I read in the today's paper that archeologists have discovered a homo sapiens tooth they're dating back 400,000 years; around twice as old as the previous benchmark for the genesis of humans. Oh, and one more thing: it was found in Israel, moving the origins of man from Africa to the Middle East. Two points for the creationists?
Now I hope there aren't any creationists out there getting hopeful about how this has completely obliterated the case for evolution. That would be the same kind of blind hubris that you mock in the straw-man caricatures of your avowed enemies, the evolutionists. This is merely a different set of facts to plug into the same old Darwinian Secular Humanist religious framework. Evolutionists will no more budge their faith at this discovery than you did yours when they presented you with their own set of extremely convincing evidences (which do exist).
The war will not be won in the mind alone when the battleground has spiritual dimensions.
I'm not going to try and convince you I've been nice this year or justify my attitudes and behaviors. I've actually been rather naughty. I've done things that should have remained undone. I've left undone things that should have been done. I've said things that should have remained unsaid. I have forgotten who I am and what I ought to do. I have reveled in evil and caused suffering to my friends and family. In fact, if I'm perfectly honest, I've never deserved a spot on the nice list. I owe you some presents back, I guess.
So this is just a letter to say I'm removing myself as a candidate for future presents. Don't worry about me though. I talked to Jesus and He said even though I suck at life, I can have all His stuff anyway if I let His Dad adopt me. You're too busy to help me be the person you're asking me to be anyhow. Jesus is a bit more hands-on with my sanctification, and He's going to make me just like Him. Don't be too hard on yourself though. You're just a fictional, finite creature and He's almighty God. Who could compete?
The legend goes that during the Council of Nicaea, St. Nicholas of Smyrna became so agitated at the heresy being promulgated by Arius of Egypt, that he rose and struck the heretic in the face. That tale is probably not true, but neither is all the the reindeer crap, so I think I'd prefer to celebrate Christmas by physically accosting schismatics rather than just buying stuff and giving elves the credit. How about you?
I sat in the middle of Panera Bread and wept as I read these lines from the great George MacDonald, chastising me as if he were my own stern Scottish Grandfather:
“If you who set yourselves to explain the theory of Christianity, had set yourselves instead to do the will of the Master, the one object for which the gospel was preached to you, how different would now be the condition of that portion of the world with which you come into contact! Had you given yourselves to the understanding of His Word that you might do it, and to be the quarrying of material wherewith to buttress your systems, in many a heart by this time would the name of the Lord be loved where it now remains unknown.” (Unspoken Sermons MacDonald 159)
As I came to the end of the passage, Matthew Ballamy of Muse was pleading, “Why can’t we start it over again?” into my headphones. One does not often hear the Holy Spirit so clearly.
I had a conversation tonight with a college student whom I love about his concern over his own loss of faith. I asked him if he was dissatisfied with agnosticism, and he replied that it was more like he just didn't care anymore. I quipped something about "apatheism*," and later mused about how common that posture seems to be. The faith we're presenting to them must be pretty underwhelming, or else they are just being amused to death. Probably both. Until we show them something radical, I'm afraid we're looking at a rising population of apatheists in our future.
*Apparently I'm not so original, because a quick Google search reveals that the concept of apatheism preexisted my own epiphany.
"For some people, conversion is a call to arms to fight the enemy, but for others, it is a call to fight oneself and have a beer with the enemy." - Anthony Esolen
When the members of his synagogue complained that the words of the liturgy did not express what they felt, Abraham Heschel, the great philosopher of religion, replied wisely and very Biblically. He told them that the liturgy wasn’t supposed to express what they felt; they were supposed to feel what the liturgy expressed. To be taught by the Bible to pray is to learn to want and feel what the Bible expresses—to say what it means and mean what it says. God’s Prayer Book, 7
In honor of Reformation Day and All Saints', I've been reflecting on Ephesians 2:8-10.
I'm working on an idea that maybe at the heart of the Calvin/Wesley conversation lies the preference of one prepositional phrase over the other from the statement "Salvation is by faith through grace." Each camp pledges the entire statement proudly, but I think each subconsciously emphasizes the concepts that support their theology. The Calvinist will stop short, ending with verse 9, "lest no man should boast" as the natural conclusion of God's work of Grace, while the Armenian will skip to verse 10 "created in Him to do good works" as the natural conclusion of man's work of Faith. Each uses the text to launch out into familiar territory. Each is an incomplete expedition. Let's now endeavor to pioneer the entire landscape of our salvation.
I've said before that prepositions are my favorite part of speech because of their ability to express relationships with precision. Based on those used, I'd like to suggest that faith is the door through which we receive the gifts of grace, which together offer a complete salvation (past, present, and future).
Faith challenges us to rest from the past, remain in the present, and redeem our future.
Grace gifts us with pardon from the past, power in the present, and promise for the future.
I think all saints would agree that active faith gives access to grace that:
RESTS in His PARDON for our past
REMAINS in His POWER for our present, and
REDEEMS his PROMISES for our future.
"O the joy of full salvation!
Glory, glory, to His Name!"
DeVenter, 1896
Hint for teachers: when they ask "When am I ever going to need this?" Tell them. If you don't know, then find out. Some people need vision for motivation to succeed. Kids who ask the above question are almost always that breed.
For example, I discovered years later that Algebra is useful for developing the ability to think logically from an abstract perspective, enabling the thinker to be detached from the content and thus more objective with his or her thought progression. This discipline develops higher thinking skills. If I had known that 10 years ago, I might have tried harder.
But wait... Then I would have passed Algebra II the first time and I wouldn't have needed Allie to help me pass it the second go 'round and then I wouldn't have started dating her, so we wouldn't have gotten married, and we wouldn't have Cecily...
On second thought teachers, keep enabling mediocrity by forced academic servitude without educational vision. That worked out for me.
(As a side note, the above "change of heart" was a functional illustration of how reason can suffer when personal investment muddies the components of the argument, eg. I'd rather be married now than academically successful years ago, so I'll settle for a flawed argument that supports my favored outcome.)
Yay for Algebra, and yayer for knowing what its value is.
Captain America is a movie about a scrawny boy who wants to fight the evil Nazis who perform evil scientific experiments to create perfect human specimens because some humans are better than others. ...So he lets America do a scientific experiment on him to make him a perfect human specimen. Am I missing something here? Is there no cognitive dissonance in this?
“The interesting thing about this character is that he’s an everyman who in the course of a few minutes become a perfect human specimen." - Captain America Director Joe Johnston
There's a church in town touting a banner that reads as follows:
"We've been called non-traditional... progressive... even radical... Funny, that's what they said about Jesus."
I'd like to point out 3 things.
1. Those things have been said about Jesus, but as the Lord Himself pointed out, it doesn't matter who or what others say He is. It matters who HE says he is. Because, let's be honest - He was also called blasphemer, traitor, and home-wrecker. I don't know if we want those adjectives affixed to the side of our buildings. Word on the street can't be sufficient criteria for our resume. It's unreliable.
2. The aim of the banner is two-fold: a.) to distance themselves from the stereotype of conservative churches in the area, and b.) to suggest their superiority over such churches by claiming that their antithesis to conservatism is what's really Christ-like. This is supposed to be a blow to conservatives, who seriously contemplate their WWJD bracelets and look at liberals as those to be pitied. Listen, if traditional churches are teaching heresy, come out and say it. Don't suggest. Doctrine is serious business; not an ad-campaign.
3. The ad is relatively clever, in a low-brow political kind of way. But the problem is, I've seen the same kind of thing on conservative church grounds. There are entire websites devoted to posting pictures of church signs ("If you think it's hot here..."). The clergyman feels pressure to keep the the ad space fresh and appealing, so he comes up with rhymes and puns to fill the space and he goes back to his study secretly proud of himself. And the people he's "trying to reach" stop in front of the church, take a snapshot, mockingly post it on the web, and never dream of actually attending the church because advertising doesn't save lives.
Let's let our lifestyle be the advertisement. If they want to know where your church meets after seeing that, then you can be pretty sure you're representing Jesus for who He really is, and not just what's been rumored.
I've begun to see a pattern lately of people accidentally worshiping community instead of the Trinity. Their search for Christian fellowship leads them to believe that community is an Biblical ideal to build towards, rather than a current reality to be participated in. Christ has purchased our fellowship in full. Our job is to acknowledge it in its every form and participate in it wherever we find ourselves among fellow believers. Don't LOOK for the ideal. BE the ideal.
The first time I heard Psalm 84, it was put to song, and I didn't understand it. One day anywhere can't possibly be as good as a thousand elsewhere, right? It's over too soon. Well, I was stupid. Time is relative in many ways. That one day would last much longer than the other thousand.
The Greek uses two words which we commonly translate in the Bible as "time." Kronos refers to the quantity of time, or the measurement of duration. This is where we get our word "chronology." Kairos refers to the quality of time, or the measurement of meaning. It's more like a season.
September 11, 2001 was, chronologically, just another day. As long as the earth kept going, September 11 was going to arrive, live out its commanded 24 hours, and disappear forever. But humans are not mere counters of things. We need to know why the numbers are significant. We are creatures of meaning. For humans, this day seems much larger in the collective memory than the day preceding it. I would venture to say that not many people recall with clarity where they were standing at 9:30 am on September 10, 2001, but the day after was different. It was not just another day. It was a much, much, bigger day. Lives have been dramatically changed. Global policies have shifted. Art has been created. Some say it was the last day of the 20th century, even though chronologically that's nonsense. Even greater weight than this can (and should) be given to the days of Jesus death and resurrection.
The past 10 days of my life were much longer than thousands of the days that preceded them. I had the privilege of traveling to beautiful places and encouraging people with my gifts in fruitful ways. I'll spend a long time unpacking them, reflecting upon them, making decisions based upon what happened within them. I don't recount them by day or hour, but by themes and motifs. In some ways, I'd prefer to do as Mary did, and keep them to myself, pondering the wonder of it all.
Time in the chronological sense will pass away, but the rich and gracious seasons of God's loving action toward us will roll on like an endless tide. Better is one day like that than any other indeed.
Inspired by some conversations with Memphis Area Worship Leaders, I began to think about the way some worship values compete with one another, and I began to craft the following spectrum with the help of my scholarly friend, Dr. Jason Hood. I intend to use this to help my own church think through our worship identity and to then use our conclusions as a touchstone to help us avoid any unnecessary conflict. I have attempted to give fair voice to all without exposing my biases. I thought this might help others think through these things for their own churches.
The Worship Tension Spectrum We cannot order our worship with intentionality if we are not confessing and communicating our values. These are not necessarily mutually exclusive concepts, but they do create tension when we attempt to pursue them simultaneously. What does your church value? Are your worship efforts being hindered by duality of vision? Is there another tension you're dealing with that's not listed here?
1. Performance vs. Participation
Performance – God’s transcendent nature is best imparted through displays of excellence in presentation.
Participation - God is most pleased when the whole congregation has ownership and involvement.
Tension: Excellence is typically produced by limiting productivity to the specialized.
2. Attraction vs. Discipleship
Attraction – If more people could only get in the door, then they would be transformed by the gospel.
Discipleship –If people could only be transformed by the gospel, they would bring more people in the door.
Tension: Discipleship requires effort and obedience, which is unattractive.
3. Targeted vs. Inclusive
Targeted - Focusing on the fewer interests moves people with greater efficiency toward Kingdom goals.
Inclusive - Creating an environment enriched by diversity is a Kingdom goal.
Tension: Diversity requires compromise, which hinders agility
4. Dynamic vs. Conservative
Dynamic – Meaning emerges spontaneously from the immediate context of the worshipers.
Conservative – Meaning is preserved within the proven liturgies and traditions of the Church.
Tension: Spontaneity can create competing authorities
The argument usually goes, the New Testament was written by and to people who came from a Jewish or Near-eastern background. They understood things like "priesthood" and "burnt offering." We don't. We understand "paparazzi" and "Twitter feed." People in the West today need to have the gospel contextualized in their own culture so that they can understand. Sounds reasonable.
Then I started to think about the LARP phenomenon. Let's use Lord of the Rings as an example. How many LOTR junkies do you know that actually come from Middle Earth? And yet if you ask them questions like, "Who were Beren and Lúthien?," or "Who was the final Steward of Gondor?", they will reply with such disdain for amateur questions, you would swear they had a hint of elven blood coursing through their virgin veins. They intimately know the history, even as far removed from the world of origin, because they buy the story. More than that, they actually prefer the story to their own. They have chosen to exchange their own anecdotal lives for Tolkien's epic, meeting their buddies on the weekends for some live action role-playing, and spending the rest of the week obsessively osmosing their trilogic tome of devotion (not to mention The Silmarillion and other apochryphal texts!). You would not dare suggest to them that we update the imagery for something a bit more culturally relevant. They would call upon the Uruk-Hai to feast upon your flesh, because if it's worth living for; it's worth learning about.
Obviously this isn't the end of the discussion concerning contextualization. It doesn't really address how to explain the allure of The One Ring to an unregenerate who just doesn't see what all the fuss is about, or why it's reasonable at all to practice such "escapism." I'll save that for another time. Suffice to say, the argument that we need to reconcile foreign imagery to our own culture's vocabulary in order to experience it fully is a load of orcwash.
About a mile from my house stands Berclair Coin Laundry. Berclair is a racially diverse area, mostly Hispanic and black, with a small remaining core of white elderly survivors from its heyday as a nice Memphis suburb. We’re also seeing an influx of young families since the houses are well built and inexpensive. When I pulled up to the empty parking lot, I noticed the sign overhead:
<-- Laundry Parking Only -->
Because they carry the heavy Laundry
APPRECIATE
I immediately recognized the syntax as an indicator of an Asian-American proprietor. A few more signs inside the otherwise empty museum of washing machines confirmed this suspicion:
“Please, pick your dryer sheet up, because don’t hurt slip down everyone.”
“Please, use rag for wipe out, if water leaks on floor
because be dangerous slip down, don’t hurt everyone."
“No horse blankets.”
Ok, that last one was perfect English, but the fact that we were 20 miles from anything remotely equestrian made me giggle. These illustrations serve to set the tone for the language barrier that caused a great deal of frustration in my conversation with the Laundromat’s owner, Phillip. I couldn’t pronounce his real name, and I guess that’s why he goes by Phillip. He could tell that I had no idea where to put my quarters, which machine to use for my oversized bedspread (the occasion for my visit), or how to even open the thing, so he came to my rescue with a great deal more patience than I would have had for someone as clueless as I was. I noticed as he rose from his desk that he had a pocket Bible and I leapt at the opportunity to ask him about it.
What follows is the result of a LOT of repetition, hand-motions, and failed attempts to cross the linguistic divide. He knew barely enough English to run a Laundromat and I know absolutely zero Korean, so this conversation took well over an hour.
Phillip was 48 when he and his wife moved from South Korea 8 years ago. Their two sons are in their late 20’s and live in New York. When I asked him why he reads the Bible, he said because he wants to go to Heaven. I asked him where he attends church, and he said he doesn’t go and then said something about the Antichrist. I dared to press further, asking if he knew about the Korean Presbyterian Church about a hundred yards south. He said, yes, that’s the one he was asked to leave. Mesmerized, I continued the investigation, and he launched into how he had been studying the Bible through correspondence for a few years and had come to the conclusion that the church had misinterpreted the passages about tithing, so he had confronted his pastor and asked for a refund of his 30 years’ worth of tithes. They had, of course, refused, and then he went on a diatribe about how all churches were money-making scams and that he needed to only trust the Bible because pastors were liars. I decided at that point not to tell him what my job is. Also, for some reason there was quite a bit of hostility toward the Catholic Church. I’m sure this kind of talk was what led to his dismissal. He then pulled out his Holman Atlas, Strong’s Concordance, Korean, Chinese, NIV, and KJV Bibles and showed me all the discrepancies he had discovered. He showed me where the Korean version had omitted the second half of Genesis 2:20 because of a cultural philosophical disgust at the idea that God would have looked for a suitable mate for Adam from among the animals. He really wants to learn Greek and Hebrew, but new languages are hard at his age, he says.
Then things got weird.
Phillip believes that the Trinity is a false doctrine based on his conviction that Jesus and the Spirit are the same person. We should not be waiting for Christ’s return, because he already came back at Pentecost. Since it’s Jesus who’s talking to us now in His Spirit, we’re all apostles. He showed me a stack of Korean sermon CD’s that I think are probably the original source of his hard divergence from the orthodox path. The thing I find most fascinating about that is, apparently the Korean Church still practices church discipline to the degree of excommunication. It’s not even practical to do that in Memphis, which has more churches per capita than anywhere else in the world. If we disagree with the leadership we can just go anonymously to another assembly. And boy, do we.
Although it is difficult to tell by the modern roster of celebrities, fame was once a byproduct of true greatness and not mere novelty. Ernesto "Che" Guevara is the kind of man whose mystique and mythology is more hypnotic to me than any modern celebrity could hope to be. His renown is the result of an idealism so unwavering and active that it changed the face of Western politics in a matter of mere months. The world is still shaking from his legacy. An Argentinean doctor on a quest to discover an earthly cure for human suffering, Che met Fidel Castro in Mexico City and decided to help the Cuban revolutionary in his mission to overthrow his government and begin a Communistic way of life for the Cuban people. After a brilliant and successful guerrilla campaign, Che could have enjoyed the adoration of the public and the status of a statesman. Instead, his restless soul beckoned him to aid the Bolivian people in a similar endeavor, one to which he ultimately gave his life.
Politics and social ethics aside, I can't get over how dedicated this man was to the dignity of humanity. The motivation Christianity provides for such a passion is far more rooted than is Communism, yet here was a man who found within himself an intensity of conviction that I simply cannot muster despite my most sincere efforts. My temptation then becomes the desire to justify Che before God and man, partially because of my starry-eyed crush on the Argentinian and partly because if God is not pleased with a man of such selfless justice (methods aside) as Ernesto Guevara, then what hope do I have?
But this is something I must not do. Isaiah 64 tells us that all the righteousness of men is like filthy rags before a holy God. Not even the heroic life lived by a man like Che Guevara (or if you prefer the pacifist Gandhi, you're welcome to substitute) adds up to the perfect standard required for a relationship with Yahweh. This righteousness is only attainable for men by the blood of Jesus. Knowing that I now have this imputed righteousness, I can work out my salvation inspired by the examples of men greater than I, but releasing the anxiety of trying to add up to the goodness of Theresa or the passion of William Wallace. God's Kingdom will prevail. Human dignity will be restored. Justice will be served to the oppressed and their oppressors. Even the greatest men are in need of grace. We labor faithfully knowing that it is Christ who works in us and through us.
My wife cut and enjoyed gorgeous flowers from our yard today. They are the remnant of a woman's labor of love many years ago. She has long since passed away and we do nothing to nurture the flowers at all. We just bought an old house and we're benefiting from the fruit of another person's work, at least until her legacy fades. Eventually, if we do not learn the art and invest the time into gardening, the beds will all be overgrown and the flowers choked out.
While I am encouraged at the prospect that the fruit of my own labors will have lasting effects far beyond my sight, I also pray that I will be diligent to pass down the art and science of my trade to the next generation. Otherwise they will become as arrogant and blind as our own generation, boasting in the flowers of faith they enjoy all around them while ignoring to learn the craft and work that produced them.
Forgiveness cannot be contingent upon an apology. You do not accept a man's apology as restitution for his sin against you. That's too cheap for grace. You don't allow him to make it up to you. That also is too cheap for grace. To forgive is to accept the consequences of another man's sin as against you as your own instead of requiring that he do the one thing he cannot: pay you back. He can no more make it right than you can be made whole again by taking vengeance. Something has been broken. All you can do is freely give what has already been taken from you. If he takes your coat, then forgiveness is considering it lost.
The only way one can afford to take such a personal loss as sin will demand is if he has access to the riches of Christ. Then, whether it was reputation, power, freedom, security, or intimacy that was stolen by the sin, you can freely let go the debt because yours is an inexhaustible storehouse of wealth in Christ.
If he does change after you've forgiven him, it will not be in payment to you against the debt he has incurred. It will be in response to the payment in full you have already accepted on his behalf. This grace will change your life and his as you both experience the mind of Christ.
So we're all clear, the theology of LOST is terrible.
Now let's talk about the story.
The main theme of LOST is "Live together or die alone." Everything that happened on the island was real. In season 6, the flashes sideways were really flashes to the afterlife, where community is the highest ideal. As Jacob said, the losties needed the island as much as it needed them. Before flight 815, each of them had lives that were doomed to end without any real community connection. Their being brought to the island served the dual purpose of protecting the island and giving each of the candidates a chance to create community, which is the stuff of the afterlife. If you have no community (if you die alone), then you can't get from the afterlife to the post-afterlife. People who had communities of their own didn't need to be a part of the lostie community, so that's why we don't see people like Daniel Faraday or Richard Alpert in the final scene at Our Lady of Ambiguous Redemption Cathedral. Daniel's community was with his mother and Charlotte, etc. Richard's was with his wife. Others, like Michael, haven't even made it to the afterlife yet because are being held as prisoners between worlds, presumably to pay for their crimes against community.
As Jack intuitively knew when he made the great Live Together; Die Alone speech, if any of these people had a chance, it was going to be done through community. He just didn't realize how deeply this was true. Each of the characters' moment of redemption would not have been made possible if not for the community of people who gave them the opportunities and the support to work out their salvation. The island was purgatorial in that sense, but it was very much a real, down to earth experience. They were all alive when they had their island experiences, and the afterlife was a time for them to transition to their reward; not to earn it. Those stuck in between, like Michael, and probably Christian as well for a while, are there to do the work they were neglect in accomplishing in life.
I was asked yesterday by an aspiring young worship leader if I lean more toward planned-out worship or Spirit-led worship. A few days before that, another young worship leader asked me if I feel creatively restricted in my position. I completely get where both of these guys were coming from, but I answered them both the same way: the questions set up a false dichotomy between freedom and boundaries.
Order is a friend of freedom. Chaos is a cesspool of slavery. If we are to be truly free, we must have boundaries. When every player agrees on the rules of a game, each is free to play his or her best without frustration. When no one agrees, everyone is hindered in their progress. In fact, the very existence of games is predicated upon rules. The Bible takes great pains to bring structure, order, and limits to our worship, while also encouraging us to be creative and exuberant in our expressions. Jesus is clear that true worshipers will do so in Spirit and in Truth. Paul demands orderliness and also says where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. We are much more able to enjoy a drink that is restricted to its cup than one that has been freed from such limitations and is now liberated to a puddle on the floor. To be sure, even then, the liquid is simply obeying the limitations of space and gravity.
The real heart behind the questions these young men posed is, "Can I trust those who have the authority to set the boundaries for me?" Now that's a telling question, and one we should expect young men to be wrestling with. Not yet commissioned to positions influence, these young men must submit to the leadership under which they find themselves, and this can create cause for anxiety, to be sure. They've been gifted with certain visions and abilities and they fear they may never be fully reached if forcibly bound by another man's unsympathetic power.
I struggle with that fear myself, and therefore I'm not in a position to give much advice. But as we're asking these questions, let's not fall into the trap of believing that restrictions and structures are somehow unspiritual. The Bible won't let us go that route.
As residents of the 21st century, we have inherited the word “gospel” with thousands of years of traditional meaning already poured into it, and we’ll address a lot of that today, but first I want to make clear what meaning the word had in it before Christianity adopted primary use of it. When a word is used in the first sentence of the first book of the New Testament, we have to recognize what it meant to the author and original audience before we start reading it through the lenses of theologians (which is a good thing, by the way, we just have to have a decent historical/cultural hermeneutic as well). The word euangelion, or good news, was used 2000 years ago as a report of a king’s military victory. Not a surprising word choice when you realize that the author takes great pains to ensure that we see Jesus as just that: a conquering King. “Christ”, or “anointed one” and “Son of God” were both loaded with royal meaning for Jews and Gentiles alike, and they are two other phrases that are even more richly infused with meaning when they refer to the person Jesus.
But now I want to look at what the word Gospel has come to mean to us in light of Who the Word revealed Himself to be, particularly within the themes found in this short passage. They are: Incarnation – God with us; Initiation – God for us; Imitation – God through us
Incarnation – God with us
We see in this passage that the Lord is on his way. Here. That’s a big deal. To give us some context, let’s imagine our chief executive, the president, was able hand down an executive order that dismissed the legislative branch of our government and gave him full legislative power. He then wrote a law making himself the supreme judicial power, and to top it of, he claimed full authority over the religious sector. How are you feeling so far about our nation’s state of affairs? I know, some of you are thinking: that depends. Is it Obama? Now what about this: This supreme ruler has all this power and you’re a dissenter, and He’s coming your way. Terrifying, right? To bring it back to the Old Testament, their supreme ruler was the kind of guy whose very presence, his glory, would melt your face off.
Initiation – God for us
We get near Christmas time and we’re so excited to sing about Immanuel, “God with us,” but let’s be real. If we’re at odds with Him, we don’t want Him around, especially not with that face-melting thing he’s got going on. But we look at this text and we see something beautiful: He sends a messenger. Why is that awesome? Because He could have sent a mercenary to take us out. He could have just shown up and we’d all have been destroyed. He’s showing us that there’s hope. His message? He’s preparing your way for you, if you’ll accept it. God’s initiation is what makes His incarnation such a desirable thing.
Now what’s the direction He is initiating? Well ultimately it’s Revelation 21. Many would be content to go straight there, but Jesus didn’t. He had His sights fixed on a more immediate destination. John elaborates a bit more on what this way is in the parallel passage, John 1:29 when he says of Jesus, “Behold the Lamb of God, who comes to take away our sins.” Now this is great, because it’s our sins that are making God’s presence so devastating to us. That’s why part of the message John was proclaiming was repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Forgiveness! God is for us! He’s taking the initiative to pursue us! We don’t have to be the ones to send a messenger to Him begging for terms. He sought us out while we were a long way off.
You see the best part about this whole passage, I think, is the setting. We’re in the desert. Isn’t that great? What I mean is, God only interacts with one group of people in the desert: His family. Everyone is pretty familiar with the desert motif in scripture as a place of testing and discipline. Hebrews 12 says that He discipline those he calls sons because He loves them. He’s preparing His heirs to reign with Him, just like he used the desert to purge Israel of her Egyptyness before she entered into the land he wanted to be a City on a Hill. But a lesser-known use of the desert motif is found in Hosea 2, where He says He will take His bride, Israel out to the desert to seduce her: to win her back after she had abandoned Him. You see, ultimately we will reign with Him, but before that happens, He has to take the initiative to win us back from our slavery and bondage to sin. The Lord Jesus was blazing a path straight to the cross where He would lay down his very life for his bride’s sake, so that he could take her with him to inherit the earth and reign with Him forever. He has the heart of a Father and a Husband, and I can tell you: that is a furious and unrelenting passion, especially if your wife or child is in danger.
Imitation – God through us
So He has prepared our way for us, but that’s not the end of the message. He’s got some things for us to do, too. He says, “Prepare the way of the Lord, and make His path straight.” He wants not only to be reconciled with us and take us with Him where He’s going; He also wants us to be, as Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5:20, His ambassadors, through whom He is making His appeal, that all would come to Him and be satisfied. We’re not just beneficiaries of the message, we’re bearers of it! Imagine, the very thing that was a terror to those in the Old Testament, the Glory of God that would wipe us off the planet if we even saw it, His GLORY, is now seen through us!
How do we bear this message? It’s pretty clear that we do it by imitation. We get a hint of this in this passage when we go from having a way prepared for us to being preparers of ways. Monkey see, monkey do. That’s actually what we mean when we say disciple, or discipleship: to become more like someone else. We’re becoming more like Christ, and through that, His glory is revealed. So it comes full circle: He sends his messenger to invite us to accept His payment of debt on our behalf and then we ourselves become messengers who prepare the way of His kingdom by living the way of the cross, and then being resurrected as He was to reign forever. That’s why the story ends with the great commission. He’s commissioning the messengers to imitate Him, preparing us, and the world, as the paths of His victory over sin and death.
Christians are citizens of Heaven. There's not any serious debate among Christians about the truth of this claim, but the interpretation, however, is quite another story. The Crusades were carried out in the name of the Kingdom. Fundamentalists are charged with culpability for global warming for their angle. Even the emerging church is in large part divided by their views on this. I typically prefer to avoid shaping a personal opinion on debates of this kind, but I cannot by any stretch deny that one's interpretation of this truth will have profound effects upon the way his or her life is lived. I'll therefore attempt to lay out the dualistic landscape as I see it and maybe that will serve as sufficient conceptual geography for a healthy battle, the outcome of which I hope will mean victory for all who enlist.
Exiles - If we view ourselves as Citizens of Heaven, temporarily exiled in this foreign land but ultimately destined to escape this pagan place and finally return "home," that's going to affect how we live. We will not invest much of our resources in this land, our daily activities instead reflecting interest in different place. I have some friends who are staying in a temporary sublet while their seminary housing is refurbished. I doubt they will hang pictures or even unpack any more boxes than they have to until they move to a more permanent abode. To the exile, we remain on earth but for a missional purpose: to offer citizenship in heaven to the indigenous peoples of earth before they (and their planet) are destroyed and we are called home to live with the King.
Colonists - If we view ourselves as Citizens of Heaven, dispatched as colonists of a conquering Kingdom and charged with beginning the conversion of all on earth to reflect life as it is in Heaven, this too will affect how we live. We will conduct ourselves as ambassadors and heralds of the coming regime, allowing the natives the opportunity to naturalize or be destroyed. I have another set of friends who have intentionally moved into a forgotten part of town as an attempt to revitalize the community. They invest their lives in making the world around them come to life as a result of their hope. To the colonist, we are dispatched to this earthly outpost to begin the redemptive process that will be consummated when the King returns to establish His City on Earth.
No doubt most of us hold a blended view to an extent, but that begs the question that forces one to draw a line: will we ultimately escape earth or conform her?
"National statistics indicate that 80-90% of such babies are now aborted — meaning that we have launched a search and destroy mission on Down syndrome babies in the womb." From Al Mohler's Blog.
Numbers-wise, this means America's genocidal attack on people with Down's Syndrome is far more successful than Hitler's attempted genocide of Jews. The only difference is, even if you kill them all, they will not be permanently exterminated, because they are continually created inside their murderers.
The worst part is, this sounds more like a conversation about weeds than it does human beings.
The New Atheism's rockstar Christopher Hitchens recently went to town on the 10 Commandments in Vanity Fair, offering his own list as a much more enlightened alternative. My first inclination is to defend the holy writ from such asinine attacks. I’m not really going to do that. No serious Biblical scholar would even finish reading his sophomoric article (except maybe me), much less engage it. Instead, I will "do unto him as he has done unto the decalogue." Hitchens' replacement of the traditional Ten Commandments with his own is predicated on one piece of shoddy hermeneutics and the two great commandments of what I call Hitchensianity. If these are accepted, then we can in good conscience alter the foundational Judeo-Christian laws to best suit our own perceived interests. However, if they are proved inadequate as basis for such revision, then Hitchens will have tasted his own rhetorical medicine.
Hitchens first claims the Ten were always work in progress. He asserts that there are “three or four” different versions of the 10 Commandments in Scripture, each “improving” upon the last. He also claims “They show every symptom of having been man-made and improvised under pressure.” If this is the case, he reasons, then why not keep the evolution going? (I suppose he humbly assumes he’s the most qualified contemporary human for the job…) I will address the bogus "work in progress" claim last. First, let’s examine a reduction of Chris’ commandments:
The greatest commandment of Hitchensianity is this: "Mere fear of unseen authority is not a sound basis for ethics." Bold statement. On this alone, he throws out the first three original commandments as unnecessary. Let’s ask a simple question: If one is any sort of genuine Authority at all, what difference does His visibility make? If this unseen Authority truly were real and powerful and good, then respect for His wishes would seem a sound, and indeed the ONLY basis for ethics. (Sidenote: I won’t nitpick, but Christopher makes no distinction between ethics and morality, using them interchangeably. This is annoying.)
The second is like unto it: Cultural sensibility should dictate morality. If there is no higher authority than human, then democracy should do the trick, Hitchens claims. However, his actual commandments show that not even he believes this to be true. He sees fit to pontificate absolute essentials about several legitimately debatable issues, claiming their universality above what ANYONE else thinks. His final command it that we denounce any God or religion that contradicts his. Wow. That seems culturally sensible. I’m sure we’d all vote “yea” on that one… As if a real God would take the time to conduct a job approval survey before destroying dissenters.
He sums it all up with this: “Do not swallow your moral code in tablet form.” Which is, of course, a moral pronouncement in easily digestible form. If he’s being sarcastic here, I’m not sure what he’s proving, because he stands condemned in his own eyes. So it’s clear that even if we grant that the Ten Commandments need revision, Hitchens has disqualified himself from such a work. Writing in a few tongue-in-cheek commandments does not immunize you from serious criticism, Christopher. I know your game, rogue.
But I won’t concede that the original Decalogue was “a work in progress,” as evidenced by the existence of "three or four wildly different scriptural versions." Or that these "works in progress… show every symptom of having been man-made and improvised under pressure.”
The second Decalogue was an exact copy of the first, written in Moses’ hand rather than God’s. The third changes only ONE thing, which is the impetus for Sabbath, and it was written to a different audience for a different purpose. Hitchens all but claims the differences are mutually exclusive, but in fact each points to a time in the past when one greater than them rested. The point in both is this: "If your fathers and even God Himself saw fit to rest, don’t think you’re above it. Take a day." Even still, the commands themselves are the same. The “fourth” edition is no Decalogue at all. He only throws in because it’s written on tablets, but doesn’t fit the genre one bit. Hitchens knows that, and that’s why he says “three or four” from the beginning. If someone catches the absurdity, he’ll throw it out. He just wanted the jury to hear it before it was withdrawn and stricken from the record. Smoke and mirrors, and nothing more. He’s a seedy defense attorney. There is but one Decalogue in scripture, and it needs no revision.
So do the commandments show every symptom of being man made and improvised under pressure? First, what are the symptoms of man-made law? In Hitchens’ estimation, there is no other kind, so how would he even know what God-made laws would (or should) look like? I suppose he would expect them to be sensible, like him. The more I think about it, I think Hitchens fancies himself qualified for the job. So Chris, pretend you’re Moses spend 40 days writing ten rules for everybody. Then break them to prove a point and start over. Then make sure you write down how you disobeyed God and didn’t get to enter the land you spent most of your life pursuing. The Decalogue is not self-serving. It is not the kind of thing a man would write to keep a bunch of former slaves under control. It was very different from what his Egyptian education would have led him to write on his own behalf.
In short, Hitchens is cheeky and anti-authority (except his own). Not the kind of person anyone wants to be, much less follow. If he were a real scholar, he would address his rivals with respect instead of his choir with contempt. The truth about Hitchens, as Douglas Wilson once observed, is that "he says there's no God and yet he hates Him."
1May God be gracious to us and bless us and make his face shine upon us, 2 that your ways may be known on earth, your salvation among all nations.
A leader in the denomination I serve has asked an important question. Why do we make a distinction between "vertical" and "horizontal" words and actions and songs? If the second command is like the first, then why separate them? This is a question of integrity and I think it's a no-brainer, so I'm simply going to draw an obvious conclusion from it:
We need to write and sing songs that deal both with the vertical in Heaven and Earth and the horizontal in the Church and the Nations as though they are all meant to be addressed at once. Our Sacred Head was crucified at the point where these concepts intersect and are reconciled in space and time. A post and a crossbeam formed the image to which our every movement must conform. We need to write and sing songs that make no distinction between loving God and loving people.
I'm not saying that your favorite hymn is unacceptable for worship because it's not holistic enough. (I'm also not not saying that.) But what I am saying is that if Christ is supreme in all things and in all ways, then we should strive to sing and write songs that see mission as a natural conclusion of worship and the reconciliation of heaven and earth as inevitable and pursuant to our existence.
I am continually amazed that Cecily doesn't hold my disciplining of her against me. When she receives correction, she cries and immediately looks to me for comfort and acceptance, which I am compelled to give by an equal urgency. It's like I expect her to reject me for having stood against her will. But when I stop and think, it's simple: where else would she go? In her world, Mommy and Daddy are one, and there's no one else to go to for comfort and acceptance when she needs it.
I am always surprised, because I'm not as good a son as she is a daughter. When my Father who loves me disciplines me, I often shake a rebellious fist at Him and turn to my lesser gods for comfort and acceptance. I'm not very much like Peter, who said, "Where else can we go, Lord? You have the words of life." I'm not like David who understood that there was no where he could go to flee God's presence. I'm not like Cecily who doesn't know the hollow comfort and cheap acceptance of idolatry.
Have mercy on me oh God, according to your steadfast love. According to Your great compassion, blot out my transgressions. Teach me to accept your correction as from a loving Father who seeks reconciliation. Where else can I go for true comfort and acceptance? I reject any other source of Love. Amen.
In Hugo's Les Miserables, Bienvenu catches a calloused liberationist off guard with the thought that "perhaps mercy is but a higher form of justice." The holy Bishop of Digne caught me off guard, too. Ever since I read that line, I've wrestled with what I thought I knew about the higher economy. I intuitively sensed that Bienvenu was right, but I couldn't reconcile this with my understanding of the relationships between justice, mercy, and grace.
As a child, I was taught that:
Justice is getting the things you deserve.
Mercy is not getting the bad things you deserve, and
Grace is getting the good things you don't deserve.
While I still think these are reasonably sufficient definitions for a 6 year-old, my understanding was skewed by the hierarchy they occupied in my mind. To me, justice was the norm, and grace and mercy were exceptions given by a benevolent God who was too nice to let consequences mess up our lives.The idea that mercy could ever be higher than justice was to me, counter-intuitive.
I'm trying out a new paradigm:
What if grace is the standard, rather than justice?
What if justice is merely the structures which maintain the status quo created by grace?
What if mercy is that which prevents the status quo from destroying the original intent of grace's creations?
This would therefore mean that grace is the motive, justice is a means, and mercy is a higher means, as it more closely resembles the motive. Remember as I have only just truly realized, that grace is not God's plan B response to sin's derailment of justice. Grace preceded sin, because creation itself was an act of grace: it's a good thing we didn't deserve. Grace created order out of chaos. The maintenance of order is called justice. Mercy returns order to a broken world in a way that justice sometimes cannot, for while justice is but a blind process, mercy flows from relationship, the highest of created orders.
If This was Victor Hugo's understanding of the higher economy, then his comments via Bienvenu make perfect sense.
Jon Stewart went BUCK on Pat Buchanan yesterday, defending the Bible, of all things, against misuse.
Stewart's main point is a good one: In times of tragic catastrophe, no one gets to play all-knowing editorialist commentator. Enough said. Now, onto my editorial commentary about all the editorial commentary.
In the paradigm of traditional conservatism, Robertson is a highly exalted prince. In this same economy, Stewart, an unabashed liberal, would be viewed as a rather lowly fool. I like that a foolish man such as Mr. Stewart was used to shame the proud while unabashedly proclaiming the compassion of God to his largely unbelieving audience. If bashing Christians is what it takes to elevate God and his Word, then this was a huge win for the Kingdom. Soli Deo Gloria
Ezekiel 21:26 - This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Take off the turban, remove the crown. It will not be as it was: The lowly will be exalted and the exalted will be brought low.
1 Cor 1:27-29 - But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.
From Sovereign Grace's Bob Kauflin: "Because God’s saving acts in history and in our lives demand new songs. Because 1000 tongues or a 1000 songs will never be enough. Because Jesus Christ is a great Savior worthy of unending praise. Because the Word of God is eternal and life-changing. Because this is one small way we can contribute to building up the church, comforting God’s people, and advancing the gospel, all for the glory of God. And because, in the words of King David, “He puta new song in my mouth, a song of praise to our God. Many willsee and fear, and put their trust in the LORD” (Ps. 40:3)."
I'd like to think of our songs as drops in a series of waves beating in endless succession against the shores of God's glory. Each generation is a new wave, made up of a lot from the old and a bit from the new.
I was noticing how "Before the Throne of God Above" doesn't have a verse that actually tells the gospel, so I thought I would attempt to write one with the imagery of baptism, since the Christian Calendar year celebrates the Lord's Baptism this upcoming Sunday.
From Heaven's throne came Christ in love
To ransom sinners such as we
His blood alone was price enough
His body bore our penalty
And as He laid below the earth
The object of wrath's recompense
So we are dead before our birth
Til we are raised alive in Him
I read in the today's paper that archeologists have discovered a homo sapiens tooth they're dating back 400,000 years; around twice as old as the previous benchmark for the genesis of humans. Oh, and one more thing: it was found in Israel, moving the origins of man from Africa to the Middle East. Two points for the creationists? 
