Christian Beta

Stewardship

2012-01-15T21:00:00.000-08:00

It’s January. A time when the Christmas bills come in and you start thinking about putting together all that paperwork for your income taxes. All that thinking about finances suggests an obvious study theme: stewardship. In fact, asked my wife what she wanted to study at our family altar and that is exactly what she suggested.

I’ve seen a lot of studies on stewardship. They tend to focus on managing our time and our finances. The Bible itself has some important things to say about the subject, but one thing I noticed in prepping the lesson is that when the Bible talks about stewardship it isn’t talking about time or money.

To start, it might help to understand what a steward is. A steward is someone in charge of, or responsible for, the property of another. It’s not about taking care of yourself or your own interests. Paul wrote to the Corinthian church saying, “This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found faithful (1 Corinthians 4:1-2).” And what is this mystery that we are stewards of? It is the knowledge of the grace of God and the good news of Christ’s victory over death and sin.

A steward is to found faithful and prepared to do the work of his master (Luke 12:35-48). He is to be bold, confident. In the “Parable of the Talents” (Luke 19:12-27, Matthew 25:14-30) the steward who failed was the one who acted fearfully. Take care of your money. If your creditors have rule over you, you’ll have no peace. Take care of your time. Our generation seems uniquely unable to manage their day. But if you’re wondering about stewardship and what the Bible expects of you ask yourself, what have I done with the grace entrusted to me? What have I done with the gospel entrusted to me? What have I done for the kingdom?

Looking Ahead

2011-12-30T06:14:00.000-08:00

Two thousand and eleven is almost behind us and a new year is about to begin. Normally one year turns into the next and if it weren't for calendars and the lengthening days we'd be none the wiser. Next year, however, promises to be a truly new year. The church that I am a member of is merging with another church. There are some organizational differences, nothing major, but we share the same beliefs and many of us know members of the other congregation personally. The move has almost universal support, and no one opposing it.

It will be two small churches joining together to form... Well, it'll be two very small churches joining together to form a small church, but one big enough to get some traction under it. For the last few years it has felt like we were treading water. We often got people commenting on how surprised they were that such a small church could do so much, but 'so much' took a lot out of people. Beginning with a change in ministers in the summer, we have been working to change ourselves. To ready ourselves to be the church we believe we should be. After we voted for the merger, I remembered a prayer my wife and I had joined in making last January. As the usher, I keep attendance. We prayed that our average attendance would grow by ten people in the next year. Not that ten more would be saved, would be baptized, or even become contributors in the work of the Lord here. Just that the attendance would increase by ten. When your average is less than twenty, ten is a lot. I never imagined it would happen this way, but our attendance will certainly increase by more than ten. By more than ten mature Christians, anxious to make a difference in their community.

Our first service together is this Sunday, January 1st.

Fruit Of The Grape

2011-12-18T21:12:00.000-08:00

When you docommunion, do you use wine or grape juice? A lot of churches use the latter, eventhough there is no scripture for it at all. These include all the churches I’veattended since I became a Pentecostal. Why? It’s an interesting question, andthe answer can be found in this article here.

It tracesthe practice to the 19^th century temperance movement and thepioneering work of Thomas B. Welch, founder of Welch’s Grape Juice. It alsoincludes a link to someone arguing that the practice of unfermented juice goes backto the ancients. To do this it presents us with the many means available forthe preservation of grapes, without turning them to wine. Or so it claims. Ifyou take the time to go through it, you quickly realize that many of themethods used would produce a preserve—meaning a jelly—or even raisins, not grapejuice. The author notes that fresh grape juice was called vino and then goes on to use the terms interchangeably, as thoughevery reference to wine could mean juice. But if you take the time to searchout the terms used, you’ll discover that we are still dealing with wine, notgrape juice.

The sourcesof this confusion are two-fold. One is the insistence by many churches thattheir practices be founded in Scripture. A worthy goal, but one that becomes aproblem when there is no clear link—or no link whatsoever—between theirpractices and the Scriptures. Then you have to make one, no matter how tenuous.The other is the contempt with which many early Reformers held the seven sacramentsof the Catholic Church: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist (mass or communion), Confession,Unction, Holy Orders, and Marriage. All but two were declared unscriptural, andthose two, baptism and communion, were subjected to a great deal of debate andre-interpretation. There was no consensus on these matters, though the factthat some of these were no longer seen as a sacrament did not mean they were thoughtunimportant, or outside God’s will, but the gates were opened to questions ofwhere or whether these things fit into God’s plans for His people. The ThomasB. Welches of the world had no trouble redefining centuries of practiceaccording to their own values. In his case, if a little abstinence was good, awhole lot of abstinence was better. Why forbid alcohol everywhere, but the Church?

Where do Icome down on this? As the child of an alcoholic, I don’t drink and don’tencourage it, but I also recognize that mine is not a scripturally derived value.The Bible condemns drunkenness, not alcohol. The Churches I have attended douse grape juice. Communion has never been a big deal for Pentecostals. A partfrom Easter and special New Year’s services, we don’t usually celebrate it atall. And this is probably wrong of us. Every historical record I’ve seenindicates it was a big part of the early Church’s worship. A few years ago the (then)minister of our church decided to forgo communion on Easter itself. I wasn’thappy about that and decided to include it in our family altar that week. Thesame thing happened that next year. After that I decided to make it a part ofour family devotions. We don’t do it once a week, as some churches do, but weare doing it on a roughly quarterly basis. At least four times a year, inaddition to whatever is done at church. And, yes, I do use actual red wine athome. Why? Because that’s what the early church did.

Fear Not

2011-12-12T07:00:00.000-08:00

I onceheard that the words “fear not” occur 365 times in the Bible, once for everyday of the year. I don’t know if that’s true, but it wouldn’t hurt. I like tothink of myself as someone who considers every contingency, but sometimes Ineed to be honest enough with myself to admit I worry a lot.

Just thispast week I had a major decision to make, but I needed the support of a few othersto make it happen. I knew I had the support, that they would ultimately agreewith me, but I didn’t know when they’d be willing to move ahead on the matter. Wouldit happen this month or next? Next month would be a nuisance, but the endresult would be exactly the same. Instead of being assured the right thingwould happen, I began to worry about the details and let that worry become myfocus. When we sat down to make our decision, however, even though there weredifferences of opinion, everyone agree to settle the matter sooner, rather thanlater, and all that time I spent ‘considering contingencies’ was just time Irobbed myself of for no reason at all.

Understanding Scripture

2011-12-03T21:41:00.000-08:00

This last month I’ve been trying to make at least one blogpost a week and last week’s was certainly a success, prompting an ongoingdiscussion with someone calling himself SLP2. For this week’s post I want topick up on an element of that discussion, the Bible in translation. How far cana person’s understanding of scripture go if you don’t know the originallanguages?

This question arose because of a complaint I made regardingsomething I admit I am having less and less patience with: attempts to explainaway troublesome verses--scriptures that don’t gel with a doctrinal point--byappealing to the original Greek. The implication being, if only you knew theoriginal text like I do, you’d have to agree. It’s all perfectly clear there.(And please note: none of this is meant as a swipe at SLP2. I am addressing anattitude and approach I’ve seen many times and I encourage you to read hisposts.) Now, I don’t speak Greek, but I’ve taken a couple of courses over theyears and my Greek (or, rather, my complete lack of Greek) puts me on par withmost of the people I hear this from. They’ve taken some Greek in school, theyown a lexicon, and they’ve learned to parrot arguments they have heard fromothers.
An example. On the day of Pentecost, following the death,burial, and resurrection of Jesus, the Holy Spirit was poured out and theChurch born. The sound of the disciples worshipping in tongues drew theattention of a large crowd and Peter stood up and preached to them that Jesuswas the Christ. The crowd responded by asking what they should do.

And Peter said to them, "Repentand be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for theforgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Forthe promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyonewhom the Lord our God calls to himself."

Acts 2:38-39

Now I’ve blogged on baptism before and, while most churcheshave in some way integrated into their understanding of God’s salvation plan,there are many in the Evangelical community who steadfastly refuse to. They tryto explain away this clear instruction in these verses by arguing that, in theGreek the word ‘repent’ and the word ‘your’ in ‘your sins’ are both plural andtherefor the forgiveness must only relate to repentance. The fact that he said‘repent and be baptized every one of you’ is completely glossed over.

But the issue goes beyond trying to win an argument throughpedantry. First, it is promoting a poor understanding of translation. Word forword translation between languages, even closely related ones, is often all butimpossible, but that does not mean that faithful and accurate translations areimpossible. On the contrary, if you have a skilled translator, someone with knowledgeof the culture and language, there is no reason to believe that a trustworthytranslation is beyond reach.

A second, and a more serious problem, involves afoundational principle of the Reformation: Sola Scriptura, ‘by scripturealone.’ This is the understanding that the Bible contains within it all we needto know God and to become saved, that every article of our faith should have afoundation in scripture, and that the truth revealed in scripture is availablefor everyone honestly seeking God. This is why Protestants promote Biblereading, have translated the Bible into so many languages, and have worked tomake the Bible the most widely disseminated book in human history. This doesn’tmean understanding is always going to come easily or effortlessly. Peter warnedus of the dangers of wresting the scripture to our own destruction (2 Peter3:16), but we also have the example of the church in Berea, who searched thescriptures daily to confirm the teachings of Paul (Acts 17:11). The idea thatthe truth is truly available only to those who can read the Bible in itsoriginal languages makes a mockery of this principle. One of the inspirationsfor sola scriptura in the first place was to take the Bible out of the hands ofthe clergy and give it to all. Going back and looking at the original languagesand cultures of the Bible can provide us was important insights, but if theonly way you can defend a teaching is by hauling out your lexicon perhaps theteaching needs to be reconsidered.

Going To Hell?

2011-11-25T07:09:00.001-08:00

As the Evangelical churches continue to follow in the path of their Mainstream brethren, they are starting to question the existence of Hell. Is it real? Does the Bible really teach that? Can I and my loved ones be saved when our lives are indistinguishable from those around us?
Okay, I threw that last one in there, but it’s important. What happens when a church, which has traditionally seen itself as a moral leader—the moral leader—starts taking its cues from the world around it? Doctrines of election and Hell start to become a problem. Who is saved and what happens to those who aren’t?

The traditional Reform answer follows a determinist understanding of God and the universe. Even before creation, God determined who would be saved and they cannot be unsaved. By implication the rest are unsaved, were always unsaved and cannot be saved. These days Protestants don’t make too much of this. It’s not a popular idea. It’s been said that most Protestant clergy are determinists and most Protestant laity are Arminians; that is, they believe in free will. (In Pentecostalism both our clergy and laity are Arminians.) Imagine a Venn diagram. There is one big circle and one much smaller circle. The smaller one is almost eclipsed by the larger one, but a little of it sticks out. Mark the big one U, the area of the small one within the big one H, and the part of the small one that sticks out S. The U represents the unsaved, the S saved, and the H those who think they’re saved, but aren’t. The H stands for hypocrite—though to be fair many of these are just ignorant. They earnestly believe they are doing the Lord’s work, walking the walk, but they aren’t (Matthew 7:23).

Now some may object to this characterization and I would reply that, first off, for a summation of less than 200 words, it’s not bad, even if it misses some subtleties. More importantly, it is not misleading. Arminianism sprang from the realization that the Reform view of election produced a God at great odds with the one of the New Testament. A God that condemns people to Hell for sins they had no choice but to commit. Arminianism teaches free will, not to praise human agency, but restore to us an understanding of God that loves, and died for, everyone.

If Reform Christians are uncomfortable with their determinist heritage, adopting an Arminian perspective would seem an obvious alternative. Instead, two other ideas have been popularized. One is called Eternal Security. The Classic Reform view recognized that not everyone who said they were Christian truly was, and that the truth would show itself in their lives. Sociologist Max Weber argued that the psychological unrest caused by this teaching gave rise to the Protestant work ethic. Referring you back to the mental Venn diagram you’ve drawn in you head, advocates of Eternal Security want to erase the line between the Saved and the Hypocrite. All you have to do is accept Jesus as your saviour and you’re saved. Nothing else matters. The other idea is called Universalism. Now if Reform theology teaches that if it’s not God will that any perish (2 Peter 3:9), yet people do, then God’s actual will must be that none of His elect perish and cannot but be saved. Universalism takes this idea a step further. If it’s not God’s will that any perish, then no one perishes. Human agency and the life you lead are irrelevant. There is just one big circle marked S.

The important thing here isn’t to save Hell. It is to save the scripturally based teaching that the life you lead matters. Just as Jacob Arminius realized that the Reform view of election produced a morally stained conception of God, we have to realize that in a world without consequences most people will never do more than they feel they have to. No more than what everyone else is doing. Ironically, while these teachings proclaim God’s grace, they deny its ability to transform the lives of believers. The Church is meant to be a city built on a hill, a light unto the whole world, and holiness is not meant to be something for the special few.

Gluttony

2011-11-18T07:33:00.000-08:00

If there’sone sin you never hear preached against, its gluttony. Gluttony is a lack ofself-control when it comes to appetite; particularly, when it comes to food. We’refine when it comes to attacking the works of the flesh, condemning sexualimmorality, we refrain from smoking and drinking. Our body is a temple. Butturn down that second helping? Forget about it.

Now I am askinny guy myself, though I am not as thin as I was before I remarried, but ifI told you the Bible condemned drunkenness, you wouldn’t be offended. If Ipreached self-control, you’d acknowledge the Bible has a lot to say on that. Butwhat if I told you the Bible says “to put a knife to your throat if you aregiven to appetite” (Proverbs 23:2)? Orthat the gluttonous will come to poverty (Proverbs 23:21)? Paul wrote that weare the temple of God (1 Corinthians 3:16) and that, whatever we ate or drink,it should be to the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31), but for some reason wejust won’t connect that to food.

And wereally should. God’s people are a fat people, and I don’t mean that metaphorically.For most of us fellowship means eating together. Even when we’re engaged inanother activity, there’s food on the table. I am not the only one to noticethis. Recently the New York Times profiled a program initiated by Rick Warren. Called The Daniel Plan, it focuses on healthy eating and weight loss. It’snot easy to lose weight, but if God wants us to do something, he will give us thepower to accomplish it:

No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God isfaithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with thetemptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able toendure it.

1 Corinthians 10:13

God lovesyou and wants you to live a long, healthy life. That’s not going to happen ifyou’re at risk of heart attack, or diabetes, or any of the many problems causedor exacerbated by excessive weight. But it doesn’t have to happen. Bring Godinto the picture.

Meekness

2011-11-11T20:49:00.001-08:00

I don’t know how your summer’s been, but things have been very busy at this end. My church has been going through a lot of transitions, including a new pastor, and I’ll tell you that story once the dust finally settles.In the mean time I’ve been doing some word studies and thought I’d share one with you.

Meekness. We’ve all heard of it. The meek will inherit the earth. Jesus said it Himself. In looking into the subject, I noticed something unique about this virtue: it the only one that makes writers feel apologetic. Don’t worry, they all say, being meek doesn’t mean being weak.

No one ever says humility isn’t weakness, or patience isn’t weakness. And let’s face it, when you are being meek (which means gentle, humble, lowly) people will interpret it as weakness. I can personally think of many times when people have not given me the respect they do others simply because they know I will not bite their head off. So, what’s so important about meekness? Why did Jesus say, “Blessed are they meek, for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5)?

He was quoting from Psalm 37, verse 11. It’s long, for a psalm, so I’ll only quote the first eleven verses:

Fret not yourself because of evildoers; be not envious of wrongdoers!
For they will soon fade like the grass and wither like the green herb.
Trust in the LORD, and do good; dwell in the land and befriend faithfulness.
Delight yourself in the LORD, and he will give you the desires of your heart.
Commit your way to the LORD; trust in him, and he will act.
He will bring forth your righteousness as the light, and your justice as the noonday.
Be still before the LORD and wait patiently for him; fret not yourself over the one who prospers in his way, over the man who carries out evil devices!
Refrain from anger, and forsake wrath! Fret not yourself; it tends only to evil.
For the evildoers shall be cut off, but those who wait for the LORD shall inherit the land.
In just a little while, the wicked will be no more; though you look carefully at his place, he will not be there.
But the meek shall inherit the land and delight themselves in abundant peace.

That’s the English Standard Version. In the King James the last verse reads:

But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.

It goes on for forty verses, but the point is made: trust God, do right, He will take care of the wicked. And that’s what a meek man does, he trusts the process: God said it, I believe it. It’s not always easy. Circumstances and people, outside the Church and inside the Church, will goad you. It can take a lot out of you, being meek, but there are rewards beyond a promised inheritance. The meek are promised salvation (Psalm 76:9, 149:4), renewal (Isaiah 29:19), and protection from the wrath of God (Zephaniah 2:3).

Meekness is listed as a fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:23. The fruit are Christ-like, God-like, attributes that are to grow in our lives. How is God meek? In every exercise of His mercy towards us. Of His patience. He believes in the process, that the victory of Calvary is sufficient for us, and that we will avail ourselves of it if He only gives us the chance (2 Peter 3:9). He knows there is evil all around us, and that even those who serve Him and profess Him sin, but He doesn’t let that define the situation. His meekness is seen when He believes in us, and ours is seen when we believe in Him.

Rapture Ready

2011-06-01T06:21:00.000-07:00

Its been far too long since I've last posted here and today's post is, I admit, something of a cheat. It was actually written for my other blog. Truth is, I am not blogging very much at all anymore, so when I had a post I thought relevant to both blogs, I decided to share it on both. I hope you enjoy.

Still here? Me too. As everyone knows, the end of the world came and went on the 21st of May. Harold Camping, a television minister who preaches a numerological based form of end time prophesy, had predicted that at 6 p.m., in each consecutive time zone, God’s judgment would begin with earthquakes and the righteous being “raptured” to meet the Lord. In the thirty years since I’ve become a Christian I’ve run into these ideas before, though never one that generated as much media interest, and never one that has generated as much contempt—not just within the groups that you’d expect, but within the Christian community as well.

But for all the attention Camping drew to the idea the God was going to ‘rapture’ His people away, there was little discussion of what exactly is meant by the concept. There was even less discussion of how it is actually a new teaching—one unheard of before the mid-nineteenth century, when it was promoted by an Irish clergyman named John Nelson Darby. Darby’s teaching, collectively called Dispensationalism, would later form the basis of the Schofield Study Bible (1909), which would promote it throughout the US and UK. A distinctive feature of Dispensationalist eschatology, the study of the end times, is the idea that the Church will ascend to meet Jesus in the air before His actual return to set up an earthly kingdom. A lot of terrible things will precede Christ’s return, but Darby taught that the Church would not have to suffer through them. Christ would take His people safely out first. In spite of efforts by its advocates to prove otherwise, no one taught this doctrine before the rise of Dispensationalism.

Eschatology has always been an important part of Christianity. Arguably Christianity itself grew out of Jewish eschatology and the expectation that the Messiah was coming and that he would bring justice for his people and peace on earth. When the Messiah did come (hey, I am a Christian after all), things didn’t quite meet their expectations. He came, sure, but instead of setting up an earthly kingdom He set up a spiritual one. He was crucified, buried, resurrected, and ascended into Heaven, promising to come again and bring about the sort of triumphant new world the Jews had been expecting in the first place. The first generation of Christians fully expected to see this happen in their lifetime. When some of them died without seeing it, others began to worry. Paul wrote to believers in Thessalonica:

But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.

1 Thessalonians 4:13-17

And in the next chapter he wrote:

Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers, you have no need to have anything written to you. For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, "There is peace and security," then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a thief. For you are all children of light, children of the day. We are not of the night or of the darkness. So then let us not sleep, as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober. For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk, are drunk at night. But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation. For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him. Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing.

1 Thessalonians 5:1-11

While they often cite of verses as well, these two passages are the hooks on which the Dispensational idea of a separate “rapture” of the Church hang. Verse seventeen of chapter four, highlighted in the first quote, describes the Church rising to meet Jesus on His return. But what Paul is writing about is not the escape of the Church. He is addressing a concern that members of the Thessalonian church had regarding those who had died waiting for the Second Coming. Paul assures them that all of Jesus’ followers will rise to meet Him, not just those still living when it happens, and that’s how it was understood for almost the entirety of Christian history.

Verse nine of chapter five, highlighted in the second quote, is quoted to prove that the Church will not have to suffer the wrath God will pour out on the Earth before He returns, but the point Paul is making here is that the Church is meant to walk uprightly and that we should do exactly that. We were not meant for Hell, the “wrath,” but for Heaven. And, again, that’s how it was understood through most of Christian history.

When I say these interpretations were held for most of Christian history, I mean universally held. They are still held by the majority of Churches. One of the interesting things about Dispensationalism and being ‘rapture ready’ is their dominance over Christian media, particularly in the US. It’s a dominance that tends to overshadow other positions. Historically, most Americans followed the Calvinist teaching of the Puritan forefathers and were Postmillenialists, believing that the coming of the Lord would be ushered in by the evangelical work of the Church, which would create a universally Christian world and only then would Jesus come.

Being a Pentecostal, pre-tribulation Dispensationalism was one of the first things I was taught. Almost immediately I saw that the idea of the Church escaping the Great Tribulation, as its called, was inconsistent with many scriptures and I adopted what is called the “post-trib” position. This accepts the historic—and, yes, scriptural—teaching regarding the Church and the tribulation, but retains the Dispensationalist understanding of the Bible and the Church. Over time, however, due to the inconsistencies of Dispensationalism, I studied the matter out and rejected it altogether. (This was one of the first things I blogged about.) Ultimately I decided that what was more important than any of the ‘isms’ was that I be ready. That I walk as a Christian each day, living the values I profess, so that I will be ready whenever He comes. Whenever that happens.

All Or Nothing: A Short History Of Abstinence In America

2011-03-15T20:57:00.001-07:00

By Jessica Warner
McClelland & Stewart, 2008

Abstinence has been a mainstay of public debates and private discourse for two hundred years now, and in All Or Nothing: A Short History Of Abstinence In America Jessica Warner gives us a brief overview of its origins and the first century of its development.

Beginning with early attempts to curb the use of hard liquors at a time when their consumption was much higher than today, it quickly came to call for the abstention from all stimulants, including caffeine, drugs, and even spicy food. Armed with an optimistic outlook towards individual achievement and Jacksonian anti-intellectualism, the movement “had an almost morbid fear of leisure” (p. 27). It appealed to middle class Northerners, particularly those who had few vices to give up in the first place, but it made few inroads towards curbing the vices of those who did. Soon it moved from advocating moral suasion to calling on legislative solutions. It’s a pattern that continues today.

If I had a complaint about this book, it would be that its too short. Yes, it is call a short history, I know, but too much is left out or left unaddressed. Warner links the movement to Wesleyan perfectionism and the later Holiness movement, but doesn’t really explain what they were, or how their intellectual underpinnings could lead to an abstinence movement. She correctly notes that “moderation went from being a virtue to a vice” (p.37), but gives scant attention to why this shift should be so consistent and so powerful. Her discussion of the past century, the activism that effects us most today, is restricted to an eight page epilogue. Again, I know it’s a self-described short history, but as far as I know she wasn’t working under any page restrictions.

Also, she seems to be taking backhanded shots at Catholics. For example, the YMCA’s rationalization for distributing cigarettes, but not alcohol, is described as “Jesuitical.” She does this several times. Is she trying to be ironic, given views on Catholics at the time? Could it reflect views of the author? I don’t know. Its strange.

The abstinence movement is an important one and impacts us, both from the left and the right, every day. It deserves a serious, popular history. Maybe someday Warner will finish writing it.

No Christian Foster Parents

2011-03-03T10:06:00.000-08:00

Britain's High Court has ruled against a Pentecostal couple from Derby, saying that their Christian views on homosexuality made them unfit to be foster parents. Its important to note that no one at any time has accused the Johns of actually discriminating against anyone. Indeed, a 2008 assessment of the couple, who had been foster parents since the 1990s, described them as “well-meaning... kind and hospitable people who would always do their best to make a child welcome and comfortable”. But the same assessment quizzed them on their beliefs about homosexuality and based on their answers it was decided that they should not be allowed to continue caring for foster children, ages 5-8.

Again, its important to reiterate that the Johns have not discriminated against anyone, nor have they been accused to discriminating against anyone. Theirs was a thought crime.

Christian Lawmaker Murdered In Pakistan

2011-03-02T06:01:00.000-08:00

Anti-Christian violence continues in the Islamic world:

A leading Pakistani Christian lawmaker who had campaigned for reform of the country’s blasphemy laws was shot dead on Wednesday, adding to concerns the government is unwilling or unable to check Islamic extremism...

Someone asked me yesterday where I stood on the Tribulation. I think its far easier to believe we're in it, than on the eve of it.

The Bible Storybook

2011-01-14T11:32:00.000-08:00

Comics illustrator Ovi Nedelcu has started a new blog, where he is telling the stories of the Bible. I'm afraid I don't know anything about the guy, but his work looks interesting and is worth checking out.

(Click on the image to enlarge it.)

Christian lambs left to slaughter

2011-01-07T06:25:00.000-08:00

The Sydney Morning Herald has an interesting analysis of on the recent anti-Christian violence in the Middle East.

Happy New Year

2011-01-01T11:04:00.000-08:00

January the first. Again. I'm not going to be making any resolutions, but I am going to try blog more consistently in the coming year. Twenty-ten wasn't a great year, so much of it seemed to be spent struggling just to stay in place, but I am going into this new year feeling optimistic.

I had hoped to put up a video from this year's Christmas pageant, but my wife taped the entire thing and its just too long to load up. I intend to cut out just a couple of minutes, but my efforts to date have been less than successful. Program compatibility problems, etc. I have a friend who'll do it, but his brother just died, so I'm not about to bother him with it right now.

At home here we've had a great success with our family altar. With my wife and I working different shifts, its not easy to schedule anything, but lately we've been very consistent and I feel we're laying a solid foundation.

I do intend to go forward with the Matthew study soon. I am actually doing another study right now. That's just like me. Start a million things and, hopefully, finish one or two. That's something else I need to work on this year.

And, of course, I will continue to post links to news items. Here's a couple from this weekend: A car bomb went off outside an Egyptian church today, killing 21, wounding dozens, and in Pakistan Islamist parties rallied to support blasphemy laws used to discriminate against religious minorities.

The Exorcists Return

2010-11-13T20:56:00.001-08:00

The Catholic Church's attempts to push back at Vatican II are taking some strange turns. According to the New York Times, a conference of American bishops, held this week in Baltimore, was focused on properly identifying the demonic and when an exorcist is needed.

Death Toll Rises

2010-11-01T18:48:00.000-07:00

The number of dead in the Our Lady of Salvation Church massacre has risen to 58. It is the single worse attack on the country's Chirstian minority since the American invasion.

Attack In Iraq

2010-10-31T16:12:00.000-07:00

At least ten Chaldean Christians, including a priest, and almost as many Iraqi police and soldiers, were killed by terrorists today. Early reports are that the attackers were not Iraqis. Since the American invasion attacks on Iraqi Christians have caused most of the community to flee.

The Five Fold Ministry

2010-09-10T20:17:00.000-07:00

I've just finished The House Church by Wolfgang Simson. An interesting book. He doesn't make a lot of jokes, but he does make this humorous analogy on p. 64:

For a hands-on picture, let us compare the fivefold ministry to the five fingers of the hand. The apostle is the thumb; he gives stability, holds the counterbalance, and can literally touch all the other fingers. The prophet is the index finger; he points at you and says, “You are the man (or woman)!” The evangelist the middle finger, the longest of all, sticking farthest out into the world. The ring finger resembles the pastor/shepherd, caring for internal relationships. The little finger is the teacher; he can worm his way deep into any ear, and there share the truth of the gospel.

Religiosity and Riches

2010-09-04T12:07:00.000-07:00

Click on the image to see it in its entirety.

This was taken from a New York Times article, Religious Outlier, by Charles M. Blow. He is discussing a Gallup poll correlating religion and wealth.

House Churches

2010-08-08T14:23:00.000-07:00

About five weeks ago I posted about the end of my 1,000 days and how some things were still playing out. One of those things was house churches. Meeting in small groups at home, instead of in church buildings. This is becoming more common--common enough to be considered a movement--but as nudged towards it as I felt, I did nothing. My church isn't a house church and I don't feel led to start up a house church of my own. This month our Pastor decided to move of mid-week Bible study out of our fellowship hall and into our homes. Interesting...

Its still very much a work in progress and he doesn't know yet whether we'll continue into the fall, but I want to get all I can from the experience while it is available to be had.

A Quote For The Day

2010-08-08T14:21:00.000-07:00

“When the church wins the culture wars, it inevitably loses. When it conquers the world, it becomes the world. When you put your trust in the sword, you lose the cross.”

Rev. Gregory A. Boyd
Woodland Hills Church
MAPLEWOOD, Minn.

Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities

2010-08-02T10:27:00.001-07:00

By Roger E. Olson
Published byInterVarsity Press, 2006

Roger E. Olson grew up in a Pentecostal household and has always been an Arminian. Surrounded by Pentecostals, most of the people he knew were also Arminians and so he never felt the need to question or defend the teaching until he got out into the broader Evangelical world. There he ran into Calvinism. I wrote earlier about the Evangelical tendency to avoid doctrinal debate through slander and disinformation. Olson, who is seeking a rapprochement with Calvinists, would never be so blunt, and puts down these ‘myths’ to misunderstandings and ignorance. Perhaps that’s fair. Certainly as these myths circulate, they get repeated by people who have no reason not to take them at face value, but if you’re going to expound on a subject, then you owe to yourself and those you are teaching to learn the truth.

Here Olson’s book provides a solid foundation. He addresses ten common misconceptions about Arminianism, contrasting it with Calvinism. For example, ‘Myth Four: The Heart of Arminianism Is Belief in Free Will.’ When I first studied this subject, about ten years ago, it was because of an interest in free will, but that’s not what Arminius was concerned about. Calvinism teaches a God so completely in control of the world that everything that happens is an expression of His will. His grace is so effectual, that all who God wills to be saved must be saved. Arminius realized that if this were the case, then God is the author of sin and that the Fall of Man could only have happened because it was God’s will that we sin. If God determines who will be saved, He, at the same time, determines who will be damned. This, argued Arminius, was wrong and contrary to the God revealed in scripture. It is not God’s will that any perish. If some do perish, and we know that some do, then there must be some element of free will that allows us to accept or reject His will for us. Arminius was not concerned with free will, per se; he only sought to protect the character of God from what is implicitly taught by Calvinism: that God created sin and condemned people to Hell long before they were even born.

Dr. Olson’s book is both a solid introduction to Arminianism and a strong defence against much of the disinformation that has been circulated about it, but I did have a couple of problems with it. The first concerns structure. Olson wrote each chapter so that it could be read without consulting the other chapters. I understand why. I spent many years in university and it’s an environment that teaches lazy reading. You’re after information and want it as quickly and as easily as possible. But if you are reading the book from cover to cover, it is incredibly repetitive. Rather than assume you’ve read the previous chapter, he repeats points again and again. Olson warns readers of this, but it was still very trying. Another structural problem is that the headers on each page list the myth being addressed in the chapter, but not that it is a myth. Consequently, the same lazy readers the repetition is meant to serve will open the book to, for example, page 160 and see “Arminianism Is Not a Theology of Grace,” instead of “Myth 7: Arminianism Is Not a Theology of Grace.” If you are going to spoon feed information, why stop at half measures?

The second problem is more serious, but also a logical result of Olson’s intentions. Because his goal is the acceptance of Arminius’ teachings within Reform--read: High Calvinist--circles, he makes little reference to the 1500 years of Church teachings that preceded the Reformation. In reality, Arminius’ doctrines were far more in keeping with traditional Christian teachings than Calvin’s. Yes, there were determinist theological teachings before the Reformation, but where were they adopted as formal doctrinal positions? No where. But by treating Calvinism as a norm to be measured against, he creates an inverted little world in which Arminius is always on the defensive. All of the myths addressed in this book assume Calvinism is the norm. All of the Reformation first generation of leaders, Calvin included, were trained as Catholic theologians first and later rejected aspects of Catholicism they believed to be unscriptural and unchristian, but they didn’t start again from scratch. This sort of contextualization could only serve to strengthen the legitimacy of Arminianism as a traditional Christian teaching, but Olson doesn’t give it because he is seeking acceptance form people who would only hold it against him (adding an eleventh myth, that Arminianism is too Catholic or Orthodox).

These criticisms aside, Arminian Theology makes for a great introduction to the subject and I would recommend to anyone interested in the debate.

One Thousand Days Plus

2010-07-02T13:17:00.000-07:00

Last week saw the end of my one thousand days. A thousand days ago I set myself a goal. I had grown more and more unsatisfied with where I was spiritually and gave myself this period to set things straight. To set a new course. Somehow.

Many of the important things, however, are still playing themselves out. Events, decisions to be made, have not run their course, in spite of my self-imposed date. I’ve developed some good habits, become interested in some areas of study, but the conclusion of my course? It hasn’t arrived. ‘Why?’ is an interesting question. Is it because I can’t force it? Is it because I lack the courage to go where I should? Is it because I am being dragged down by my habitual procrastination? Perhaps its some combination of the three. I don’t know. But I know I am not there yet. This will take more than the thousand days I originally prescribed and that I can do nothing but continue. Its disappointing, but its not really in my hands.

Matthew 2:12-23

2010-06-17T07:06:00.000-07:00

Matthew 2:12-23 Egypt and the Return

Herod had told the Magi to tell him where the new king could be found, but the Wise Men were warned in a dream not to and so left for home by another route. Joseph was also warned about Herod in a dream and told to flee to Egypt. When Herod realized the Wise Men weren’t coming back, he became enraged and ordered all the children in Bethlehem, age two and younger, to be killed. Joseph and his family remained in Egypt until Herod was dead, and an angel spoke to him in a dream telling him it was time to return. When he discovered that Herod’s son Archelaus reigned in his father’s place, he was told in yet another dream to go to Nazareth.

This is a rather complicated passage in which a very busy time in the lives of Joseph, Mary and Jesus is compressed into very few words. It is also full of dreams and prophecies.

Herod’s infamous Murder of Innocents is not recorded outside the Gospel of Matthew, but is it an act historians universally agree is in keeping with the Herod’s character. He has gone down in history as Herod the Great for all of the works he did to aggrandize Judea and Jerusalem. He restored the glory of the Temple, in material terms, to such an extent that it became known as Herod’s Temple, but Herod’s family was Idumaean in origin. Idumea was the Greek name for the Edomites, the descendants of Esau. The Hasmonean kings of Judea had conquered them and forced them to convert to Judaism, absorbing them into the Jewish people, but the Jews of Herod’s time never let him forget where he came from, and consequently his power and position were always closely tied to his friendship with Rome. As famous as he was as a builder, he was equally infamous for the blood he shed to preserve his power, even killing several of his own children.

That Joseph sought refuge in Egypt isn’t surprising. By the first century there was a large and stable Jewish presence there. It was close by, but outside the influence of Herod. When Herod died, his son Herod Archelaus took the throne, and began by killing three thousand Pharisees who opposed him. His reign over the entirety of his father’s kingdom was brief. After two years the Romans divided it up, leaving Archelaus still ruling half of it, including Jerusalem, but the other half was divided between his brothers Herod Philip and Herod Antipas. After ten violent years Archelaus was exiled to Gaul (France) and his kingdom turned into a Roman province. Philip ruled his area peacefully for almost forty years. He was the only one of his brothers to retain his position until the end of his life. Antipas ruled the longest, approximately forty three years, before also being exiled to Gaul. He ruled over Galilee and Perea and was still in power when John the Baptist and Jesus ministered. It was Herod Antipas who would behead John and would mock Jesus, sending back to Pilate. Nevertheless, following the death of their father, Antipas was still much preferred over Archelaus and Joseph, once again warned in a dream, settled in Galilee.

The dynastic politics give us some indication of when Jesus was born. There was no standard calendar at the time. Herod the Great was still alive. He died sometime between 4 and 1 BC. The earlier date is traditional, but there are reasonable grounds for the latter one as well. Jesus was no older than two at this time. Archelaus ruled his father’s entire kingdom for two years before it was divided up, and so Joseph and his family lived in Egypt for at least that long--he couldn’t have been directed to Antipas’ area before the division--and so there were at least four years between the Murder of Innocents and their settling in Nazareth.

Dreams play a big role in the first two chapters of Matthew. While the magi were warned in a dream not to return to Herod, it is Joseph who is counseled by them again and again. It was in a dream that he was told not to divorce the pregnant Mary (1:20) and here he is given directed three times by dreams: to flee to Egypt (2:13), that it was safe to return (2:20), and to settle in Galilee (2:22). These are the only two chapters in which we learn anything of Joseph’s earthly father and we see a man who sought answers in dreams, not the counsel of others, or even the Law. That may be unfair, given that these passages represent only a small part of his life, but it is all we are given. He seems content to follow the example of his Old Testament namesake, Joseph the dreamer.

Prophecy also weighs heavily here. We’ve already seen Matthew quote Isaiah and Micah in order to prove that events in Jesus’ life were the fulfillment of prophecy. Now he adds Hosea and Jeremiah. The family’s sojourn in Egypt was the fulfillment of Hosea 11:1:

When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

And the Murder of Innoents was the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:15:

Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not

.On their face, neither of these scriptures seem to foretell Christ. Hosea is talking of the deliverance of Israel from Egypt and Jeremiah of the restoration of the Northern Kingdom to the true worship of God (Rachel was the mother of Joseph and by extension Ephraim, the principal tribe of the Kingdom of Israel; she was buried in Ramah). Yet Matthew sees prophecy anyway. Why? When the early Church read the Old Testament, they saw Jesus everywhere. Each and every scripture spoke of His coming. Modern Christians tend to look to the historical context in a way that the Apostles did not. Early Christians saw the scripture as laden with symbolism, with types and anti-types. Its not that they doubted its history, or saw it as unimportant, but that they saw the Old Testament first and foremost as the foundation of their beliefs and of the promise of the Redeemer. And this was true of every verse, even those passages that wouldn’t appear to be prophecies to others.

Matthew ends his recounting of Jesus’ early life by telling us that His family’s settlement in Nazareth was the fulfillment of a fifth prophecy, that “He shall be called a Nazarene.” But where is this prophecy? Unlike the previous four, Matthew is not quoting any scripture in the Old Testament. An early attempt to find its source, dating back at least as far back as Jerome, ties it to Isaiah 11:1:

And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots

The Hebrew for branch is netzer and so Nazarene could have arisen from a transliteration. But this is stretch. The reality is that no one has come up with a solution that persuasive enough to resolve this question and we’re left with another puzzle by a writer who isn’t afraid to leave us wondering. As he would later quote Jesus, “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”

The Gospel According To Chester Brown

2010-04-06T19:48:00.000-07:00

The Hooded Unitarian has an interesting article on Chester Brown's adaptations of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Mark. These have never been collected and I haven't read anything more than what Ng Suat Tong has posted here.

Speaking of Matthew, I have also revised the first paragraph of my own Matthew study.

Easter

2010-04-03T06:16:00.000-07:00

I hope this Easter weekend finds you well and that you can make your way to a church to celebrate the important events these feast days commemorate: the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is the focal point of the gospel message.

This holiday is unique in being the only one that the media celebrates with scepticism and scorn. I know that the Bible says that the resurrection is a stumbling block and foolishness to unbelievers (1 Corinthians 1:23), but I can think of no other religions whose major feast day has to run such a gauntlet. With that in mind here are a couple of positive articles, one from the UK and one from the US. The first counters those who say they like Jesus, but not His Church, the second has some interesting information about Easter.

Matthew 2: 11

2010-03-25T13:04:00.000-07:00

Matthew 2: 11 The Magi’s Gifts

So, here I pick up where I left off, in the second chapter of the first gospel. I am going to look at only one verse today, the presentation of the Magi’s gifts.

The Wise Men find the baby Jesus with his mother Mary and fall down and worship. This would prove one of the most powerful images in Christianity: worshipping at the feet of the Mother and Child. Of course, it specifically says “his” feet. They weren’t worshipping - or venerating - Mary, but if you visualize this scene, the mother and her baby, the magi falling down in adoration, its easy to see how such an idea could gain such a grip on people’s imaginations and hearts. We’ll talk more about Mary when we get to the Gospel of Luke, which tells the story from her perspective. Matthew focuses on Joseph’s and its interesting that he isn’t mentioned here.

The idea that there were three Magi stems from the fact that there were three gifts. We don’t know how many Wise Men there were. One early tradition says there were twelve. Twelve Tribes, Twelve Apostles, Twelve Magi. Their gifts were gold, frankincense, and myrrh. The latter two are made from resins and were a valued part of the Arabian spice trade. Frankincense was used in the incense that burned before the Lord on the Altar of Incense, first in the Tabernacle and then in the Temple, and myrrh was used in the embalming of the dead. The three gifts, then, speak of the baby’s future: the gold representing authority or lordship, the frankincense representing divinity or worship, and the myrrh the Redeemer or Christ.

The Lost World Of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate

2010-03-21T22:16:00.001-07:00

By John H. Walton

Published by IVP Academic, 2009

One of the biggest hot button issues in religion is the creationism v. evolution debate. Exactly how did God create the universe and everything in it, and what does the first chapter of Genesis tell us? Professor John H. Walton, of Wheaton College, offers a new perspective in The Lost World of Genesis One, one aimed at reconciling a conservative Christian position on scripture with the reality of modern science.

He does this by asking how the text of Genesis chapter one would have been understood - not through the eyes of scientists or theologians - but by someone living at the time it was written. His conclusion, which he goes to great lengths to explain, is that it would have been read as a description of God establishing the functions of the world and not an account of its material creation: “people in the ancient world believed that something existed not by virtue of its material properties, but by virtue of having a function within an ordered cosmos.” (p. 26) (Very) briefly, the world began without functions, it was without form and void, then the first three days established functions and the second three days installed those functions. Day one established day and night, periods of light and dark, day two established the sky and seas, creating a roof (firmament) to keep out the cosmic sea, and day three the dry land and vegetation. On day four the first day’s functions were installed, the sun and the moon and the stars, for signs, seasons, days, and years; on day five the skies and oceans were filled with life; and on day six the land was filled with animals, and mankind. On the seventh day God rested. Walton sees the seventh day of creation as pivotal. It does not simply mean that God stopped what he was doing. Rather, when the Genesis account was written people understood that the place a god rested in was his temple. It represented the place of a god’s authority. Genesis one, then describes God’s dominion over every aspect of creation and His continued dominion over all the Earth.

Walton takes time to address many concerns associated with this debate, including whether God created ex nihilo, the state of the world in verse two, and to compare his argument to the many alternatives that are being put forward. He addresses the first concern by looking at the Hebrew word bara, to create. This verb is used many times in the Old Testament and always in reference to God. Must it mean to create, materially, from nothing (ex nihilo)? Walton can find nothing to substantiate that position, though he is quick to point out that he, like others challenging the (so-called) Creationist view, believes that God did indeed create the materials of the universe as well as the functions. It’s a question of how. His point here is that Genesis one isn’t meant to be an account of the formation of those materials. I thought it interesting that he doesn’t actually refer to the original proof text for the teaching that God created the world, ex nihilo, II Maccabees 7:28 (KJV):

I beseech thee, my son, look upon the heaven and the earth, and all that is therein, and consider that God made them of things that were not; and so was mankind made likewise.

In the Vulgate, the Latin translation, “of things that were not” was translated simply “from nothing,” or ex nihilo. I think its ironic, given the anti-Catholic sentiments of so many of the fundamentalist advocating creationism, that this important doctrine’s only explicit scriptural support comes from a Catholic translation of an Apocryphal book. Yes, I know that the teaching was advocated by Jewish commentators, but that’s not scripture. And I know that others scriptures can be referenced (John 1:3, Hebrews 11:3, etc), but they only teach that God made the universe and made it from things other than those which appear now. The first point isn’t being disputed by any one, the second, arguably, supports the idea of creation as a process.

The second verse of Genesis one says that the world was “without form and void.” Its an important point for Walton because it describes a world without function. Some Creationists argue for what they call the “gap theory”: that there is a period between the first verse and the rest of the chapter, when Satan, cast from Heaven, destroyed creation. The idea is that God would never has created a formless, empty, less than perfect world. Walton simply states that the Hebrew doesn’t support such a reading, but I would go further and say that proponents of such a reading ignore their own demand for a “literal” understanding of the scriptures and are interjecting their own views of God into the chapter. The Bible says that God created the Heavens and the Earth and that the Earth was without form and void, and then began the process of creation.

Lastly, Walton argues that his position offers various strengths over a variety of others and here I read with some skepticism. Not because I doubted him, but because I think the proponents of those views are all too often so deeply committed to them that they will read this book looking only to find fault and to criticize. They have their position and I think Walton is naïve if he thinks a well reasoned, scripturally valid argument is enough to sway them. The audience for this book is people like myself, who believe in the Bible and in science. Who are looking for interpretations that of scripture that honour it as the Word of God, without forcing the believer to choose between faith or reason. Since coming into Pentecost almost three decades ago I have been consistently faced with a variety of Creationist accounts, all back up by pseudo-science, and have long chosen to just ignore the subject altogether. But why should I skim through the first chapter of Genesis because others find the billions of years of creation so upsetting? While my experience leads me to believe that many will never give this book a fair hearing, I also believe that there are many like me who are looking for something just like this book. We are Walton’s audience.

Religion And Education

2010-03-18T07:07:00.000-07:00

There is an interesting article in the March 6 issue of New Scientist, Where do atheists come from? Apparently the idea that education spreads atheism, that the more educated you are the less likely you are to be religious, simply isn't true. This doesn't really surprise me, but it doesn't seem to sit well with many of those making comments with the online version of the article. Not that they argue the point. Rather, they ignore it and just reiterate their own position.

From the article:

The 2005 results show that while there is a clear positive correlation between education and lack of belief in God, the effect is slightly weaker, not stronger, among those with a university education (14.8 per cent were non-believers) compared with those whose highest attainment was secondary level (17.2 per cent).

And

Looking at white British people, for example, the findings show that only around 25 per cent of men aged between 25 and 34 claiming "no religion" have degrees, compared with around 40 per cent of those describing themselves as religious. For women in the same age group, the difference is less marked but the trend is the same.

You will need a subscription to read the article.

500 Christians Murdered In Nigeria

2010-03-08T15:00:00.000-08:00

From Times Online:

On the dusty streets of three Christian villages in northern Nigeria, dozens of bodies lined the streets yesterday. Other victims of the weekend’s Muslim fury jammed a local morgue, the limbs of slaughtered children tangled in a grotesque mess.

One toddler appeared fixed in the protective but hopeless embrace of an older child, possibly his brother. Another had been scalped. Most had severed hands and feet.

Officials estimate that 500 people were massacred in night-time raids by rampaging Muslim gangs near the city of Jos, where the Christian-Muslim fault line cuts across Nigeria...

More.

The Armour of God

2010-02-05T13:53:00.000-08:00

The Armour of God is found in the sixth chapter of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. It is one of the most popular passages of the Bible, prayed every day by some. Last fall I spoke about the Armour at my local church and I want to start off the year’s blogging (much later than intended - sorry!) by sharing that here.

Paul begins by setting a little context (Ephesians 6:10-12):

Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

We are engaged, he tells his audience, in spiritual warfare. Terms like ‘principalities’ and ‘powers’ aren’t as familiar today, but in the first century many, Jew and Gentile alike, believed that there were demonic influences in the world and had developed systems of categories of describe them. No standardized system is explicated endorsed in scripture but the Ephesians would have immediately understood that Paul is warning them of spiritual influences. And, more importantly, he is making the point that their conflict is not with other people, but with those spiritual influences. He told this to the Corinthians as well (2 Corinthians 10:3-4):

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)

In his letter to the Ephesians he goes on to describe these ‘not carnal’ - non-physical - weapons with which God arms us (Ephesians 6:13-17):

Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

The Armour is a metaphor. No Indiana Jones is ever going to dig it up. Breaking down this metaphor, what is Paul talking about?

‘Your loins girt about with truth.’ The weight of your body hangs on your back and your back in turn is supported by your lower abdomen. It is the base that holds everything upright. In palates the lower abdomen is called the power zone. Our power zone is truth. Jesus said He wants us to worship Him in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). It’s not enough to have good intentions. It’s not enough to enjoy worship. You also have to have sound doctrine when serving the Lord.

‘The Breast Plate of Righteousness.’ The Bible says that only the Pure of Heart shall see God (Psalms 24:3-4, Matthew 5:8).

‘Feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace.’ To be prepared to share the good news (Isaiah 52:7, Romans 10:15).

‘The shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.’ I have more to say about the importance of shields below, but in life you will be buffeted. Some may be happy to learn that you are serving the Lord, but most people are indifferent or even hostile. It is our faith that enables us to remain strong.

‘The helmet of salvation.’ In the Bible the head represents authority. But this is not our own authority, but another’s. Salvation belongs to the Lord (Psalm 3:8). The helmet of salvation represents submission to God‘s authority and to His salvation plan.

‘The sword of the spirit, which is the word of God.’ The Greek translated as ‘word’ in this verse is not logos, but rhema, which implies something spoken or written, often spontaneously. Paul wants us to be led of the Spirit as we speak or write as Christians.

The Armour of God, then, refers to the many aspects of our Christian walk. Sound doctrine, right living, a readiness to act and to speak, faith and a submission to His will. But once we have the armour on, what do you do? Most people stop reading about the Armour with verse seventeen, but that is only half way through a sentence. Paul continues on the subject for three more verses (Ephesians 6:18-20):
Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints; And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel, For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.

We are in spiritual warfare. We have our armour on. What now? Paul tells us to do three things.

Number one, ‘praying always and in all supplication in the Spirit.’ Supplication means petition. Whether we need money or cancer healed, it means bringing our needs to the Lord. But whatever needs we have, we are to pray in the Spirit. We are to be led by the Spirit when we pray.

Number two, ‘watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints.’ We aren’t to just pray for ourselves. We are to pray diligently for one another. To use the standard Christian terminology, we’re to become intercessors.

Isaiah 59:16-17 reads:

And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him. For he put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation upon his head; and he put on the garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloak.

Reading this passage I noticed that there are two things Paul later includes in the Armour of God, the breastplate of righteousness and the helmet of salvation, but there are also two things he leaves out. Paul doesn’t write about being clothed in vengeance. That didn’t surprise me. The Bible makes it very clear that vengeance belongs to God. Even people who know nothing of the scripture know God says, ‘vengeance is mine’ (Duet 32:35, Romans 12:19, Hebrews 10:30). But why aren’t we to be clad in zeal as a cloak? Soldiers wore cloaks. God wants us to be zealous. The point Paul is trying to make to the Ephesians, however, took him in a different direction. Before talking about armour he’s talks about family. He’s talks about husbands serving God, wives serving their husbands, children serving their parents, servants serving their masters. There is an appropriate role and order in the family.

In the military there is also an appropriate role and order, an idea Paul carries over from the family to spiritual warfare very easily. He starts off by telling us spiritual soldiers to stand. Every Roman soldier stood in a holding their shields in their left hand and their weapon in their right. They stood shoulder to shoulder, their shields protecting their left side and the right side of the person standing to their left. Their right side was protected by the person standing to their right. They stood protecting one another with a wall of shields. When soldiers were told not to break ranks, they were being told to keep the line firm. To stand. I’ve seen films where armies march smartly towards each other, in ranks, but when they get a few yards from one another they break those ranks and charge. Its all very dramatic, but its wrong. In reality the armies would march right up to one another, attacking without breaking ranks. In fact, the whole point was to get the other side to break its ranks. A group of individuals, however well armed, could never stand against a disciplined unit. In the passage quoted from Isaiah God is pouring out His wrath on Israel, because there were no intercessors. No one in Israel was standing and praying for Israel. We are to pray in the Spirit, to be led by the Spirit, and we are to pray for one another. That’s how we stand.

And the third thing Paul says is ‘pray for me, that I may open my mouth boldly.’ There is a lot packed into that short statement, but I want to focus on two things. First, Paul did not say ‘pray for my ministry,’ or ‘pray that others will receive my message,’ he said ‘pray for me.’ So often our desire to shine as a light for Him gets turned around into a refusal to admit our needs to one another. We wouldn’t think of lying with our words, but we never hesitate to put on a fake smile. But Paul came right out and said, ‘pray for me.’ Its one thing for me to want to watch, with all perseverance, for your needs, but how am I to know what they are if you don’t tell me? Likewise, if I don’t tell you my need, how can I expect you to pray for it?

The second thing I want to focus on is prayer for our leadership. A soldier does what he is told. If his general makes a bad choice, the general does pay for it, but the soldier pays even more. The general sits on the hill top directing his men with orders and trumpets and signals, while the soldiers down below are fighting and killing each other. Who is going to be impacted more by a bad decision? The soldier down there fighting or the general up on the hill watching him fight? You have an interest in your leadership’s welfare. You want your leader to be in touch with God. You want your leader to be blessed of God. You want your leader’s counsel for you to be exactly what God wants it to be. But if you’re not supporting your leader in prayer, you’re weakening your leader and that will come down on you eventually. We have an interest in supporting our leadership in prayer.

A spiritual warrior, then, is a prayer warrior. It seems that everyone I’ve heard described as a prayer warrior is a woman, a senior, and somebody’s mother. Or grandmother. But God wants each of us to bear this burden of prayer. That why we bear the weapons of this warfare. To stand in the gap for His people. To be led in the Spirit in all our supplications, for ourselves and for the whole body of Christ.

Merry Christmas

2009-12-23T17:55:00.000-08:00

Merry Christmas all!

I've got an email today from someone in Pakistan asking for prayer over the holidays, because the Taliban are threatening attacks. I read in the New York Times that Christians in Iraq are preparing for the worst. Meanwhile, I worry about my credit card bill and getting everyone's schedule to line up. I am glad I live in Canada and wish everyone every where a happy and safe holy day.

I've about six months left on my 1000 day goal. I started to re-read Fear and Trembling this week and one paragraph in particular spoke out to me:

In our time nobody is content to stop with faith but wants to go further. It would perhaps be rash to ask where these people are going, but it is surely a sign of breeding and culture for me to assume that everybody has faith, for otherwise it would be queer for them to be... going further. In those old days it was different, then faith was a task for a whole lifetime, because it was assumed that dexterity in faith is not acquired in a few days or weeks. When the tried oldster drew near to his last hour, having fought the good fight and kept the faith, his heart was still young enough not to have forgotten that fear and trembling which chastened the youth, which the man indeed held in check, but which no man quite outgrows. . . except as he might succeed at the earliest opportunity in going further. Where these revered figures arrived, that is the point where everybody in our day begins to go further.

Of course, Kierkegaard was being sardonic. We only assume we've arrived. We are saved and so His work in us must be done. Right?

Again, a Merry Christmas.

Matthew Study

2009-12-22T20:36:00.000-08:00

Last week I got a surprise comment on a post I made some time ago. At the end of 2006 I decided to do my own study of the New Testament. I made a couple of entries, covering the first chapter of Matthew and then decided to restart at my other blog. But I only got ten verses into chapter two before it was abandoned. I didn't decide to let it go, but I did.

But this comment got me thinking. I have been thinking of ways to direct my Bible study in the new year. I could at least try this again. Even if I had only written a chapter a month, I would have have finished Matthew by now. So I am going to try again. I may not get much further, but we'll see.

I am creating a link to this called Matthew. If I do more, I'll rename it.

My posts:

Matthew 1: 1-17

Matthew 1: 18-25

Matthew 2: 1-10

Matthew 2: 11

Mathew 2:12-23

Matthew 2: 1-10

2009-12-22T20:30:00.000-08:00

Orignally published at David Bird, February 12, 2007

Matthew 2: 1-10: The Wise Men Come To Herod

The second part of the Nativity story centers around Micah 5:2:

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Micah was a contemporary of Isaiah, but was a man of little status in their world. His book is considerably shorter as well, but contains some well known verses focusing on social justice: beating our swords into plowshares (4:3), that God requires justice, mercy, and humility before sacrifice (6:6-8), and the prophecy that the everlasting ruler will come from Bethlehem. Of course Bethlehem, in spite of being a small village, was already the home of a famous ruler. King David was born there.

This part introduces the famous Wise Men. We don’t actually know much about them. The Bible doesn’t say that there were three, or where they came from, or give us any other personal information. They are described as magi who had seen “his star in the east,” and who had come to worship the new King. A magi was an astrologer, or a sorcerer (it’s used that way in Acts 13). In Christ’s time the word was used to refer to foreign forms of magic, forms that were suspect, so it is strange that these men would come to worship the new messiah, but they recognized him for what he was and came to give him the worship he was due. Sometimes the children of the world are wiser than the children of light (Luke 16:8).

They presented themselves to Herod and his court. No one was pleased to hear the news. I’ll get more into Herod’s court in part four of the Nativity story. Herod didn’t know where the Promised One was to be born, which was interesting given his obsession with securing his place. He consulted with the chief priests and scribes and sent the wise men on their way to Bethlehem. Outwardly he was friendly. He told them that he wanted to worship the child too. Once they had finished with Herod’s court they saw the star and it stood directly over where Jesus lay. So why go to the court in the first place? It’s possible that they went to the court out of a sense of protocol. They weren’t conspiring against Herod, and honouring an alternative ruler without going to court might have made it seem as though they were. Alternatively, the star wasn’t constantly before them. It told them that a great king would be born to the Jews, but it didn’t reappear until after they saw Herod. That seems consistent with verses nine and ten:

When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

Why would they rejoice to see it, if it were there all the time?

Three News Items

2009-12-22T20:17:00.000-08:00

Here are three interesting articles.

Some American soldiers are trying to preserve an ancient monastery in Iraq. The monks who lived there were martyred - read: murdered - in 1743 for refusing to convert to Islam, putting an end to community that was over a thousand years old. Christians in the area are still under attack.

Pew Forum has published another survey on religious beliefs, this one detailing the tendency to mix and match religious ideas. Not surprising, but interesting.

On Salon a New York woman talks about her 'closet' Christianity. Its easy to think she doth protest too much, but then you get to her readers' comments...

China Cracks Down On Churches

2009-11-15T06:08:00.000-08:00

On the eve of Obama's visit to China, the Chinese government has begun a campaign of harassment, closing churches and arresting church leaders. This sort of persecution isn't new, but beginning one just as an American president is about to arrive is. Traditionally Beijing looses up its anti-human rights position, sometimes even letting some arrested rights advocate go. What is different this time? For the first time since the US normalized relations with China, America has a government that has officially puts diplomatic good will ahead of human rights. This policy change was apparent last month, when Obama became the first president to refuse to see the Dalai Lama.

Is The Baptist Church A Cult?

2009-09-26T21:47:00.000-07:00

The short answer is, No. Of course the Baptist Church is not a cult. A more complete answer would start with another question, Why would you even ask such a ridiculous question?

In the 60s and 70s new and foreign spiritual and religious ideas and practices began to gain a foothold in the West. “Moonies,” Hare Krishnas, and others. They were strange, perplexing, and sometimes just plain annoying. The devotion of their new found followers, more often than not, previously normal, middle class and educated people, mystified many. Then, in 1978, one group, the People’s Temple, committed mass suicide in their compound in Guyana. Over nine hundred people drank cyanide laced Kool Aid at the command of their leader, Jim Jones. Time magazine’s headline was “Cult of Death.” The word cult may well have a long and varied history, but since then its popular usage has been pejorative. To label a group a cult is to warn others against associating with it.

In recent years it has become to habit of some within the Evangelical movement to label anyone who is different as a cult. One site I visited listed everything from other religions (Buddhism, Hinduism) to handwriting analysis and the martial arts as cults. Even some aspects of Judaism. Typically, a cult has become defined as any group that veers from traditional doctrinal beliefs. This is a definition that raises two immediate problems. The first is that it is less than honest. When a group is called a cult, it is done knowing the term will raise alarm and distrust amongst those unfamiliar with the group. It is a derogatory term and it is being used as such. The second problem is that there is more than one tradition within Christianity. There are, in fact, a great many traditions and even within each tradition a great deal of variety and interpretations. That doesn’t mean they are all right, that you should accept all doctrinal teachings as equally valid, but it does mean that the practice of denigrating others as cults is essentially to replace apologetics with slander.

As an example of the ridiculousness of all this, I return to the first question, is the Baptist Church a cult? The Baptist Church has long taught that baptism plays no role in our salvation. Instead, it represents an outward sign of an inward act. We are saved once we accept the Lord as our saviour and are baptized out of obedience to His commands. But is this really a traditional Christian doctrinal belief? Let’s look at five Churches. I start with the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. I realize that many in the Evangelical movement reject much of what these two bodies profess, but they are the oldest Churches, with the oldest traditions. To counter these concerns I also look at three of the oldest Protestant Churches, the first to turn from Rome. What I have done is looked up their statements on baptism. I don’t mean to assert that all of them hold identical beliefs or that there aren’t differences within the groups, but they all agree that there is more to baptism than it simply being an outward sign.

Catholics:

It forgives all sins that may have been committed prior to a person's baptism including original sin and it relieves the punishment for those sins.

Orthodox:

Christian baptism is the mystery of starting anew, of dying to an old way of life and being born again into a new way of life, in Christ. In the Orthodox Church, baptism is "for the remission of sins" (cf. the Nicene Creed) and for entrance into the Church; the person being baptized is cleansed of all sins and is united to Christ; through the waters of baptism he or she is mysteriously crucified and buried with Christ, and is raised with him to newness of life, having "put on" Christ (that is, having been clothed in Christ). The cleansing of sins includes the washing away of the ancestral sin.

Calvinist (Presbyterian):

Baptism signifies:

the faithfulness of God,
the washing away of sin,
rebirth,
putting on the fresh garment of Christ,
being sealed by God's Spirit,
adoption into the covenant family of the Church,
resurrection and illumination in Christ.

Anglican:

From the Thirty-Nine Articles:

XXVII. Of Baptism.

Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.

Lutheran:

Holy Baptism is God’s gracious act by which He bestows on the baptized the gifts of forgiveness of sins and adoption into His family.

Again, I am not saying that these Churches hold identical views on baptism, or even that every church within their fellowships holds the same view (at least, in regards to the Protestants), but all of them have traditionally accorded baptism some role in our actual salvation. Unlike the Baptists. If a cult is any group that teaches something other than traditional Christian doctrines, where would that place the Baptists? Let’s look at two responses Baptists may make. The first would be to point out that their position can be dated as far back as the Anabaptist movement of the early Reformation. This is true, but it does raise the fact that there is more than one tradition in Christendom. A perfectly legitimate position for anyone to make, in fact, it’s the one I am making, but it that undermines the argument that anyone who teaching doctrines that differ from those of my tradition is in a cult.

A second response is to turn to scripture. A foundational Christian principle (at least within the Protestant traditions) is sola scriptura: by scripture alone. The Bible is the final authority on doctrine. All others are subject to it. Only teachings that are in the Bible, or can be logically deduced from scripture, are true. Anything that contradicts scripture cannot be accepted as true. What does the Bible say about baptism and salvation?

(I am quoting the ESV.)

1 Peter 3:18-22

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

Just as the ark saved Noah and his family from the flood, God’s judgement on mankind, so baptism now saves us.

Acts 2:38

And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 22:16

And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'

In the first scripture (2:38) Peter has just preached and the crowd responded by asking how to be saved. He told them to repent and be baptised and that God would fill them with the Holy Ghost. Why were they to be baptised? “For the forgiveness of your sins.” In the second scripture (22:16) Paul is recounting his own conversion. Jesus had stopped him in his tracks and revealed Himself, and calling Paul to preach the gospel, but Paul still had to be baptized and have his sins washed away.

I have known Baptists respond to these scriptures by asserting that we are saved by faith alone. That anything else is ‘works’. That doesn’t really explain how these scriptures could mean anything but that baptism is a part of God’s salvation plan. It’s a teaching, formally called sola fide, goes all the way back to Martin Luther. But what did Luther have to say about baptism?

To put it most simply, the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of Baptism is to save. No one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, to 'be saved.' To be saved, we know, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death, and the devil and to enter into the kingdom of Christ and live with him forever.

Obviously he say no contradiction in the ideas the we are saved by faith in Christ redemption alone, and that Jesus requires all His followers to be baptized in order to enter into that redemption. Baptism is not a work of the flesh.

If our doctrines are to be built on scripture alone we must not try to explain away what these three scriptures - 1 Peter 3:18-22, Acts 2:38 and 22:16 - say. Each explicitly link salvation and baptism. To say otherwise is to distort the literal, obvious, plain meaning of the text.

Before moving on I want to talk about two examples of just that kind of behaviour. There are two other scriptures linking salvation to baptism and some responses I have heard could only be asserted by someone desperately wanting to put their preconceptions ahead of what the scriptures say. I point this out because I realize that those who don’t have an interest in this debate may have trouble believing these arguments are put forth in any serious manner and I don’t want you think I am selecting them because they are so obviously weak. People actually make these arguments.

John 3:1-8

Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him." Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."

Most would say that the water and spirit Jesus is talking about is baptism and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Not so, reply many wanting to diminish the role of baptism. According to them Jesus is talking about natural birth. The water is the woman’s water breaking prior to birth and the spirit is the baby’s first breath. If so, is Jesus saying to Nicodemus, ‘Yes, you must enter a second time into your mother’s womb’ or is He saying that all who are born are saved? I’ve never heard a Baptist come right out and teach either position.

And, Mark 16:16:

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Its hard to think of a more obvious scriptural teaching than this one: to be saved you have to believe and be baptized. Oh, but the doubters reply, just because those who believe and are baptized will be saved, that doesn’t mean those who believe and aren’t baptized won’t be saved. That’s like arguing we are saved by faith, but not having faith doesn’t mean you aren’t saved! The reason baptism isn’t mentioned in the second half of the sentence because those who don’t believe won’t be baptized, but the meaning of the first half is clear and obvious: those who believe and are baptized will be saved.

The fact that the last two arguments could be made without being met with scorn and derision reflects another aspect of this problem. Not only are there different traditions, but many of them have built up networks of schools, institutions, and media that allow them to operate without interacting with other traditions. They are all in their own little bubbles - the Evangelical bubble, the Catholic bubble, the Mainstream, or Liberal, Protestant bubble - and they can see each other, but the don’t interact in any meaningful way and their preconceptions about the other groups are rarely challenged. Everything they come in contact with reinforces their own views and preconceptions. Some bubbles are bigger than others. The Evangelical bubble dominants much of contemporary Christian culture, certainly pop culture, and it in turn is widely influenced by Baptists. That’s why I chose the Baptist Church as my example. No, the Baptist church is not a cult, but the five churches that I quote in support of the importance of baptism represent four out five of the world’s Christians! That’s right. Most Christians belong to churches that believe baptism serves a role in God’s salvation plan.

When anyone argues that a group is a cult because their teachings don’t reflect traditional Christian doctrines, it is the speaker and not the group we should first be wary of. They lack either a basic knowledge of Church history and the many traditions that exist within Christianity, or the ability to defend their own views in an honest manner, or both. I don’t believe all traditional teachings are equally valid. No one could. Many churches have adopted contradictory views on a variety of issues. To know which are true, however, requires careful, and prayerful, study, so be careful when someone resorts to slander to end discussion. Truth doesn’t reinforce itself with dishonesty.

June 29, 2010

2009-06-29T05:59:00.000-07:00

I haven't posted about my one thousand day program in a while, and I don't think I've posted about it on this blog at all. A year and a half ago, on my other blog, I made this post:

What happens on June 29, 2010? Its the thousandth day from now (including today, October 4, 2007). For a while now I have felt a growing dissatisfaction with my spiritual status quo. I don't know what it is exactly -- if I did I'd address it -- so I am giving myself a period of time to figure out what it is and what to do about it. I didn't want it to be a short time -- this is serious -- but I didn't know how long. After some consideration I decided on one thousand days. More than two and a half years. If I can't at least get a handle on it by then, I haven't been trying.

(Yes, I think my calculations were off by a couple of days.)

The time since has not exactly flown by, but while I've waited for the spiritual penny to drop there has been more progress in many areas of my spiritual walk than it often feels like. I have developed the habit of early morning prayer, getting up most mornings and starting my day with a half hour of prayer. I have read my Bible through from cover to cover from the first time in years, and I went on a three day (72 hour) fast, something I've only done once before. That was when I was a new Christian. When you're just starting out, its easy to push yourself to new levels, but over the years you start to settle. It would be nice to believe that you have simply done all the easy levels and that things have slowed because you're working from a 'higher' level, but that's not really true. And its not just me. I've noticed this in others.

There are other things to be happy about, but right now I am enjoying the prospect of shaking off the dross and rekindling things. In my second year in the Lord a lot of things happened to me and I made some decisions that would bear consequences down to the present day. Yesterday I was thinking about today and the next year, and it occurred to me that this could be a new second year. A time to move forward again from the position of a mature Christian and a mature person. I was only a teen back then.

I am still waiting for the spiritual penny to drop, for the big 'Aha!' moment, but right now I am happily looking forward to the next year.

Bible Reading

2009-06-26T21:00:00.000-07:00

I finished reading my Bible yesterday. The whole thing, cover to cover. I don't know how many times I've done it, probably because I haven't done it in years. Perhaps a decade. I was using a reading chart designed to take you through in a year, reading a few chapters a day. I did it in fits and starts and took about eighteen months. A knowledge of God and the scriptures is a basic part of any Christian's spiritual foundation and there isn't any better way of gaining it than reading the Bible. I just wish I could be more systematic. I have developed the habit of getting up early and praying most days. I need to develop a similar one for reading my Bible. I don't think its necessary to read from cover to cover, the Bible wasn't written with that in mind, nor do I think its necessary to read it all in a year (or eighteen months, in this case). The Bible isn't supposed to be approached like any other reading project. You need to take the time to aborb it. Still, I using a yearly chart keeps you to a schedule and reading all the through ensures you read everything and aren't concentrating on the parts that interest you most.

The Bible I used was the King James, the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible With Apocrycha (the Penguin paperback edition). I especially liked its formatting, which prints the text as a single column per page. The papers covers, however, did't weather much use and I had to buy a covering for it. This was the first time, in my twenty eight years as a Christian, I read the Apocrypha. I have other Bibles that include it, but this is the first time I've read it. The Apocrypha is a collection of books, or additions to books, that were a part of the Greek translations of the Old Testament that the early Church used, but not a part of the Hebrew Bibles the Jews were using. Whether the Greeks Jews added them, or the other Jews dropped them, or never used them at all, is something we may never know. When Jerome originally translated the Vulgate he wanted to remove them, but the Church said no. When the Reformation happened the Reform churches did remove them, first setting them a part between the Old and New Testaments, and then dropping them all together. The rationale for initially keeping them, even though they weren't considered scripture, was twofold: tradition, they had been a part of the canon for a very long time, and they added to readers' understanding of the world of the New Testament. I've found them interesting enough to include in my next read through, which I am going to start July 1. This time with an English Standard Version (that also includes them). I am going to supplement my readings with William Barclay's New Daily Study Bible commentaries and have already picked up the first two volumes, which cover Matthew.

God Is Love, Part Two

2009-05-22T06:33:00.000-07:00

In my last entry on this subject, some time ago, I discussed how the scripture ‘God is love’ (1 John 4:8 and 16) is linked to God’s inherent oneness. In this follow-up I want to discuss how the idea that God is love is linked to His omniscience. God is love because God is omniscient? That may not make sense on the face of it. How about if I rephrase it and say, God is love because He understands you perfectly? He knows everything about you, including how you feel, what happened to you, and what your motivations really are.

Sometimes when we talk about His omniscience, we imagine a big eye in the sky. A heavenly close circuit camera recording our every thought and action. This is a very limited understanding of His knowledge of us. The Bible says God looks on the inward man (1 Samuel 16:7). He looks beyond our actions, both mental and physical, to see why we are the person we are, and He not only does this with perfect clarity, but His understanding is even greater than our own. That is, He not only understands us when others don’t, He understands us when we ourselves aren’t sure of what is happening or why we behave the way we do.

What He doesn't do, however, is confuse explanations with justifications. Just because He understands why we make a mistake, it doesn't necessary follow that He will accept the mistake. We commonly do. I am sure we've all read of some trial in which there is an acquittal that simply makes no sense to us. There may be a technical, legal reason behind it, but sometimes juries seem willing to accept the most ridiculous explanations. Once, in the US, a man was acquitted of two murders because he had eaten some junk food and his blood sugar was high. There are many less bizarre examples and there is another consequence to this behaviour. We often won't hear an apology because we fear that in listening to why the person wronged us we are implicitly agreeing to accept their explanation. So we simply refuse to listen. God doesn't do that, either.

We all want understanding. We all want someone to identify with us, just as we identify with those we love. Their problems become our problems. Their aspirations our aspirations. Because God is omniscient He can be that person for us. He won't lie to us when were wrong, but His capacity for forgiveness is limitless. And His love for us is as boundless as His knowledge of us.

Pray Without Ceasing, 1 Thes 5:17

2009-05-07T22:07:00.000-07:00

That it was a great delusion to think that the times of prayer ought to differ from other times. That we are as strictly obliged to adhere to God by action in the time of action, as by prayer in its season.

That his prayer was nothing else but a sense of the presence of God, his soul being at that time insensible to everything but Divine love: and that when the appointed times of prayer were past, he found no difference, because he still continued with God, praising and blessing Him with all his might, so that he passed his life in continual joy; yet hoped that God would give him somewhat to suffer, when he should grow stronger.

That we ought, once for all, heartily to put our whole trust in God, and make a total surrender of ourselves to Him, secure that He would not deceive us.

That we ought not to be weary of doing little things for the love of God, who regards not the greatness of the work, but the love with which it is performed. That we should not wonder if, in the beginning, we often failed in our endeavours, but that at last we should gain a habit, which will naturally produce its acts in us, without our care, and to our exceeding great delight.

That the whole substance of religion was faith, hope, and charity; by the practice of which we become united to the will of God: that all beside is indifferent and to be used as a means, that we may arrive at our end, and be swallowed up therein, by faith and charity.

That all things are possible to him who believes, that they are less difficult to him who hopes, they are more easy to him who loves, and still more easy to him who perseveres in the practice of these three virtues.

That the end we ought to propose to ourselves is to become, in this life, the most perfect worshippers of God we can possibly be, as we hope to be through all eternity.

The Practice of the Presence of God, The Fourth conversation
Brother Lawrence, 1605-1691

The End Of Christian America

2009-04-11T04:22:00.000-07:00

They say that once the national media picks up on a trend it is already passed. I've blogged about the decline of evangelicalism here and at my other blog and now Newsweek has discovered the trend with a major cover story, The End of Christian America.

Christian Right Defeated

2009-04-11T04:13:00.000-07:00

James Dobson retired this week. As the head of Focus on the Family he was the last nationally recognized leader of the evangelical political right. I know some are promoting Rick Warren as his successor, but he doesn't (yet) share the same status. This is the first time since Falwell in the 70s that the movement has been without a figurehead. Dobson left the stage admitting the of defeat of their national agenda:

We tried to defend the unborn child, the dignity of the family, but it was a holding action... We are awash in evil and the battle is still to be waged. We are right now in the most discouraging period of that long conflict. Humanly speaking, we can say we have lost all those battles.

Quitting Church

2009-03-19T16:11:00.000-07:00

All the numbers point to it. The clergy (quietly) admits it. Evangelical Christianity is on the verge of a serious decline. It is perhaps only a generation away from the near collapse mainstream churches saw in the 60s and 70s. There is a growing number of books on the subject - I have already reviewed The Fall of the Evangelical Nation - and I have just finished Quitting Church: Why The Faithful Are Leaving And What To Do About It by Julia Duin, the Religion Editor for the Washington Times.

Duin has been a religion journalist for some time, a position that has allowed her access to many people in leadership, and to many people who have left their positions of leadership. The reasons for the decline seem as numerous as the people leaving, but certain themes emerge. The church has very little to do, or to say, to the lives people live through the rest of the week. It concentrates it efforts on winning the lost and consequently leaves the mature Christians to go hungry. What is taught is watered down in order to be inoffensive and the lack of serious teaching is reflected in the unchristian lives so many expressed Christians live. The Church is coming apart at the top with many ministers and leaders burnt out or discouraged. Tired of trying to live perfect lives for others, tired of not being fed, tired of having to find a niche within the existing structure or risk being ignored.

I am not surprised by any of this, having gone to church for almost thirty years. Duin herself came in to the Church through the Charismatic Jesus movement of the 70s and wonders what happened to it. Where is the Spirit now? Has it been completely shut out, locked down in order to allow programs to run smoothly? Her book is long on descriptions, but offers little in the way of solutions. Of course, that may not be her fault. Authors don't necessarily provide their book's subtitle.

Duin makes a lot of good points. One of the book's sharper points is when she makes the connection between sexual struggles, being single, and the Church's need to help unmarried Christian connect. Anyone unfamiliar with the Evangelical community might think that's blindingly obvious, but to too many inside the community its not. They actually are blind to the obvious. The book might have been stronger still if she had spent some time addressing the many conflicting opinions and solutions people have adopted. Some fault the Evangelical movement for not adapting to the world of the 21st century, particularly in its views towards women, but many of the people spoken to have turned instead to churches, such of the Orthodox, who aren't known for accommodating modern trends. Sometimes Reform theology is seen as the problem, but when one minister faults Charismatics for being Arminianist Duin lets the statement stand without comment.

I suspect that the audience for this book are the many Christians who feel isolated. Who wonder if they're the only ones suffering through these discouraging times. Of course, many people feel this way at some time in their walk and then reconnect. My own feelings about the possible end of the Evangelical movement, as we know it today, is mixed. I agree with many in this book that in its efforts to become 'seeker friendly' it has watered down too much of its identity, and that the result is exactly the opposite of what it intended. It has become less relevant, not more. My strongest concern at this time is that its self-destruction will leave behind a burned out generation. One that is so convinced that it already knows everything, that it can't listen to what it wants to hear. Whereas in my review of Wicker's book I said that the Evangelicals will simply adapt to a new reality, I am now wondering if they will have "ears to hear." It may well take the rise of a new generation before we see a broader revival within the North American Church. Let's hope not.

Biblical Dualism

2009-02-27T20:50:00.000-08:00

For the longest time I have been meaning to post some Bible studies and thoughts I've had, yet I never seem to. So here is the first. It began as a Bible study I taught last year.

Dualism is an age old concept when it comes to religion. Good versus evil. Light versus dark. God versus the devil. The idea is pretty much set in the popular imagination and in pop culture. God sits on his throne, ruling from Heaven, and Satan sits on his, ruling from Hell. Biblically and theologically this is complete nonsense. God and the devil aren't counterparts or equals. God alone is all-powerful, the creator of Heaven and Hell. And of the devil. God is unique. He doesn't have an opposite. The devil, however, does. His opposite is the Church. That's the true dualism of the Bible, the devil versus the Church. But even here it gets complicated.

Outlining the contrast between the devil and the Church could not be easier.

The devil is a destroyer, John 10:10a:

The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy...

And he is without truth, John 8:44:

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

The Church, on the other hand, is called to restore that which Satan has destroyed, it has a ministry of reconciliation, 2 Corinthians 5:17-19:

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

We are instruments to be used to complete Jesus' goal, Luke 19:10:

For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

We are to be bringers of life, John 10:10b:

I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

And holy, Ephesians 5:27:

That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

But it goes beyond simple contrasts. Before Calvary Jesus described Satan as the prince of this world, John 14:30:

Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.

Following Calvary the Church is both king and priest, Revelations 1:6:

And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

In theory this conflict should be a very simple one, because a breach has been made for us into the devil's kingdom. Until the invention of the cannon cities would protect themselves against their enemies by building strong walls around their perimeter. But each wall had at least one hole, or breach, in it: the gate. The city needed its gate in order to connect to the world around it, but if the gate fell to the enemy, the city so followed. The Bible says that the gates of Hell cannot stand against the Church, Matthew 16:18:

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

So the Church exists to undo the devil's works. We have been given authority over his kingdom, to destroy it. And that is why the devil attacks us. He isn't simply doing whatever it is he does. He fears us and takes our threat to him far more seriously than we often do ourselves. He knows he was defeated at Calvary and he knows that he was no power over the Church. But he also knows that the Church is made up of men and women, sinners saved by grace. He knows that there are only two ways for us to exercise our God-given authority, through prayer and fasting, Mark 9:28-29:

And when he was come into the house, his disciples asked him privately, Why could not we cast him out? And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.

And by submitting ourselves to God, James 4:7:

Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

And here is where we fail. To defeat him we don't need arcane rituals and incantations, we simply need to submit ourselves to God and resist the devil. In practice, however, we prefer to neither submit to God nor resist the devil. The devil is invidious. If he can't win, we'll destroy as many as possible. Biblical dualism, in a nutshell, is: the devil works to destroy and the Church to restore. We have all the power of Heaven at our disposal, but don't avail ourselves of it. Satan has been defeated, but is willing to use whatever means he can in his efforts to do as much harm as possible. So where is God in all this? He is far from neutral. He defeated Satan on the cross and He is happy to empower His Church to the extent that we will allow Him. All we have to do is submit ourselves to His will.

I Want To Be Surprised, But

2009-02-27T19:37:00.000-08:00

New Scientist reports a comparative, state by state, study on the use of porn in the US. These aren't casual users. These are people who actually pay to access pornography. There is a positive correlation between the conservative, church going, family values states and porn use. The more conservative one claims to be, the more likely that same person is secretly logging on to porn. Yes, I know there are a lot of us who don't do this, but I also know there are too many who do. Study after study has found little or no difference in the behaviour of those who claim to be Christians and those who don't. If the Church has no moral authority in the eyes of society at large, it is because it has no spiritual authority in the eyes of God, and it has no spiritual authority because it doesn't walk the walk. It says one thing and does another.

A Bible And Literature Quiz

2009-02-17T17:10:00.000-08:00

The BBC site has is a short quiz about the Bible and literature, specifically on identifying Biblical allusions in classic lit. I hadn't read a lot of them, but still got nine out of ten by relying on my knowledge of the Bible. The one I blew was the only one I guessed at. Try it.

Getting Your Saints Right

2009-02-14T05:27:00.000-08:00

Not being a Catholic, I don't really understand all this, but then many Catholics don't appear to understand it either. If you are praying for a new love, don't pray to St. Valentine. The proper saint is Raphael. Valentine is the saint for those you already have their special someone.

Its not mentioned, but Raphael is actually an angel. I didn't know they sainted angels.

June 29, 2010

2009-02-08T18:07:00.000-08:00

A while ago I set myself a goal to shake off the spiritual status quo. I don't know even now what that means, but I wasn't happy where I was so I gave myself 1000 days, until June 29, 2010, to change... something. This month will bring me to the half way point. On the other blog I had been giving one hundred day assessments. I am not going to do that here. I may not mention the countdown again this year. I don't know. There is something on the horizon that may have some real consequences in my spiritual walk, but I can't discuss it at this point. Its something I have to let happen, which grates a bit. I'd rather just deal with it, but I think letting it happen is the Lord's will in the matter. Once it does happen I'll be able to talk about it.

In other news, I created a link to my earlier dispensationalist writings. That's the last of the 'old news.' All new content from here on!

Dispensationalism

2009-02-08T16:27:00.000-08:00

When I began this blog I had just finished a study of Dispensationalism. This page links to posts I did then, and to an article on Dispensationalism and modern Israel I did for subter.

Leaving Dispensationalism Behind

Methods of Interpretation

Terminology

The Dispensationalist Outline of History

End Time Miscellany

Dispensationalism: A Look At II Peter 3

A Black Cheque

That's About It

2009-01-31T20:23:00.000-08:00

Today I put up links to my personal testimony and some book reviews. I am going to add a link to the pieces I did on Dispensationalism back when I started this blog and that will be it for old business. I could have done that much today, but I hurt my thumb last night - I cut it well washing dishes - and my hand hurts if I type too much. As far as I am concerned, its on to new business!

My Testimony

2009-01-31T13:47:00.000-08:00

I grew up in Prince Rupert, British Columbia, and life had not been good. My mother and my biological father had split up shortly after I was born. A sister of mine had died and the house was full of recriminations. My mother married my step-father when I was still a pre-schooler. He had a lot of things going for him but even when I was very young he was well on his way to becoming an alcoholic. Their marriage was stormy and short and ended with me being raised by my step-father. I sank into what I later realized was depression and became disconnected from those around me. The years from my parents’ divorce to my high school graduation were long and desperate. Once I reached eighteen I was ready to put it all behind me. To start my life over. That was what a move to Whitehorse, Yukon offered. I moved there because someone had offered me a summer job. I was at a turning point.

I had family in Whitehorse and began meeting lots of new people. One was a neighbor, a Pentecostal woman, named Lisa. She talked with me at great length, telling me what the Bible teaches and how the Spirit of God moved in her church. My childhood in a mainstream church did not include much in the way of Bible teaching. I had been allowed to skip church altogether from a young age so I was curious about the many things she told me. People were ‘healed’, people ‘danced in the Spirit’, they were ‘filled with the Holy Ghost’ and ‘spoke in other tongues’. She showed me accounts of miracles which had happened in the Bible, and she then explained that they still happened at her church.

With my curiosity aroused I decided to attend a service at the First Pentecostal Church of Whitehorse on the last Sunday of July, 1981, to see for myself. Even though I sat at the front, I spent much of the time watching the congregation worship. The Holy Spirit was strongly moving on me, and the very next week I returned to church and repented of my sins and was baptized by immersion in Jesus’ name. The church was constructing a new building, and I participated as much as I could. In the last service at the old building I went to the altar, and asked the Lord to fill me with His Spirit. I was filled with the Holy Ghost and began to speak with tongues, just as the church did on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2).

The year I spent in Whitehorse was the most important one of my life. I became a Christian and I met my future wife. In time we moved to Victoria, BC, to raise our family, and so that I could attend university. There were many blessings, particularly the birth of my two daughters, but there were also some hard trials. The hardest came in 1989, when my marriage ended. When we separated, my wife took the girls to her home in the Yukon, and I found myself sinking back into the same depression that had stolen much of my adolescence years.

When I became depressed my views and behaviour was undercut by feelings of helplessness and hopelessness. It destroyed all of my motivation and prevented me from reaching out or appreciating anything. Often I would question the value of serving the Lord, because my darkened mind rejected everything. But thankfully my earlier experience with the Lord prevented me from walking away. By that time I had lived for the Lord for the better part of a decade. I knew the truth of God’s Word and I knew the Lord personally. Even feeling that I was without hope, I knew that I had experiences I could not deny. In the Bible, when people began to be offended by Jesus’ teachings, many stopped following Him. He asked the twelve if they too would go. Peter answered, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.’ (John 6:68) This scripture was one that spoke to me again and again throughout this period. Even though I didn’t feel I was currently getting anything at all out of my spiritual walk, I knew that there wasn’t anywhere else to turn which would offer me anything more than I’d already experienced in Jesus. I was fully persuaded!

After about a year of suffering, during some special services our church hosted, I went forward and asked for healing. As hands were laid on me and I was prayed for (1 Peter 2:24, James 5:14) the spirit of heaviness was lifted by the power and presence of the Almighty God. A couple of months later I recieved custody of my daughters. There were still trials ahead, but freed from the deadening, crippling depression, I was able to see past my circumstances. ‘[W]hen I fall, I shall arise; when I sit in darkness, the Lord shall be a light unto me.’ (Micah 7:8)

Today I can look at where the Lord has me brought and appreciate all the blessings He has given me, including a strong family and a happy marriage, and the knowledge that His hand is on my life. Today I am setting down deeper roots in the Lord. Challenging myself and finding out that richer, greater levels of commitment are always met by a richer, greater flow of His Spirit in my life. When things are dark and I don’t know what tomorrow will bring, I know that He knows and that He will be there for me. It’s a question that was settled long ago and continually is bearing fruit today!

Book Reviews

2009-01-31T13:35:00.001-08:00

One things I have been doing at the other site is reviewing books. There aren't many, yet, and I am going to link directly to that site, instead of reposting here. Future reviews will be here at Christian Beta.

Jesus and Yahweh: The Divine Names

AD 381: Heretics, Pagans, And The Christian State

The Fall Of The Evangelical Nation: The Surprising Crisis Inside The Church

Quitting Church: Why The Faithful Are Leaving And What To Do About It

The Lost World of Genesis One

All Or Nothing: A Short History Of Abstinence In America

Relaunch Prep Continues

2009-01-22T07:28:00.000-08:00

Looking over 2008 posts that might be reposted here, there aren't a lot to consider. I made 19 religious or spiritually themed posts in 2008. About one every two or three weeks. I know that's a lot for some bloggers. There were links to news items, countdowns on my 1000 day goal (more on that later), even a re-post from here. There were a couple of book reviews I am thinking of linking to here. You may have noticed that the links I did have here are gone. A couple were more a appropriate to the other blog and the rest were dead. A couple of years is a long time in cyberspace. One thing I will be reposting over here is my testimony. Before I do any of it though, I am going to look through the rest of my hiatus period and see if there is anything else I need to consider moving. I intend to have it all done by the end of the month.

Christian Beta Returns

2009-01-15T07:39:00.000-08:00

After about 25 months I have decided to revive this blog. I am not entirely sure about the when and how at this point. Originally I put this one on hiatus and started another with the idea of putting all my interests under one roof, but over the last two years my other site, David Bird, came to represent my geekier interests (comics, SF, and such) and stopped being the more generalized site I had imagined. I am okay with that. It just developed its own identity over time. Rather than force it back into the orginally intended mold, I am bringing this one back. I will probably link to some of the stuff I have there, but I don't think I'll repost it here. We'll see. Anyway. Good to be back. I am looking forward to a good year for Christian Beta in 2009.

New Blog Is Active

2006-12-04T23:12:00.000-08:00

A week today will mark a year since I started this blog. I averaged a post a week. But my new blog is up and this should be my last post at Christian Beta.

My new blog is simply David Bird. You'll find the same stuff there that you found here and a lot more.

Thanks. Its been fun.

New Subter Article

2006-12-02T18:29:00.000-08:00

I have a new article up at subter, A Blank Cheque.

Still can't settle on a new name. Was going to go with Carl's idea (Bird's Eye View), but another person at blogger has it. Maybe I'll switch hosts.

More Blog News

2006-11-27T01:09:00.000-08:00

I have been thinking about this for a while, but I have come to a decision. Soon Beta Christian will be no more. I have decided to create a blog with a more generalized focus: all of my interests, instead of just one. Religion will still be a big focus, of course. Its a big part of my life. But other things will be there too. Off the top of my head, I think comics will enjoy the highest post count. Its what I write about the most.

When I do set it up, I will post a link here and keep this blog up for a while before deleting it.

Now I just need a name. Sadly, Birdopedia and Birdology are the front runners. Any thoughts?

Religious Right Continues To Fall Behind

2006-11-27T01:00:00.000-08:00

Last February I posted news about an attempt to move America's Evangelicals towards acting on environmental issues. It failed. It looks like another such attempt has failed. Joel Hunter, only recently elected to lead the powerful Christian Coalition, has resigned - even before taking office. He tried to get the organization interested in things other than abortion and opposing gay marriage and it said no. Its not that he wanted to change positions on those matters. He just wanted to reach out to more issues that Christians care about. Issues that aren't necessarily supported by the Republican party.

Some day James Dobson's calls won't get answered and incidents like this are why.

Blog Problems

2006-11-16T23:22:00.000-08:00

You may notice that the profile to the right is not the Christian Beta profile. The new upgrades to the Blogger system are merging accounts. I am trying to get this fixed. Please be patient. If I can't, I'll look for a new host.

I am shutting off the e-mail and other options as they aren't currently correct, either.

Matthew 1:18-25

2006-10-20T07:27:00.000-07:00

Continuing from September 6th

1:18-25: Jesus’ Birth

The story of Jesus’ birth is told in five parts, each centered around the fulfillment of a prophecy. The first part completes chapter one, and is the fullfilment of Isaiah 7:14-15, in which Isaiah is told by the Lord to reassure Ahaz, king of Judah. Israel, the Northern Kingdom, and Syria had allied together and laid seige to Jerusalem. God assured Ahaz that they would not succeed, and that the Northern Kingdom would fall. God even offered to give Ahaz a sign that it would come to pass, but Ahaz deferred, saying he didn’t want to tempt the Lord. God was unimpressed. He then gave Isaiah prophecies of God’s judgements, but also promises of His mercy, including a saviour:

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

Isaiah 7: 14-15

Immanuel means, as Matthew says, ‘God with us’, but Joseph is also instructed to actually name the child Jesus, because “he shall save his people from their sins.” The name Jesus means, 'Jehovah is salvation.' God is our source of salvation. It is a transliteration of the name Yeshua into Greek. Translated into English it is Joshua. The Greek language had dominated the eastern Mediterranean for three centuries by the time Jesus was born. While we assume his name actually was Yeshua, or an Aramaic version of the same, by the time of His birth it wasn’t uncommon for Jews to actually use the Greek version and it is the only version of His name found in scripture.

The angel speaks to Joseph. Throughout this account in Matthew the angel speaks only to Joseph, which reinforces the idea that this account, and its genealogy, are from his side of the family. The angel isn’t named, but, according to Luke, Gabriel spoke to Mary and its believed he spoke to Joseph too.

The account given by Matthew is very simple: Mary was engaged to Joseph, but before they came together, sexually, she was pregnant. Joseph decided to break the engagement, but before he did an angel came to assure him that Mary’s pregnancy was not what it appeared. God himself was the father. Though these scriptures don’t speak of ‘God the father’, rather, it’s the Holy Ghost. Throughout the Old Testament, when God acted in this world, it was said that His Spirit, the Spirit of the Lord, came, acted, or inspired. The same thing happened here. In fulfillment of the prophecy God had given Ahaz a virgin was pregnant and the messiah was about to be born. And we believe this because we know Him. We know the Risen Saviour.

And Mary believed because the angel Gabriel told her. She would have known she was pregnant and that she was a virgin, but not how such a thing could be. Joseph knew because an angel told him. But what of the people around them? An engagement was not a trivial matter; everyone knew that Mary was Joseph’s. And not only was she pregnant, it wasn’t his child. I don’t know if it’s possible for us today, at least in the West, to appreciate what that meant, but it links her to the four women already mentioned in this chapter. Like them, her life knew shame and humiliation. Yet, unlike them, hers came as a result of God’s blessing. How often do we despise the blessings of the Lord, taking our measure from the world?

What has always stood out to me in this passage was Joseph’s reaction, before the angel spoke to him, to the news of her pregnancy:

Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

Matthew 1:19

My copy of Vine’s tells me that the word ‘just’ “denotes righteousness, a state of being right, or right conduct, judged by the Divine standard, or according to human standards of what is right.” And how does a just man repsond to this news? He didn’t want to marry her, it wasn’t his child, but he didn’t want to shame her either. By the day’s standards she was his and her pregnancy was a mark against his honour as much as hers, but he was happy to let that go. He didn’t see any value in humiliating her. People would talk. Both their reputations would be forever linked to this scandal. But because he was a righteous man, he didn’t see any need to strike out. To show the world that he was blameless; that the situation was not his fault. And when he received instructions on the matter from the Lord, he believed and he acted. He wed Mary, ignoring what others might say, he didn’t touch her until the baby was born, and then he named the child Jesus.

Much is made of Christ’s humility, and rightly so, but he had more than a heavenly Father to turn to for guidance. He had two earthly examples.

subter

2006-10-06T22:19:00.000-07:00

I have added subter to my links. Yes, the s is supposed to be a small s. No, I am not sure why. Never asked.

My Hezbollah article is up. Next month I am planning to write one on cosmological terminology. Seriously. I am at work on the Matthew study, but I am not in a hurry. I am sure I could paste together an entry a week if I had to, but I am not trying to rush through this. I hope to be well into the Sermon on the Mount by the end of the year. That is as much of a timeline as I have. Right now I am looking at Mt 1:18-2:23 (the rest of chapter one and all of chapter two). These verses tell of Jesus' childhood and come in five similarly structured parts.

Christians Executed In Indonesia

2006-09-22T06:24:00.000-07:00

Three men have been executed for their alleged role in sectarian riots six years ago. They were killed despite the lack of evidence against them and despite the fact that no Muslim involved in the rioting got more than a 15 year jail sentence. Many believed they were killed because it was politically expedient. The Bali bombers are due to be executed soon and Muslim extremists would not be happy to see these men released on the eve of their co-religionists' executions.

Study’s Status

2006-09-14T18:59:00.000-07:00

I just wanted to make a quick post and let you know that even though a week has passed without completing Matthew chapter one, I haven’t forgotten. I am at work on a couple of things. One is a word study I want to do before continuing with Matthew. There is something I want to study out before going further. I suspect this will happen again. I am looking at doing this for a long time, so I am trying not to be impatient.

The other thing is an article on Hezbollah. I am writing it for a webzine called subter, which is relaunching if October. I will list it in my links once it’s up. In school my area of study was political science, but this is the first time I’ve written anything like this in years. For November I am thinking of writing a piece on dispensationalism and America’s support for Israel. That one should also tie up some points here as well.

Matthew 1: 1-17

2006-09-06T06:57:00.000-07:00

The Gospel of Matthew

Written by the disciple Matthew, a former publican (Matt 9:9), this was believed by the Church Fathers to be the first account of Jesus’ life – which is why it is placed first in the New Testament. This gospel was written for a Jewish audience and was often called The Gospel of the Hebrews in the early Church.

1:1-17: The Genealogy of Jesus

In the genealogy that begins this book, three things are emphasized.

The first is Jesus’ relationship to Abraham and to David. Abraham, of course, was the forefather of the Jews, but he was more than that. Every Jew, Christian, and Muslim is riding on the coattails of his relationship with God. There is no bigger forefather in the history of mankind’s religious and spiritual development. One of the promises God made to Abraham was that in him all the nations of the world would be blessed (Gen 18:18). Through Jesus this was about to happen. David was Israel’s greatest king, and it was through his lineage that God promised a messiah would come (Jer 33:15). Jesus is a part of that lineage – however humble his personal circumstances — and through Joseph’s bloodline, making him, legally at least, a direct male descendant of the royal household.

The next thing Matthew emphasizes is that there are three sets of fourteen people in the genealogy, from Abraham to David, from David to the Babylonian captivity, and from the Babylonian captivity to Jesus. Why he makes this threefold division isn’t clear. To do it he had to abridge the list of kings, a practice that does have scriptural precedence. And the last group, strangely, has only thirteen names. Many have speculated about this, but we have no clear answer. Dismissing it as a mistake doesn’t work. Clearly Matthew could count to fourteen. And so could the many scholars and scribes who followed him. A common explanation for the number fourteen draws on Jewish numerological studies, in which the name David has the value fourteen. According to this approach, emphasizing fourteen is another way of emphasizing His relationship with David.

The third thing emphasized is four of the women named. They serve as a bridge to the story of His birth. The first woman mentioned is Tamar. She was married to Judah’s first son Er, and was probably a Canaanite. Even though the Law was centuries away, the practice of Levirate marriage was already an established custom. Accordingly, if a man died without children, his widow would be married to his brother and any children this second marriage produced would be considered the children of the diseased husband. That way his name would be preserved. When Er died Tamar was given to the second brother, Onan. Onan, however, refused to honour his brother and God slew him. Judah then promised Tamar could marry the next brother, but he didn’t keep that promise. Desperate, Tamar disguised herself as a prostitute and took her father-in-law as a customer, and accepting his signet and staff as payment. When Judah learned that Tamar was pregnant, he ordered her killed as a punishment for her fornication; but when she produced his signet and staff he admitted that he was wrong not to keep his promise. Two children were born, and one, Pharez, is an ancestor of Jesus.

The next woman was Rahab. She was a prostitute, living in Jericho when the Israelites attacked the city. She hid their spies and in return was saved when Jericho was destroyed. She was given in marriage to Salmon and was the mother of Boaz, who married Ruth. Ruth was a Moabite woman, the widow of a Judean from Bethlehem. She travelled with her mother-in-law to that city and married Boaz, a kinsman of her late husband.

Tamar had to prostitute herself. Rahab was a prostitute. Ruth was a respectable widow, but when she threw himself on the mercy of Boaz she was taking a real chance. Boaz was an honourable man, but she didn’t know that. Like the others she was a gentile. A serious strike against her in the eyes of the Jewish community Jesus was raised in. The last woman mentioned was not only a gentile, Bathsheba is one of history’s most famous adultresses. Yet of all the wives and mothers that could have been listed, these are the ones honoured here. Each was subject to shame and humiliation in the eyes of those around them, and that was something they shared with the next woman named.

Happy Anniversary!

2006-09-05T10:05:00.000-07:00

I just got back from Seattle, where my wife and I were celebrating our first anniversay. It doesn't seem like its been only a year. I was single for a long time before re-marrying, and I wasn't seeking a mate. I was comfortable with my life the way it was. But when I met Emmie that all began to change. Fortunately, I had the sense to recognize a good thing when I saw it.

An Interesting Idea

2006-08-18T22:04:00.000-07:00

I was surfing the other day and ended up at Slate.com, where they have a blog Bible commentary. It occurred to me that this might be something to try over here. Not that I am a great scholar, but it struck me as having two benefits. First it would structure my own Bible study in a positive way. To explain something you have to understand it. Second, the more I post the more often I find reasons to post. If I were to make a commentary post once a week, I think I'd be more likely to be here more often.

I am thinking of concentrating on the New Testament.

Wikipedia and Jesus Only

2006-08-08T10:50:00.000-07:00

I few weeks ago I logged on to wikipedia and discovered an entry for "Jesus Only." Content-wise it was okay. A little redundant given that there was already a "Oneness Pentecost" entry, but the term "Jesus Only" doesn't reflect the reality of our beliefs and has always been understood as derogatory and misrepresentative.

Why? Because it implies a denial of the Father and Holy Ghost. We don't deny the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost. We simply don't believe they exist as individual "persons". They are each a role, a manifestation, through which God has revealed Himself to us.

But… now I finally have the time to log on to the entry and attempt to do something about it, others have already been at work. Wouldn’t it be great if all the things we should have done were done in our absence?

Health Problems - Again

2006-08-05T08:03:00.000-07:00

Almost two weeks ago now, I developed Bell's Palsy. This happens when a nerve in your face, for any one of a great many reasons, stops signalling the muscles its connected to and one side of your face becomes paralysed. In about half the cases recovery is within a short time. In another third, about a year. The remaining 15 per cent (approximately) may never recover. Fortunately for me, I seem to be in the first group. A lot of people have prayed for me, and I have seen a couple of doctors, and things are on course for a full recovery.

The last couple of years have been marked with a lot of health emergencies. Sometimes my back would act up so badly I couldn't work. I developed a hernia. My right knee has twice swollen so badly I couldn't walk. Now this. I've had a full physical. There's no connection. In fact, my overall health is excellent. In each case something specific would go seriously wrong and then recover. Other than my appendix bursting about eight years ago and my tonsils when a was a pre-schooler, I think a twisted ankle is the worse thing I'd had to deal with before now. I suppose I could mark it down to age, but I'm 43, not 63.

Personally, I tend to look at life as being full of events that, if they aren't random per se, are often just the consequence of too many things impacting you for there to really be any kind of pattern or plan at work. Yes, I understand and believe in providence, but looking for a reason for everything is also a sign of paranoia. Still, I am starting to wonder. Maybe there is a reason. Maybe I am being taught empathy. If I am, I certainly hope I recognize the lesson when it comes. I'd hate to go through this all and fail.

Israel At War

2006-08-03T07:12:00.000-07:00

While I haven't posted anything on the current war(s) on Israeli's border, I hope to be a lot more diligent from now on. My time has been spent elsewhere.

Israel is fighting in the south (Gaza) and the north (Lebanon). Events began when an Israeli artillery shell struck a Gaza beach and killed eight members of a family. At that point Hamas militants renounced their cease-fire and kidnapped an Israeli soldier. Their aim was to arrange a prisoner swap. They wanted to free one to two hundred women and minors in Israeli custody. Tel Aviv’s response was a massive military invasion, which destroyed much of the Gaza’s infrastructure. Soon there was another kidnapping. This time from the north, where Hezbollah kidnapped more Israeli soldiers. Those who support a hardline position, and think its crazy that either group of militants could think to win anything through kidnappings, should remember that such prisoner exchanging have happened, and have even been sought out by hardliners like Sharon.

So why has Israeli responded as violently this time? “Enough is enough” hardly makes a credible answer when most of the insurgent’s reactions are a response to Israel’s actions – which have been condemned from the left and right. But not by Washington. The Bush administration is following its Israel at all costs policy. One that is strongly informed by the President’s religious views. A great book on this subject is On the Road to Armageddon, which goes into some depth in discussing the links with dispensational theology, and the political ties that exist between the state of Israel and the American Evangelical community. Many liberals, who have long distained even thinking about America’s religious right, simply have no idea how closely tied it is to the power brokers of Israel, and the Israeli right in particular.

Anyway. I have more to say on this subject and, I am afraid, there will be a lot of time yet to say it.

He Who Cast the First Stone Probably Didn’t

2006-07-24T16:57:00.000-07:00

This is an op-ed column by Daniel Gilbert. Its from today's New York Times. Ordinarily I would just provide a link, but pieces have a very short shelf life in the NY Times online. Dr. Gilbert is a Harvard psychologist and the author of "Stumbling on Happiness."

LONG before seat belts or common sense were particularly widespread, my family made annual trips to New York in our 1963 Valiant station wagon. Mom and Dad took the front seat, my infant sister sat in my mother’s lap and my brother and I had what we called “the wayback” all to ourselves.

In the wayback, we’d lounge around doing puzzles, reading comics and counting license plates. Eventually we’d fight. When our fight had finally escalated to the point of tears, our mother would turn around to chastise us, and my brother and I would start to plead our cases. “But he hit me first,” one of us would say, to which the other would inevitably add, “But he hit me harder.”

It turns out that my brother and I were not alone in believing that these two claims can get a puncher off the hook. In virtually every human society, “He hit me first” provides an acceptable rationale for doing that which is otherwise forbidden. Both civil and religious law provide long lists of behaviors that are illegal or immoral — unless they are responses in kind, in which case they are perfectly fine.

After all, it is wrong to punch anyone except a puncher, and our language even has special words — like “retaliation” and “retribution” and “revenge” — whose common prefix is meant to remind us that a punch thrown second is legally and morally different than a punch thrown first.

That’s why participants in every one of the globe’s intractable conflicts — from Ireland to the Middle East — offer the even-numberedness of their punches as grounds for exculpation.

The problem with the principle of even-numberedness is that people count differently. Every action has a cause and a consequence: something that led to it and something that followed from it. But research shows that while people think of their own actions as the consequences of what came before, they think of other people’s actions as the causes of what came later.

In a study conducted by William Swann and colleagues at the University of Texas, pairs of volunteers played the roles of world leaders who were trying to decide whether to initiate a nuclear strike. The first volunteer was asked to make an opening statement, the second volunteer was asked to respond, the first volunteer was asked to respond to the second, and so on. At the end of the conversation, the volunteers were shown several of the statements that had been made and were asked to recall what had been said just before and just after each of them.

The results revealed an intriguing asymmetry: When volunteers were shown one of their own statements, they naturally remembered what had led them to say it. But when they were shown one of their conversation partner’s statements, they naturally remembered how they had responded to it. In other words, volunteers remembered the causes of their own statements and the consequences of their partner’s statements.

What seems like a grossly self-serving pattern of remembering is actually the product of two innocent facts. First, because our senses point outward, we can observe other people’s actions but not our own. Second, because mental life is a private affair, we can observe our own thoughts but not the thoughts of others. Together, these facts suggest that our reasons for punching will always be more salient to us than the punches themselves — but that the opposite will be true of other people’s reasons and other people’s punches.

Examples aren’t hard to come by. Shiites seek revenge on Sunnis for the revenge they sought on Shiites; Irish Catholics retaliate against the Protestants who retaliated against them; and since 1948, it’s hard to think of any partisan in the Middle East who has done anything but play defense. In each of these instances, people on one side claim that they are merely responding to provocation and dismiss the other side’s identical claim as disingenuous spin. But research suggests that these claims reflect genuinely different perceptions of the same bloody conversation.

If the first principle of legitimate punching is that punches must be even-numbered, the second principle is that an even-numbered punch may be no more forceful than the odd-numbered punch that preceded it. Legitimate retribution is meant to restore balance, and thus an eye for an eye is fair, but an eye for an eyelash is not. When the European Union condemned Israel for bombing Lebanon in retaliation for the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, it did not question Israel’s right to respond, but rather, its “disproportionate use of force.” It is O.K. to hit back, just not too hard.

Research shows that people have as much trouble applying the second principle as the first. In a study conducted by Sukhwinder Shergill and colleagues at University College London, pairs of volunteers were hooked up to a mechanical device that allowed each of them to exert pressure on the other volunteer’s fingers.

The researcher began the game by exerting a fixed amount of pressure on the first volunteer’s finger. The first volunteer was then asked to exert precisely the same amount of pressure on the second volunteer’s finger. The second volunteer was then asked to exert the same amount of pressure on the first volunteer’s finger. And so on. The two volunteers took turns applying equal amounts of pressure to each other’s fingers while the researchers measured the actual amount of pressure they applied.

The results were striking. Although volunteers tried to respond to each other’s touches with equal force, they typically responded with about 40 percent more force than they had just experienced. Each time a volunteer was touched, he touched back harder, which led the other volunteer to touch back even harder. What began as a game of soft touches quickly became a game of moderate pokes and then hard prods, even though both volunteers were doing their level best to respond in kind.

Each volunteer was convinced that he was responding with equal force and that for some reason the other volunteer was escalating. Neither realized that the escalation was the natural byproduct of a neurological quirk that causes the pain we receive to seem more painful than the pain we produce, so we usually give more pain than we have received.

Research teaches us that our reasons and our pains are more palpable, more obvious and real, than are the reasons and pains of others. This leads to the escalation of mutual harm, to the illusion that others are solely responsible for it and to the belief that our actions are justifiable responses to theirs.

None of this is to deny the roles that hatred, intolerance, avarice and deceit play in human conflict. It is simply to say that basic principles of human psychology are important ingredients in this miserable stew. Until we learn to stop trusting everything our brains tell us about others — and to start trusting others themselves — there will continue to be tears and recriminations in the wayback.

Returning to our comfort zones

2006-07-23T20:34:00.000-07:00

I spoke a couple of weeks ago at my church. I actually followed on from the sermon last January (posted here Jan 30), but this was of a more confessional tone. My text was Hebrews 12:1.

The Oxford Science Dictionary defines weight as “the force by which a body is attached to the earth.” It means that being weighted to the earth keeps us from being flung into space, but I think that it has interesting spiritual implications. And I went on to discuss the weight of daily routine.

I want to do more. I know that I can’t bring about something different by dong the same thing, but I find myself governed by routine and my good intentions remain good intentions. This hit home when I considered the January message and asked myself, have I thrived outside my comfort zone? The truth is, I don’t know. Over a long enough period of time everything evens out. Unless you’ve marked your path you won’t see it.

Daily routines are the habits that build the walls of our comfort zones. They keep us looking inward and prevent us from being open to new things. Its our natural inclination to stay within the walls. Of course, there are good and bad periods. On good days we think “this is how it should be” and don’t appreciate them for the blessings they are. On bad days we need to remember that Jesus is with us. Those who don’t have Christ go through the same trials we do, but we have a God who will keep us and use our trials to bring us closer to Him. But the good and bad pass and we return to our routines and we forget all about them. When the good times return, we take them for granted again. When the bad times return, we forget that the Lord has brought us through them before.

Over time everything evens out, and in the end it all comes down to inertia. We are the same today as we were yesterday and we’ll be the same tomorrow unless we can bring change. I have a lot of good intentions. There are a lot of things I can think of that I want to do for the Lord. But unless I push out, they will only ever be intentions.

When I spoke about Thriving Outside Your Comfort Zone I was talking about what to do when you found yourself outside your comfort zone. I didn’t realize that until now. We do find ourselves there, but we can’t plan of happenstance to be an engine for change. Particularly when we have somewhere we want to go. Its like being in a strange city and getting on a random bus, yet still expecting that we’ll get where we intend. We have to figure out where we are and where we want to go. We all want to do great things in the Lord. We want to see our families saved. We want to see our churches full. We want to live with all the potential that He has in store for us. But if we do nothing, we’ll get nothing. If we do the same thing we’ve always done, we’ll stay attached to the same piece of earth we’ve always been attached to.

Dispensationalism: A Look At II Peter 3

2006-07-04T10:25:00.000-07:00

After a light spring, posting-wise, summer has come and I would like to start with a follow up from the earlier discussion on dispensationalism.

II Peter 3: 5-10 tells us that God will destroy this world – and the heavens – with fire and create a new heaven and a new earth. I have heard many Christians say that the planet we’re living on it irrelevant to the big picture. God’s going to destroy and replace it with an uncorrupted one. But is that what Peter is saying?

It might be easier to answer these questions by pointing out when this is happening:

II Peter 3:10:

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

The ‘day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night’ refers to the return of Jesus. What Peter is describing doesn’t happen after the millennial reign, but as a part of its establishment!

John the Baptist said of Jesus:

Luke 3: 16 – 17:

John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.

And throughout the Bible God’s judgement and His anger are described as a fire. Hell, where the condemned are forever suffering the wrath of God, is described as a place of everlasting fire. What we are reading in II Peter is not a description of the destruction of the planet, but rather God’s judgement and the establishment of the millennial kingdom, a world where sin doesn’t reign.
Compare:

II Peter 3: 5-10:

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

II Thessalonians 1: 7-9:

Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer: Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

When Jesus returns, it will be with a fiery judgement on those who rejected the Truth and who persecuted His church. These two passages describe the same event, one that happens prior to the millennium and not after it.

The fire in these passages is not metaphorical. Again, it is the judgement of God against those who spurned the gospel – a very real and everlasting fire to those who are judged, but to those who are under grace, our world will be renewed. For the first time since the fall, it will be a world in which sin doesn’t reign. Satan will be bound throughout this time and with him no longer prince of this world, the heavens – or spiritual realms – will also know the fire of judgement.

I am addressing this in the context of dispensationalism because it is taught as a part of the broader picture painted by dispensationalist teachings, but I think it can be argued that this interpretation doesn’t ultimately conflict with dispensationalism. Its importance, rather, is in directing us back to out stewardship of the earth. God gave us dominion over it, and God doesn’t give us blessings or responsibilities (Genesis 1:28) so that we can waste them.

Apostolic Man

2006-06-12T17:37:00.000-07:00

Where has the last week gone? I have been back for more than a week now and I’ve been meaning to update this blog and post about the Men’s Retreat, but, obviously, I haven’t.

It took place at a camp ground outside Hope, BC. There are some beautiful mountains out there, but it poured most of the time. The main speaker was a minister from Ohio name Ellis; though there were also several speakers from around BC, as well, including my pastor. It started Thursday evening, went all day Friday, and concluded Saturday morning. The message, in one form or another, was that men needed to develop a sense of urgency about their role in the work of God. Too often we concede everything to the women, they’re the spiritually sensitive ones, perhaps, but God wants us to be leaders in our homes and churches. And to be spiritual men we have to be spiritually mature. Probably the best point made was by Brother Ellis. He said that our destinies are not determined by God’s will – its His will that none should perish, after all, but many do – rather, our destinies are determined by the choices we make.

Besides the teaching, I met some guys I hadn’t seen in a long time. One, Wayne Patchett, received the infilling of the Holy Ghost in the same service I did twenty five years ago. I also received prayer for my back, which I am believing God for. I don’t usually go to these meetings and I don’t know when I’ll next go, but it was a good time and I’m glad I went.

Men's Retreat

2006-05-29T18:25:00.000-07:00

This week, June 1- 3, I am going to a Men's Retreat called Apostolic Man. I went to one three or four years ago and enjoyed it, but I am not one for camp meetings or rallies or what have you. I enjoy myself when I am there, but never think of going. I am going to this one because I think I am spending too much time at home. "Cacooning" as they call it. You see, I work in a very social environment and by the time I get home I am played out. I've done all the talking, etc I really want to. My wife has her hands full with her schooling and part-time job, and likes to relax at home as well. But there is only so much of home you can take before the four walls seem to start closing in, so I am off for some Christian fellowship. My wife went to a Ladies Retreat for a few days last week.

I'll let you know how it goes.

News from Asia

2006-05-25T07:59:00.000-07:00

From AsiaNews.it, which, apparently, is an Italian Catholic news site, we've some good news from India. The Rajasthan governor is refusing to sign an anti-conversion bill.

The site also has an interesting item about the expulsion of a priest from Saudi Arabia.

Future Posts

2006-05-07T13:03:00.000-07:00

I am home sick today. I don't usually miss Sunday morning services and, quite frankly, I am very bored.

I have had a hard time getting back into my usual work patterns in the two months since the move, so I have decided to stop trying. Instead I am going to try and use whatever time I have available. Eventually, I am sure, new patterns will develop and I everything will be fine.

With that in mind, I intend to go back and develop some of the thoughts I mentioned in my posts about dispensationalism. I haven't adopted another perspective, or formulated one of my own, but there are themes and ideas I would like to go back to. I don't feel I'm quite done with them yet. I also intend to take another shot at developing my thoughts on faith and science. And there are some new topics -- new to this blog, anyway -- that I want to go into. These will be the sort of things you will be reading here. I started it six months ago and hoped to average about a couple of posts a month. Six months and 31 posts later I am well above that goal.

Christians Read Comics Too!

2006-04-30T17:34:00.000-07:00

Christians Read Comics Too! is a new blog, started by a friend who has come under some criticism for reading comics. Of course, comic readers expect to come under some criticism. After more than a century of being a part of our daily lives, graphic storytelling is only now beginning to get the respect that other parts of our culture take for granted. This particular reader, however, was faced with a choice. Either stop writing about comics or see the door to his career as a minister close.

It was really no choice at all. His calling came first. Now he is working anonymously to promote a better informed opinion of the medium. As anyone who has read my profile or checked out my links knows, I also write about comics. I haven't been faced with such a choice and don't really expect to be. Still, I can't help but sympathize with him. And I don't just mean as a comics reader. Christians have a tendency to seemingly condemn all popular culture. I say seemingly because we make a lot of exceptions. Christian women read a lot of romance novels. Sure they're sex free, but honestly, how can you be said to feeding spiritual self and not your carnal self when you live on a diet of junk food. I am not even going to started on Contemporary Christian music! (I really could go on and on, but that’s not where I want to go.)

A friend was telling me about a problem that he foresaw with computers. Not wanting anything of the world's influence in his life, he didn't watch TV or go to the movies, but with technologies and media converging the way they are, soon the computer would bring all that into his home anyway. He realized something, though, that rather than get rid of his computer, he needed to foster a greater sense of personal ethics and moral judgment. A need to think critically (in the best sense) about popular culture. Sure, there are a lot of unchristian elements in popular culture. Even anti-Christian. But instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, we need to learn to practice greater discernment.

I know, its a slippery slope. First you let one thing slip in and then another and soon you can't tell saint from sinner. But one thing I've learned as a Christian is that those who want to walk the path of the hypocrite will, and they'll do it with great determination. Instead, you have to teach meaningful values to those who honestly want them.

Azusa Street

2006-04-23T17:16:00.000-07:00

The month is almost over and I haven't mentioned the Azusa centennial. One hundred years ago in a storefront church on Azusa Street in Los Angeles, California, a Pentecostal revival meeting started that reshaped the world.

Pentecostalism had its beginnings six years previous, in Topeka, Kansas, but it wasn't until Azusa that it became a worldwide phenomena. During its three year revival people came in from all walks of life and went out into all the world. Many scholars now believe that there could be as many as 500 million Pentecostals by 2020. Thats quite a heritage for its minister, a black Baptist who had been removed from his previous job for teaching that tongues were evidence of the Holy Ghost.

Attack on Copts

2006-04-14T20:25:00.000-07:00

News from Alexandria, Egypt. Men with knives attacked Good Friday worshippers in more than one church. Many were stabbed, one was killed. Reports differ on the number of victims and attackers. The man killed was 67.

Happy Easter

2006-04-14T09:41:00.000-07:00

And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

1 Corinthians 15: 14-22

I hope you’re having a great Easter weekend and I hope this time is more than just another long weekend. This is when we remember the event that is the center of God’s plan for humanity: the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Science as religion

2006-04-08T11:38:00.000-07:00

Recently Salon has interviewed a couple of popular science writers, Edward O. Wilson and Daniel Dennett. Both were asked whether science is a religion. Not surprisingly, both said no. Wilson came off as being more sympathetic, even admitting that he has a spiritual belief (which he calls a “provisional deism”). But he denies any kind of religiosity to science:

I don't see it as having the qualities of a religion, in terms of obeisance to a supreme being or of an urge to proselytize.

He obviously hasn’t met Dr. Dennett. Dennett is one of those sceptics who can’t help but take whatever opportunity at hand to take a shot at religion. He certainly does proselytize. In this particular interview it really sounds as though he were being spoon fed talking points, rather than actually being questioned. He claims that “every major problem we have interacts with religion.” The very same claim could be made about science, but he doesn’t go there. He does go on to make an utterly ridiculous claim that religion has been protected from scientific inquiry for too long, that its time to breach the moat that protects it from real, scientific understanding. Where has this man been for the last century?

Like Dennett many seem to confuse faith with hoping, or even wishing. A limited view at best. And sometimes, I suspect, a biased or disingenuous one. By keeping the argument simplistic, you get to keep your responses simplistic as well. But faith is so much more than he is willingly to consider. It isn’t simply wishing something to be so. Our faith incorporates and expresses our beliefs and practices. The word is sometimes used to describe a credo, because, like a credo our faith is what shapes our view of the world and how we act in it. When we step out in faith, we strengthen it because the experience gained from our action encourages our faith. It starts with a realization that there is a God and that we can approach Him. Through prayer and worship, through the study of His Word and fellowship with others that know Him, we gain the knowledge, experience, and spiritual understanding that constitute our faith.

Once you understand that faith encompasses our beliefs, behaviour – our view of the world, it is easy to see how the word can be applied to other views, political as well as materialistic. A communist puts his faith in Marx, a neo-conservative in the Market, and certain dogmatic cynics in Scientism.

Another look at Afghanistan's Christianity

2006-03-31T19:00:00.000-08:00

Another article on the Christian community in Afghanistan. This one points out a few interesting things: that there are also Sikh and Hindu communities in the country; most Afghans don't seem to mind their Christian neighbors, and that these incident has been exploited by some political groups; and the political exploitation of Islam has led to a disillusionment that is a factor in recent conversions. Also, the Christian community in Afghanistan and Pakistan pre-dates colonialism.

Rahman safe in Italy

2006-03-29T21:52:00.000-08:00

Abdul Rahman has been granted asylum in Italy. No doubt a necessary step if his life is to be saved.

I have decided that in the future I will post similar stories. They don't always invlove Afghanistan or Islam, but they usually get an odd mention on a slow news day and are gone. I'll also try to link to the BBC when possible, because they tend to keep an extensive archive of stories. That way I won't have to worry about dead links.

Rahman Freed

2006-03-28T08:02:00.000-08:00

Abdul Rahman has been freed. The courts grasped for an excuse to let him go -- is he crazy? is he still an Afghan citizen -- but in the end the government bowed to Western pressure. You can read more here. I only pray someone doesn't take it on themselves to enforce Islamic law.

A Secret Christianity

2006-03-27T17:03:00.000-08:00

Here is another link about Abdul Rahman and life as an Afghan Christian. Sadly, I think we can expect the West to do nothing at all about this situation.

More News... This time from Afghanistan. And not so positive.

2006-03-24T18:22:00.000-08:00

An Afghan man, Abdul Rahman, converted to Christianity and may now be killed by the state for apostacy. There's been an international outcry, but many in the country are digging their heels in. This quote is from the BBC:

"The Prophet Muhammad has said several times that those who convert from Islam should be killed if they refuse to come back," says Ansarullah Mawlafizada, the trial judge.

"Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, kindness and integrity. That is why we have told him if he regrets what he did, then we will forgive him," he told the BBC News website.

There are reports that the President of Afghanistan is giving assurances that the man will not die, but I haven't seen any official announcements. Mr. Rahman converted to Christianity sixteen years ago.

Good news from Iraq

2006-03-23T23:05:00.000-08:00

Today two Canadian Christian aid workers were freed in Iraq. They had been kidnapped last November and at one point a deadline was given, after which they would be killed if the US and its allies didn't release all their prisoners in Iraq. That date passed and nothing was heard about them, until another member of their group, an American, was found dead. He hadn't been kidnapped at the same time, but a Brit who had been was also freed. The three were rescued by a joint US-UK military operation. Given their group's leftist leanings, that was probably not their preferred method, but I am sure their families are just glad they are alive and safe.

I don't know if this story would have peaked my interest if they weren't Canadians or if they weren't always being described as Christians. Apparently over 400 foreigners have been kidnaped and about 55 killed. About 43 are still being held. Still as both a Canadian and a Christian, I identified with these guys. I'm glad their stories have ended well.

Not Quite Settled

2006-03-17T11:04:00.000-08:00

I thought I was settling into my new place fairly well, but I am beginning to wonder. This week I was looking at the growing number of unfinished things in my life and was surprised at how many there are. I have a couple of good ideas for PBR articles, but I am getting nowhere with either. I usually have more than one book going at a time. I counted how many I have started recently and discovered there were ten. Ten! That pretty much means I won't finish any unless I get a little proactive. I could go on and on.

Most things are unpacked or stored away. The place is looking livable, but somehow I haven't quite picked up my old routines. Not yet, anyway.

Graphic Visionaries

2006-03-04T11:19:00.000-08:00

First off, I am not endorsing the validity of either of these authors' views, nor am I equating religious experiences with schizophrenia. That out of the way, I think these are both very interesting pieces.

The Religious Experience of Philip K. Dick tells of an experience Dick, an American writer, had in 1974. He spent the rest of his life trying to explain it. It has been adapted by R. Crumb. In My Mom Was A Schizophrenic Chester Brown questions the validity of much of what modern society says about this mental illness.

I thought I'd post these links, because our society really isn't comfortable with too much religion. When Jews said to Jesus "Aren't we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?" (John 8:48), we can look back and wonder how they could be so blind, but when the guy next to us pushes the spiritual envelope we're all to quick to say he's being legalistic or maybe just nuts.

I also think they are good examples of using the graphic medium to discuss important issues.

Moving? Moved? When is it actually finished?

2006-03-03T12:47:00.000-08:00

This past weekend we moved from our home of 14 years and 11 months, a three bedroom townhouse, to an apartment. Both the rent and location are much, much better, but it only has two bedrooms and we have too much stuff. We're trying to unpack, but we have no where to put things. We're giving or throwing away a lot, too. To top it off I have been injured (a swollen knee), my wife has had exams, and my daughter's high school musical has just gone into performance! A friend told me that in a couple of weeks it'll all be finished. I'd like to believe her. I'm trying to believe her!

Moreover, my internet connection, which was supposed to be hooked up on Feb 27th, probably won't be up until March 6th. My provider is trying to figure out why the connection isn't working, and would like to come over. But no one can be home in the daytime until the 6th. I know what you're thinking: No internet means more time to unpack! But I actually use the 'net for things like banking and I don't want to do that at the library or work.

Jude and Enoch

2006-02-18T22:33:00.000-08:00

Being of a Pentecostal background, I don’t put a lot of weight in apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings (popularly called the “lost books” of the Bible), but I picked up a cheap copy of I Enoch a while back because I had heard that Jude references it in his epistle. Well, I finally got around to looking at it, and Jude did more than reference it. He quoted it directly:

Jude verses 14-15 (the book has only one chapter):

[14]And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, “Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, [15]To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

I Enoch 1:9

[9]And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones To execute judgement upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.

Modern scholars believe that I Enoch was written somewhere between one and two hundred years before the New Testament. Actually, many of early Christians thought it was written a lot earlier than that. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origin, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Augustine all believed Enoch was the author. Tertullian, reflecting a popular view, argued it should be included in scripture – indeed, the Coptics of Ethiopia agreed with that position and made it a part of their official canon. But The Council of Laodicea (364 AD) banned it, and about 40 other books. I may be wrong, but I believe it was banned because of doubts over its authorship. The book quickly disappeared and was lost to the West until British explorers travelled to Ethiopia and discovered it preserved by the Copts.

It is called the “First” Enoch to distinguish it from a couple of other texts that have been attributed to Enoch.

I just thought this was interesting, so I’m sharing.

Cartoon Violence

2006-02-14T16:20:00.000-08:00

Today the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations, described in the news as a Canadian Islamic group, said that Canadian troops have been put at risk by the decision of some Canadian news outlets to publish the Danish cartoons of Mohammed. Now I want to say that this Council was not making a threat. I understand that. But by linking the possibility of violence towards our peacekeepers overseas they are exploiting the threat of violence to further their agenda.

How this plays out will be interesting. We Canadians have an image of ourselves as bastions of tolerance, true its one that is built on a understanding of our history that can be described as selective at best, but its become a part of our national identity. At the same time the culture of our political elite is secularized, and tends to treat anyone with conservative religious values with derision and suspicion. As a threat to the body politic.

The Council wants to use our anti-hate laws to try and punish the publishers. If it was about hateful or insulting images of Christ or Christians I doubt the courts would even consider looking at it. Nor would the media be sympathetic, or even give their precious air time or page space to a serious consideration of the complainants. I've seen these images. Some are offensive, others aren't. One is simply of a frightened cartoonist drawing a man in Arab head dress. The argument being made by Islamic groups is that any image of Mohammed is offensive to them and a violation of their religious laws.

Where do I stand on this? I think peoples' religious beliefs should be treated with respect, but why should we be made subject to Islamic law? This is not an Islamic nation. I do understand how aggravating it is to see your religious beliefs being mistreated and misrepresented. As a Christian I can't listen to a week of CBC radio without some idiot saying something insulting or derogatory. But why should one religion be allowed to dictate the behaviour of everyone else. If Christians were doing this, they would not be treated with any measure of respect. Why grant it to another group? As a display of tolerance? Or are we being intimidated by the threat of another 9-11?

(And before any one criticizes that last comment, I have seen protesters making just that point.)

A Couple of Related Links

2006-02-09T21:55:00.000-08:00

Here are a couple of links, related to my last post.

Ths is a link to the Evangelical Climate Initiative, the group that is spearheading the drive to do something about global warming.

And this is a link to a Salon article about the group and their recent actions. Ususally, Salon requires you to view a short ad before allowing you to read articles in full.

Greening of the Religious Right

2006-02-08T13:08:00.000-08:00

This morning's paper -- actually, I get the NY Times online -- came with the news that 86 Evangelical leaders have taken a stand, calling on the US government to work to end gobal warming. Probably the best known leader being author Rick Warren.

Interestingly, when I googled the item, most news sources emphasized the fact that the evangelicals could not reach a consensus and so did not as a body take a formal stand. This was the work of conservative (read Republican) evangelicals like James Dobson, who argued that the lack of unanimity in opinions within the organization meant that The National Association of Evangelicals could not take an official position. I wonder if a moderate minority could derail an initiative they didn't support.

Anyway, its good to see this stewartship is being taken seriously. True, things weren't turned around today, but that doesn't mean they never will be. As I said in an earlier post, God doesn't give us blessings so that we can exploit and discard them.

Thriving Outside Your Comfort Zone

2006-01-30T00:02:00.000-08:00

My Pastor was invited to preach at a Vancouver church Sunday morning, so a couple of us were asked to speak. This is what I had to say. It isn’t a transcript. I just typed it up from my notes.

Thriving Outside Your Comfort Zone

We all know that its important to step outside your comfort zone. If you want to reach out, to grow, to gain what you haven’t gained before, you have to be ready to go where you haven’t been before. As Christians, if we want more from life, we have to be ready to get outside our comfort zones. This isn’t new. We all know this. If you haven’t been taught it, I am sure it strikes you as obvious. Common sense.

And God has no qualms about putting you outside your comfort zone. He has always been perfectly happy to challenge His people. In fact, simply by choosing to be raised in Galilee He was challenging people’s preconceptions. When you read the gospels the contempt Judeans had for Galileans jumps off the page. Galilee had a large gentile population, even in the Old Testament it is called ‘Galilee of the Gentiles’ and the religious of Jerusalem refused any fellowship with gentiles. Those Jews who did live and worked among gentiles were unclean. It didn’t matter how religiously observant a Galilean Jew kept himself, he was always suspect. Whenever Jesus spoke the accent people heard was a Galilean’s, and people being people you can be sure many stopped listening the moment they heard it.

This year we have a theme, Light Your World (text: Matthew 5:14). But we aren’t being challenged by others, we need to challenge ourselves. If we are to go where we haven’t gone, if we are to get what we haven’t got, we need to step outside of where we are and into a new place. Now, as a bookseller I am always seeing books – in self-help, business, even in religion – that promise X steps to the new you! So I thought I would come up with ‘7 Steps To Thriving Outside Your Comfort Zone!’ But I only came up with five. Give me time!

Five Steps To Thriving Outside Your Comfort Zone:

1. Think Before You Run

The first thing we do when we’re outside our comfort zone is to run right back into it. It’s a normal, knee jerk reaction, but it doesn’t help. So, when you find yourself in new territory, pause and remind yourself that, even if it isn’t going the way you want it to, it may be going the way He wants it to.

2. Remember WHAT You Are

We are cities built on a hilltop. We are meant to be out there, for all to see. After all, we are saved for His purpose. If what we find ourselves in is a new experience, then we have a great chance at making a first impression. But much of the time we’re not having new experiences. Same job, same neighbours, same friends, same church. We need to look for new answers to old situations; to create new opportunities to make an impression.

3. Remember WHO You Are

What we are is our role in the bigger picture, who we are is someone with a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. That’s important. And not only to us. Out of our bellies should flow rivers of living water. We have to remember that we are not limited by what others think we are, or by what we might fear we are. We are who the Bible says we are.

4. Act

Our faith is made real when we act. We believe God is with us. We know it intellectually. We need to behave as though we believe it. We need to trust God when we find ourselves outside our comfort zones.

5. Focus On The Lord

When we are out there building for His Kingdom, we have to keep our focus on Him and not on the program we are using. Sure the “journey” is important, but the real measure of a journey’s success is whether or not it takes you where you intend to go. Once you’re out there, working outside your comfort zone, don’t be distracted by the details. Our purpose is to be a light in our world.

Well, that’s it. I concluded by encouraging people to do what they need to in order to see what they want to see accomplished this year. January may have gone by quickly, but we’re less than a tenth of the way through 2006. We’ve still a lot of time to accomplish something new. I was encouraged afterwards to keep working on it. To maybe find steps six and seven. And I don’t think that’s a bad idea. Throughout the year, as I try to be that light, I’ll evaluate my progress and develop this further. Push out the boundaries of my comfort zone!

Wikipedia

2006-01-29T12:49:00.000-08:00

I was up at an extremely early hour today and was surfing when I came on a Wikipedia article on Baptism. I can't recall why I was looking into baptism. Anyway, I noticed a couple of things that needed changing, so... I changed them! I don't know why it took me so long to start on Wikipedia. I have a co-worker whose grandfather was the first head of the World Health Organization. She hates the many errors in his entry, which have been quoted all over the net, but told me that when she tried to edit the entry she couldn't. I don't know why. Perhaps I'll offer to do it for her.

As for the two edits I made, one was about the baptism of the Spirit. Someone had written that no one teaches that the baptism of the Spirit included additional gifts, such as speaking in tongues. Thats simply not true. Many Pentecostals believe the initial infilling of the Holy Ghost is accompanied by speaking in tongues. So I pointed that out. The question is, why would whoever made the post make a point of denying this teaching unless they had heard of it?

The other edit was much smaller. It said that Mennonites and Pentecostals share the Baptist teaching that baptism is not a necessary part of salvation (that it is, rather, an outward sign or testimony). Here I only added the word "some" to Pentecostals, because not all of us share in this Baptist interpretation. Myself included. I am saying "Baptist" interpretation both because the Wikipedia article identifies it as Baptist in origin and because many of those that I know to hold it are baptists. Actually, I think one of the strengths of the article is that it talks of the many understandings of this important rite and only lists the Baptist's as one of many. The Baptist interpretation has become predominant among North America's evangelical/nondenominational Christians and all too often those of us who don't share it find ourselves on the defensive. The Church historically, and most churchs even today, teach that baptism is a necessary part of salvation. The Wikipedia article has a nice quote from Martin Luthor on this subject:

To put it most simply, the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of Baptism is to save. No one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, to 'be saved.' To be saved, we know, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death, and the devil and to enter into the kingdom of Christ and live with him forever.

One thing that has always confused me about those who believe that baptism isn't a necessary part of salvation is that so many of them boast of the literal nature of their exegeses of the Bible. But shouldn't someone who promotes such conservatism start with the most obvious understanding of scripture? I mean "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." (Acts 2:38) And "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name." (Acts 22:16) What is baptism for in these verses? The cleansing from sin!

Don't worry! I am not going to spend the next month on baptism! Though if any Baptists -- or others -- want to discuss this subject, I think it could be an interesting discussion topic.

Let Your Light Shine

2006-01-25T17:36:00.000-08:00

My Pastor likes to start off each year with a sermon that introduces a theme. Something that we'll come back to throughout the year. This year its "Light your world." The scripture reference is Matthew 5:14.

So, I'm thinking, how should I light my world? I am pretty sure that everyone I know is already aware that I am a committed Christian. First impressions are behind me. I guess, then, that its all about increasing the wattage. How to do that will be the year's project.

End Time Miscellany

2006-01-21T20:52:00.000-08:00

Leaving Dispensationalism Behind V

With this entry I am going to wrap things up with a few points about Dispensationalism. I may come back to it, or a related topic, someday, but I have to admit, when I started I had no idea how long it would go. Not that that’s a bad thing, but it was a surprise.

From Historicism To Dispensationalism:

There are still people who use the Historicist model in understanding the end times, but there is no doubt that its teachings have been displaced as the predominant one among Protestants. Looking at the two, though, I can’t help but notice similarities in their methods. Both provide believers with complex schemas that explain everything, if only you take the time to lay all the facts out ‘correctly.’ Dispensationalism simply replaces the history books with newspapers. I haven’t seen any studies to confirm this, but I suspect that generations of Historicist teachings were in some way important in creating the intellectual climate necessary to make Dispensationalism possible.

Always Applicable:

In 2 Timothy 3:16 Paul taught that all scripture is inspired by God and ‘is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.’ But Futurists, including Dispensationalists, teach that Revelations, chapters 4 to 22, is only applicable to the end times. How can these two assertions be reconciled? If we were living in 1537 would any of the book matter? Believing that this is now the end times, Dispensationalists might deny there is a problem, but what does that say about the book’s relevancy for the last two thousand years?

Left Behind:

A teaching of Dispensationalists – and a central part of the Left Behind novel series – is that you can still be saved if you miss the Rapture. As far as I can tell, this teaching has its origins in Dispensationalism’s problem of in explaining scriptures that describe a Church on earth during the Tribulation, but the whole idea of becoming a Christian after Jesus comes for His Church runs counter to the teachings of so much of the New Testament that I don’t know where to being! The Parable of the Ten Virgins. The analogy comparing His coming to that of a thief in the night. We are taught to be ready, because when He comes it will be too late to say, ‘Oh, I guess its time to repent!’

Previously I said I would discuss Dispensationalism’s pessimism. Here are three examples.

History Of Failure:

Dispensationalist history is one of continuous failure. God makes a covenant with man and man fails to honour it. God makes another covenant and, again, man fails to honour it. The pattern of failure continues, literally, until the end of time. Why don’t we instead read the Bible as God’s effort to bring man into a closer and deeper walk with Him? Then each covenant would make God a more intimate part of our lives.

Pessimism And Government:

Dispensationalism has been tied to a conservative and distrusting view of government, but at the same time Dispensationalists often advocate stronger and stronger policing and security policies. I have never been able to make any sense of this. Why would people who fear a coming One World Government want to give that government the tools to control and monitor their lives? Presumably, they expect to be Raptured out of here before they face the consequences of their actions.

Pessimism And The Environment:

First off, let me acknowledge that I am not going to win an environmental award any time soon. In fact, I am only now learning to drive, after 42 years of doing without. Nevertheless, another puzzling thing about Dispensationalists is how little regard they have for the earth. Why? Because the Lord will someday destroy the earth with fire, anyway, before He makes make a new heaven and earth (1 Peter 3:10-13). So, why worry? But ask them about money, time or their family and they’ll tell you that God wants them to be good stewards of His blessings, even though they are temporal. But didn’t He also give us a responsibility for the earth (Genesis 1:28)? Can you think of one aspect of your life that God has given you authority over in order for you to exploit it and discard it?

(Interestingly, not everyone believes that Peter is referring to the end of time. Many believe the passage refers to the second coming, with the fire representing God's judgement. Notice when this is supposed to happen: ‘the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night’ [verse 10]. This is a phrase Dispensationalists understand to mean the Rapture! There is more to it than this one phrase, but that would mean a much lengthier study than I have time for right now. Perhaps I can return to it after I move.)

Wars And Rumours Of Wars:

Finally, since I don’t really know when I will be coming back to this subject, I thought I’d add this point as well. Everyone has some pet peeve. And often they are about trivial things. For example, I hate it when people say ‘nauseous’ when they mean they feel ‘nauseated.’ I have an end times pet peeve, too. How often have you heard the phrase ‘wars and rumours of wars’ when discussing prophecy? It comes from Matthew 24:6, when Jesus was asked by His disciples about the end times.

Matthew 24:4-8:

And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows.

Notice what he says? ‘[B]ut the end is not yet’? Remember that. Jesus starts by telling His disciples to ignore false prophets and rumours of war and other disasters. He then goes on to describe the end times, beginning with apostasy in, and persecution of, the Church. And how can the Church be prosecuted if it has been Raptured out of here?