "atone. Originally to reconcile, from adverbial phrase at one, and preserving the old pronunciation of the latter word, as in only, alone." That's why we say "atone" and "at one" differently today, which disguises their commonality. But in reality, and when they were first used, they meant the same thing. (The original pronunciation of the word one continues in the words only [one-ly] and alone [all-one]).

The Shorter Oxford Dictionary describes the word atonement: "the condition of being at one with others; concord, agreement." There is no concept here of some necessary paying of penalty, of appeasement or placating a hostile person. It is simply "one-ness". The same source gives a further definition: "3. Spec. in Theol. Reconciliation or restoration between God and sinners. 1526 (Tyndale)." and then adds the note "Atonement is variously used by theologians in the sense of reconciliation, propitiation, expiation. (Not so applied in any version of the N.T.)"—an interesting "theological" comment from a work not particularly concerned with religious matters!

This is a far cry from the meaning that the word atonement has assumed in the present: that of doing something in the form of payment or penalty to "atone" for some wrongdoing; a very "legal" word in which recompense is made and obligations met. As Chambers Universal Learners Dictionary puts it: "Atone. To do something good to show that one is sorry for doing something bad."
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary also well illustrates the changed meaning: "atonement. 1. Archaic. Concord; reconciliation. 2. Satisfactory reparation for an offense or injury." The archaic meaning was the original sense, the second definition of making amends is the meaning most often used today.

In this way then the meaning of the word atonement has shifted considerably from its first meaning of one-ness and the state of "one-ment". Tyndale, who introduced the word into his Bible translation, saw it in its simple meaning. Jesus came to make us one with God: "One God, one Mediatour, that is to say aduocate, intercessor, or an atonemaker, between God and man." "One mediatour Christ,..and by that word vnderstand an attonemaker, a peacemaker." (Tyndale, Works, p.158, p.431, cited in An Etymological Dictionary of the English Language, art. atone.)

Jesus Mean and Wild

2008-05-23T08:04:00.001-04:00

I used to wrestle in high school. And those wrestling matches were some of the most physically intense experiences of my life. No other sport that I have played quite compares to the intensity of a wrestling match in which constant pressure must be exercised against one's opponent. Every muscle is fully engaged and pushed to the limit if you are doing it right. The only match that didn't leave me completely exhausted was one that almost killed me when I was pinned in the first 10 seconds by a three-hundred pound dude that fell right on my chest!

That experience came back to my mind this week as I meditated on the intensity of Jesus' life experiences. Obviously there are many levels on which Jesus' life was very demanding. The man travelled hundreds, if not thousands of miles, on foot in extremely high temperatures! And his attitude reflected the toughness characteristic of such a hard lifestyle when he commented on John the baptist, "What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed swayed by the wind? If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothes? No, those who wear soft clothes are in kings' palaces" (Matt. 11.7-8). That dialogue is worthy of a line in a Clint Eastwood movie. Jesus and John were not soft men in soft clothes saying soft and soothing things! They were rough and tumble prophets, men hardened by tough circumstances. They were willing to stand up and speak out against the religious and political powers that were grinding the poor and oppressed in the dust!

Consider the following texts:

1.) "Immediately the Spirit drove Him into the wilderness. And He was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan, and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered to Him." (Mark 1.12-13)

Jesus led a Spirit-driven life. And the Spirit will not be controlled by the human demand for comfort and convenience. It is a dangerous thing to pray to be filled with the Holy Spirit! The Spirit will drive us right into the ring where we will be forced to confront the powers of oppression and injustice in our world. Such a life may be difficult but it will be far more meaningful and rewarding than the easy way of just "going along" to "get along."

2.) "In fact, no one can enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house." (Mark 3.27)

Jesus came into the world to bind the "strong man," that symbol of all tyrannical power, whether it be religious or political. Jesus' life was difficult because he challenged the authority of every power that diminished and demeaned human beings. He angered the rich, strong and powerful because he stood up for the poor, weak and powerless. More than that Jesus actually empowered the poor, weak and powerless which undermined the ability of those in power to control them! An example of this is Jesus' teaching that the "Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath." The Sabbath command is not a means to dominate and control human beings, although that is how it was interpreted and used by the Jewish religious elites (and many since them have done the same!). Rather the Sabbath is a divine law that actually serves human need, and human need takes precedence over Sabbath law. Now that is truly revolutionary!

3.) "And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. He spoke this word openly. Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. But when He had turned around and looked at His disciples, He rebuked Peter, saying, “Get behind Me, Satan! For you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.” (Mark 8.31-33)

Jesus rejected every attempt to divert him from the extraordinary difficulty of his mission. Jesus even called one of his own disciples "Satan" when he (Peter, of course) suggested that Jesus would not have to die. Here again, just like in the wilderness with the great tempter, Jesus rejects the offer of imperial power. He rejects the path toward domination over others and chooses instead the path of service for others. And that choice and the iron will that carried it out ultimately established the Kingdom of God over the Domination System!

Jesus' life was intense because of the tension created by the incredible conflict in which he was engaged. As the bearer of the Kingdom of God he was engaged in nothing less than a jihad against the religious and imperial powers of his day. The only place that Jesus seemed to get any relief from this struggle was in the company of those that lived under the boot of the beast. Jesus enjoyed many parties in the presence of such people!

The Good News is That Jesus is Stranger Than You Think But Better Than You Can Possibly Imagine

2008-05-23T08:03:00.003-04:00

The great theologian and missionary Albert Schweitzer said that Jesus was "a stranger and an enigma" to his generation! In his amazing review of Lives of Jesus written in the 18th-19th centuries he made the point that scholars had simply been making Jesus into their own image. Schweitzer's challenge was powerful when it was first written and it is powerful today. The temptation for all Christians is to shape the materials we have about Jesus to fit our own preconceptions and ideals. As much as possible we all want a Jesus that looks and acts an awful lot like us!

The problem is that Jesus just doesn't fit in any of the boxes in which we put him. For example, what happens when we try to fit everything that Jesus said and did in the "nice-compassionate-man" box? Well, Jesus actually breaks out of that box. Not only in the nasty outburst in the temple scene but in his encounter with a Canaanite woman seeking healing for her daughter. In response to her plea, "Lord, help me" Jesus said to her, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." Now that hardly seems like a nice or comassionate response by any cultural standard. And yet there it is. So we either have to worm our way around the not-niceness of the response and offer lame reinterpretations to make this incident fit our conceptions of niceness or maybe we just throw out the nice box altogether.

Here's a thought. Jesus doesn't have to be "nice" or "kind" or "loving" or "compassionate" or anything else. Maybe we shouldn't try to apply any external standards at all to the words and actions of Jesus. When we do this it actually places our human concepts above Jesus. In this way we turn ourselves and our human values and morals into the standard by which Jesus is judged! The result of this approach is that we just squeeze out all of the challenging material about Jesus' behavior and focus on the things that match our cultural and psychological conceptions of what is good and right. And whether the end result is a liberal or a conservative Jesus doesn't really matter. Either way we have an image of Jesus modified (in reality falsified) to suit our own tastes and preferences.

Let me suggest an alternate approach to the strange and difficult materials about Jesus in the gospel records. When asked by Moses to reveal His name God said, "I Am That I Am." Nothing like answering a question with a riddle! Interesting that Yahweh puts the emphasis on the "That" of his existence rather than the "What." Ultimately, what God is is dependent on the fact that God is! By focusing on the "That" of God's existence we come find a true answer to the question, "What is God?" The same is true of Jesus. Our task is not to judge "what" he said and did by our own human standards and values but to focus on the mere "That" of his existence. Instead of letting our concepts determine our image of Jesus we need to let the existence of Jesus itself shape our notions of what it means to be human, truly human!

Are Jesus Sayings Too Radical or Are Christians Too Conservative?

2008-05-23T08:00:00.003-04:00

“Do not fear, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Sell what you have and give alms; provide yourselves money bags which do not grow old, a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches nor moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." (Luke 12.32-34)

I have a book in my library that is entirely devoted to the "hard sayings" of Jesus. Interestingly, most of the hard sayings are actually pretty straight forward and clear. Maybe they are hard not because we don't understand them but precisely because we do. Take Jesus' statement, "Sell what you have and give alms." Is it really that difficult to understand or is it difficult precisely because it is absolutely clear? There is no argument that such an imperative would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for most of us to practice. But then why would we expect Jesus' sayings to be any less personally challenging then his lifestyle itself? Maybe his sayings are as unique and unrepeatable as his life itself. And if the bar is set too high for most people to follow is that so surprising?

Maybe the problem isn't with the radical and difficult sayings of Jesus but with our comfortable and affluent capitalistic lifestyles that are offended by such radical concepts as "selling" our possessions and "giving" to the poor. Maybe Jesus isn't too radical, maybe we are just too conservative. Admittedly, it would be nice if Jesus' sayings were less challenging to our innate self-interest and love of personal comfort. But we should be careful about wishing Jesus to be other than he is! If we make him into our image then we'll be left with no savior but ourselves. Better to have a Savior that challenges are very existence then to have no savior at all!

Beware of paring the claws of the lion! Let us be careful not to water down Jesus' radical sayings until they fit our comfortable, materialistic, 21st century lifestyles. We don't need a Jesus that validates the consumersitic pursuits of our consumption-obsessed culture. We need instead a savior that can free us from the fierce grip of greed that ultimately dehumanizes all of us, rich and poor alike. We need the radical Jesus and his sayings precisely because they challenge the equally radical demands of our consumer-culture world!

Miracles are More Than Miraculous

2008-05-23T07:58:00.003-04:00

"Immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went out in the presence of them all, so that all were amazed and glorified God, saying, “We never saw anything like this!” (Mark 2.12)

There is no doubt that the things Jesus did while on earth were stunning and even shocking to those that witnessed his acts! Two thousand years later we still talk about them and try to understand them. And yet miracles are difficult for us to reconcile with the way that we normally experience the world. The daily grind of our lives is pretty routine and mechanical. Life for most of us consists in a series of mundane routines that feel as natural as the ceaseless spinning of the earth on its axis. And yet deep down we probably all long for a little more of the miraculous!

The thing about Jesus miracles is that their significance lies in more than just the miraculous element. In every miracle story in the gospels there is a surplus of meaning that goes beyond the isolated event. If it was only a matter of one man on one occasion walking on water, then so what? How in the world could that possibly be good news for all people in all times and all places? Such an act may very well be miraculous but that doesn't make it the good news!

Miracle is more than just supernatural physical event. There is a spiritual, social, political, and symbolic meaning of miracle that makes those acts of Jesus significant for us all. For example, in the story of in Mark 2.1-12 there is a message of good news that goes beyond an isolated act of healing for a single individual. In that story, Jesus offered forgiveness, the remission of debt, to a paralytic (2.7). However, that claim was challenged by the "scribes" (2.8). Now, the scribes as a social and religious class were the guardians of the temple, and above all the temple existed as an institution to ensure that sin was forgiven through the offering of animal sacrifices.

Jesus was essentially challenging the authority of the scribal class by offering forgiveness apart from the temple-based order. For this the scribes called him a "blasphemer." They essentially accused him of being a practitioner of unauthorized religion. And no matter how ridiculous the charge seems to us in retrospect, it stuck. However, the good news in the story is that in Jesus we find forgiveness of sin apart from any human institution, no matter how sacred, ancient, and venerable!

Jesus' miracles are tremendously good news because they symbolize the truly radical and subversive nature of the kingdom of God. It is a kingdom that cannot be controlled or manipulated by any human power, because it is itself a manifestation of that which is beyond all human power. It is a kingdom that turns the social order of the world on its head. It is a kingdom that embraces the poor, the weak, the marginalized, the unholy and the unclean! It is the anti-kingdom in relation to all worldly empires. And that is a message of good news for all excluded and oppressed people, for all those that long for more than just the same old corrupt and corrupting business-as-usual world!

The Reality of His Humanity

2008-04-16T05:42:00.001-04:00

'We can relate to God as human beings because God is truly Human.' (Walter Wink, The Human Being, 42)

I came across an interesting fact about Jesus a number of years ago that has stuck with me. I'm not certain about the meaning of its significance yet but it has become something of a fixed point in my thinking about Jesus. Jesus referred to himself using the phrase 'son of man' more than any other title. Interestingly, the original disciples rarely used that term for Jesus and the church has used it even less, both groups preferring the title 'son of God.' However, the fact stands that Jesus's favorite designation of himself was 'son of man' (the phrase is used 84 times in the gospels).

What does this mean? Was Jesus more comfortable with his true humanity than those that followed him? Do we tend to ignore Jesus's human nature because we are so preoccupied with his divinity? Does our concept of Jesus's divinity tend to obscure the reality that he was a finite human being subject to the same limitations as all other human beings? These are all good questions that deserve careful consideration. In fact, that is what the quest for the historical Jesus has been doing for over the past two hundred years. Since the Enlightenment scholars have been attempting to understand something of the human Jesus. Such a quest may lead into some scholarly dead ends but the quest itself is certainly important, especially if Jesus truly was the 'son of man.' His humanity cannot be simply absorbed and overshadowed by his divinity, because that would be to make of Jesus another false christ!

Consider these two important texts about the phrase 'son of man.' First, Psalm 8.3-6, 'When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars that you have established; what are human beings that you are mindful of them, the son of man that you care for him? Pay attention to the parallelism of Hebrew poetry, 'human beings . . . son of man,' 'mindful of them . . . care for him.' The plural 'human beings' is equated with the singular 'son of man.' From this we begin to see that the 'son of man' is not strictly an individual but a symbol of a larger group. Second, carefully study the vision of Dan. 7.14 where the 'son of man' appears as an individual with the interpretation in vss. 21-22, 27 where the kingdom is given to the 'holy ones,' the 'people of the Most High.' 'His kingdom' in vs. 14 is 'their kingdom' in vs. 27. Again we see a collective dimension of the 'son of man' symbol. The 'son of man' is more than just a single individual.

What does all this mean for us? The 'son of man' is a liberating and empowering symbol. It is also the antidote for the imperial 'son of God' christology that has dominated the church since the time of Constantine. The church has often used its image of Jesus as 'son of God' to force believers into submission to the will of a dictatorial leadership. It has taught that human beings are ignorant and cannot be trusted to think for themselves. That human beings are faithless and must be coerced with rules and regulations to act responsibly. In short, the imperial 'son of God' of the Constantinian church has been used to beat people into submission to church traditions rather than to liberate them into the spiritual freedom of the children of God!

Jesus is the head of a true and new humanity. As 'son of man' he does not wish to subjugate us as other imperial leaders, both secular and religious, seek to do. Jesus wants to liberate us from all forms of imperial power and to empower us to resist such power by assisting in the work of his kingdom. Through the 'son of man' we are given 'glory,' 'honor,' and 'dominion' in an 'everlasting kingdom' that 'shall never be destroyed.'

Dissecting God

2008-04-01T11:42:00.005-04:00

A friend recently described his Bible discussion group as “Dissecting God like a frog staked out on the table.” It struck me as both a challenging analogy and potentially instructive of what our quest to know God should be, or perhaps should not be. This seems relevant as our group embarks on a study of Jesus. Get the gloves, pins and scalpels ready.

What do I learn from my friend’s dissection analogy? First, its not about the frog. Dissection’s purpose is the dissector’s learning. The frog, the subject of the dissection, is destined for the bin at the end of the study. There are plenty more in the pond. It follows, secondly, that the study can destroy the very thing we are studying. Our knowledge is advanced, but at a cost to the subject. Third, there is little or no relationship between the dissector and the dissectee. Sure, no doubt some dissectors develop an affinity for their Kermit, giving his all to facilitate their learning – flippers nailed in place. But the word picture conveys a distant, clinical detachment between the student and the subject of study.

Which brings us back to our study of God ...

Is it all about us, or about us and God?
Does our study increase our knowledge, while destroying ‘God’ in our lives?
Are we involved with the subject of our study?

In light of the analogy, perhaps it is best not to examine God in our study? Maybe we should limit Bible study and discussion to what it might say about our daily life? Yet, God appears to invoke our analysis of Him. He has staked Himself out on the dissecting table, so to speak, in the person of Jesus Christ. In fact, Jesus suggests that seeking a knowledge of God through Him “is life eternal” John 17:3). Jesus asked His disciples to consider who He is (Matt 16:13-17; 22:41-45; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-20), and I think He meant more than name, rank and serial number. Understanding Jesus’ identity goes far beyond identifying Him as the “Christ of God” (Luke 9:20). That’s like studying a frog by saying, “Yep, it croaks, it jumps, so it must be a frog.”

“Yep, He raised the dead, walked on water, and fed the multitude, so it must be God.”

There is so much more to know about God. What is He like? So, how do we do that? Well, Jesus reinforced that the Scriptures testify of Him (John 5:39). But He does so while chiding the Pharisees for limiting their seeking after Him to just the Scriptures … “for in them ye think ye have eternal life. And ye will not come to me that ye might have life.” As Jesus says in His John 17 prayer for His disciples, experiencing God through Him is life eternal. The Scriptures cannot or should not limit our study of God. John 1 tells us that the Word of God is more than 39 or 66 books. The witness is everything throughout created time that bears witness to God, and that didn’t stop with John the Baptist.

Marriage is a valuable analogy in understanding that there is a relationship dimension to understanding character. How often have I sought to dissect Angela’s character on the basis of the facts alone. Like Sgt Joe Sunday, … “all we want are the facts, Ma’am.” “This is what you did, … this is what you said.” Therefore, as a social scientist analyzing my wife I (incorrectly) conclude that (a) she is selfish, and (b) she doesn’t love me. I call this the Sola Scriptura approach to spousal analysis – clinical, akin to dissection.

Then Angela reminds me that we have known each other for more than two decades, and experience must contradict those two conclusions. There must be another explanation for Angela’s incongruous words and actions. And I reflect on the fact that, yes, it makes sense that my analytical deductions from the recorded facts must also be consistent with my long-term experience of Angela. I look for other explanations.

As in all relationships, the key to knowing God is to move beyond clinical, detached analysis and dare to experience. “Taste and see that the Lord is good” (Ps 34:8).

1 Peter 2:1-5

Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind. Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, now that you have tasted that the Lord is good. As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

Patterns of Discipleship

2008-03-27T16:37:00.003-04:00

"Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely you have received, freely give." (Matt. 10.8)

Given Jesus's expectations of disciples most of our visions seem pretty insignificant in comparison. Even on a really great spiritual day raising the dead wouldn't make my list of things to do! The behaviors that Jesus commands of his disciples in this verse are more than most of us could imagine even in our wildest spiritual fantasies. We have too many fear-based psychological defense mechanisms in place to permit that kind of reckless spirituality. But maybe it is exactly this kind of thinking beyond-the-possible that is the meaning of faith itself.

Even science would not be possible without a willingness to think beyond the possible. Especially if we think of the possible as that which is, as the status quo way that we conceive of the world. As it turns out the way that we conceive the world can change dramatically, and those that catch a glimpse of the changing paradigm in advance find themselves outside of the realm of the possible. Prior to the twentieth-century the conception of flight itself was merely a fantasy, something that went well beyond what was thought as possible by the vast majority of thinking people.

When viewed through a naturalistic lens the kingdom of God is an utter impossibility. The hard logic of cause and effect as well as the second law of thermodynamics teaches us that wishing for the raising of the dead is foolish. And yet wild hopes for divine healing and life beyond the grave persist. Why? Are we just foolish dreamers that can't handle the harsh truth of the real world? Are such hopes simply compensations for the hard reality of life in a cold, Newtonian universe? Or do such hopes actually connect us with a kingdom of God that challenges all conceptions of what is possible? A kingdom that teaches us to imagine that which is not possible as the first step toward the transformation of what is to the amazing prospect of what could be?

Is it possible that a church that began with a bunch of dreamers and visionaries has become so stunted by the unimaginative status quo that we have lost touch with that kingdom that breaks all boundaries and explodes our conceptions of what is possible?

Vicariously Representing Christ in Our Actions

2008-02-28T16:15:00.005-05:00

In thinking of discipleship in action, I was drawn to an interesting quote in Alitalia’s inflight magazine.

“Traveling is part of the pope’s “job”. You are only a “missionary of the word” if you preach it to the four corners of the Earth. It is a condicio sine qua non, a necessity. … Planes are essential and when you travel with popes you realize how small the world is. I remember being struck by the words of St. Francesca Calbrini, the patron saint of emigrants, who said, “the world is too small for me.” She did not just say it, she proved it was true by crossing the Atlantic Ocean twenty-two times on steamships in the late 1800s and early 1900s. “God’s Gypsy”, or the “nun in perpetual motion” crossed the Andes on the back of a mule. Wasn’t America a long way away? Certainly not, for her it was a like a “path to the garden”. Nowadays, we are accustomed to an itinerant Vatican that travels and flies. It is part of the modern-day papacy’s DNA – the other side of his Holiness, who crosses the heavens while waiting to be measured by them. “

And, it occurred to me that it takes more than action. The actions must project God’s character. It takes more than preaching to the four corners of the Earth. What we preach is of more importance than where. As a person not of the Roman Catholic faith, I was positively drawn to the description of the Pope’s personal interactions while traveling.

“… serene, joyful and happy person, because he has accepted this task as an appointment he did not seek; … Nevertheless, he lives naturally and unaffected. His relationship with others is direct and not studied … he does not descend from on high, so people do not feel uncomfortable in his presence, but accepted.”

That is something that would ideally describe every disciple who vicariously presents Christ to the world.

As I wandered around Bologna earlier this week, I marveled at San Petroni, one of the world’s largest churches. In fact it would perhaps have been the largest, if the Vatican had not intervened to ensure it didn’t rival St Peter’s basilica. Lining each side of the church were ornate chapels that were anything but “natural and unaffected”. Interestingly, one chapel contains Modena’s painting that depicts Mohamed being thrown into hell, an artwork recently described as “more offensive than Rushdie’s book, The Satanic Verses.” In front of each chapel were ornate fences with metal spikes along the top that made it clear which side of the fence I was to remain. By putting a coin in the slot I could turn the lights on in these little chapels or light an electric candle in a rack just outside the railing. Clergy stood by to take my confessions and intercede between God and me. As I watched mass – the chanting, the pageantry of the priests’ entry with the ‘host’, I got the sense that God was “on high” and that he was not “descending” any time soon. God was a long way off, and there was certainly nothing too personal about the relationship between God and man.

Now, I probably don’t have standing to opine on what the actions of another Christian denomination say about God, but I can pose for us the question of what our corporate and individual actions demonstrate about the Master. How do we take the roof off our church and let those in need of healing in? (Luke 5) In our churches, what are the equivalents of fences and spikes separating people from a depiction of God?

Do we accept the “catholic” universality of our commissioning as disciples (Acts 10, esp. v 36; Eph 1:15-23; Matt 28:18-20), or place that responsibility on an organization or other human beings?

Experiencing Discipleship – Seeing Jesus as He is

2008-02-23T18:16:00.005-05:00

“Ronald Jorgensen! He must be the Bassett Rd machine-gun murderer”, said my father as he reviewed my order book for the day. As part of a school fundraising activity, I had just returned from selling nameplates door-to-door, and, as usual, my father would collect my orders, and the students’ orders, and have Formica engraved nameplates made accordingly. I doubt that Dad had time to review each name, but Jorgensen’s name jumped out at him. “What did he look like?”, Dad asked. I described a quiet, serious man, dressed well in a mid-length dress leather jacket. He was polite to me, and he bought a nameplate without any further questions or discussion.

Dad then went on to tell me the story of how Jorgensen and John Gillies had used a Reising sub-machine gun to kill two men who were also part of New Zealand’s relatively unsophisticated underworld. That happened in the early ‘60s, just before I was born, and caused something of a sensation, apparently, due in part to Jorgensen and Gillies’ admission that they had smoked a joint before ‘doing the deed’, and perhaps in greater part because the crime deeply shocked sleepy 1960’s New Zealand and challenged its self-image.

I remember going back to drop off the nameplate, hoping to get a better look at the Bassett Rd machine-gun murderer. Sadly, I never did meet Mr. Jorgensen again. But I am sure I would have seen him in a different light. I followed with interest his subsequent life – his painting, and his mysterious disappearance in 1983. I like to think he is still alive, although if he is alive he would be several years older than Elvis.

Professor Bart Ehrman recently had a similar experience – with God. As a lifelong, active Christian, a clergyman, a Princeton PhD in New Testament studies, and a distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at University of North Carolina, he saw God as good. Then Ehrman began to see God as the celestial equivalent of a machine-gun murderer. Or worse. Machine guns kill quickly and efficiently, but God inflicts prolonged torture … very prolonged torture … like, forever. At least, that is what Ehrman had been taught to believe. As he states,

"I could no longer explain how there can be a good and all-powerful God actively involved with this world, given the state of things. For many people who inhabit this planet, life is a cesspool of misery and suffering. I came to a point where I simply could not believe that there is a good and kindly disposed Ruler who is in charge of it."

He saw God in an entirely different light, and it changed him. As a moral man, Ehrman saw God’s “rap sheet” and concluded that if God is like that, then he cannot be the deity that He purports to be. Thus, He either does not exist or does exist and He is not the Judeo/Christian God who is worthy of our worship. His brief NPR interview earlier this week is well worth listening to:

Like Ehrman, the disciples, Peter, James and John, also saw Jesus in an entirely different light. You have no doubt read the Transfiguration story in Matthew 17. I wonder what would happen to us if we saw Jesus as He truly is? Would we be repulsed as we realized that this Universe is presided over by a majestic machine-gun murderer, or would we have a Revelation 14 experience of worshiping Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of waters?

Preparation for Discipleship

2008-02-14T17:48:00.004-05:00

Some years ago I participated in a Buddhist exorcism ceremony in Northern Thailand. Participants in the course I was leading -- senior government officials from the Mekong Delta countries -- became convinced that the residential institute where we lived and learned was infested with ghosts. It didn't help that it was the time in the Buddhist calendar when departed spirits were said to revisit the place of their departure. The Thai staff mentioned that 40 people had died in a building fire on this site, and the human remains had simply been buried with what remained of the building. So, it was apparently natural that the ghosts would return here. But things got really bad when a Laos official reported that a woman crashed through his room's ceiling and lay down in his bed beside him. When he tried to embrace her, she disappeared.

"That's strange", said a Cambodian official, "I had a similar experience." A woman walked through his room's locked, solid door. She continued to walk toward his bed, even though she had no legs. She sat on the end of his bed, conversed with him briefly, and then disappeared. After the initial reports of ghosts and these two authoritative, face-to-face experiences, the Institute was in uproar and classes were almost impossible. I had been out with the class the night before and considered the amount of alcohol consumed to be a reasonable explanation -- the students were 'legless', not just the ghost. And the other noises were probably wild cats. Nevertheless, something had to be done.

And done it was. A Buddhist priest and three monks were summoned to exorcise the ghosts, and a Ministry of Foreign Affairs advisor instructed me that my participation in this ceremony was imperative for demonstrating cultural sensitivity. What this involved was kneeling before a Buddhist altar and before the priests and monks for nearly two hours while they chanted and prayed and transferred energy up and down a string attached to the altar. Officials with cameras were reveling in a PR bonanza.

While kneeling I could think of only two things -- one, the concrete floor with linoleum square tiles, and, two, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego's witness (Daniel 3:16-18). They were willing to risk death in such circumstances, and I wasn't even willing to risk offending someone.

So, why am I telling you this story? It illustrates the "Salt Principle" in Jesus' instructions to His disciples (Matt 5:13-16). We are the salt of the earth, and salt permeates. As salt, we enter into the life and culture of the people we seek to reach. I had many interesting religious conversations with officials during the course, many of whom were among "the highest in the land". Perhaps I would not have had those opportunities if I had stayed aloof? Conjecture.

Now, compare Jesus' instruction to permeate with Paul's "Stumblingblock Principle" of 1 Corinthians 8. "Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge."

It is clear to me that the "Salt Principle" of Matthew 5 and the "Stumblingblock Principle" of 1 Corinthians 8 are in tension. When should we permeate, and when should we set ourselves apart? The first principle relates to our obligations to those who do not know Christ, whereas the second principle relates to our obligations to fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. When is one obligation more important than the other? Which is ultimately more important? Can we uphold both principles simultaneously?

Perhaps Jesus' prayer for His disciples, recorded in John 17, is relevant? Jesus speaks of sending his disciples into the world (v11), but states that they are "not of the world" (v14). Jesus notes that in this respect His disciples are just like Him.

Challenging.

BTW, what would you have done in this circumstance?

Lessons From Would-Be Disciples

2008-01-23T22:41:00.003-05:00

Let's face it. Jesus doesn't want everybody as a disciple. Now I know that goes against the grain of the ideal image of Jesus as a nice guy that we hold in our postmodern minds. But then why would we expect Jesus not to explode our conceptions of him. If the ancient world in which he was born didn't understand him then what makes us think we will do any better? Do we think that we have an advantage because we have two thousand years of Christian history behind us? As if the church has never been wrong about important spiritual things before. Anyway, if you can at least entertain the thought that our popular notions about Jesus could be wrong then consider the following.

In Luke 9.57-62 Jesus actually said some discouraging (I might even say cruel but I know that might really explode your conception of the master! so I won't!) things to a few men that wanted to follow him. At least they said they wanted to follow him and for most people in the leadership business that is good enough. I mean, it's not easy to even get people to want to follow. As one leadership guru used to put it, "If you are leading but no one is following, you're just taking a walk!" So Jesus is really doing something to just stimulate the desire of other people to follow him. And yet this passage in Luke has him making unreasonable demands of those that want to follow him. Listen in on these three conversations:

First conversation:
“Lord, I will follow You wherever You go.”Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.”

Second conversation:
Jesus said to another, “Follow Me.”But he said, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.”Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and preach the kingdom of God.”

Third conversation:
And another also said, “Lord, I will follow You, but let me first go and bid them farewell who are at my house.”Jesus said to him, “No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.”

Note four things. 1.) Two of the men that want to follow Jesus have other things they want to do first. These are not bad things. In fact, they are actually very good things, honorable things that they wish to do out of a sense of duty and responsibility. But the good is the enemy of the great. And good things can especially get in the way of God-things! Sometimes even doing our duty can take us far from the will of God. Just think of the pilot of the Enola Gay just doing his duty and dropping the atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. And for the soldiers that crucified Jesus it was just another day in the imperial office!

2.) For two of the men that wanted to follow Jesus the focus was on "my house" and "my father." Don't miss this. The patriarchal family was the source of the greatest threat to the mission of Jesus and the kingdom of God. Family is good but it's not the ultimate good or the absolute good. Do we allow our lives to be shaped by family values in such a way that we miss the faith venture of following Jesus?

3.) What does a man that doesn't even have a "place" of his own have to offer those of us that are essentially defined by what we have? Is it possible for consumers like us to follow Jesus?

4.) These three conversations take place at the point in Luke's story where Jesus makes his crucial move toward Jerusalem. Jesus simply didn't have time to coddle disciples that weren't ready for the heat that was quickly coming. That may be tough but then Jesus was no cupcake!

If we're looking for soft and cushy we probably won't want to fill out the application to follow Jesus. We wouldn't make the cut anyway. And that would be a shame because we would miss out on the adventure that is known as the kingdom of God!

© Paul Fisher

Called to Discipleship by Jesus

2008-01-17T20:10:00.001-05:00

Jesus' call to that first brave bunch of disciples was pretty amazing. That simple phrase, "Come, follow me" is packed and loaded with meaning. I wonder if we haven't emptied that radical call of its threat as well as its promise of adventure.

Jesus said (and says) "Come." This going toward Jesus required a leaving of some things, if not all things, behind. I've been thinking about this a lot lately. And it seems to me that the only people that are willing to leave things behind are those that are dissatisfied with the status quo. The status quo may not even be that bad but it may just not be enough to satisfy anymore. I remember a church in the early 1990's that intentionally wanted to reach "the bored, the burned, and the bypassed." It was tapping into the discontent of its target audience and offering something better. That's just beautiful.

Jesus said (and says) "Come, follow me." This is challenging and exciting. Jesus is on the move and following him means that we have to move to keep up. One of my favorite lines in the movie "Lord of the Rings" is when Frodo says to Sam at the start of their epic journey, "As Bilbo used to say, it's a dangerous thing to step out your front door Mr. Frodo because you just don't know where you might be swept off to." Following Jesus is a journey not a destination. And when you follow Jesus you just don't know where you might be swept off to because if you know exactly where you're going it's not a faith journey your're just taking a walk. A faith journey can be messy and exhausting, but the adventure far outweighs the risk. And there is risk. I recently heard a clip of a speech given by Sir Edmund Hillary. He was the first man to reach the top of Mt. Everest and he passed away last week. He said in effect, "If you set off on an adventure in which you are absolutely certain of success. Why bother?" If every step we take just takes us one step closer to death, why play it safe? So we can safely arrive at death?

Jesus said (and says) "Come, follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." My brother-in-law Robert and I participated in a prison ministry event in our community last November. The group that organized the event gave us about 45 minutes of training and provided an inspirational concert on Thursday evening and then on Friday took us into a maximum security prison to share our faith and lead the inmates to Jesus. I told the men that I talked with that I was way out of my comfort zone but had come because God had moved me to do it. They laughed and then one of the guys said, "You know I wasn't going to come out here today and talk with you people. But then I got to thinking why would you guys take time out of your weekend to come and visit us. Nobody comes here unless they have to." With tears in his eyes one of the guys told me, "Thanks for coming to visit with us man."

The organizers of the event, Bill Glass ministries, told us that the church is a locker room. And the only purpose of the locker room is to prepare us to get in the game. Following Jesus is about getting in the game. It is risky, messy, and even dangerous but the reward is greater than any other thing that we can do with our lives.

© Paul Fisher

Christ in the Crucible

2007-12-26T12:33:00.001-05:00

Every community of faith has its lunatic fringe. Some years ago, ‘the fringe’ was out in force on the St Louis streets surrounding an international gathering of my Protestant Christian denomination. I tried to accept all information they offered, as I can learn something from just about anyone with the courage to present his or her point of view. One 24-page booklet thrust into my hands was entitled ‘The Omega Apostasy: A History of the Development of Deadly Heresies’. Not wanting to be part of any ‘deadly heresies’ I launched into this booklet, searching for the not-so-apparent apostasy. Near the center-fold of this booklet I discovered it – belief in the Trinity. Well, this was a shocker. It felt like reading a statement that baseball was un-American. What could be less controversial in Christian belief than the Trinity?

More recently my Saudi client challenged me to consider whether I really was a mono-theistic believer in the God of Abraham, given that I believe in the Trinity – which he (mis)characterized as a belief in three gods.

In studying Jesus’ Gethsemane crucible this week, it matters whether God was making Jesus suffer or whether God’s suffering was Jesus’ suffering. If you believe that God’s suffering was Jesus’ suffering, review Matt 26:36-56, Mark 14:32-51, and Luke 22:39-52, and consider what it means to be God-like in suffering.

Similarly, in studying Jesus’ crucifixion, it matters whether God was exacting suffering or suffering Himself. Review Matt 27:27-56, Mark 15:21-41, Luke 23:26-49, and John 19:17-37, and consider how your conclusions differ with your beliefs about the nature of the so-called Trinity.

Waiting is the Crucible

2007-12-12T10:04:00.000-05:00

As a teenager I attended a prayer seminar with hundreds of people gathered in a “big top” tent to share their testimonies to the power of prayer. One man stood up and tearfully recounted how his son had an aneurysm burst in his brain. As his son lay unconscious in hospital, a prayer network mobilized 3,000 praying Christians across the city of Melbourne, Australia. His son recovered completely, … a miraculous outcome given what his son had experienced. I got to my feet and asked,
“What would have happened if only 2,999 Christians had been praying?”

Totally insensitive, I know, but as a teenager I wanted to know what this experience said about God. Is there a tipping point with God, where 2,500 requests aren’t enough, but 3,000 independent requests for intervention are enough? I imagined God up in heaven with an ‘angst-ometer’ saying, “OK, now I’d better do something.”

Later in the seminar a woman recounted how she had prayed daily for her son who had rejected God. After 34 years of daily prayer, some 12,400 prayers by my reckoning, her son reached out to reestablish relationship with God. One of life’s more trying crucibles must be the daily knowledge that the most important thing in a parent’s life is nothing to their beloved child – that their child is choosing eternal separation from them and God. But this woman had prevailed in this crucible through the power of 34 years of prayer. Again, this insensitive teenager got to his feet and asked,
“What would have happened if you had missed a day?”

While patience like this woman displayed is indeed a virtue in the crucible of life experiences, it does raise questions regarding God’s character. Luke 18:1-8 recounts Jesus’ parable of the persistent widow seeking justice from a heartless, Godless judge. For some time he ignores her pleas, and then eventually declares,
“… because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won’t wear me out with my coming!”

This week it is worth considering not only whether patience is desirable in the crucible, but why? Is it because God is as heartless as the Judge in Luke 18? Or does our continued plea for His deliverance bring glory to Him in the heavenly courts? Read on in Luke 18.
“… will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly.”
© Alister L Hunt PhD

The Morality of Meekness

2007-12-05T23:08:00.000-05:00

I often recall my father’s treasured sayings with which he sought to convey wisdom to the next generation. Some of Dad’s sayings are discarded and some treasured. For example, after I gave Angela flowers soon after we were married, my father told me, “No use chasing a bus once you’ve caught it.” He was joking … I think … and fortunately that is not a saying I live by. However, a saying that does stick with me is “Never trust humble people.” Or, relatedly, “Humility is the worst form of conceit”, a maxim that French writer François de La Rochefoucauld had recorded some 300 years previously. So, humility and its cousin meekness were vices that my father avoided with religious fervor, and he encouraged us to do likewise. Meek people did not have the courage to stand up for right, and apparently humble people are the most likely to seek their own good while you drop your guard.

The problem with this piece of Hunt family wisdom was that we also took the Bible fairly seriously as a guide to daily life, and it upholds humility and meekness as virtues, not vices. Examples include Matt 20:27,28; Luke 22:26; 1 Peter 5:6; 2 Cor 12:9,10; Phil 2:5-9.

Years ago Yusuf Khan challenged Angela and I to consider whether winning at squash was most important. “If you always want to win, its simple”, he said. “Just make sure that you always play people who aren’t as good as you.” It’s the same with having a lowly opinion of oneself – just make sure that you are worse than the people you compare yourself to. Just act awfully, make poor choices, and you will be sufficiently full of self-loathing that you will have no trouble with humility. Of course, this is just as silly as always playing poor squash players, and is simply inconsistent with “life, and life abundant”.

I believe that my life, and the lives of my family, has been tremendously blessed by seeking to live in accordance with the principles of the kingdom of heaven. Our lives are better as a consequence. Of course, people who have chosen to live by God’s principles have also experienced heartbreak, torture and a martyr’s death, but the general reality we observe is that living God’s way blesses our lives. You may see this as a shocking admission, but I often finding myself involuntarily praying from my soul, “God, I thank Thee that I am not as other men are.” Luke 18:11. I find myself praying the words that are iconic of arrogance – the Pharisee’s prayer – and meaning it. I am so grateful that God has delivered me at least partially from the fate of life lived without love or meaning. I pray that this realization will make me ever more reliant on God, rather than tempt me to self-sufficiency.

Of course, as you have probably already worked out, humility is not the same as self-loathing. It is the source of power and transformation in the Christian life. I read a wonderful book this Fall that was given to me by Gary Brown, principal of Columbia Adventist Academy. It is Andrew Murray’s 1895 book, ‘Humility: The Journey Toward Holiness’. Murray says it better than I can:

“Here we have the nature of true humility. … We must learn of Jesus, how He is meek and lowly of heart. He teaches us where true humility begins and finds its strength – in the knowledge that it is God who works all in all, that our place is to yield to Him in perfect resignation and dependence, in full consent to be and to do nothing of ourselves. This is the life Christ came to reveal and to impart – a life to God that came through death to sin and self. If we feel that this life is too high for us and beyond our reach, it must but the more urge us to seek it in Him; it is the indwelling Christ who will live in us this life, meek and lowly. If we long for this, let us, meantime, above everything, seek the holy secret of the knowledge of the nature of God, as He every moment works all in all; the secret, of which all nature and every creature, and above all, every child of God, is to be the witness, -- that it is nothing but a vessel, a channel, through which the living God can manifest the riches of His wisdom, power, and goodness. The root of all virtue and grace, of all faith and acceptable worship, is that we know that we have nothing but what we receive, and bow in deepest humility to wait upon God for it.”

Chapter 3, http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/murray/5f00.0565/5f00.0565.01.htm

A Life of Praise

2007-11-27T19:52:00.000-05:00

I'm probably not the best person to be commenting on a life of praise. Those vocal "Praise the Lord" type of Christians actually bother me! I suspect that Christians like that are hiding behind a happy facade in order not to deal with the bitter pill of reality.

A number of years ago I called to console a fellow pastor for the loss of a stillborn son. I was more than a little unsettled by his "God-be-praised" lack of grief! I think there is definitely a "time to mourn" and that to be happy during such a time might be a sign of psychosis rather than spiritual maturity. So I'm more than a bit suspicious of "Be Happy" and "Praise the Lord" theology!

But then I did like the movie Pollyanna, well, sort of. I especially enjoyed watching the "Sinners in the hands of an angry God" preacher become a "happy texts" man in the end. If you don't get the reference then you'll just have to watch the movie! And of course the holiday classic, "It's a Wonderful Life" always moves me. And the Bible is full of moving stories of people that refused to succumb to despair but instead found a way to praise God in the darkness.

So in spite of my natural pessimism it is nearly impossible for me to totally discount the power of praise. But what is it that makes praise such a force for good in our lives? In reading the story in 2 Chronicles 20 it hit me that when we praise we are liberated from fear. Praise is evidence that our lives are no longer bound by the fears that paralyze and control us.

Praise is the natural outgrowth of our trust in the love of God in all circumstances. Like king Jehoshaphat in the story we move from absolute fear (vs. 3) to confident praise (vs. 21) by trusting the Spirit that says, "Do not be afraid nor dismayed" (vs. 15) Praise is a sign that we are not merely animals dominated by instinct. We are not like Pavlov's dogs in that our responses are not always determined by external stimuli.

The good news of God is that we don't have to be determined by the negative external forces around us. From a psychological point of view Christians can have an "internal" rather than an "external" locus of control. Our emotions do not ultimately have to be dictated by our circumstances. Obviously we will respond to our circumstances with appropriate emotional reactions. If someone we love dies then we cry! If our lives are threatened we will react with fear. However, beyond these immediate reactions we have the possibility of praise.

Praise is a form of protest against the status quo! In our praise of God we imagine a world beyond what we now see and feel. In praise we enact a world in which God reigns. Praise is an eschatological act. It brings God's beautiful future into our very painful present.

Praise is our way of saying "No" to the present world and "Yes" to the coming kingdom of God. Praise makes the kingdom of God present in the here and now! Like faith, and hope, and love, praise is a piece of eternity that becomes flesh and dwells among us. Praise is our witness to the reality that God is with us, even here, even now!

© Paul Fisher

To Carry All Our Worry

2007-11-18T23:47:00.001-05:00

I have faced machine guns, hit a Mack truck head on, and been stuck up a glaciated mountain overnight in inhospitable circumstances.

But I have also experienced bad stuff. Like times when my relationship with Angela was not what it should be and life almost seemed not worth living. In reviewing the 'crucible experiences' of my life, it is clear that the greatest challenges don't arise out of physical circumstances. I confess that Alister's bad experiences are laughable to most, as God has blessed me with exceptional relationships with my wife, children, extended family, professional associates and friends.

However, it is also clear, in reviewing the 'crucible experiences' of my life, that life's most mundane experiences can become trying beyond comprehension, as the following story illustrates. They say that the best and worst days of a man's life are the days his wife buys a travel trailer (a "caravan"). And the day she acquires the replacement trailer. And the day she acquires the second replacement trailer. Our correspondence with the travel trailer manufacturer is an inch thick, and I wasn't writing to tell them how pleased we were.

We finally got to the point where for sanity's sake there was nothing we could do but "let go and let God", as they say at Alcoholics Anonymous. We finally got to the point where we had no choice but to "carry all our worry" to God and wait for His deliverance (Wednesday's study, 1 Peter 5:7; Psalm 55:22; Matthew 6:25-33).

Here's an excerpt from Angela's prayer journal.

Right now I feel like the case is hopeless. I feel like I’ve tried so hard – maybe that’s the problem though? I’ve been doing the trying instead of letting go and letting God. But then I wonder if God thinks I am presuming on Him if I do nothing. Does God need my help? Does He expect me to do something? I find it hard to know what is patience and what is doing nothing. What is putting in an effort and what is doing it myself? I am going to leave it with God today – that’s extremely difficult for me to do. I so desperately want to pick up the phone and find out what’s happening. But I’m going to stop myself from doing that ... Maybe that’s patience because I’ve done my part in calling them.

I don’t know but I pray I’ll learn soon!

10 minutes – later
I just felt like something would happen when I finally wrote this down. And sure enough, 10 minutes after I finished the above, I got a call from [the company] saying they would tag the [best trailer they make] for us, and someone would be calling me later today re the final price...

2 hours – later
This is incredible isn’t it? Several journal entries on the same day within hours and even minutes of each other. When I finally hand it over to God, it all just happens. We need to give up on trying to make it happen!

Just got a phone call from [the company] to tell me the final price. He goes through the, “Well, this is a 2008 model whereas the last unit was only a 2006; this is obviously a much better trailer" (yes, we know that ...) and I think, 'just tell me the price!' Then he says, “how about you pay $[x]?” I tried not to sound ecstatic. That’s just over half of what we would have been willing to pay for the upgrade.

"What’s more", he said, "[the company] would take care of [other stuff]."

So there you have it – unbelievable answers to prayer – and I did nothing!

That’s just the point though. ...

This whole story has taught me so much about God, my faith and trust in Him. At one point I found myself saying, ‘Why can’t I plan my life like other people? Some people plan what they’re doing for Christmas or next year, we don’t even know what we’re doing next week!’ But I realized, that’s where the blessings come in. If we’re totally in control the whole time, how can God have any input? How can we be led by God when we do all the planning? I know we do need to plan, (another, where’s the balance type thing), but I guess it’s ‘make plans but be willing to be flexible and go with the flow’, because it was only when I let all of it go, and said, ‘I can live with whatever’, that God had a chance to do something wonderful for us.

I'm looking forward to hearing your experiences of "casting all your anxiety on Him". Because He cares for you.

http://www.absg.adventist.org/2007/4Q/TE/ETQ407_08.pdf

Indestructible Hope [2]

2007-11-14T15:15:00.000-05:00

It is seldom that an entire book of the Bible is just one scripture passage within a week's study. So I took the opportunity to read the book of Habakkuk several times this week. What a cogent distillation of the questions thinking people have had through all ages about God, suffering, violence and injustice. I highly recommend reading it this week.

I have recently heard Habakkuk quoted repeatedly;
" ... the LORD is in His holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before Him."
I had presumed that it was Biblical liturgical guidance, in support of the idea that worshipping God in church should be a fairly dreary affair, orienting the worshipper toward God's awesome detachment from this world and our lives. Minimal participation in church worship ... just silent awe as a liturgical elite intercedes between Almighty God and man.

So it was liberating to discover that Habakkuk was not providing liturgical advice at all. Lets look at the context of this well-known text (Hab 2:20). Habakkuk is comfortable enough in his relationship with God to say to Him,
"God, if You are truly 'all good', how can You stand by and watch idol-worshippers prosper as they plunder those who worship You, the true God. Something is very wrong."
And God answers Habakkuk by saying,
"Habakkuk, you have no idea what is in store for the wicked. The apparent riches they are amassing are just more fuel for the eventual fire of their own making. Their theft will multiply their enemies. Violence will rebound with unspeakable violence. And grand parties will lead to drunken disgrace. "

Then we get to God's punchline - a very clever juxtaposing of two things.
"Habakkuk, notice that these evil idol-worshippers that appear to prosper are actually doing all the work, and their idols just sit there doing nothing and saying nothing. But My relationship with My people is the opposite. I am asking you to trust Me enough to let Me deliver you. It's the opposite with Me. In our relationship, you just sit there ... as idle and silent as those idols while I deliver My people. I am working in My heavenly sanctuary on behalf of My people, so enter My Sabbath rest and watch My deliverance.

Angela and I are learning each week to trust more fully in God's deliverance, and to silently wait on God's intercession on our behalf. It is not easy, but every experience strengthens our resolve to trust God more fully and rely on our own efforts less.

Next week I'll share a personal story of God's recent deliverance as we kept silence before Him ... after, of course, trying everything else including letters, calls, negotiation, threats, etc. : )
Happy studying.
http://www.ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/07d/less08.html

Indestructible Hope [1]

2007-11-14T14:09:00.000-05:00

Hope has more to do with the present than it does with the future. Hope is not simply the ability to see a bright light at the end of dark tunnel. It is more than just a toughness of soul that helps us to hang on until things get better. Hope may include all of these things but from a theological point of view it is much more.

Maybe the starting point for hope is given in Job's experience, "Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said: Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me" (40.6-7) To be addressed by God is to be treated as an "I" rather than an "it" and that is a very hopeful beginning. Especially in an imperial world that often treats persons as "objects" with even less value than other material things. An example of this is in Revelation 18 in which the "bodies and souls of men" are listed at the bottom of a list of "merchandise" that starts with "gold and silver." Empire attempts to enslave the mind (psyche) as well as the body. Thus the liberation that God offers from the "principalities and powers" that govern human life is as much psychological as it is physical and spiritual. Hope is thus the liberation of the mind from the oppressive power of empire that seeks to diminish human worth and disempower human beings.

Notice the way that God addresses Israel in Isaiah 41.14, "Fear not, you worm Jacob, You men of Israel! I will help you, says the LORD And your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel." Why does God call Jacob a worm? Because the people of Israel had been in captivity in Babylon for decades and they had internalized the Babylonian's negative image of their nation. And that was a big part of the problem when the time came for them to return to their own land and rebuild their nation. The prophetic task involved energizing and empowering Israel for the hard task of nation-building that lay ahead of them. Internally, they were in no condition to do this because their social inferiority to Babylon during the long capitivity had become an inferiority complex for the nation. But God addresses the "worm Jacob" as the "men of Israel" and thus restores the dignity needed for the worms to become men again.

God is always working to empower those that have been disempowered by the violent and imperial powers and empires that have dominated history since nations were formed. The names may change (Assyria, Babylon, Rome, Germany, Russia, Iraq, Iran, America) but the underlying reality is the same. And Christians in all times and all places are called to struggle against the forces that constantly seek to colonize and control both minds and bodies. And in this struggle hope is the power that subverts the powers that be.

Hope ultimately has a christological focus because Jesus is the center and source of our hope, "For consider Him who endured such hostility from sinners against Himself, lest you become weary and discouraged in your souls" (Heb. 12.3). Such hope gives us strength to resist and courage to confront the external forces that make people feel less-than-human and worth nothing. The One that died on an imperial cross says, "Do not be afraid; I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore."

Struggling With All Energy

2007-11-05T20:56:00.000-05:00

I've often thought that the story of Jacob's struggle with "the Man" in Genesis 32 gives a new meaning to the old hymn, "He Touched Me." Jacob experienced the divine presence not as a healing touch but as a crushing blow that brought great agony. Carl Jung (Freud's most brilliant and wayward disciple) said that if the Bible (particularly the story of Job and the book of Revelation) teaches us anything it is that "though God can be loved, he must be feared."

As in so many other stories in the Bible, in Genesis 32 we again encounter the image of a violent God. But then as Alister suggested last week maybe these stories reveal more about the human misperception of God's character than anything else. Maybe our struggles with the God-that-crushes is really a struggle with our own internal violent demons. Maybe we project our own violent tendencies into the external world and especially onto God. I wish I had more to offer on this but "maybe" is the best I can do right now.

As much as the story troubles me on one level it also deeply inspires me on another. For example, I absolutely love Jacob's defiance, even after having his hip disclocated (or whatever the exact physical injury might have been). The "Man" says, "Let me go" and Jacob says, "I will not." That reminded me of God saying, "Let my people go" and Pharoah responding "I will not." The human will really is an imperial power. This is why tyrants and dictators of all stripes attempt to break it with violent force. So I applaud Jacob for refusing to submit to what he perceived at the time as divine violence. Somehow his faith recognized that behind what he experienced as the divine-power-to-crush was ultimately a divine-will-to-bless.

To me, the most profound moment in the story is the question in vs. 27, "What is your name?" The last time that Jacob had heard that question was when asked by his old and dying father Isaac. At that time Jacob had lied and said "Esau" in order to get what he wanted. As I see it these are the two defining moments in Jacob's life. In both instances the question is "What is your name?" I think Jacob spent most of his life pretending to be what he wasn't (Esau) in order to get the blessing that he desperately wanted. But he finally realized that it was enough to simply be Jacob. And the irony of it is that when he stopped trying to be something he wasn't (Esau) he became a new man and received a new name (Israel). How much of our lives do we spend trying to take what can only be received as gift?

Interestingly, the story itself does not name Jacob's assailant. Jacob even asks, "Tell me your name" but rather than an answer gets a probing question instead, "Why is it that you ask about my name?" Why is naming so important to us? Maybe it gives us a sense of control in that what we name we somehow think we know. By naming our children we indelibly place our stamp upon their lives. Giving something a name defines it and limits it and signifies our mastery over it (like Adam naming the animals and then his wife, which might have been an even bigger mistake than eating the forbidden fruit!). But in this story God is the nameless One. We can encounter but never control God. Every god that can be named is an idol of our own making. God will never comfortably fit in our small mental boxes.

I like the final image in our story: Jacob limping out into the bright light of a new day. He may not look like much of a hero but he has wrestled with (his perception of God) and prevailed! As the hymn says, "Now I am no longer the same. He touched me, . . . and O the joy that floods my soul!"

Extreme Heat

2007-10-31T20:31:00.000-04:00

Of all life's difficult experiences, none would compare to experiencing God and discovering that he is as bad as you had been told or had feared. Hardship and sorrow is for a season, but living with your Creator is forever. Even suicide is no escape to the "giver of life" if you believe that He created you immortal and does not respect your free will choice of mortality. In the Eagles' words, "You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave!"

Imagine living through an experience that leads you to conclude that God:

is not faithful and forgiving (1 John 1:9),
does delight in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11),
does not keep His covenant of love to a thousand generations (Deut 7:9), and
is pleased by acts of child sacrifice
(Jer 7:30,31; Jer 32:35; Lev 18:21; Lev 20:2-5).

Of all life's crucibles, such an experience defines extreme heat. Is it possible that God would place His chosen, covenant people in such circumstances so as to bring us face to face with our misconceptions of His character?

Now, consider the anguish of soul that Abraham experiences when he perceives that God is quite happy destroying the evil people of Sodom and Gomorrah, without regard to the righteous people living there -- the so-called "collateral damage" of warfare. Abraham politely and respectfully reminds God that He is the upholder of truth and justice, and surely He has a responsibility to do right (Gen 18:25). In this experience, Abraham is led by God through an experience where he confronts his misconception of God; that God might not be good and just. But a chapter later, Abraham has seen the depravity of Sodom directed at Lot's household, has seen the deliverance of his nephew's household, and is overlooking the smoking remains of Sodom and Gomorrah, settled in his understanding of God's goodness.

Again, consider the anguish of soul that Abraham experiences when both he and his son perceive that God is pleased by acts of child sacrifice. Now, Hebrews 11 tells us that Abraham reasoned that his son would pass through this experience of death to life again, but that is not fundamentally different to the pagan belief that the child would "pass through the fire to Molech". Either God likes this sort of thing or he doesn't, and this crucible experience brings Abraham face to face with his incorrect conception of God as a being who likes this sort of sacrifice. By the end of the chapter an Angel has verbally stayed his hand and a voice from heaven has re-established God's covenant with Abraham.

Moses describes this experience as a test of Abraham's character, rather than a test of his understanding of God's character. However, an observation leads us to consider other explanations for this experience. That is, God knows the end from the beginning, so we know that God didn't put Abraham through this experience so that He, God, could learn something about Abraham. Perhaps it was so that Abraham could learn something about God?

Seeing the Goldsmith's Face

2007-10-23T22:51:00.002-04:00

The Power of Our Pain
The idea that God needs our pain to make us pure is more than a bit sadistic. Christianity is here dangerously close to the bloodthirsty god Huitzilopochtli that demanded human sacrifices in exchange for victory and prosperity for the Aztec people.A bloodthirsty god-image stands behind all "this is for your own good" theology (the writings of Alice Miller and Eugen Drewermann have opened my eyes to this twisted theology). Such theology is similar to a kind of thinking that is actually characteristic of abused children.Abused children tend to internalize their abuse by blaming themselves and excusing the abuser. Sadly, a lot of theology has this same effect in a spiritual sense by teaching that pain is the punishment for our sins and the means by which God purifies us from evil. Such an idea is really no better than the twisted logic of the abused child that says, "Daddy beats me because I am bad."Although I am more than a bit suspicious of the idea that suffering makes us pure I also see some therapeutic value in it. In a positive sense suffering actually motivates the quest to understand life. If I can make some sense out of what I am going through then the pain becomes more bearable.Maybe the belief that suffering can purify us is a way that we attempt to regain power in a situation that terrifies us because it reveals our powerlessness. If I can't control the situation then at least I can maintain my psychological mastery by figuring out what is happening and possibly even why it is happening.On a theological level I see an even deeper link between pain and purity in the Exodus story of the liberation of Israel from imperial oppression in Egypt. Exodus 2.23-25 says that "The Israelites groaned in their slavery and cried out, and their cry for help because of their slavery went up to God. God heard their groaning and he remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac and with Jacob. So God looked on the Israelites and was concerned about them."In this text we see the power of voiced pain to get God's attention. It is not the shout of the victor but the cry of the victim that elicits a response from Yahweh. Scripture gives a loud voice to human misery because our pain attracts God's presence to our lives. I don't think that God needs suffering to make us pure but our pain is like a magnet to the divine power. Ironically, that which most exposes our weakness is the very thing that attracts God to us!

The Birdcage

2007-10-18T01:15:00.003-04:00

As we bumped across 3,000 miles of Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces of Canada over recent weeks, our family listened to the 'Your Story Hour' dramatization of the Advent Movement's beginnings. New Zealanders don't generally have much time for history, largely because we don't have much to speak of. Our idea of history is what we had for breakfast. It’s all about the future. But these audio CDs were fascinating. I had read much of the so-called 'Great Disappointment(s)' of 1843 and 1844 without internalizing what it really meant to have experienced the 'Great Disappointment'.

Imagine experiencing an intense sense of God's revelation of undiscovered Biblical truth, simultaneously with many others around the world. Clear. Simultaneous. Compelling. Imagine how much more devastating the 'Great Disappointment' was to the Advent believers in that it followed what unmistakably appeared to be God's leading.

I had not really taken the time to consider the depths of despair that the early Advent believers would have experienced. They had truly sacrificed everything. Twice. They dealt with unbelievable ridicule. Twice. Just hearing of the oppressive darkness and deep depression that the Advent believers experienced is hard to bear, so imagine what experiencing it would have been like. As the actors decide to not plant crops or to sell the farm, I want to shout back through time, "No, don't be rash. You'll regret it. I know how this story ends."

God knew how the story would end. He knew the early Advent stories before the foundation of the Earth. Assuming that God was leading men and women who loved Him to ignore His clear statements recorded in Matt 24 and Mark 13 that "... of that day and hour knoweth no man", why would God do that? Why would God provide so much evidence of His leading of a movement that resulted in seemingly insurmountable disappointment, adversity and suffering? Why would God choose to establish a movement based on clearly incorrect Biblical interpretation? Surely if He wished to see His champions of truth flourish in the market for ideas he would not have saddled them with such ridicule for apparently no reason. Why didn't he kick off the Advent movement through revelation of Biblical understandings that led to spectacularly fulfilled prophecy? Why didn't God reveal the future to His followers and thus lead them to widespread fame and influence, like Twain's Hank Morgan achieved in King Arthur's Court?

Why would God speak in Revelation 10 of a Divine revelation that would turn its recipient's stomach sour? Why would Daniel use words like "deeply troubled", "exhausted", "ill" and "appalled" to describe his experience after Divine revelation?

Could it be that God chose to establish the Advent movement, of which we are a part in some way or another, by leading people into experiences that he knew would include disappointment, adversity and suffering? If God led them through such intense darkness so that they would learn to sing, what is that song? And how was it perfected in disappointment and derision?

This gives us something to ponder as we consider examples where God led his people into circumstances in which they experienced disappointment, hopelessness and apparently insurmountable adversity. I look forward to insights borne of our shared experience of God's leading in our lives.

The Crucibles That Come

2007-10-10T23:34:00.001-04:00

This introduction to this study (pg 5) noted that: "Our lessons are not a theodicy, the justification of God in the face of evil."

Rather, their intended objective is "...to help us work through the inevitable suffering we all face here in a world where sin is as easy as breathing."

Yet, it is all but impossible to seriously study the role of pain, suffering and loss in the Christian life for many weeks without tripping over issues that challenge our concept of God's character.

One such challenge occurs in the study guide (pg 15).
"Many of us are surprised about suffering because we often have an oversimplified view of the Christian life. We know there are two sides—God, who is good; and Satan, who is bad. But often we then automatically put everything that feels good in the box with God and everything that feels bad in the box with Satan. But life is not so simple."

I like simple. I am a Christian at least partially because I recoil from the Eastern perceptions of a complex god, neither fully good, nor entirely bad. I can't pursue a relationship with God if I believe him to be just like me - neither fully good, nor entirely bad - but with the power of life and death.

We have a great study here, which makes it clear that some of the Christian life's 'other experiences' are at the very least allowed by God, or not removed by Him. Do you believe, as you read this email, that you have been given a thorn in the flesh? (2 Cor 12:7) What is your thorn in the flesh? Where did it come from, who caused it, and who "gave" it?

I will never forget visiting a doctoral colleague in the hospital, covered in burns that would take a lifetime of surgery, corsets, pain and disfigurement ... and muttering something ill-advised about "God sending us trials to refine us". This strong, resolute Christian man, who was willing to face death to save his child from the flames of their burning home, burst into uncontrollable sobs, and continued crying until I shuffled my way out of his hospital room. I wanted to cry with him, wracked with the pain of my own insensitivity; wracked with the pain of my inability to articulate God's role in suffering in a vaguely plausible, rational, comforting way.

My bedside sensitivity has improved somewhat over the years with greater glimpses of God's goodness and a greater understanding of my limited comprehension of what is truly transpiring in the Great Controversy between Christ and Satan. But I have a lot yet to learn, not only from this week's study and discussion, but from the lessons to come. Perhaps we can all learn together and from each other?

The Shepherd's Crucible

2007-10-03T14:59:00.001-04:00

Thanks for the invitation to comment on the first lesson of this quarter’s Sabbath School lessons. I always read your comments and follow the discussions of your group with great interest!

As I see it Psalm 23 is one of those Bible texts that suffers from overexposure! It has been quoted so frequently and memorized so routinely that it is difficult to even hear what it has to say because we are overly familiar with it. The old saying might apply here that “familiarity breeds contempt.” But let me take a stab at it from what I hope might be a fresh point of view.

The fact that Yahweh is referred to as a “shepherd” is very interesting. I see this as a counter-cultural statement of Israel’s faith. In the surrounding cultures deities were often depicted as kings and warriors (an example of the inferior status of shepherds in imperialistic cultures like Egypt can be found in Exodus 46.34). And even in the Hebrew Scripture we find the same imperial images applied to God.

To call the God of Israel a shepherd was a profound and subversive act of the religious imagination. It represented a new way of conceiving of Israel’s relationship to God. I think it would be similar to the effect on our spiritual lives of beginning to refer to God as “our mother in heaven.” It would create an entirely different sense of our relationship to God and would alter the way that we experienced God in our lives.

In a modern context the image of shepherd is probably not so helpful for us because we have no real living connection with shepherds. But I think it is an example of how the Scripture communicates to people within the context of their own culture. Israel was after all, in its origins, simply a humble nomadic people. Maybe in our context we might say that the Lord is our “Dog Whisperer” (for those that don’t watch as much TV as I do that is a reference to a popular dog trainer show).

I also find the progression within the text quite fascinating. We move from “green pastures” and “quiet waters” (vs. 2) to the “valley of the shadow of death” (vs. 3) to a “table” in the presence of enemies” (vs. 5) to the “house of the Lord” (vs. 6). The dark part of life is sandwiched between two highly desirable parts. This reminds me of the words of Jesus in Revelation 1.18, “I am the living one; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever!” Death is surrounded by affirmations of life with the emphasis on unending life. Often in the crucible of life’s miseries it is only memory and hope that can sustain our spirits!

Psalm 23 ultimately leads us from a comfortable place through pain and fear to the presence of God. Honestly, I wish it could be different and that the text would lead directly from the “green valleys” and “quiet waters” to the “house of the Lord.” But as Freud taught wishing does not make it so.

Let me encourage you to share your “valley” experiences with each other. I know it can be difficult to be vulnerable and real with each other but it is well worth it. My own valley right now is financial insecurity. I’m in the mortgage industry that has taken a real hit recently and as an independent contractor the work is hard to find. I’ve seen much greener pastures and I really long for the house of the Lord where there will always be plenty for everyone!

May God’s grace and peace rest on each of you!

Hosea and Gomer: Forgiving the Unfaithful

2007-09-18T16:52:00.001-04:00

It is interesting to look at Hosea 1 through 3 from a family relationship perspective, rather than as just allegorical of God's relationship with His 'adulterous' people. Specifically, how would (should?) we respond to the loss of trust in family relationships? In any relationships? If children are involved, how are they affected?

I fully expect my wife to extend no forgiveness if I were to be unfaithful to my marriage vows. Whether she would or not is another matter, but rationality would suggest that she withdraw her trust and that would be the end of marriage in any real sense. Any relationship requires fidelity at some level. From my time in Rwanda I recall a pastor who was unfaithful to his wife while serving in another country. When it became known, he apologized, asked for forgiveness, and was moved into administration. He then went on to commit an immense financial fraud, and to continue to be unfaithful to his wife. I made a mental note to myself to not extend any grace whatsoever to a person unfaithful to their marriage vows.

So, I confess that's my zero-forgiveness approach to infidelity. Its a bit like the Old Testament Jewish approach, save for the messiness of that stoning business.

Consider, for a moment, the slightly more flexible Islamic approach.

Imran b. Husain reported that a woman from Juhaina came to Muhammad and she had become pregnant because of adultery. She said: I am pregnant as a result of Zina. Muhammad said: "Go back, and come to me after the birth of the child". After giving birth, the woman came back to Muhammad, saying: "please purify me now". Next, Muhammad said, "Go and suckle your child, and come after the period of suckling is over." She came after the period of weaning and brought a piece of bread with her. She fed the child the piece of bread and said, "Oh Allah's Apostle, the child has been weaned." At that Muhammad pronounced judgment about her and she was stoned to death.

Now, consider the New Testament approach, as reflected in Jesus' response to the woman caught in adultery. 'Neither do I condemn you. ... Go and sin no more.' (John 8:11).

It would appear that I have something to learn about the redemptive power of forgiveness, and the hope against evidence that springs from [God's] intense love for those that don't live up to their covenant vows.

Ahab and Jezebel: Abuse of Authority

2007-09-11T17:59:00.001-04:00

I vividly recall Angela and I leaving Rwanda in December 1988. As we filed onto the plane, a soldier lewdly asked whether he could have my woman. I dismissed his comment for the preposterously absurd statement that it was. No-one owns Angela, not even me. However, the fact that he was holding a machine gun made his request for 'my woman' all the more unsettling.

I recalled this experience while reading of Ahab's response to King Ben-Hadad in 1 Kings 20. Ben-Hadad's messengers tell Ahab to send over his wives and children -- and he placates him by sending some of them over. Can you imagine what sort of a family dynamic that would create! Consider what it would be like to realize that you are in the expendable category of family members. And consider what it would have been like to remain in Ahab's household. You would be constantly reviewing where you stood in the household, wondering whether you would be in the next shipment to Ben-Hadad. Would you feel protected? Would you feel that you had a husband or father that depicted God's willingness to sacrifice himself for the salvation of His household?

One thing I learned in Africa is that you never give into a threat from someone in authority, because to to do so is only the beginning of trouble, not the end of it. To give into authority abused is to mark oneself as weak and invite a series of increasingly exacting demands. As husbands, wives, parents, how do we respond when our household is threatened in one way or another by someone abusing authority? Romans 13 tells us to submit to all authority, since it has been established by God. That's one approach -- Ahab's initial response to Ben-Hadad. The other is to do whatever it takes to stand up for right on behalf of our families -- Ahab's second response to Ben-Hadad that enabled God to work a victory on behalf of His people.

Faith Without Fear

2007-08-24T22:31:00.001-04:00

A friend loaned me an audio CD excerpt from the 'Faith Without Fear' PBS series that aired earlier this year. It deals with Islam's ability to grow in its understanding of God through dialogue and debate, and with restoring humanity and reason to Islam.

I recommend listening to the CD, as it has implications for fundamentalist Christianity -- restoring humanity and reason to Christianity. If you wish to purchase the CD, here is a link to find it on the web.

http://www.shoppbs.org/product/index.jsp?productId=2657860&cp&kw=faith+without+fear&origkw=faith+without+fear&sr=1

Family Relationships Before and After the Fall

2007-07-12T14:08:00.001-04:00

Let's look at what Genesis says about the male/female/family dynamic, and for the purpose of this exchange, let's look at it in two parts - the 'before-sin' and the 'after-sin' relationship.

FACTS BEFORE THE FALL

Fact 1. Before sin, Adam observed that everything on earth came in matching pairs, and he had no match.

Genesis 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

Fact 2. God, who could have made Adam's match any way he wanted to (having made Adam from the very elements), chose to use a piece of Adam, and a specific piece at that. He chose a rib - a part of the body that gives structure to a man and protects his heart (and other vital organs) -a part of the body that is located at the side of man.

Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof.

Fact 3. God delivered her to Adam - Adam didn't go looking.

Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Fact 4. Adam's response was to conclude (and declare) that his match was verily himself and that she was the perfect match - literally a part of him. For this reason - that a woman and man are a perfect match - the man would leave all that was meaningful to him up until that time and "cleave" (to cling, stick, stay close, cleave, keep close, stick to, stick with, follow closely, join to, overtake, catch) to his wife, and the two would actually become (or be as) one flesh.

Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Fact 5. They were completely at ease with each other physically/sexually.

Genesis 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

FACTS AFTER THE FALL

Fact 1. Eve trusted her own judgment rather than the explicit word of God.

Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Fact 2. Adam put his love for/trust in Eve ahead of the explicit word of God.

Fact 3. With the introduction of putting something ahead of God, both began to be uncomfortable with who they were.

Genesis 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Fact 4. Even though they knew something was wrong, they avoided dealing with it directly, instead choosing to avoid, cover up, and deny the reality of their circumstances.

Genesis 3:7,8 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

Fact 5. When confronted with the reality of their circumstances, while they initially admitted what they had done, they immediately began blaming anyone but themselves for their circumstances. The upshot being that they were actually blaming God.

Genesis 3:10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. 11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?" 12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. 13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

Fact 6. The result of all their failure to put God's word above all else (and I emphasize result) was that they were changed from the 'before-the-fall' relationship. The effect of sin on them would be a chronic tension between the forces of good and evil in the lives of all mankind. (Thankfully the ultimate resolution was promised at the same time.)

Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Fact 7. They would lose the natural oneness that had been the gift and the plan. In its place, woman would look to man for her sense of self worth rather than to God. Her life would be filled with sorrow in general, in sex in particular, and even the unfettered joy of bearing children would now be tainted with heartache.

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Fact 8. Man would no longer cleave to his wife, but rather work would consume him. He would be so obsessed with making a living that he would have little time for his family. Because of this, life would be hard all his days, bitter to his natural end, when he would die, leaving everything that had consumed his focus for all those years to be fooled away by those who came after him.

Genesis 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Fact 9. Grown men and women would be dependent upon their parents for some of the most basic needs rather than being able to provide for themselves.

Genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Fact 10. Parents would ultimately need to put up barriers between themselves and their children for the overall good, going so far as to put them out of the house and cut them off from inheritance in extreme cases.

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Now let's review and draw some conclusions.

Before the fall, Man craved the company of a mate. He yielded his choice to God, who then provided him with the perfect mate, rather than seeking to solve the problem for himself. Having waited upon God and having received the perfect, God-given mate, he not only cleaved to her himself, but prophesied that all mankind to follow would do the same. (Remember, he was prophesying for sinless man.)

He intuitively (in his sinless condition) recognized that Man was to leave all else and to become one with his mate (excepting God, of course). Even the name he gave her indicated by its very meaning that she was a part of him.

The fall came about because both Man and Woman put their self interest ahead of God's explicit word. (This point cannot be overemphasized, either in understanding what went wrong or in recognizing the solution to undoing the harm that was done.)

The characteristics that have plagued and destroyed families ever since, very rapidly became apparent.

1. Acting on one's own volition rather than consulting/communicating with spouse
2. Denying and covering up the results of bad choices and enabling the spouse to do the same by not making him/her accountable for their choices
3. Blaming others rather than taking responsibility for one's choices/actions
Additional problems that plague and destroy families were foretold.

For women:

1. Insecurity, lifelong unfulfillment that even childbearing ultimately can't assuage, domination by the stronger sex

For men:

1. A lifetime of all-consuming hard work and sweat that takes all his focus and energy and makes him intolerant and impatient for gratification when he gets a few minutes to relax. See anything you recognize there? :-)

In the end, it is only by aiming at the 'before-the-fall' ideal, while at the same time recognizing the 'after-the-fall' realities, that we can begin to realize the wholeness that God had and has in store for us.

God didn't make women to need a man's support in order to feel good about herself, and he didn't make man to be so preoccupied with life that he can't nurture his wife - sin did that. Our work in this, as in every area of our lives, is to offset the effects of sin insofar as is possible by seeing what God's ideal was and by His grace trying to achieve it.

© Dennis Farley

July 2007

The Bible and Happiness

2007-06-03T16:07:00.001-04:00

"That your joy may be full."

Thus goes the well-known Christian chorus, quoting John 15:11,12,
"This is my commandment
that you love one another,
that your joy may be full."

Great song, but a tremendous simplification of Jesus' message in John 15, which is an amazing call to enter into the thought and actions and will of God, just as Jesus had experienced with God the Father.

The phrase "that your joy may be full" occurs several other times in the New Testament (John 16:24, 1 John 1:4, and 2 John 1:12). Lets look a little more closely at 1 John 1:4 in context. While it says that this scripture was written that our joy may be full, the context indicates that a specific message was being imparted to provide joy to its hearers. Both the message preceding and following this text have implications for happiness.

The verses prior to 1 John 1:4 tell us that Jesus revealed to us the Father, and that Christian fellowship is in fact to participate in the connectedness that Jesus and the Father share. This resonates with the message in John 15, our first instance of the "joy may be full" phrase. The verse after 1 John 1:4 specifically states what this message of happiness is. It is that Jesus revealed to us that God the Father is good. All good. Not Yin and Yang. Not predominantly good. All good.

"This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all."

How is that simple bumper-sticker message, "God is Good", the basis of complete human joy? Surely there is more to living a joyous life than perceiving God's character? Perhaps God's gift of marriage helps us understand this truth? True joy in marriage is not in things, money or circumstances, but in knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that one's life partner is a good person.

Lets ponder the linkage, if any, between an understanding of God's goodness and complete human joy.

The Bible and Health

2007-05-28T16:16:00.001-04:00

If we surveyed people, asking them to list religions and spiritual writings in rank order of their linkage to a healthy life, where would Christianity and the Bible come? Top of the list? Dead last? Or, somewhere in the middle?

Christian faiths have not developed traditions of breathing, stretching, exercising, concentrating, meditating, etc. Other religions have stolen the march on the concept of spiritual enlightenment as a path to health. Bible-believing Christians stand wide-eyed, flat-footed, and with mouths gaping as the Western world launches headlong after Chi, Chakras, Ayurveda, the Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism, and the whole nine points of the Bahai'i star.

Deepak Chopra is working on his 30th book on spirituality and health, long after the Christian New England Memorial Hospital, from which he launched his spiritual health career, has closed its doors. Christian Science churches are empty, save for a few appreciators of fine music. Mary Eddy is not resonating with the populace. When the world seeks healing through spiritual insight, they read the Dalai Lama, or Chopra -- not the Bible.

Why is that?

Worse than scoring a big, fat zero for health outcomes, Christianity is often cited as the source of the guilt and work ethic that is allegedly causing the demise of Western Civilization's health. Big neg, not just big zero.

Christianity clearly differs fundamentally from many other religions in its approach to spirituality and health. Maybe causality is reversed? Is it possible that the Bible focuses on spiritual enlightenment with implications for the body, whereas other religions focus on the body as a means of achieving spiritual enlightenment?

We certainly need to move past misquoting Prov 23:7 as a Biblical basis for the mind-body connection (read it in context and you will see what I mean), and toward a Christian theology of healing. In this regard, we have an excellent study here. Enjoy.

Revelation From Heaven

2007-05-21T10:34:00.001-04:00

What a revelation it was to read this scripture (Romans 15:4) in context! Sure, Paul's words beautifully portray scripture's role in establishing Christian hope, but the context provides a powerful message.

Read the prior chapter and you will see that scripture was being used to tear apart the emerging Christian church. Paul powerfully states the freedom we have in Christ, and then passionately pleas for his fellow believers to not destroy the faith of weaker members through either
(a) imposing deeply held scripturally-based convictions on others, or
(b) exercising Christian freedom in ways that are damaging to Christian faith or unity.

Then, in Chapter 15 Paul says we have to empathize with the concerns of others, just like Jesus did. And he applies Psalm 69:9 to Jesus and to us -- just as Jesus was one with God in bearing the blasphemous insults of those around Him, we also should empathize with the cares and concerns of our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Right in the middle of making this point, he slips in verse 4, which is central to this study. In context, he is saying 'notice how I just used scripture to edify the church, rather than divide it. Lets use scripture to bring encouragement and hope into each other's lives, rather than to bring others into bondage.'

How have each one of us used scripture to bring others into bondage? Or, into hope? In your community of faith, is scripture a source of endurance, encouragement and hope, or is it a source of division and bondage?

Angela's Christian faith was molded in a church fond of quoting from a book called Christ's Object Lessons,
"Those who accept the Saviour, ..., should never be taught to say or to feel that they are saved. This is misleading."

This statement was never placed in the context of dozens of bible verses and quotes by the same author that present an abiding, enduring relationship with Christ as a present reality. See
http://www.andrews.edu/~jmoon/Documents/GSEM_534/Class_outline/Assurance%202004.pdf

Nigel, a school friend of mine, shot himself in the head with a rifle (which takes a bit of doing) because what he had been taught from the Scriptures robbed him of endurance, encouragement and hope.

Yes, Romans 15:4 is a beautiful testimony to the Bible as a source of hope, but it comes right in the middle of a heartfelt warning against using scripture to divide and destroy the body of Christ.

The Word in Our Lives

2007-05-13T14:40:00.001-04:00

Years ago, Angela and I were frequent guests in the Canadian home of a man whose success I admired. He and his wife were wonderful hosts to us, but he expressed disdain for some of our behaviors that he found peculiar. For example, I recall being addressed from the other end of a long dinner table;
"Alister, when when you grow up, you will find this to be a fine whisky."
Advice duly noted, ... and discarded.

Last year Angela and the girls visited our erstwhile hosts and found not a hint of disdain. He asked whether he could say bed-time prayers with our girls, and his conversation with God and the girls confessed to a relationship with God that he had previously resisted and rejected.

What made the difference? Can the Bible re-create a person?

Could evidence of re-creation speak more for the Bible's validity than does evidence for Creation?

What is the Bible's track record as a change agent in human lives? I lived in Rwanda for a year, a country that had more members of my Christian denomination than any country on the planet. When church was out, the city's traffic ground to a halt! But all those Sabbath School lessons and Bible-based sermons didn't preclude the subsequent brutality of the 1994 Rwandan Genocide.

You may have acquaintances with encyclopedic Biblical knowledge and no evidence of a relationship with Him who is Love. Does this argue for rejecting the Bible? Are our acquaintances likely to seek out Bible truth because of what they see it doing in our lives?

The Bible and Science

2007-05-08T08:31:00.001-04:00

A vivid childhood memory is of sitting amongst members of Dad's sales team on Sabbath afternoon, listening to discussions of God, the Bible and how the world works.

Chris, a member of that group, had an engineering background and an expansive mind. I recall Chris' excitement as he pursued a picture of God emanating from Genesis 1:3, "And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light." Chris understood that the physical matter of this universe can be conceived of in terms of energy and waves, much like visible light. So, the next thing he was busily calculating out in his head the energy equivalence of the earth's mass -- energy equals mass times the speed of light squared.

Chris was in awe of this picture of the power of God's word that could bring physical matter into being. The numbers he came up with meant nothing to me as a child (and probably wouldn't now), but the vivid picture of a person earnestly seeking out an understanding of God through scientific insight remains with me.

How do you gain glimpses of God in the 'science' of your vocation?

As an economist I am constantly amazed at the beauty of market equilibrium. The "invisible hand" of Adam Smith's 1759 'Theory of Moral Sentiments' provides me with a glimpse of the free, self-ordering nature of God's universe -- a picture of the "Great Architect of the Universe", as Smith put it. Others don't share my excitement with equilibrium, suggesting that markets are from the dark side of 'dog eat dog' competition instead of heavenly harmony. But I can see the beauty of "voluntary market exchange such that both parties are better off" as part of the creative order of God's universe. Karol Wojtyla, better known as Pope John Paul II, was prominent among many Christians in recognizing that free economic creativity is part of what it means for us to have been created in God's image.

This study asks us to consider how the Bible can contribute to our understanding of science. I encourage you to consider how the Bible affects your view of scientific knowledge in your field of daily endeavor. Do you see pictures of God where others see randomness and chance?

When the Rocks Cry Out

2007-05-02T13:20:00.001-04:00

While this study primarily examines archaeological support for the Bible's historicity and authenticity, it also examines the nature of Christian faith. Interestingly, this week the US is examining the basis for Mormon faith, with considerable coverage of Mormonism on both Public Television and National Public Radio. A recurring theme is that all religious revelation is somewhat mystical, so we need not press on the details too hard -- Nephi Plates, or the Bible.

What part does the Bible's authenticity play in your Christian experience?

How seriously have you evaluated the Bible's authenticity?

How seriously should we?

Here is an excerpt from an interview with Terryl Givens, professor of literature and religion at the University of Richmond and author of 'By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion'. Read through the excerpt and consider whether you could insert 'Bible' in place of references to the Book of Mormon.

'My idea going into this study of the _____, ..., was if the _____ is true, then it has to stand up to the most rigorous assaults and critiques that skeptics and nonbelievers can make. So I made every effort to honestly, fully investigate every criticism, every objection that's ever been made to the historicity of the _____. One has to suspend judgment in a number of cases, because it's hard to say when the evidence will all be in, but at the present there are still a number of unresolved anachronisms and problems and ambiguities in the text.

But I felt satisfied that there was in every case a corresponding weight on the other side of the equation, which actually led me to, I think, some very important insights into the nature of faith and how faith works. I came to the conclusion, ..., that for faith to operate, and for faith to have moral significance in our lives, then it has to at some level be a choice. It can't be urged upon us by an irresistible, overwhelming body of evidence, or what merit is there in the espousing of faith? And it can't be something that we embrace in spite of overwhelming logical rational evidence to the contrary, because I don't believe that God expects us to hold in disregard that faculty of reason that he gave us.'

The Bible is Reliable

2007-04-22T23:23:00.001-04:00

We continue our study of Biblical authenticity and reliability, addressing
external validity -- the resurrection as the basis of faith -- and
internal validity -- the New Testament's reliance on the Old Testament.

Both are important and interesting studies.

Here's something to think about. Do the references by Jesus, Paul, etc. to the OT indicate reliance and authenticity? Or, were they just referring to something that their hearers could relate to, much as we might refer to the 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy or Narnia Tales to illustrate a concept?

Note that there are quotations in the New Testament from the heathen poets, such as Aratus in Acts 17:28, Menander in I Corinthians 15:33, and Epimenides in Titus 1:12. Also, there are eleven margin references in the original King James Bible to Apocryphal books.

So, as we read through NT references to the OT, lets consider whether they are intended to establish and strengthen our reliance on the scriptures, or whether they are nothing more than, say, Paul's reference to the poet Menander.

Bible Prophecy Fulfilled

2007-04-16T00:57:00.001-04:00

I watched an interesting film as a teenager. A judge empanels an independent jury and then a lawyer presents a 'case' for Jesus being the Messiah. The jury returns a verdict of 'Messiah' on the basis of incontrovertible evidence.

Powerful stuff - prophetic fulfillment - that strengthened my faith.

It wasn't until recently that I read the messianic prophecies in context and found that they weren't quite as forensic as I had thought as a teenager.

For example,

* Matt 2:15 reference to Hosea 11:1 (Messiah called out of Egypt)
Hosea was actually talking about God's deliverance of Israel out of Egypt, and deliverance from idol worship, etc., not the Messiah.

* Matt 2:18 reference to Jeremiah 31:15 (Herod kills the babies)
Jeremiah was talking about Rachel weeping for her children, who are then brought back from captivity by God, not the Messiah.

* Matt 2:23 reference to ..., well, that's the problem. Its a reference to nothing identifiable in the 66 books of scripture.

These three examples from one New Testament chapter make it look like my 'case' is unravelling! What do the rest of the New Testament references back to Messianic prophecies look like in context? If you were a member of the jury, what would your verdict be?

I don't raise this issue to shake your faith in Jesus as the Messiah. Rather, I want us to have a look at each of these OT / NT linkages in full context BEFORE we engage in trying to prove to someone that Jesus is the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy.

When I was a teenager I was happy to rush through a prepared Bible study guide, ticking off each apparent NT fulfillment of OT prophecy. But I would hope that the rigor of my Biblical analysis and understanding would have progressed in the last 30 years. All of us are analytical thinkers in our respective fields, and we owe it to ourselves to bring at least that same level of rigorous thinking to our Bible study, particularly study that purports to be forensic.

Take the time to prayerfully read the Messianic prophecies that may lead to another Emmaus Road experience with Christ.

The Final Word

2007-04-10T17:34:00.000-04:00

Some years ago I was selling Christian books door-to-door and happened to call on the local Anglican clergywoman. She dressed me down emphatically for selling expensive books to parents who, according to her social analysis, could barely afford to feed their children. Being the impertinent youngster that I was, I responded by quoting Matthew 4 to her -- scripture from this week's study.

Visualize it: young Alister standing on the vicarage doorstep, quoting "It is written: Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God." She was quite unimpressed, and said "That's the problem with you fundamentalists; always quoting scripture." Well, she was only 21% right, as last week's entry attests.

Jesus was, of course, quoting from Deuteronomy, where God fed the Israelites with manna from heaven. It's fascinating to go back and read Deuteronomy and realize that we typically use this scripture out of context. God is reminding his people of his care and leading over the last 40 years and then says:
'I gave you manna so that you would know that you are sustained not by your own efforts, but by my word. I covenanted with you, and I will not forget my word.'

What word? Well, we have to go back 40 years to the Exodus, with the Egyptians hot on their trail. The prophetic word from God through Moses was
'Do not be afraid. Stand firm and you will see the deliverance the Lord will bring you today. ... The Lord will fight for you; you need only to be still.' (Ex 14:13,14).

Manna follows in the next chapter.

Two thousand years later, Jesus was not so much making a statement about scriptural authority as he was declaring His reliance on His Father, even in circumstances of extreme hunger far beyond anything the Israelites experienced in their 40-year wilderness safari.

This week's study is a case for the 'authority' of scripture, with Jesus' reliance on scripture as Exhibit A. The 'authority' of scripture has always been of more interest to the supposed custodians of God's word than it has been to God's people. If the Bible is the 'final authority', then clergy entrusted with expositing and ruling on scripture also have 'final authority'. Fortunately, most of us meet within a community of faith that rejects such views. But Jesus had to deal with that view head on. In the Sermon on the Mount, he repeatedly rebuts Biblical interpretation that is inconsistent with His character with "You have heard it said, ... but I say ..." (Matt 5). Nothing is 'final' while God continues to more fully reveal His character to us.

Read the Bible passages for yourself and prayerfully consider what they say about scriptural authority.

BTW, the 'further study' reading, pp. 15-23 Selected Messages, Book I, is excellent. I have included an excerpt below (which I find personally challenging).

"But the oracles of God have been so manifestly neglected that there are but few in our world, even of those who profess to explain it to others, who have the divine knowledge of the scriptures. There are learned men who have a college education, but these shepherds do not feed the flock of God. They do not consider that the excellencies of the Scriptures will be continually unfolding their hidden treasures as precious jewels are discovered by digging for them."

The Voice From Heaven

2007-04-03T15:18:00.000-04:00

I just completed an interesting online questionnaire. It is meant to categorize a person's Christian beliefs on the basis of their responses to a series of questions. It then quantifies and graphs various dimensions of your Christian belief. I'm not sure how scientific it is, but it is quite a bit of fun to compare assessments with others.

Have a go at it, and consider sharing your assessment with others who have done it.
http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870

I am categorized as an Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan. Apparently that means that I share John Wesley's belief that the doctrine of predestination is blasphemous, representing "God as worse than the devil". I am also apparently not a Roman Catholic and score poorly in the 'Liberal' and 'Fundamentalist' categories. It also says that I believe that I am saved by God's grace, even though I am "totally depraved". How did it know that!? : )

So, what has a non-scientific questionnaire got to do with this study? As we begin this study of the Bible's role in our lives, it is interesting to consider (and perhaps quantify) how we view the Bible as a revelation from God. I am apparently 21% fundamentalist. I'm surprised it isn't 0% fundamentalist, since I don't accept the idea of word-by-word inspiration of the Bible. I recognize the human dimension of inspiration inherent in the statement that
"Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1:21.

Spend some time considering where you sit on the fundamentalist spectrum. It will be interesting to compare our views of the Bible at the end of this quarter and consider how they might have changed as we study and share together.

"What is the Bible, and how does it come to be?" The clearest, rational and most Biblical answer to that question that I am aware of is in the Introduction section to a book called Great Controversy that many of us are familiar with. I'd suggest reading that brief section as quite a good start to this study, if not for the quarter. You can find it at the following address:

http://www.whiteestate.org/books/gc/gcintroduction.html

The Conclusion of the Matter

2007-03-28T06:38:00.001-04:00

I have just returned from four days in Christchurch, the city of my birth, showing our girls the trees I climbed, the places I buried 'treasure', and the streams I waded in. I showed them the house I lived in, the church where I first heard of God, and the classroom where I began my schooling in 1969. A lot changes in half a lifetime. The fields where I once built forts are now covered in houses. The good climbing trees are gone, and the prize exhibits in the Christchurch Museum have long since been moved to a dusty back room.

Until this week I hadn't noticed the words chiseled in stone above the museum entrance;
"These are parts of HIS ways, but how little a portion is heard of HIM".
How could I have, in my youth, overlooked this tribute to the Creator of my treasured exhibits? I now know that the chiseled stone tribute is a quote from the end of Job 26, where Job is recounting the unfathomable creative power emanating from God's spoken word. Had I traveled 10,000 miles to show our girls the creations of my youth, or their Creator? (v1)

We visited Ruru Lawn Cemetery, Block 24, Plot 12. We uncovered the marble marker as best we could, rebuked the encroaching grass, and scraped off the lichen that was drawing life from the very marker that declared the absence of Daisy Elizabeth Hunt's life -- laid to rest, Tuesday 27 November 1973, having died at the age of 85 in my mother's arms. What was her conclusion of the whole matter? Her final words? "Pat, I've been waiting for you ... waiting for you to come and just hold me." The silver cord was severed (v6), and her breath returned to God who gave it (v7; Gen 2:7). Meaningless? (v8)

What were King David's last words to his son, King in Jerusalem? As 1 Kings 2 records, King David's last words to his son were "make sure that Joab and Shimei meet with a bloody death. I promised not to kill Shimei, but that promise doesn't bind you." In the light of that dubious precedent, Solomon's 'conclusion of the matter' appears downright noble.

But is it? Is your message to the next generation,
"Fulfill your duty to keep God's commandments, (v13)
because there is going to be a judgment." (v14)

Or, do you have another conclusion to the 'whole matter' of humanity's apparent hopelessness?

In concluding our study of Ecclesiastes, please share your message to the next generation.

Ecclesiastes 11 - Cast Thy Bread Upon the Waters

2007-03-19T05:08:00.001-04:00

We read Jesus' Manifesto on the Mount -- the principles upon which He runs the kingdom (Matt 6-8) -- and realize that what God has in mind appears to be an ever-upward spiral of everyone giving of themselves to others, emanating from a deep trust in the bountiful provision of our heavenly Father. Will the Kingdom of Heaven work? Does it work?

We may be inclined to think that Jesus' Manifesto will work in heaven, but it won't work here, where there are some Class-A takers. Consider, for example, the person who snatched Angela's bag on Friday. But then we remember that Jesus constantly stated that "The Kingdom of Heaven is ...". Now. Not later. Jesus appears to invite us to demonstrate with Him that His way of living not only works, but also results in happiness.

What has this to do with Ecclesiastes 11, our study for this week? I'm inclined to read verses 1 through 6 as an exhortation to take risks in life and business. However, most commentators apply this passage to the Christian business of liberality. This seems odd, since the prior ten chapters encouraged us to employ our resources in making our miserable lives as comfortable as can be expected. So, you can decide whether or not the generally accepted interpretation of Eccl 11:1-6 is yet another well-known quote interpreted out of context. But lets follow the crowd for a change.

"No good deed goes unpunished" is a favorite saying of Angela's and mine, as the business of "good deeds" is fraught with difficulty. Cast your bread upon the sea of humanity (Rev 17:15) and you are barely likely to get a thank-you, let alone anything vaguely resembling recompense.

We are exhorted to "give, ... because we do not know what evil is ahead" (v 2). Interestingly, that is exactly the reason I use for not giving. I don't know what hard times are ahead for my family, when I may need resources that might appear surplus to current need. Perhaps I should be beneficent now so that "when the evil days come" I will have the comfort of having done good while I was able?

I am particularly cautious in my few endeavors to "cast my bread" upon needy humanity because I am concerned that my giving may be directed at charlatans. Perhaps if I wait for a riskless opportunity to give I will never sow, and therefore never reap (v4)? Perhaps I just need to recognize that some of my attempts to give will be redemptive in the lives of recipients, and other attempts will be crucified by others as naive at best. A shared experience with God?

It seems that God needs brave volunteers to go first in demonstrating that His manifesto works -- that giving can be a way of life that results in ever-increasing joy for all involved. I still recall as a child watching my father siphon -- what magic. Starting with a small flow would move hundreds of gallons. Perhaps it doesn't matter much after all whether Eccl 11:1-6 is about risk-taking or giving, because the most exciting risk we can take as Christians is to start the flow that will change the world.

Happy casting, giving and sowing this week.

© Alister L. Hunt, PhD

The Innocent Man

2007-03-12T15:44:00.001-04:00

It is truly a defining mark of the Biblical canon that it expresses every dimension of the human experience -- including that of hopelessness and helplessness. At every point in our lives, there is something in the record of humanity's searching after God that resonates with our hearts and ultimately draws all [men] unto Him.

John Grisham's recent non-fiction book, 'The Innocent Man' has an excerpt that reads like a modern excerpt from the book of Ecclesiastes. Here's what Ronald Keith Williamson had to say after experiencing dashed career hopes, alcoholism, wrongful conviction for murder, and exoneration while on death row.

"I hope I go to neither heaven or hell. I wish at the time of my death that I could go to sleep and never wake up and never have a bad dream. Eternal rest, like you've seen on some tombstones, that's what I hope for. Because I don't want to go through the Judgment. I don't want anybody judging me again. I asked myself what was the reason for my birth when I was on death row, if I was going to have to go through all that, What was even the reason for my birth? I almost cursed my mother and dad -- it was so bad -- for putting me on this earth. If I had it all to do over again, I wouldn't be born."

It seems that just as The Word was "in all points tempted like as we are" (Heb 4:15), The Word of God also internalizes every human experience. If God entrusted me with editing the Bible, I'd be inclined to produce something like "Chicken Soup for the Soul", full of heart-warming stories of people who pulled it all together despite the odds, and lived happily ever after.

In doing so, I would no doubt disenfranchise the very people that God wishes to reach.

The Word of God would be incomplete without Ecclesiastes.

Ecclesiastes 10

2007-03-11T23:41:00.001-04:00

Don't bother with this week's study of Ecclesiastes 10 -- there's nothing there.

He exhorts us to
'vote Republican',
avoid dangerous vocations,
sharpen our tools, and
respect social ordering based on riches and nobility of birth.

The last point (above) is convenient, as the writer seems to have nobility and riches. He introduces himself as "Son of David, King in Jerusalem" in Eccl. 1:1. And 1 Kings 10:23 says that "King Solomon was greater in riches and wisdom than all the other kings of the earth". What's he going to say? Something like "man looks on the outward appearance, but we should look on their heart"? I guess that if God operated on the principle of nobility and birth order, Solomon would have been introducing himself as "Son of Eliab, King in Jerusalem" (1 Sam 16:6,7).

So not only not much there, but what is there is self-serving.

Now, you might want to check and see if I'm wrong -- it happens. Let me know your thoughts.

Ecclesiastes 9 and Causality

2007-03-05T16:21:00.001-05:00

There are planned careers, and then there are ones like mine. My life could indeed be a case study of "time and chance" (v11) as the guiding principles of human life. I wonder, though, whether this fatalistic interpretation recognizes two other observations:
(a) God created me as a cognitive being with the freedom of choice; and
(b) There may be more of God's design in my life than I can currently see.

This week we study Solomon's observations on causality. The great difficulty with which Solomon contends in his search for God and meaning in his life was the little difference that is made between those that are good and bad in the distribution of comforts and burdens, and in life outcomes. This has perplexed the honest minds of many wise and contemplative people -- Job (Job 24), Jeremiah (Jer 12), Habakkuk (Hab 1), and Asaph (Psalm 73). Interestingly, each of these men begin their analysis from a position of of God's righteousness, holiness, and goodness. They are battling with the tension between their own experience of their Heavenly Father's goodness, and the empirical evidence that they often appear to receive stones for bread, serpents for fish, and scorpions for eggs (Luke 11:11,12).

Interestingly, Ecclesiastes recognizes no power in this world other than God. Perhaps we should add a third observation to the above two:
(c) Satan appears to be the prince of the planet on which we reside (Job 1:6).

It is amazing that God's inspired revelation of Himself devotes as many lines as it does to this question of God's goodness. If I was to guide others in writing a definitive text that revealed my character, I would strongly suggest that it omit discourses on how the empirical evidence appears to be at odds with the proposition that Alister Hunt is "a good bloke". God appears not to have placed Himself above questioning regarding the justice and goodness inherent in the observed causality between human action and outcome.

Is Solomon willing to experiment with a relationship with God? Or, is he going to conclude that life is meaningless, that there is little point to this life beyond throwing ourselves into our work and enjoying what little pleasures this life might afford. Is he going to conclude that there is nothing beyond this life? Read on through Ecclesiastes.

What are we going to conclude?

Take time this week to (re)read 1 Kings 9:3-9. It is useful context to Solomon's discourse on causality.

Also, you will enjoy Matthew Henry's commentary on Ecclesiastes 9 this week -- this note draws on Henry's comments.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc3.xxi.x.html

In the week to come, may we enjoy our relationships, our work, our food, and our clothes. But more importantly, I pray that we will grapple with the issue with which Solomon contends -- and be willing to consider conclusions other than that of Ecclesiastes 9.

© Alister L. Hunt Ph.D

Ecclesiastes 5 Revisited

2007-02-28T01:44:00.002-05:00

My pastor sent me an interesting rewrite of Ecclesiastes 5 (see below). I recall thinking when I read Eccl 5:1-7 previously that it was a bit of a dark picture of God. My lay paraphrase of the passage was something like the following:

"Be really careful around God because He gets angry with people and destroys what they have worked for, just on a whim. So, tread carefully and speak carefully around God and His house."

But, perhaps I got it wrong? The paraphrase below takes a more positive tack, and in the process challenges us to rethink our behavior in God's house.

ECCLESIASTES 5 FOR TODAY

Watch your step when you go to church. This is not some habit or ritual that you go through, unmindful of the fact that you are in God’s presence. Don’t be so foolish as to think that God is merely taking attendance and has no interest in your attitude; you don’t get points for just showing up. True worship consists of listening to God, not just going through the motions.

Don’t be too quick to speak, either. Keep in mind, you’re in the presence of the Master of the Universe; you’re at church for worship! All too often going to church serves as nothing more than an opportunity to catch up on the latest gossip or to criticize and complain. The effect of this is that you go to God’s house, and in his very presence, you honor Satan rather than him!

Think I’m overstating my case? Listen to yourself and what you talk about at church. When your mind wanders because of other preoccupations, it will come out in your speech and you will have a clear indication of where your focus is. All too often, it’s not on worship.

Remember that when you gave your heart to Christ, you made an all-encompassing commitment. This commitment includes your behavior at church. Don’t be so foolish as to say you are a Christian and then to come into the very presence of God in his house and act as though your behavior doesn’t matter. Keep your word to God by watching your words at church. You’d be better off never having committed to Christ in the first place than to have taken his name in vain.

Keep in mind that there is a direct association between what is in your heart and what comes out of your mouth. When your heart is wrong, your speech is too, and when you are careless in your speech, your entire being is at risk of eternal loss. And whatever you do, don’t add insult to injury - don’t dare excuse your sinful behavior by saying that it was no big deal, that surely God wouldn’t make you accountable for such a trivial mistake as that. When you do, you’ve not only scorned God but everything he stands for besides.

The fact is that your wandering mind and undisciplined speech leave you in a very precarious position before God - much better to give him the honor and respect he is due when you come into his house, and to show it through your attitude and demeanor.

© Alister L. Hunt Ph.D

The Divine Right of Kings

2007-02-26T15:24:00.001-05:00

The Hunt family has a recent fascination with the life of King James I, patron of the so-called "Authorized Version" of the Bible. What a surreal life he lived "under the sun". No wonder he was known as "the wisest fool in Christendom".

King James' book, 'The True Law of Free Monarchies' lays out the doctrine known as the "divine right of kings" -- a doctrine of political absolutism. It states that a monarch owes his rule to the will of God, not to the will of his subjects, parliament, the aristocracy or any other competing authority. This doctrine continued with the claim that any attempt to depose a monarch or to restrict his powers ran contrary to the will of God. James wrote his treatise to rebut the puritan ideas of the day that would ultimately give rise to the American Revolution.

Interestingly, the 'divine right of kings' doctrine is closely linked to the concept of 'apostolic succession' that underpins much of the Christian church's claim to authority over its subjects. In short, it is the belief that Bishops, etc. 'reign' in the unbroken lineage of Peter and the other Apostles. The crossover between political and religious 'absolutism' is seen to this day in the 'ordination' of royalty in the United Kingdom, and in genealogical attempts to link modern monarchs (modern monarchs?) to King David, appointed by God.
http://www.kingdavid.org/genealogy.html

So, what has the 'divine right of kings' got to do with Ecclesiastes 8, our study for this week? Here's why. The way we view political or ecclesiastical powers says a lot about how we view God. And vice versa, presumably. King James instructed the interpreters of the 'authorized version' to replace Tyndale's references to 'congregations' and 'elders' with the ecclesiatical terms of 'churches' and 'priests', and his view of political and ecclesiastical authority has colored Christianity for nearly four centuries.

Lets do the following; read chapter 8's description of royal authority and ask ourselves what that says about God. That is, what does the Son of David (Eccl. 1:1) tell us about THE Son of David (Matt 1:1)?

v2 Obey GOD's command.

v3 Do not stand up for a bad cause, because GOD will do whatever he pleases

v4 Since GOD's word is supreme, who can say to GOD, "What are you doing?"

v5 Whoever obeys GOD's command will come to no harm

v9 There is a time when GOD lords it over others to His own hurt

v11 When GOD does not quickly carry out a sentence for a crime, the hearts of the people are filled with schemes to do wrong.

In sum, what does the Son of David's treatise on the 'divine right of kings' tell you about God? If political authorities are God's representatives on earth (Rom 13:1,2), then what does this tell us about God. Is the picture of God reflected in verses 2 through 11 consistent with your own personal experience of God? Does God rule by 'divine fiat', or is the all-powerful God of the universe subject to the will of His 'subjects'? Does God "do whatever He pleases" (v3)?

Happy studying, whether in the land of revolutionaries or loyalists. : )

Study guide attached.

Questions on Ecclesiastes 7

2007-02-21T13:36:00.002-05:00

Here are five questions on Ecclesiastes 7 for your consideration.

We have addressed the first three this week. But I am interested in your thoughts regarding questions 4 and 5 below. Let me know your thoughts...

Blessed study of Ecclesiastes 7.

1. The King’s son says that:
“the day of death is better than the day of birth” (v1)
and
“ the end of a matter is better than its beginning” (v8)

The world thinks of life, then death.
In what ways do Christians think of death, then life?

2. The King’s son says that:
“It is better to go to a house of mourning
than to go to the house of feasting” (v2)

Was Jesus known for attending funerals or parties?

Why would Jesus say “Blessed are those that mourn”?

3. The King’s son says:
“Do not say “Why were the old ways better than these?
“For it is not wise to ask such questions.”

Are things getting better or worse? Physically? Socially? Morally?

Are “the old ways better than these?”

4. The King’s son says:
“Consider what God has done:
“Who can straighten what he has made crooked?” (v13)

What was crooked in Solomon’s life?

Who made Solomon’s way crooked? God? Or, Solomon?

5. The King’s son says to avoid the extremes of being overrighteous or overwicked (v16, 17). He also suggests that “grasp the one and not let go of the other.” (v18)

First Kings 11 indicates that Solomon
(a) followed the Lord, and
(b) facilitated the idolatrous worship of his many foreign wives.
For example, 1 Kings 11:6 says that Solomon “did not follow the Lord completely”, suggesting a partial allegiance to God.

In Ecclesiastes 5:16-18, is Solomon presenting wisdom?

Or, is he justifying his folly?

© Alister L. Hunt Ph.D

Were the old days better?

2007-02-21T13:25:00.000-05:00

The King’s son says:
“Do not say “Why were the old days better than these?
“For it is not wise to ask such questions.”

Are things getting better or worse? Physically? Socially? Morally?

Are “the old days better than these?”

Some years ago I realized that the question of whether things are getting better or worse is central to a person's world view. Christians believe that the world is going from better to worse, and they are excited about it. You could call this Optimistic Pessimism.

There are at least three ways in which optimistic pessimism is foundational to Christianity.

1. It powerfully points to the existence of God
2. It fulfils prophecy pointing toward the second coming of Jesus
3. It demonstrates the totality of sin and salvation

First, it powerfully points to the existence of a life-sustaining God. You see, not everything around us runs down. Living organisms grow from less complex to more complex. There is a life force in the universe that allows living organisms temporary exemption to the rule of decay. A seed planted in the ground is a catalyst for the combining of nutrients, air and water to develop an intricate organism. Doesn’t that contradict the second law of thermodynamics? No, the seed is receiving energy from the sun in the form of light. This raises the question of the ultimate source of this energy.

We could shine sunshine on a stone forever and it would never grow into a tree. It is the fact that a seed is living matter that allows it to grow. What is this mysterious life force that results in the creation of order from disorder? Evolution? No, evolution is inconsistent with the second law of thermodynamics. It assumes that inanimate objects sponetaneously gain the spark of life. What is this life force? I believe that it is tangible evidence of God’s power in the universe. This concept of life as a force that provides temporary reprieve from the incessant march to greater levels of disorder has led atheist scientists to seek God.

Here are some Bible passages that equate Christ with life.

Acts 17:28 (Paul reasoning with the Greek philosophers at Mars Hill)
“For in him we live, and move, and have our being.”

John 1:3,4 (Amazing passage, indicating that Jesus Christ is the creator and life sustainer of this world. He is the light, the external source of power and catalyst for Growth)
“All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.”

The whole book of John is full of references to Christ as life, light or water. For example, Chapter 4, and the story of the Woman of Samaria.

John again. John 8:12
“I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.”

Now I suppose that biblical scholars would tell us that Jesus is talking about giving us spiritual life, eternal life. And of course that is correct. But these texts and many others like them are telling us something so much more amazing. Jesus Christ is also the life-sustaining force of this universe! He is as essential to life as light is.

So, the first way in which entropy, increasing disorder, is important to Christian belief is that it provides evidence of God’s life-giving power. Without the external power of Christ and his life-force, nothing would stem the increase in entropy.

Lets look at the second way in which entropy is important, ... it fulfils prophecy pointing toward the second coming of Jesus. Matthew chapter 24 is well known to us. Jesus foretells social and physical decay as signs of the end. Then in verse 32 he tells the parable of the fig tree.

“Now learn a parable of the fig tree; when his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So, likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.”

So, signs that things are getting worse not better are signs that the coming of the Son of Man is growing closer. Earlier in the same chapter Jesus had foretold increasing warfare, but had urged his disciples not to be troubled by this, but to simply note it as further evidence that their deliverance is drawing closer. That is why we as Christians can say “things are getting worse. Praise the Lord.” They are signs of the second coming of our Redeemer just as much as buds on a tree herald the coming of summer. Can you say with me, “things are getting worse. Praise the Lord”?

So the concept of entropy is important to Christian belief firstly because it illustrates the life power of God, and secondly because it points to the second coming of Christ.

The third way that the concept of increasing entropy is important to Christian belief is that it demonstrates the true nature of sin and salvation. You see, sin did not just make things worse. The bad news is far worse than that. And salvation does not just make things better. The good news is far better than that. You see, when Adam and Eve sinned, this world did not just get worse; continual decay set in. The second law of thermodynamics kicked in, and this world started to spin down like a child’s spinning top. ... We start to understand the enormity of sin and its consequences. We also begin to understand what God said when he created Eden. Genesis chapter 2. Genesis chapter 2, verse 16,17.
And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shall not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die

Chapter 3 of Genesis records the terrible effects of Adam and Eve’s sin. Did they die? No, not immediately. The effects of their sin extended to the whole world, since the entire world began to decay, to die. A Christian author by the name of Ellen White writes dramatically of the temptation and fall of man in a book called Patriarchs and Prophets.

“In order to possess an endless existence, man must continue to partake of the tree of life. Deprived of this, his life would gradually diminish until life should become extinct. ...“In humility and unutterable sadness they bade farewell to their beautiful home and went forth to dwell upon the earth, where rested the curse of sin. The atmosphere, once so mild and uniform in temperature, was now subject to marked changes ...“As they witnessed in drooping flower and falling leaf the first signs of decay, Adam and his companion mourned more deeply than men now mourn over their dead. The death of the frail, delicate flowers was indeed a cause of sorrow; but when the goodly trees cast off their leaves, the scene brought vividly to mind the stern fact that death is the portion of every living thing.” Pg 60-62

Sin had consequences far beyond weeds, thorns and human death. The whole world began to die, and it continues its decay even today. Understanding this enables us to understand the enormity of sin.

However, lets not linger here, because moving on from an understanding of the enormity of sin leads us to understand the totality of salvation. For we're not only afforded eternal life. That would be sufficient cause to praise God. ... But God tells us that he will remove all the effects of sin and return this world to its Edenic state. God will remove all the effects of sin including the continual decay of the world. But that’s not all. God will not only halt the process of things getting worse. He will not only return them to their original state, but things will then continue to get better. You see, God set up Eden to continually improve.

In Great Controversy, another book by the same author,
“[In the holy city] immortal minds will contemplate with never-failing delight the wonders of creative power, the mysteries of redeeming power. ... Every faculty will be developed, every capacity increased. The acquirement of knowledge will not weary the mind or exhaust the energies. There the grandest enterprise may be carried forward, the loftiest aspirations reached, the highest ambitions realised; and still there will arise new heights to surmount, new wonders to admire, new truths to comprehend, fresh objects to call forth the powers of the mind and soul and body.”

Amazing. Things will go from great to fantastic just as surely as they currently go from bad to worse. Our pessimism for this world is like the budding of a fig tree heralding optimism for the next world. God's life-sustaining power will once again quicken this old world.

God's gift of eternal life is amazing. More amazing is his plan to restore us to the original dominion of Adam, to restore us to our intended role as rulers of the earth. But it is beyond my comprehension that Adam's dominion was not static. And neither will our dominion be. We are not to have eternal life in a static perfect state, but are to have eternal life in which that perfect state continually improves.

Yes, the question of whether things are getting better or worse has important implications.
* That this world is decaying socially and physically contrasts with the order created within living organisms and demonstrates God’s hand as the source of energy and life force.
* That this world is decaying socially and physically fulfils prophecy pointing to the imminent second coming of Christ.
* That this world is decaying socially and physically indicates the enormity of sin and the totality of salvation.

I’m glad I'm a pessimist when it comes to the future of this earth. Because it is my source of hope for the future. Christians are optimistic pessimists. The world thinks of life then death. Christians think of death then life. This world is getting worse to get better. Things are getting worse, and I for one am happy about it because it tells me that the New Jerusalem is even closer.

Blessed are those that mourn

2007-02-20T21:58:00.000-05:00

Ecclesiastes 7:2 says that it is better to go to a house of mourning than it is to go to a house of feasting. I wonder why? It brings to mind Jesus words, "Blessed are those that mourn" (Matt 5:4), or the voice from heaven recorded in Revelation 14, "Write: blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on."

This week Angela and I traveled down country to attend Ian's funeral -- a remembrance of a Godly man who passed away after a long illness. Inspiring, and interesting, as Ian was buried on his Maori ancestral burial ground, with traditional welcome (for us) and farewell (for him). After all had had their say, the family filled in the hole as we reminisced with friends in the calm warmth of afternoon sun and the drone of distant bagpipes. I don't recall a more blessed five hours in recent memory.

Ian knew he was going to die soon, and had penned a "conclusion of the matter" that I have included at the end of this email. Ian's funeral reminded me that death is the destiny of every man; and that I should take this to heart in the way I live now (v2).

Verse 8 reinforces the message with a statement that the end of a matter is better than the beginning. Why? Surely a baby shower elicits more rejoicing than does a funeral, as one obvious counter-example.

Some years ago I heard John Stott speak at University Presbyterian Church in Seattle. Stott is arguably one of the world's foremost theologians, albeit as an 86-year old Anglican clergyman. That is, at the end of his life, he is noted as one of the world's finest students of God. His talk was entitled:
"Death, then Life".
While the world thinks of
"Life, then Death",
Christianity is founded on the concepts of Death, then Life.

* Jesus' death, then resurrection.

* Our baptism, as a symbol of death to self, followed by life in Christ

* Our physical death, then resurrection.

* The pervasive NT symbolism of a seed's burial to bring new life

He then went on to outline several other aspects of the Christian life characterized by Death, then Life. I forget them all, but the one that sticks in my mind is that of mission. A Christian missionary dies to their own culture to immerse themselves in a new culture to live in and amongst and for a culture other than their own.

Do you agree with John Stott that Christianity is about Death, then Life? Do you agree with the Teacher, the King in Jerusalem, that the end of a matter is better than its beginning?

Can I suggest a personal application of this principle? In what ways can you die to your Christian "culture" to be effective in bringing life to those who currently do not know God? What "matters" need to be brought to an end in our own life? In our own study groups? In our own churches? -- for the sake of life.

More later.

Striving After the Wind

2007-02-13T12:45:00.000-05:00

In late 1994 and 1995 I attended Alcoholics Anonymous and learned the phrase "It's not m' fault", a catch-cry of alcoholics. Getting people to take personal responsibility for their life is central to AA's mission. And, while I have never taken a drink of alcohol, I recognized that "It's not m' fault" is my catch-cry also. I am more than willing to pray, "Lord, I thank thee that I am not as other men are", rather than casting my life before God and saying "God, have mercy on me, a sinner". When I experience sorrow and sadness, I am quick to see myself as a victim of circumstances beyond my control, and slow to take responsibility for my lot as the consequences of my own folly. I am slow in saying to God, "I am powerless over sin" and give my life over to God to sort out.

Of course, to say "It's your fault" to a friend in distress is to relive the mistake of Job's friends. A call to take personal responsibility for the human mess that we all experience is a message for each one of us personally, to be shared only through our personal testimony to others in similar circumstances. That is the power of AA, and the power of viewing church as "Sinners Anonymous".

Why am I mentioning "personal responsibility" in our discussion of Ecclesiastes?

It occurs to me that the book of Ecclesiastes is a fascinating and God-ordained case study on the consequences of living life by the mantra, "It's not m' fault". With this lens, lets take an introductory look at Chapter 6, our study for this week.

Poor Solomon. Suffering under the burden God has placed on him -- wealth, and a complete inability to enjoy it. (v2)

Poor Solomon. 1,000 wives, untold children, and the prospect of no-one to mourn his passing and celebrate his life with a befitting funeral ceremony. (v3)

Poor Solomon. Longevity from God, and yet life is a cruel joke because "all go to the same place". (v6)

Poor Solomon. The finest food that God created, and yet his appetite is never satisfied. (v7)

Poor Solomon. Wisdom granted from God (1 Kings 3), but it was no advantage to him. (v8)

Poor Solomon. A statesman without advantage. (v8)

Poor Solomon. He is no match for God. (v10)

Poor Solomon. God hasn't confided what the future will hold, ... even though God had appeared to him twice previously, and the third time God appears, He plainly foretells the future (1 Kings 11:11-13). What's more, God clearly tells Solomon whose fault this is -- Solomon's, and Solomon's alone.

So, if it is a "grievous evil" to have had so much, only to lose it and pass it over to someone else, is it a "grievous evil" that:
(a) God has capriciously burdened us with? "It's not my fault" , or
(b) we need to take responsibility for? "It's not God's fault".

Our choice. Solomon's father was a founding member of "Sinners Anonymous", and his Psalm 51 is its 'Blue Book' to this day. Our recovery within "Sinners Anonymous" depends on choosing to follow David rather than his son.

Rich Man, Poor Man

2007-02-09T12:34:00.000-05:00

You are no doubt well into your study of Ecclesiastes 5 this week. My email was a little delayed by a small error this week. I was filling up our steam boiler slowly, just as Jim Boyd had instructed, so I wouldn't crack the hot boiler with liquid ice. I busied myself while I waited, running this way and that, and I forgot about the boiler merrily filling itself. And the pipe system in the basement. And the radiators on the first floor. And the vertical pipes up to the second floor. And the radiators on the second floor.

When the system was nicely full with mains-pressure water, the weakest links in the system provided a most beautiful multi-room fountain display, perhaps rivaling Solomon's water works mentioned in chapter 2. Maybe not.

So that was my study of madness and folly (1:17) this week. With much water comes much sorrow.

This week's study continues on through the proverbs, with one unique diversion. The 'son of David' has quite a lot to say about vows and oaths. Interesting. I can't say I understand why 'declaring something' and 'declaring something in an oath to God' makes any difference. Either we mean what we say, or we don't.

This time last year I had dinner in London with a witness who was to testify in court the next day. He ran through his planned testimony with the lawyers, and then testified totally differently under oath the next day. What made the difference? The oath?

I think about the marriage vow. Would I treat my vow to Angela any differently if it had been solemnly declared to her alone, instead of before an ordained minister and onlooking family and friends? I think of Robin and Patti Graham in their fascinating first book, Dove.
"... as I put [her ring] on again I said, "Patti, I don't know the words of the marriage ceremony. I just know that I want to spend the rest of my life with you. There now; from this day we are man and wife.
It was as simple as that."

It is seldom as simple as that. Societies the world around have developed elaborate religious/administrative systems for solemnizing statements by one human to another. Why?

Study guide attached, albeit belatedly. Just wring the water out of it before you start reading.

The Science of Human Happiness

2007-02-08T23:59:00.000-05:00

Economics can be viewed as the science of human happiness. If you understand what people believe makes them more happy, less happy, unhappy, you can predict human behavior, which is a most useful thing in business, investing, and managing a national economy.

It occurs to me that Christianity is also the science or art of human happiness. If God and Satan are presenting two ways to live -- giving or taking -- then may the best system win. And, it seems to me that the best system should be the one that makes people happiest. Choosing anything else is an irrational act. Christians seldom see themselves as being in the business of showing people how to be happy. Upright perhaps, but not happy. Real happiness, it is presumed, requires some decidedly un-Christian dabbling in getting, and getting now.

So I was quite intrigued this week to read in the Economist magazine's most recent Christmas edition a discussion of human happiness that reads almost like it is lifted from Ecclesiastes.

Have a read of the following excerpt, and let me know what you think.

Capitalism can make a society rich and keep it free. Don't ask it to make you happy as well

HAVING grown at an annual rate of 3.2% per head since 2000, the world economy is over half way towards notching up its best decade ever. If it keeps going at this clip, it will beat both the supposedly idyllic 1950s and the 1960s. Market capitalism, the engine that runs most of the world economy, seems to be doing its job well. But is it?

Some of the results [of happiness surveys] are unsurprising: the rich report being happier than do the poor. But a paradox emerges that requires explanation: affluent countries have not got much happier as they have grown richer. From America to Japan, figures for well-being have barely budged.

The science of happiness offers two explanations for the paradox. Capitalism, it notes, is adept at turning luxuries into necessities--bringing to the masses what the elites have always enjoyed. But the flip side of this genius is that people come to take for granted things they once coveted from afar. Frills they never thought they could have become essentials that they cannot do without. People are stuck on a treadmill: as they achieve a better standard of living, they become inured to its pleasures.

Capitalism's ability to take things downmarket also has its limits. Many of the things people most prize--such as the top jobs, the best education, or an exclusive home address--are luxuries by necessity. An elite schooling, for example, ceases to be so if it is provided to everyone. These "positional goods", as they are called, are in fixed supply: you can enjoy them only if others do not. The amount of money and effort required to grab them depends on how much your rivals are putting in.

In 1930 John Maynard Keynes imagined that richer societies would become more leisured ones, liberated from toil to enjoy the finer things in life. Yet most people still put in a decent shift. They work hard to afford things they think will make them happy, only to discover the fruits of their labour sour quickly. They also aspire to a higher place in society's pecking order, but in so doing force others in the rat race to run faster to keep up. So everyone loses.

Yet it is not self-evident that less work would mean more happiness. In America, when the working week has shortened, the gap has been filled by assiduous TV-watching. As for well-being, other studies show that elderly people who stop working tend to die sooner than their peers who labour on. Indeed, another side of happiness economics busies itself studying the non-monetary rewards from work: most people enjoy parts of their work, and some people love it.

As for capitalism's wasteful materialism, even Adam Smith had a problem with it. "How many people ruin themselves by laying out money on trinkets of frivolous utility?" he complained. It is hard to claim that pyramid-shaped tea-bags (developed at great expense over four years) have added much to the sum of human happiness. Yet if capitalism sometimes persuades people to buy stuff they only imagine they want, it also appeals to tastes and aptitudes they never knew they had. In the arts, this is called "originality" and is venerated. In commerce it is called "novelty" and too often dismissed. But without the urge for material improvement, people would still be wearing woollen underwear and holidaying in Bognor rather than Bhutan. Would that be so great?

The joys of niche capitalism
If growth of this kind does not make people happy, stagnation will hardly do the trick. Ossified societies guard positional goods more, not less, jealously. A flourishing economy, on the other hand, creates what biologists call "a tangled bank" of niches, with no clear hierarchy between them. Tyler Cowen, of George Mason University, points out that America has more than 3,000 halls of fame, honouring everyone from rock stars and sportsmen to dog mushers, pickle-packers and accountants. In such a society, everyone can hope to come top of his particular monkey troop, even as the people he looks down on count themselves top of a subtly different troop.

To find the market system wanting because it does not bring joy as well as growth is to place too heavy a burden onit. Capitalism can make you well off. And it also leaves you free to be as unhappy as you choose. To ask any more of it would be asking too much.

More Life Under the Sun

2007-01-30T15:56:00.000-05:00

This has to be the largest weekly study I have ever seen. And there have been some huge ones. What happens when issues of social justice, envy, community and the meaning of life coalesce in the same 45-minute discussion?

It is clear that doing justice to these topics is going to require preparation and thought during the week. The teacher's version of the study guide is filled with fascinating quotes and questions that inspire prayerful meditation.

The study guide has some interesting, and perhaps self-serving, comments in defense of 'organized religion'. Specifically, the study guide relates Solomon's comments that
"two are better than one ... if one falls down, his friend can help him up"
to Christian community.

In what ways have you experienced Christian community? Historically, Christian religious organizations of all stripes have been at the forefront of both:
(a) lifting people up, and
(b) oppressing them.

In what ways can you build Christian community that lifts people up rather than oppresses? Is our toil in the service of 'organized religion' a "meaningless chasing after the wind", or does it provide you with "a good return for your work" (v9)? What is this return?
v10: the joy of restoring a fallen friend.

Wow. Wouldn't that infuse 'Church' with meaning.

Is that what organized religion is about? Is that what God is about?

Obsessing on Ecclesiastes and Wondering Why

2007-01-23T22:52:00.000-05:00

I have an enduring fascination with the book of Ecclesiastes. Truth be told, my study of the book has become something of an obsession of late. The text itself would seem to discourage this kind of intensity because it strikingly states that “All is futile” (1.2) [1] and further notes that “much study” is a tiresome business (12.12). However, my drive to understand is as ceaseless as the natural cycles that go on and on and on and on (1.4-8), like a wheel that turns but never reaches its destination! So I offer my reflections, not as settled convictions, but as insights that have surfaced in my obsessive quest to probe the depths of one of the most enigmatic books of Scripture.

Let me offer the following thoughts about authorship before I delve into the message of the text itself. Tradition has it that Ecclesiastes was written by King Solomon. The author is identified as “son of David” and “king in Jerusalem” in 1.1. And in 1.12-2.26 he describes himself as the wealthiest and wisest of all Israel’s kings (this seems somewhat pretentious given that only two kings had reigned in Israel prior to him!). One Rabbi went so far as to suggest that not only was Ecclesiastes written by Solomon, but that it was written by Solomon in his old age when he had become senile! Regardless of where you stand on the senility argument the tradition of Solomonic’ authorship presents difficulties for the interpreter. The text itself does not explicitly name Solomon as the author but instead claims to be written by an individual by the name of “Qohelet.” Qohelet is a feminine noun that means “gatherer” or assembler.” This has led some commentators to think that Qohelet might be the female personification of wisdom itself, like her counterpart in the book of Proverbs that assembles her children for edifying instruction (1.20-33). If Qohelet were really a king it is hard to understand why he is explicitly identified as a “sage” in 12.9. And apart from the “royal testimony” in 1.12-2.26 the author more often writes from the perspective of a royal subject rather than as a powerful monarch (see 5.7-8). The evidence on authorship leads me to be skeptical of the traditional claim that Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes. I favor the view that Qohelet was a male sage that used the literary device known as “royal fiction” to emphasize his point about the brevity and futility of existence. However, the text loses none of its canonical authority in taking this position. Nor does it lose any of its mysterious power to baffle the interpreter!

The message of Ecclesiastes is no less difficult to resolve than the issue of authorship. Its content is problematic regardless of who wrote it. Robert Crenshaw has called it the “Bible’s strangest book” given its “oppressive message” of the total futility of life. [2] What do we make of a Scripture that begins with the assertion “Utter futility! Utter futility! All is futile!” (1.2)? The word translated as futility (hebel) has both a temporal and an existential meaning. It means either brief or futile or both depending on the context. I think that a good starting point is to take these “words of Qohelet” (1.1) as seriously as we take the prophetic “words of Jeremiah” (Jer. 1.1) or the “words of Amos” (Amos 1.1). The words of Qohelet may be dark and perplexing but they are nevertheless “truthful” words (12.10) that command our attention if not our immediate respect.

I would suggest that the word of the Lord came to Qohelet just as certainly as it came to Isaiah, Jeremiah or Ezekiel but the manner in which it came was different. Throughout the book we find phrases like “I set my mind to study” (1.12), “I said to myself” (1.16), “I realized” (3.14), “I mused” (3.17), “I observed” (4.1), “I tested with wisdom” (7.23), and “I have seen” (10.5) repeated over and over again. The focus is explicitly on the thinker and the disciplined mental processes involved in the quest to understand all that goes on under the sun. The heavy use of such “I” language gives one the distinct impression that Qohelet is something of an egotist and rather self-absorbed. No doubt a brilliant egotist as the existence of twenty-six words or combinations of words that appear nowhere else in the Hebrew Scripture testify to a uniquely creative individuality. The writing style is also highly personal and extremely candid. Maybe it is precisely the egotism and self-absorption that can give us a key into the profound experience that is voiced in this troubled and troubling text. The philosopher William Barret has said, “there is no human temperament that does not potentially reveal some truth” and that even “morbidity has it own unique and revelatory power.” [3] It strikes me that Qohelet’s obsessive fascination with the dark side of life and ultimately with death itself is something of an epiphany, an illusion-shattering epiphany. I think it is as true of Qohelet what the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche said of himself, “I am no man. I am dynamite.” [4] The wisdom of the sad sage of Ecclesiastes explodes the illusions by which most people order their lives; the illusions of prosperity, grandiosity and immortality that feed the lust for life and fuel the insatiable desire to acquire and achieve. In contrast to these illusions it reveals that all life and every life exists in the shadow of death, that all questions do not have tidy theological answers, that hard reality does not conform to our hopeful expectations, and that all human existence participates in the frustration of a universe that is constantly in motion on a funeral dirge march toward oblivion (12.3-8). Death casts its long and nihilistic shadow over the entire lifespan, from cradle to coffin. It places a huge question mark over all of our achievements and it frustrates every attempt to penetrate this deepest and darkest of all mysteries. In the game of life there are no 'get out of jail free' cards. And even faith in God does not liberate one from the second law of thermodynamics or obliterate the cold, hard, dark, inevitable facts of human experience.

The wisdom of Ecclesiastes is wisdom from below, arising from experience in contrast to the sometime prophetic claim of direct divine revelation from above. It expresses the truth of the human situation from the ground up. Such wisdom is born in the crucible of deep reflection and careful observation of the world as it is, not the world as we wish it would be or hope it will be. It is a hard wisdom arising out of this world with all of its misery, oppression, and frustration that inevitably ends in death.

Like Job before him, the author of Ecclesiastes doubts that history rewards virtue and punishes vice in the way that the earlier wisdom teachers had so dogmatically insisted that it did. Qohelet observed that “sometimes a good man perishes in spite of his goodness, and sometimes a wicked one endures in spite of his wickedness” (7:15). Unlike Job’s friends, Qohelet refused to accept the traditional maxim that a man’s external circumstances were an accurate reflection of his internal condition. No doubt he would have made a much better companion than those three “miserable comforters.” Because he knew that reality was far more complex than the simple logic of “obey and prosper, disobey and suffer” could calculate. He knew that death was the inevitable “fate” of all and that no amount of virtue could alter that reality in the least.

For Qohelet the best that can be attained in our brief and futile lives is an enjoyment of life’s simple pleasures; eating and drinking, friendship and loving companionship (4.9-12; 5.17; 9.9). This makes me think of the philosophy of one of the ant characters (voiced by Woody Allen) in the movie Antz when he says, “It's my lot in life. It’s not a lot but it’s my life!” It may not be a lot, but a small island of simple comfort in an ocean of endless misery, is probably the difference between total despair and tolerable melancholy, between ending-it-all and toughing-it-out. Beyond this such simple pleasures also serve as a contact point with God because they come as gifts of God and not as rewards for our works (2.24). Since life is a brief book between the bookends of non-existence then surely the simple God-given joys of our physical existence are to be fully embraced.

Ultimately, for the quixotic sage Qohelet, God as well as life, is a great mystery. In what is perhaps the most ironic and certainly one of the most courageous confession’s in Scripture the humbled intellectual states, “All this I tested with wisdom. I thought I could fathom it, but it eludes me” (7.23). Unfortunately, there is no simple mathematical formula by which life and the mysterious workings of God can be calculated. The logic of human existence and divine sovereignty, if there is any, is deep and elusive. The shadow of death extends even into the fair country of biblical wisdom itself. The proud claim to know-it-all, to have found the final truth, to have arrived at the end of the equation is perhaps the greatest illusion of all. It is this illusion that, above all, is the primary obstacle to true knowledge because it attempts to fit the infinite mystery of life and God into a puzzle that can be pieced together by the finite human mind. In contrast to this the surly sage insists that life can be enjoyed as a gift but it cannot be solved as a riddle.

It is rather curious that a book like Ecclesiastes could become part of the canon of Scripture. It not only disclosed new meaning but it also exploded some of the most cherished traditions of Israel. But on reflection its conclusion in the canon of Scripture seems quite appropriate. Theological claims to finality and completeness have been the one constant in the everchanging landscape of biblical interpretation. Qohelet is a dissonant voice in that choir of absolute certainty. He raises his voice, in part, to remind us that all our thinking, even our best theological thinking, is always on the way and never at the end. For as Walter Brueggemann says of the task of biblical interpretation,
"The only way to turn the book into a fixed idol is to imagine that the final interpretation has been given, an act of imagination that is a deep act of disobedience to the lively God who indwells the text". [5]

If I were to add my own editorial comment to the text of Ecclesiastes, like we find in the scribal addition in 12.9-14, it would go something like this. “There is a time for everything, even the melancholy reflections that inevitably arise out of the futility and frustration of human existence. Such are not the only words or the last words, and maybe not even the best words, but they are nevertheless utterly true and significant words. These searchingly honest and painful words are an invaluable aid in the agonizing quest to understand the meaning of our all-too-brief lives!”

[1] All translations are taken from the Tanakh, Jewish Publication Society, 1985.

[2] Robert Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes (Westminster: Philadelphia, 1987); 23.

[3] William Barrett, Irrational Man: A Study in Existential Philosophy (New York: Doubleday, 1958); 10.

[4] Walter Kaufmann, Basic Writings of Nietzsche (New York: Random House, 1995); 782.

[5] Walter Brueggemann, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Louisville: Westminster, 2003): 13.

Of Being and Time

2007-01-23T17:51:00.000-05:00

Nearly 25 years ago when I was a university student and $2 meals were quite appealing, I was enjoying a vegetarian dinner at Gopal's, the restaurant run by the Krishna Consciousness movement -- the Hare Krishnas as we might commonly refer to them. Sitting at the same table as me was the South Pacific head of the Krishna Consciousness movement. As we chatted it became clear that the Hare Krishnas had done a good job of accommodating themselves to the life cycles we observe -- life and death, happiness and pain, peace and conflict. They were a living embodiment of Ecclesiastes 3, our fascinating study for this week. I asked my newfound friend what he believed to be the origin of conflict, pain and death, and he responded that he believed that these cycles that included conflict, pain and death had always existed. And they always would. It was the unchanging nature of the universe, according to this Krishna Consciousness devotee.

How did I view the same cycles as a Christ Consciousness devotee, if you'll pardon the term? Was my youthful search for peace and happiness one of accommodating myself to the eternal cyclical reality of peace and conflict, happiness and pain, life and death? Or, was God's intention for Alister Hunt that he would one day experience ever-increasing spirals of life, planting, healing, building, laughing, dancing (strike that), gathering, embracing, seeking, mending, loving, and experiencing peace?

This reminds me of Mark Twain's fascinating and somewhat irreverent short story, 'Extract from Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven'. The captain arrives in heaven, collects his harp and wings and is assigned to a cloud bank. He lasts less than a day before ditching the harp, cloud and wings in favor of smoking a pipe in the shade of a rock in the meadow. Then he learns that heaven has happiness and sadness, ease and pain, etc.

Captain Stormfield's friend explains heaven to him as follows:

" ... there's plenty of pain here - but it don't kill.
There's plenty of suffering here, but it don't last. You see,
happiness ain't a THING IN ITSELF - it's only a CONTRAST with
something that ain't pleasant. That's all it is. There ain't a
thing you can mention that is happiness in its own self - it's only
so by contrast with the other thing. And so, as soon as the
novelty is over and the force of the contrast dulled, it ain't
happiness any longer, and you have to get something fresh. Well,
there's plenty of pain and suffering in heaven - consequently
there's plenty of contrasts, and just no end of happiness."

Do we need a knowledge of evil to appreciate good? Do we need to accept suffering to appreciate happiness? Conflict to appreciate peace? Or is God's ultimate reality for us one of Yang and no Yin, to (mis)use concepts from Chinese metaphysics?

Now I'm going to take a wild guess that many of us don't believe that "man's fate is like that of the animals" (v19), and that there is more to life than accommodating ourselves to the polar opposites that are currently the temporal experience of us all.

However, during this life it is not a bad thing to know how to accommodate ourselves to the cycles and rhythms of life. Can I suggest that prayerfully contemplating Ecclesiastes 3 this week will probably do more for us than Buddhism, Yoga, chanting, transcendental meditation, and firewalking combined. There is a lot you can read and study this week about how this chapter has been interpreted through two thousand years of Christianity. But I encourage you to clear away the mental clutter of others' thoughts and contemplate what each verse says to you. Perhaps write it out. It is not often that we get a study where we are our greatest study resource. But this is it.

All That My Eyes Desired

2007-01-16T23:28:00.000-05:00

So, Solomon's experimentation on our behalf moves onto its next phase in this study. In Chapter 1 we saw Solomon toiling away on our behalf in the world's libraries, establishments of learning, laboratories, etc. And, that experiment concludes with disappointing results. "The more knowledge, the more grief" (Eccl 1:18).

So, he storms out of his library and into an entirely different pursuit - worldly pleasures. You can read about them in this particular study.

What I find fascinating is that we have already read about most of these things elsewhere in the Bible, but from a very different perspective. Solomon's so-called achievements are mentioned in glowing terms. ...

... in 1 Kings 9:15-19, we read of Solomon's wonderful buildings.

... in 1 Kings 10 we read of Solomon's splendid wealth
(v27 says that silver was as plentiful in Jerusalem as stones)

... in Prov 21:1 we infer that Solomon was familiar with the directing and redirecting of water

... in Kings 11 we read of Solomon's many wives

... in Ezra 2:58 we read that after the captivity, people were still identifying themselves as being part of Solomon's household of intergenerational servants (slaves?)

... in Matt 6, even Jesus refers to Solomon's grandeur.

But now we get to go behind the scenes. It reminds me of watching a DVD first, and then afterwards watching the same DVD with the director's commentary. The first time you are convinced that you are in an authentic ancient Japanese fishing village. Then, you hear the director explaining that it was filmed in a warehouse on the outskirts of Los Angeles. When you watched the DVD you were convinced that the people were happy and passionate about what they were doing. Then the director tells you that during that scene, the actors and actresses were actually very tired, irritable with each other and just ready for the shoot to be over.

This is the sense I get from Eccl. 2. We have seen the glossy, grand rendition of Solomon's reign throughout the Bible. But now, we get to see that it is not quite like it was portrayed. Fascinating.

It makes me think of the Christmas and New Year's letters we have received over the last month. Our friends and relatives appear to live quite grand lives. Overseas trips, high-achieving children ... You know how these letters go; we all send them out. Each one reads like an application for the Nobel Prize for family life. But, what would the letters really say if they were written as honestly as Ecclesiastes 2? Why are the things mentioned in these letters seldom the things that are mentioned by friends and family at a funeral?

What would your Christmas / New Year's letter to friends and family say if you could honestly relate what had and had not worked in your life? Would some of your year's biggest 'achievements' also be listed as your biggest disappointments? What would that kind of honesty mean to children and young people who are shaping their view of success after the 'official' version of our lives instead of the 'behind the scenes' version?

Lord, enable us to review our 'greatest achievements' with the same honesty that Solomon displays in Ecclesiastes 2.

Nothing New Under the Sun

2007-01-12T15:35:00.000-05:00

Can an atheist get insurance against acts of God?

The Rise and Fall of the House of Solomon

2007-01-02T18:11:00.000-05:00

Wow. We start the year studying the book of Ecclesiastes, which is 66th on my list of well-understood Canonical books. I know I've read it in the past, but the only portions of Ecclesiastes that register with me are the ones that we dip into with some regularity -- "The dead know nothing" (9:5), and "Cast your bread on the waters" (11:1). [As an aside, I noticed this week on rereading Ecclesiastes that both of these textbytes are typically quoted out of context.] And, of course, we are familiar with Chapters 3 and 12; the first (Ch 3) because its statements appeal to nihilistic, cycle-of-life rockers, and the second (Ch 12) because it appeals to preachers.

But what about the rest of it?

It reads like the pre-Prozac ravings of a sophisticate. It is certainly difficult to interpret as a serious theological or practical guide to life. For example, consider 9:1,2
I ... concluded that the righteous and the wise and what they do are in God's hands,
but no man knows whether love or hate awaits him.
All share a common destiny—the righteous and the wicked,
the good and the bad, the clean and the unclean,
those who offer sacrifices and those who do not.
As it is with the good man,
so with the sinner.

Or, consider 7:28.
I found one upright man among a thousand,
but not one upright woman among them all.

What are we going to make of this book? I guess we will find out.
But, in the meantime, can I offer the following two suggestions.

First, this book validates a human experience -- that of an intelligent seeker who stops to consider the meaning of life. If your life's search for meaning, wisdom and integrity has left you jaded, you are not alone. And God understands, in that He guided Ecclesiastes' inclusion into the Bible.

Second, knowing what doesn't provide happiness is very helpful. Consider the research process for a moment. Researchers publish studies that fail to support an hypothesis. Why? Because it tells other researchers not to bother going down that research path and to look in other more fruitful directions. Now, assume that our research objective is "the pursuit of happiness", since we currently have "life" and "liberty" fairly well in hand. Solomon has already done a bit of experimentation, and he reports back to us that the following don't result in happiness:
* Knowledge / wisdom
* Real estate development (esp. houses and vineyards)
* Pleasure-seeking
* Hard work / career advancement
* Riches
* Food and wine
* Research and writing

I dare say that some of us have tried a few of the above. This quarter we can share some of our experiences with replicating Solomon's experiments. However, I suspect that the men in our group will have to take his word about the 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11).

This study starts with context. We can't understand the book without understanding the author. Until recently I had a 'bedtime story' view of Solomon. Great guy, wisest man who ever lived. Well, that's just wrong. He lost the plot. He lost the kingdom and sowed the seeds of the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah, although for the sake of Solomon's father, David, God held off the natural consequences of Solomon's actions until after his death (1 Kings 11:34,35).

So, set aside any preconceptions you might have had about Solomon, and dive into this study as the first step to understanding one of the least understood books of the Bible.

The End of the Beginning

2006-12-26T11:31:00.000-05:00

Our study of Genesis comes to an end this week, with our study spanning from Gen 41:41, "Pharaoh said unto Joseph, See, I have set thee over all the land of Egypt"
through to the end of Genesis, "So Joseph died, being an hundred and ten years old".

In addition to continuing to study the life of Israel's sons, it is valuable this week to consider what we make of our quarter's study. What are the recurring themes? What have we learned? What application is there to our lives? And, what difference will it make to us?

To assist us in reviewing the quarter, I have copied below what I wrote at the beginning of the quarter. Take a moment to read the excerpt right at the end from Oakwood.

This is the first week of a new and exciting quarter of Bible studies,
Genesis: Creation and Redemption.

The studies are based on material written by Arthur Ferch, a Theology professor at the Adventist Seminary "down under", Avondale College. After this overview, the lessons proceed through Genesis, from creation, perfection, rebellion, violence, new beginnings, and a covenant with an individual and, eventually, with a people chosen of God.

I recently gave a Bible to a past colleague of mine who has an interest in reading the great books of human civilization. He read through Genesis, and then came back to me in total disbelief that a book full of unbelievable stories and the most torrid of human interactions can possibly be the foundation of Jewish and Christian belief. "I must be missing something", he said. And we then talked about what Genesis really says to us, once we look beyond the murder, rape, incest, sodomy, deception, child sacrifice, and the all-round dysfunctional families that populate the book's chapters. This same discussion -- what Genesis really says to us -- will be our conversation for the rest of this year.

While we have studied portions of Genesis several times recently (particularly Gen 1-3), I do hope that we can come to the book of Genesis with a fresh perspective, and ask ourselves why this book is so central to Christianity and Judaism?

Let's begin by seeking to read through the 50 chapters of Genesis. It does not take very long. And, have a look through the first study, 'Foundations', this week. The complete lesson series can be obtained from http://ssnet.org/qrtrly/adult-lessons.html

As a way of getting us thinking about the importance of Genesis to Christian thought, I have included an excerpt below. You might also find the more complete article interesting.

http://www.oakwood.edu/ocgoldmine/sdoc/27fb/chapter_6.htm

Let's commit ourselves to excellence in our prayerful, reflective study this quarter, and be blessed as a consequence, both individually and as a group.

Faith and Reason

2006-12-21T08:52:00.000-05:00

I want to draw your attention to a growing debate that seeks to equate Christian belief with irrationality or worse -- fundamentalist predispositions toward violence and oppression.

Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist, atheist, secular humanist and sceptic defines the virtue of faith as "belief without evidence". Author of "The God Delusion", he describes the God of the Bible as racist, petty and vindictive, a genocidal bully, and a control freak. Has Richard Dawkins defined your faith correctly? Is he being more honest with the Biblical evidence regarding God's character than we are? If not, how would we respond to Richard Dawkins? Interestingly, in a recent interview, he stated that "Darwin has answered all our questions about existence", which I thought was a rather brave position.

The second thing is an Op-ed in today's New York Times by a professor at Williams College. Again, he is describing Christian or religious belief as irrational and oppressive. As an aside, he provides an interesting insight into academic thought with the following statement; "For years, I have begun my classes by telling students that if they are not more confused and uncertain at the end of the course than they were at the beginning, I will have failed."

It is good to understand current debate so as to participate in it and respond as appropriate.

Op-Ed Contributor
The Devoted Student
By MARK C. TAYLOR

Published: December 21, 2006

MORE college students seem to be practicing traditional forms of religion today than at any time in my 30 years of teaching.

At first glance, the flourishing of religion on campuses seems to reverse trends long criticized by conservatives under the rubric of “political correctness.” But, in truth, something else is occurring. Once again, right and left have become mirror images of each other; religious correctness is simply the latest version of political correctness. Indeed, it seems the more religious students become, the less willing they are to engage in critical reflection about faith.

The chilling effect of these attitudes was brought home to me two years ago when an administrator at a university where I was then teaching called me into his office. A student had claimed that I had attacked his faith because I had urged him to consider whether Nietzsche’s analysis of religion undermines belief in absolutes. The administrator insisted that I apologize to the student. (I refused.)

My experience was not unique. Today, professors invite harassment or worse by including “unacceptable” books on their syllabuses or by studying religious ideas and practices in ways deemed improper by religiously correct students.

Distinguished scholars at several major universities in the United States have been condemned, even subjected to death threats, for proposing psychological, sociological or anthropological interpretations of religious texts in their classes and published writings. In the most egregious cases, defenders of the faith insist that only true believers are qualified to teach their religious tradition.

At a time when colleges and universities engage in huge capital campaigns and are obsessed with public relations, faculty members can no longer be confident they will remain free to pose the questions that urgently need to be asked.

For years, I have begun my classes by telling students that if they are not more confused and uncertain at the end of the course than they were at the beginning, I will have failed. A growing number of religiously correct students consider this challenge a direct assault on their faith. Yet the task of thinking and teaching, especially in an age of emergent fundamentalisms, is to cultivate a faith in doubt that calls into question every certainty.

Any responsible curriculum for the study of religion in the 21st century must be guided by two basic principles: first, a clear distinction between the study and the practice of religion, and second, an expansive understanding of what religion is and of the manifold roles it plays in life. The aim of critical analysis is not to pass judgment on religious beliefs and practices — though some secular dogmatists wrongly cross that line — but to examine the conditions necessary for their formation and to consider the many functions they serve.

It is also important to explore the similarities and differences between and among various religions. Religious traditions are not fixed and monolithic; they are networks of symbols, myths and rituals, which evolve over time by adapting to changing circumstances. If we fail to appreciate the complexity and diversity within, and among, religious traditions, we will overlook the fact that people from different traditions often share more with one another than they do with many members of their own tradition.

If chauvinistic believers develop deeper analyses of religion, they might begin to see in themselves what they criticize in others. In an era that thrives on both religious and political polarization, this is an important lesson to learn — one that extends well beyond the academy.

Since religion is often most influential where it is least obvious, it is imperative to examine both its manifest and latent dimensions. As defenders of a faith become more reflective about their own beliefs, they begin to understand that religion can serve not only to provide answers that render life more secure but also to prepare them for life’s unavoidable complexities and uncertainties.

Until recently, many influential analysts argued that religion, a vestige of an earlier stage of human development, would wither away as people became more sophisticated and rational. Obviously, things have not turned out that way. Indeed, the 21st century will be dominated by religion in ways that were inconceivable just a few years ago. Religious conflict will be less a matter of struggles between belief and unbelief than of clashes between believers who make room for doubt and those who do not.

The warning signs are clear: unless we establish a genuine dialogue within and among all kinds of belief, ranging from religious fundamentalism to secular dogmatism, the conflicts of the future will probably be even more deadly.

Mark C. Taylor, a religion and humanities professor at Williams College, is the author of “Mystic Bones.”

From Prison Cell to Palace

2006-12-18T17:20:00.000-05:00

This study skips over chapters 34, 35, and 36 of Genesis, presumably on the basis of Paul's admonition to the Philippians (Phil. 4:8). While our study focuses on Genesis 37 through 41, I recommend reading straight through from chapter 34 to 41. You won't encounter anything in the earlier chapters that is any harder to stomach than that contained in the latter chapters -- and you will have Jesus' complete family history.

It is intriguing to note that a lot can happen in a person's life during the time that they think they are about to die. Recall that chapter 27 opens with Isaac feeling close to death, weak and blind. Yet, it is nine chapters and many decades later that the twins bury their father.

But this week is the story of Joseph, not Isaac or Israel. Joseph's reversals of 'fortune' (favored son to family reject, and slave to ruler) were unparalleled in history, and yet it is nothing compared with:
(a) Jesus' condescension several thousand years ago (Phil. 2:5-11), and
(b) what God has planned for us (Rev. 21:3,4; 22:3-5).

Join me in digging down into one of the Western world's most widely known stories. I look forward to us sharing our insights.

Jacob Becomes Israel

2006-12-11T09:12:00.000-05:00

This week our study is on Genesis 29 through 33. Our discussion could focus on Genesis 32, where Jacob's name is changed because he 'struggled with God and with men and overcame.' This struggle is often linked with the great distress of end times mentioned in Daniel 12:1 and Matt 24:21, presumably because of Jeremiah 30 (esp. v. 7). You might like to give special thought to Jacob's struggle and what, if anything, it has to do with the eschatology of Daniel and John, in the Revelation of Jesus Christ. If you google "Jacob's time of trouble", you will see that the Zionist portion of the Christian world is fascinated with the political troubles facing the nation of Israel (Jacob) as the end-time analog of Genesis 32. What do you think of these widespread interpretations?

Of course, focus may well change as study progresses this week. Regardless, expect something engaging and challenging.

Good Article in Adventist Review Online

2006-12-09T19:20:00.000-05:00

This is an article worth reading, and re-reading. It has implications for our group and its role within the wider fellowship. My vision (and that of others who seek to shape what the Study Group is) is that to be part of our group is to participate in a transformative process that touches us personally, as opposed to 'consuming' another form of Christian ministry. Have a read of this article and let me know whether you share this vision.

http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=857

The end of 2006 is a good time to ask ourselves some questions regarding transformation. As a member of the Bible Study Group,
(a) do we have a deeper understanding of God's word than we did at the beginning of the year?
(b) are you more strongly drawn to God than you were at the beginning of the year?

An excerpt from the article to raise your interest.

"Generally speaking, what today’s Church is doing isn’t working," claims John White, a house church coach in Denver. "According to recent Barna statistics, during the last 50 years there has been more Christian activity than any time in history, and yet the church’s impact on the culture and quality of discipleship in the churches has continually declined. There are certainly exceptions, but overall, the system is broken."

So why is the house church model a potentially better solution for impacting the culture? For Brad Cecil, a pastor of Axxess, network of house churches in Fort Worth, Texas, that question can be answered in one word: transformation.

"Transformation is a slow, steady process that occurs as we share life with people, and a house church environment is much more conducive to this phenomenon," said Cecil. "Many churches celebrate the idea that people show up and consume their sermons, songs and ministries. But consumption is not transformative! I don’t think much transformation is occurring in many churches today—just a lot of activity."

The Price of Duplicity

2006-12-06T09:10:00.000-05:00

This week we study the deception and estrangement in the households of Isaac and Jacob - Genesis 25:19 through chapter 29. For those of us who may have experienced deception and estrangement within their own family, it is amazing and reassuring to consider that God worked through this family to bring an end to sin, suffering and death.

It is interesting to note that this family's estrangement arose out of Rebekah's desire to see the will of God exercised in the life of her family. But, as with the generation before, seeking to do God's will using human power and intellect results in alienation and pain for generations to come.

As always, we see patterns of the controversy between good and evil. Note the following comment by Matthew Henry (1662 - 1714).

"This struggle between Jacob and Esau in the womb represents the struggle that is maintained between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan:
(1) In the world.
The seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent have been contending ever since (Gen 3:15), and this has occasioned a constant uneasiness among men. ...
(2) In the hearts of believers.
No sooner is Christ formed in the soul than immediately there begins a conflict between the flesh and spirit, Gal 5:17. The stream is not turned without a mighty struggle, which yet ought not to discourage us. It is better to have a conflict with sin than tamely to submit to it."

The Triumph of Faith

2006-11-27T08:08:00.000-05:00

This week we are studying Genesis 20 through to Abraham's death, recorded in Genesis 25:10. We observe Abraham and Sarah getting on with life amongst those who did not know God while also living within a covenant relationship with God. We see them displaying doubt and faith, accommodating themselves to (covenanting with?) the reality of neighbors outside of a covenant with God, and experiencing intra-family conflict of their own making. We see Abraham dealing with the death of his wife and seeking a marriage partner for their son.

As we read of Abraham we are drawn to parallels between:
(a) Abraham dealing with daily life while awaiting the full reality of a covenant fulfilled; and
(b) Us dealing with life, death, faith, fear, conflict, contracting, transacting, marriage, and family estrangement, while awaiting a transcendant reality of open, unending communication and friendship with God.

What, if anything, do we learn from Abraham and Sarah? What do we learn about God?

In the middle of the relatively mundane, Abraham is asked by God to sacrifice his "only son" as a burnt offering. There is much to ponder in this story alone. Clearly, Isaac was not his "only son" since we have just observed God covenanting with Hagar in the previous chapter -- "I will make Ishmael into a great nation". And, we know that God finds child sacrifice to be an abomination (Deut 12:30,31) and that he instructs "Thou shalt not kill".

The story is presented fairly straightforwardly as a test from God that Abraham actually passes. And most sermons and children's books on this story remain at this level of understanding. While this is clearly a correct understanding of the story (Heb 11:17-19), I would encourage you to grapple with this story a little this week and dare to think more expansively about it.

Advanced study: If you have time, look at the parallels between the life of Hagar and that of Moses. We have previously noted parallels between Moses and Christ, but the more you look in the Old Testament, the more you find themes that point our minds to Christ. Here's a place to start -- there is a lot of wandering in the wilderness/desert in the Bible, and Hagar does some wandering in Chapter 20.

Faith and Frailty

2006-11-20T15:19:00.000-05:00

This week we are studying Genesis 16 through 19, which covers
* Abram and Sarai
("This is your fault")
* Sarai and Hagar
("Do with her whatever you think best")
* Covenant restated
(Circumcision and the changing of names)
* Abraham entertains angels unawares
(Heb 13:2)
* Bargaining with God
(Reminds us of Moses -- do we really care more about humanity than God does?)
* Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
(No questions there -- all very straightforward)
* Lot's daughters attempt to maintain the family line
(Can grape juice do that?)

Each story is fascinating, giving rise to many threads of thought and discussion.

The Man Abraham

2006-11-13T14:40:00.000-05:00

Context is an important part of our study style. Last time we studied Abraham it was in the context of the preceding and subsequent covenants that God made with His people. This time as we study Genesis 11:27 through chapter 15, our context is the Genesis account of creation, the fall, the flood, and the Tower of Babel. When we read God's promise to Abram in Genesis 12:2,

I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you;
I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing.

we cannot help but notice that it follows God's specific intervention in human history in response to the men who settled in Babylon. Genesis 11:4,

Come, let us build ourselves a city,
with a tower that reaches to the heavens,
so that we may make a name for ourselves.

In subsequent studies we will read that Abraham will become a great 'name'. Genesis 17:5,6,

your name will be Abraham,
for I have made you a father of many nations.
I will make you very fruitful;
I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you.

As we read through Genesis we cannot help but notice that in one chapter God intervenes to thwart human name-building, and in the next chapter God intervenes to establish a human 'name'. Perhaps the juxtaposing of these two Divine interventions is intentional? Maybe it provides a lesson or two in the principles of the Kingdom of Heaven?

The Earth After the Flood

2006-11-06T17:16:00.000-05:00

We continue our discussion of Noah and the Flood, focusing on the second half of the story -- restoration.

Ty Gibson is leading a seminar series in Auckland this week. Last night he spoke on Lucifer and his fall, providing insights into the nature of sin. Over 100 people attended the Monday night meeting in a society where few people show up to church once a week!

Ty's talk made me think of something related to our study this week. Briefly, Ty observed that Lucifer's sin had its origins in replicating what he believed to be the character of God. He believed that God was a glory-seeker, and sought to elevate Himself by seeking His own interests over those of others. He rejected the principle of the 'Kingdom of Heaven' that greatness is found in servanthood.

In the light of these observations, it is interesting to re-read the first part of Genesis 11, where a casual reading might leave us with the impression that God came down to Earth, observed humanity trying to elevate itself, and decided that he had better handicap them before they became his rivals. The very real question raised is whether God sought to maintain His superiority by thwarting human endeavour (note NZ spelling)?

Speaking personally, I think my own answer to the above question comes from asking another question - - In my own experience, when I invite God's guidance and participation in my life, does He seek to thwart or empower my human endeavour?

Destruction and Renewal

2006-10-30T12:20:00.000-05:00

After spending four weeks studying two chapters, this week we study four chapters;
Genesis 6 thru 9.

Jack Miles, in his Pulitzer-winning book, God: A Biography, observes (or infers) a lot about God's character in the Flood account. He notes that the story that precedes the Flood account is that of Cain slaying Abel, where in Gen 4:10,11, God says that his brother's blood cries out from the ground, and that Cain is now under a curse. He also notes that following the Flood account, in Gen 9:6, God states that he will hold Noah and his descendants accountable for the destruction of human life and for the shedding of human blood. Thus, God's wholesale destruction of human life is bookended by His prohibition of human bloodshed.

Miles concludes that, "a human being engaged in either destruction or creation becomes his rival". p.45. "Destruction is forbidden because God is a destroyer as well as a creator".

Miles also observes that following the flood, "the Lord has to be seduced out of a recurrence of his rage by the scent of Noah's offering."

In short, this scholar of our times (a former Jesuit scholar, with a PhD in Near-Eastern Languages from Harvard University) doesn't think that God comes out of these chapters looking too good. What do you think? If you were determining God's biography (and portions of Revelation suggest that we will be), what thesis would you present? Would you really be interested in being part of His administration for eternity? (Rev 22:5).

These are important questions that are worthy of more than cursory thought.

The Early Earth

2006-10-19T16:35:00.000-04:00

I thought we would try something new -- following the study guide. So, we will discuss Genesis 2. I believe that we could study and discuss this chapter once a quarter and still get something new out of it each time.

I'd like to focus on what this chapter tells us about the life God intended for us. Compare your current life in the so-called "real world" with this brief picture of life as God conceived of it for us. What are the similarities? What are the differences?

A common sermon illustration is that bank tellers are taught to recognize counterfeit money by focusing on authentic money, not evaluating the counterfeit. Perhaps the key to walking with God is to focus on God's created paradise rather than analyzing the counterfeit life we call the "real world"?

So, with that in mind, lets revisit Genesis 2 this week.

In the Beginning

2006-10-10T13:05:00.000-04:00

This study focuses on what the Bible says about the origin of humanity and the stellar neighborhood in which humans find themselves. I do hope you enjoy the study.

In this discussion, I would like us to continue through the Books of Genesis, identifying for each chapter of Genesis:
(a) portions of Genesis that form the basis for understanding some other portion of scripture, particularly that of the New Testament.
(b) messages that form the foundation of Christian thought and life.

So, in preparation for our discussion, please continue to read through Genesis and identify "foundations" in Genesis, of the two types noted above.

I believe that this is what we have thus far:

Genesis 1
* Matthew 1, Genealogy, Genesis is foundation of New Testament
* John 1, Jesus, Creator becomes part of His creation
* Psalms in general. Psalm 8 and 136 in particular
* Heb 11:3
* Man is not preexistent
* God is preexistent
* Evil did not always exist
* 1:28 Foundation for Human dominion of the Earth
* 1:29 Foundation for Vegetarian diet

Genesis 2
* Matt 19:3-8
* 2:4 Foundation for work as a perfect blessing (not a consequence of sin)
* 2:24,25 Foundation for marriage as part of God's created perfection

Genesis 3
* Rev 12:9
* 2 Cor 11:3
* Phil 2:5 onwards
* 3:1 Satan is active in the World (c/f Job 1:7, 2:1)
* 3:8 God wants to interact with us
* 3:9 God seeks us
* 3:23 God appears to use force sometimes

Genesis 4
* Heb 11:4
* 4:8 It is a short distance from perfection to murder
* 4:9 God seeks us
* 4:12 "restless wanderer" Curse or consequence?
* 4:15 God protects those who rebel against him
* 4:19 From monogamy to polygamy
* 4:24 Foundation of human retribution (c/f Matt 18:21,22)
* 4:26 Foundation of dichotomy; (a) God-reliance v. (b) Self-reliance

Beginnings and Belongings

2006-10-02T20:24:00.000-04:00

This is the first of a new and exciting series of Bible studies,
Genesis: Creation and Redemption.

The studies are based on material written by Arthur Ferch, a Theology professor at the Adventist Seminary "down under", Avondale College. After this overview, the lessons proceed through Genesis, from creation, perfection, rebellion, violence, new beginnings, and a covenant with an individual and, eventually, with a people chosen of God.

I recently gave a Bible to a past colleague of mine who has an interest in reading the great books of human civilization. He read through Genesis, and then came back to me in total disbelief that a book full of unbelievable stories and the most torrid of human interactions can possibly be the foundation of Jewish and Christian belief. "I must be missing something", he said. And we then talked about what Genesis really says to us, once we look beyond the murder, rape, incest, sodomy, deception, child sacrifice, and the all-round dysfunctional families that populate the book's chapters. This same discussion -- what Genesis really says to us -- will be our conversation for the rest of this year.

While we have studied portions of Genesis several times recently (particularly Gen 1-3), I do hope that we can come to the book of Genesis with a fresh perspective, and ask ourselves why this book is so central to Christianity and Judaism?

Let's begin by seeking to read through the 50 chapters of Genesis. It does not take very long. And, have a look through the first study, 'Foundations', this week. The complete lesson series can be obtained from http://ssnet.org/qrtrly/adult-lessons.html

As a way of getting us thinking about the importance of Genesis to Christian thought, I have included an excerpt below. You might also find the more complete article interesting.
http://www.oakwood.edu/ocgoldmine/sdoc/27fb/chapter_6.htm

Let's commit ourselves to excellence in our prayerful, reflective study this quarter, and be blessed as a consequence, both individually and as a group.

Daniel 9

2006-07-31T14:43:00.000-04:00

This week's study builds on our study of Daniel 8 last week, and then the next two dig into the same material regarding the time prophecy of Daniel 8 and 9. It is exciting material, in that Daniel is told that it will not be understood until the last days. So, it is entirely possible that as we study and pray as a group, we will gain new insight into this prophecy.

BTW, you may remember that our group studied Daniel's prayer (first half of Daniel 9) relatively recently. This week the focus is on the second half. It is also intriguing to consider why Daniel's prayer is stuck in the middle of Gabriel's explanation of the Daniel 8 vision. I have often thought that the book of Daniel is a bit disorganized -- like he needed a good book editor. But, perhaps there is a lot more in the order than might be first apparent? For example, perhaps the stories of God's people being true to His principles and being elevated from slavery to the royal court represent a personal application of what the visions represent on a national and international level?

Do Not Worry

2006-06-13T07:20:00.000-04:00

Jesus provides us with this challenging admonition in Matthew 6:25; "... do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear." Those of us who are worriers know just how unhelpful it is for someone to say to us, “don't worry”.

Earlier this year, several of us read and discussed the Sermon on the Mount. We puzzled together over Jesus' admonition in Matthew 6:25, and why it is that Jesus would say something that appears to be an unhelpful platitude, at least in the modern world. Jim Huzzey, a professor at Newbold College suggests that the answer lies with the context of Jesus' statement ... "THEREFORE, I I tell you, do not worry ...". Jesus is building on the admonition he has just provided in verses 19 through 24; following that advice is the key to not worrying.

Fellow worriers, I hope you are uplifted by this week's study.