Relaunch Prep Continues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.