It's pretty well known from the story in Acts that Jesus followers were first called Christians at Antioch. Further, the word is formed using a diminutive suffix that yields the meaning "little Christs." This wasn't intended to be a compliment; it was seen more as a slam. But in the tradition of Jesus himself, the "Christians" took the humiliating and wore it with pride. They said, "Yeah, that's us! We're to be little Jesuses walking about doing his work."
Enough has been written about how the name "Christian" has been sullied by those who don't live like Jesus. Not enough has been written about what it actually means to be a Christian.
It was apparent to a fluent Greek speaker that "christ" meant "anointed one," a translation of the Hebrew "messiah." So perhaps they heard "little anointed ones" when they heard "Christians." That gets a step closer to the truth I'm digging after. I believe we are to be "little messiahs," behaving as Jesus did in his suffering, shame, and bearing of the curse for others (see here for a fuller exploration). Only then will we share his glory, which the apostle Paul almost always associates with suffering.
Whether people can get "little messiah" out of "Christian" or not is beyond our control. We can, however, begin to live as the Messiah did, bearing the curse for others, helping their hearts become flesh, ushering them into new creation. Those will in turn bear the curse for others, spreading new creation in wider and wider circles till all things become new.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Enthroned between the cherubim
Our book group is reading How God Became King by NT Wright. The title makes the premise pretty clear, but it's a twist from people's normal conception for a couple of reasons. First, most suppose that God isn't actively reigning yet, because look at how messed up stuff is! Second, he is reigning because he has already been enthroned—at the cross.
The theatrics surrounding the crucifixion bear this out. Pilate said, "So you are a king then!" Jesus replied, "You have said so." Jesus is clothed (by others) in a scarlet/purple robe. He is crowned with thorns. People bow down in homage. Notice, however, that all this is done in mockery. That's key. God is most regal amidst people's derision.
This sets the stage for one more detail of the enthronement of Jesus as he is crucified. In the First Testament, YHWH's throne is between the cherubim whose wings overshadow the ark of the covenant. Cherubim seem to function as guardians, awesome in their appearance and might. But as Jesus is enthroned, it is between two . . . failed revolutionaries? (The best understanding is that the "thieves" were actually brigands, rebels, revolutionaries who were trying to see Rome out of Judea.) The ones who were to guard Jesus as he sat enthroned were men who were captured trying to violently overthrow Rome. They perhaps were following some other self-proclaimed messiah but had reached the end of their road before they reached their goal of a peaceful homeland. Some guardians.
This fits so beautifully. The mockery is complete. "Here, maybe the "king" needs some courtiers to attend him." His disciples nowhere to be found, the soldiers grabbed some guys who had tried fighting and failed. They go so well with this failed "king" who has succumbed to the might of Rome—not that it took much.
But who is being mocked? Jesus seems to say, "You think you know, but you have no idea." The Creator truly is King when he gives himself up without using the biggest enemy of his creation, death. He's perfectly content to be attended by two guys who amounted to nothing when it came to killing the enemy. His enthronement is so ridiculous, there just might be something to it.
When he is raised from the dead three days later, he is validated as the king he claimed to be, and he came to rule through overpowering life, not through the fearful control tactics of wielding death over his subjects. The Apostle Paul tells the Colossians that Jesus "disarmed the powers and authorities, [and] made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross." Here, Paul doesn't even call on the resurrection to vindicate Jesus's kingship. Jesus is triumphantly enthroned on the cross between the two lamest cherubim ever seen.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Shibboleth
Why did the Gileadites demand the Ephraimites say "shibboleth" before allowing them to cross the Jordan? In English, the word means something like "litmus test." It has been brought into our language directly from the story in Judges when these two groups were fighting.
The Gileadites seized the fords of the Jordan and saw an opportunity to defeat their brothers, who were guilty of dissing them. Good reason for war. But that's another story. When anyone came to the Jordan, they would say, "Let me cross over." To which the reply, "Are you an Ephraimite?" "Um, no. I hate those scumbags." Then the ford guardians would say, "Aight then, say, 'Shibboleth,'" because they knew Ephraimites couldn't produce a "sh" sound—it comes out as an "s." (How on earth did they keep their kids quiet?!)
If they failed the basic "litmus test," they were killed on the spot.
That brings us back to the point of the word choice. Any ol' "sh" word would have done. But the Gileadites were taunting them right before they killed them. "Shibboleth" means "flowing stream." They were saying, "Hey, idiot, what's this thing right here? . . . No it's not! Stupid!" *STAB*
This brings up another point. In case you're ever caught in a shibboleth situation, where you actually have to say a word to save your life, you should probably take a phonetics class now. Having done so myself, I could probably pronounce almost any word demanded of me. And I'm also nerdy enough to be able to tell the difference between the two sounds: an alveolar fricative vs. a post-alveolar fricative—literally a slip of the tongue. But if I said that, it would probably get me killed.
The Gileadites seized the fords of the Jordan and saw an opportunity to defeat their brothers, who were guilty of dissing them. Good reason for war. But that's another story. When anyone came to the Jordan, they would say, "Let me cross over." To which the reply, "Are you an Ephraimite?" "Um, no. I hate those scumbags." Then the ford guardians would say, "Aight then, say, 'Shibboleth,'" because they knew Ephraimites couldn't produce a "sh" sound—it comes out as an "s." (How on earth did they keep their kids quiet?!)
If they failed the basic "litmus test," they were killed on the spot.
That brings us back to the point of the word choice. Any ol' "sh" word would have done. But the Gileadites were taunting them right before they killed them. "Shibboleth" means "flowing stream." They were saying, "Hey, idiot, what's this thing right here? . . . No it's not! Stupid!" *STAB*
This brings up another point. In case you're ever caught in a shibboleth situation, where you actually have to say a word to save your life, you should probably take a phonetics class now. Having done so myself, I could probably pronounce almost any word demanded of me. And I'm also nerdy enough to be able to tell the difference between the two sounds: an alveolar fricative vs. a post-alveolar fricative—literally a slip of the tongue. But if I said that, it would probably get me killed.
Friday, August 17, 2012
Peace?
I saw this bumper sticker today and was startled at how sad it made me. I was not startled at how I began obsessing over it theologically.
I've been trying to discern exactly what the sticker is getting at. Often, old-fashioned is a bad thing. But when it's root beer (for anyone) or values (for the more religious), it feels good to be old-fashioned. I think the approach here is intended to be good. But just how old-fashioned? The B-52 goes waaay back to the mid-1900s.
My first thought when I saw the sticker was about that silly apostle Paul who told the Colossians, "God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in [Jesus], and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross." That was probably written in the 60s. AD 60s. Old, at least, if not old-fashioned. Sure, gruesome warfare predates that, but let's keep the focus on boomwow, cluster bombing warfare being old-fashioned.
Okay, it seems this sticker isn't trying to assert chronological primacy for air-to-ground obliteration, but it makes a wistful call to remember good ol' intimidation and destruction via vastly superior technology. And that does go way back.
In fact, that sort of martial dominance provided the immediate occasion for Paul's statement. The Romans were bringing their version of the boomwow on a scale never before seen. Smart people saw the futility of fighting them. Loyalist nativists were stupid enough to try to rebel. Calgacus, an ancient chieftain from what is now Scotland, was quoted by the Roman historian Tacitus around AD 100 describing the Roman reaction to this: "They rob, kill and plunder all under the decieving name of Roman Rule. They make a desert and call it peace."
Jesus was born on the losing end of this. Enough of his people were zealous enough to create great concern that Rome would obliterate Judea. Much of Jesus' prophetic ministry was anchored around warning people not to rebel, but when they inevitably did, to flee Jerusalem before they were caught in the siege. Sure enough, the generation he prophesied to did not pass away before Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70. The Romans turned it into a wasteland and called it . . . peace.
Paul said that Jesus was the one who brought peace. In the deepest of ironies, he used the Roman version of the B-52 to do it. But he wasn't piloting the plane or opening the bomb bay. He was sitting on the ground with a big target drawn around himself almost pleading to be blown to pieces. Think about it. There was not a sane person in Roman times who would display a cross for any reason. But Jesus brought peace to the communities who followed him by willingly letting the Romans do their worst to him and crucify him. Can you see a group of modern Iraqis, following a crazy guy who invited the worst of the bombing raids to target him, wearing the picture above as patches? Three hundred years from now, people would shake their heads and say, "That guy was mad. But he sure stole their thunder. He took away their worst weapon: death." And displaying that which is fearsome and shameful eventually empties it of its power.
Perpetrating violence never brings peace. Ever. Willing, defenseless self-sacrifice is what causes empires, regimes, and invading armies to crumble. May we follow Jesus' example as we bring peace the old-fashioned way.
My first thought when I saw the sticker was about that silly apostle Paul who told the Colossians, "God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in [Jesus], and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross." That was probably written in the 60s. AD 60s. Old, at least, if not old-fashioned. Sure, gruesome warfare predates that, but let's keep the focus on boomwow, cluster bombing warfare being old-fashioned.
Okay, it seems this sticker isn't trying to assert chronological primacy for air-to-ground obliteration, but it makes a wistful call to remember good ol' intimidation and destruction via vastly superior technology. And that does go way back.
In fact, that sort of martial dominance provided the immediate occasion for Paul's statement. The Romans were bringing their version of the boomwow on a scale never before seen. Smart people saw the futility of fighting them. Loyalist nativists were stupid enough to try to rebel. Calgacus, an ancient chieftain from what is now Scotland, was quoted by the Roman historian Tacitus around AD 100 describing the Roman reaction to this: "They rob, kill and plunder all under the decieving name of Roman Rule. They make a desert and call it peace."
Jesus was born on the losing end of this. Enough of his people were zealous enough to create great concern that Rome would obliterate Judea. Much of Jesus' prophetic ministry was anchored around warning people not to rebel, but when they inevitably did, to flee Jerusalem before they were caught in the siege. Sure enough, the generation he prophesied to did not pass away before Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70. The Romans turned it into a wasteland and called it . . . peace.
Paul said that Jesus was the one who brought peace. In the deepest of ironies, he used the Roman version of the B-52 to do it. But he wasn't piloting the plane or opening the bomb bay. He was sitting on the ground with a big target drawn around himself almost pleading to be blown to pieces. Think about it. There was not a sane person in Roman times who would display a cross for any reason. But Jesus brought peace to the communities who followed him by willingly letting the Romans do their worst to him and crucify him. Can you see a group of modern Iraqis, following a crazy guy who invited the worst of the bombing raids to target him, wearing the picture above as patches? Three hundred years from now, people would shake their heads and say, "That guy was mad. But he sure stole their thunder. He took away their worst weapon: death." And displaying that which is fearsome and shameful eventually empties it of its power.
Perpetrating violence never brings peace. Ever. Willing, defenseless self-sacrifice is what causes empires, regimes, and invading armies to crumble. May we follow Jesus' example as we bring peace the old-fashioned way.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Truth vs. truth
A common practice in America today is pitting truth against truth. The problem is, if it's true, it's true, and there's no way stronger truth can beat weaker truth. Nowhere is this more maddeningly apparent than in the Granny Smith apples and navel oranges disciplines of theology and science.
The "debate" between antireligion scientists and antievolution Christians has to stop. Each side has a big chunk of truth they're hanging onto, and they're trying to bludgeon the other side with it. Such scientists claim truth because it's based on observable phenomena (maybe not the processes, but the fossilized results and vestigial DNA evidence). Antievolutionists often claim irrefutable truth based on the Bible. What if they're both true?
A helpful book is The Lost World of Genesis One [and a bit more in chapter two] by John Walton. He demonstrates that the first creation account relates functional origins, not material origins. He also notes that science and metaphysics are interdependent but distinctly different categories, and when one tries to answer a metaphysical question with science and vice versa, trouble results. Scientists sometimes claim there is no God because they haven't observed one. Well, maybe scientific tools are inadequate for this task, and metaphysicians need to handle this question. Likewise, religious folk need to stop being armchair scientists because they don't have the instruments to observe material objects the way scientists do.
An underlying claim of some antievolution religionists is they have 100 percent certainty in who God is and how he created. They imply that science can never have certainty because there are always advances in science, and many scientific theories have been proven wrong over the centuries. Unfortunately, scientists are the ones who show the Christian virtue of humility, though it may be forced at times. They may be arrogant in their God claims, but as a community, they are always challenging one another's theories to come to a better understanding of the world. Creationists, traditionally defined, adopt a stance based on perhaps flawed readings of the Bible, and they don't bother to change their mind when circumstances warrant. In the end, I'm guessing each community's claims are about 60–70 percent true. But they wield 100 percent of their theories in their struggle to be correct.
My personal approach to truth (which I, of course, believe is the best one!) is similar to the scientific method. I collect enough data to form a working theory. Then I hold on to my theory and try to help it work until there is enough data to the contrary that I must consider alternatives. I hate to apply "scientific method" to the Bible and theology, so let's call it a reality check. (Too many believe that the Bible is a science textbook, which does the worst violence to the authors' intentions.) If my reading of the beginning of Genesis—it used to be six-day creationism—doesn't square with clear evidence from a preponderance of generally intelligent, rigorous, and nice scientists, maybe I should reconsider my reading. Walton's book has allayed any remaining fears of abandoning six-day creationism, noting that the poem is likely a ceremonial recounting of a deity taking up residence in his temple. And since this describes how God made his creation functional rather than how he formed the material, any tensions about violating the "literal" text are defused.
This all reminds me of that old cartoon Spy vs. Spy. Each one devises a plot more dastardly than the last to destroy the other. The destruction is immense, but the plots never work for their purpose: neutralizing the rival once for all. This same, almost entertaining, futility characterizes the evolution debate. If the guilty guilds would clarify their purviews and humbly accept that they may need to revise their theories, the silly rancor would end, and I would hope an era of cooperation would lead to much greater understanding. Although maybe it's the desperation of irreconcilable competition that fuels more discovery.
The "debate" between antireligion scientists and antievolution Christians has to stop. Each side has a big chunk of truth they're hanging onto, and they're trying to bludgeon the other side with it. Such scientists claim truth because it's based on observable phenomena (maybe not the processes, but the fossilized results and vestigial DNA evidence). Antievolutionists often claim irrefutable truth based on the Bible. What if they're both true?
A helpful book is The Lost World of Genesis One [and a bit more in chapter two] by John Walton. He demonstrates that the first creation account relates functional origins, not material origins. He also notes that science and metaphysics are interdependent but distinctly different categories, and when one tries to answer a metaphysical question with science and vice versa, trouble results. Scientists sometimes claim there is no God because they haven't observed one. Well, maybe scientific tools are inadequate for this task, and metaphysicians need to handle this question. Likewise, religious folk need to stop being armchair scientists because they don't have the instruments to observe material objects the way scientists do.
An underlying claim of some antievolution religionists is they have 100 percent certainty in who God is and how he created. They imply that science can never have certainty because there are always advances in science, and many scientific theories have been proven wrong over the centuries. Unfortunately, scientists are the ones who show the Christian virtue of humility, though it may be forced at times. They may be arrogant in their God claims, but as a community, they are always challenging one another's theories to come to a better understanding of the world. Creationists, traditionally defined, adopt a stance based on perhaps flawed readings of the Bible, and they don't bother to change their mind when circumstances warrant. In the end, I'm guessing each community's claims are about 60–70 percent true. But they wield 100 percent of their theories in their struggle to be correct.
My personal approach to truth (which I, of course, believe is the best one!) is similar to the scientific method. I collect enough data to form a working theory. Then I hold on to my theory and try to help it work until there is enough data to the contrary that I must consider alternatives. I hate to apply "scientific method" to the Bible and theology, so let's call it a reality check. (Too many believe that the Bible is a science textbook, which does the worst violence to the authors' intentions.) If my reading of the beginning of Genesis—it used to be six-day creationism—doesn't square with clear evidence from a preponderance of generally intelligent, rigorous, and nice scientists, maybe I should reconsider my reading. Walton's book has allayed any remaining fears of abandoning six-day creationism, noting that the poem is likely a ceremonial recounting of a deity taking up residence in his temple. And since this describes how God made his creation functional rather than how he formed the material, any tensions about violating the "literal" text are defused.
This all reminds me of that old cartoon Spy vs. Spy. Each one devises a plot more dastardly than the last to destroy the other. The destruction is immense, but the plots never work for their purpose: neutralizing the rival once for all. This same, almost entertaining, futility characterizes the evolution debate. If the guilty guilds would clarify their purviews and humbly accept that they may need to revise their theories, the silly rancor would end, and I would hope an era of cooperation would lead to much greater understanding. Although maybe it's the desperation of irreconcilable competition that fuels more discovery.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Ruth as representative redeemer
The intro to Ruth in The Books of the Bible notes that Genesis to Judges traces the formation of the nation of Israel, and Samuel–Kings details the development of the monarchy. In between is Ruth, which begins "In the days when the judges ruled" and ends with the genealogy of King David. Ruth is a bridge book that tells the story of how Israel's beloved (most of the time, anyway) king could be a fourth-generation Moabite.
Remember in the preceding narrative that the Moabites made life difficult for their second cousins the Israelites as the latter fled from centuries of slavery. The curse for this inconsiderate treatment was that no Moabite would enter YHWH's assembly even to the tenth generation. Part of me says this meant NEVER, but some people took it literally. So if you had Moabite blood, you had to prove that it was at least ten generations ago before you could worship in the temple.
How could David get way with entering YHWH's presence, let alone become the leader of YHWH's people, after only four generations? His great-grandmother Ruth redeemed the Moabites. Sure, the story points out that it's Elimelek's family name that's redeemed, and by extension Ruth herself, but note what happens. In the bigger picture, a Moabite could now point to King David and say, "He gets into the assembly. Why not me?" And it was Ruth's kindness and commitment to follow Naomi and YHWH that brings about this change.
Two women in a desperate situation somehow change the course of foreign relations because the foreigner behaved like a true Israelite. This is where trickle-up foreign relations works. Ruth removed the curse of her entire people by doing exactly what her ancestors failed to do the first time.
Remember in the preceding narrative that the Moabites made life difficult for their second cousins the Israelites as the latter fled from centuries of slavery. The curse for this inconsiderate treatment was that no Moabite would enter YHWH's assembly even to the tenth generation. Part of me says this meant NEVER, but some people took it literally. So if you had Moabite blood, you had to prove that it was at least ten generations ago before you could worship in the temple.
How could David get way with entering YHWH's presence, let alone become the leader of YHWH's people, after only four generations? His great-grandmother Ruth redeemed the Moabites. Sure, the story points out that it's Elimelek's family name that's redeemed, and by extension Ruth herself, but note what happens. In the bigger picture, a Moabite could now point to King David and say, "He gets into the assembly. Why not me?" And it was Ruth's kindness and commitment to follow Naomi and YHWH that brings about this change.
Two women in a desperate situation somehow change the course of foreign relations because the foreigner behaved like a true Israelite. This is where trickle-up foreign relations works. Ruth removed the curse of her entire people by doing exactly what her ancestors failed to do the first time.
Saturday, June 16, 2012
The evolution of Homo spiritus
A while back, I posted some thoughts on evolution as it relates to the Holy Spirit and sexual ethics. An understanding of evolution (provisional though mine is) helps to make sense of the kind of beings we as humans are.
I’ve been reading in two books lately, The Return of the Chaos Monsters and The Lost World of Genesis One, how the creation poem seems to narrate how the world became functional, not how it was materially constructed. It also indicates how God built the cosmos as his temple, and the seven days show more of an inauguration of his temple than anything. The seventh day was when God sat enthroned and everything was functioning as it should, which meant that he could rest.
This understanding allows for immense possibility in the material construction of God’s temple, his creation, and in the constitution of his priesthood, humans. If God did allow “lower” species of primates to precede humanity genetically, it seems that he took, say, an ape and breathed his spirit into it. This created a species I call Homo spiritus or, for theological purposes in Greek, anthropos pneumatikos.
God created a species that was a step beyond Homo sapiens, and when this species rebelled, they lost something, devolving so to speak. They devolved into Homo sapiens, losing their human capacity to appropriately house the Spirit of God. Homo spiritus had all the features of Homo sapiens, but without the chaos we see today.
Homo sapiens retains a vestige of the image of God and is still capable of ruling God’s creation with him. However, the average Homo sapiens lacks the Spirit of God dwelling within in an unmediated way. So our ruling turns more toward chaos than order. In fact, according to The Return of the Chaos Monsters, our disorderly ruling invites chaos back into the creation. See what Genesis 6 says: “YHWH saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.” This sort of disorderly living fights against the good, functional orderliness of God’s creation.
We are wicked priests who by our own actions destroy the creation we are supposed to mediate to God. (Think of Hophni and Phinehas, the priest Eli’s sons, who slept with the women who served at the entrance to the tent of meeting. This was the ultimate abuse of authority, taking advantage of those who they should be representing before God and to whom they should be representing God.)
What does it mean to be a “spiritual person”? It’s one who has the presence of God dwelling in them, and they make decisions consistent with God’s intentions for his creation. We are, after all, co-rulers with God, and those who do the best job of this will wish for and, as God’s Spirit lives in them, bring worship to God as priests in his temple.
The “natural person” (anthropos psuchikos) is Homo sapiens. Nothing “wrong” with being one, but it simply means that one is not fully evolved. In the “natural” order of things, if a person finds out they are more highly evolved than someone else, they will embark on all manner of horrible actions. Think of all the calculation of races in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This was a thinly veiled attempt to turn other humans into lower species so the dominant groups could enslave them. But Homo spiritus by definition would not do this. Humility and self-sacrifice are features of this species. The apostle Paul shared a pretty good list of characteristics with the churches in Galatia: “love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.” Sure, at this point in history, a Homo spiritus will likely revert to Homo sapiens in self-justification and condemnation. But hopefully, they will repent and take the evolutionary step back to Homo spiritus.
I’ve been reading in two books lately, The Return of the Chaos Monsters and The Lost World of Genesis One, how the creation poem seems to narrate how the world became functional, not how it was materially constructed. It also indicates how God built the cosmos as his temple, and the seven days show more of an inauguration of his temple than anything. The seventh day was when God sat enthroned and everything was functioning as it should, which meant that he could rest.
This understanding allows for immense possibility in the material construction of God’s temple, his creation, and in the constitution of his priesthood, humans. If God did allow “lower” species of primates to precede humanity genetically, it seems that he took, say, an ape and breathed his spirit into it. This created a species I call Homo spiritus or, for theological purposes in Greek, anthropos pneumatikos.
God created a species that was a step beyond Homo sapiens, and when this species rebelled, they lost something, devolving so to speak. They devolved into Homo sapiens, losing their human capacity to appropriately house the Spirit of God. Homo spiritus had all the features of Homo sapiens, but without the chaos we see today.
Homo sapiens retains a vestige of the image of God and is still capable of ruling God’s creation with him. However, the average Homo sapiens lacks the Spirit of God dwelling within in an unmediated way. So our ruling turns more toward chaos than order. In fact, according to The Return of the Chaos Monsters, our disorderly ruling invites chaos back into the creation. See what Genesis 6 says: “YHWH saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.” This sort of disorderly living fights against the good, functional orderliness of God’s creation.
We are wicked priests who by our own actions destroy the creation we are supposed to mediate to God. (Think of Hophni and Phinehas, the priest Eli’s sons, who slept with the women who served at the entrance to the tent of meeting. This was the ultimate abuse of authority, taking advantage of those who they should be representing before God and to whom they should be representing God.)
What does it mean to be a “spiritual person”? It’s one who has the presence of God dwelling in them, and they make decisions consistent with God’s intentions for his creation. We are, after all, co-rulers with God, and those who do the best job of this will wish for and, as God’s Spirit lives in them, bring worship to God as priests in his temple.
The “natural person” (anthropos psuchikos) is Homo sapiens. Nothing “wrong” with being one, but it simply means that one is not fully evolved. In the “natural” order of things, if a person finds out they are more highly evolved than someone else, they will embark on all manner of horrible actions. Think of all the calculation of races in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This was a thinly veiled attempt to turn other humans into lower species so the dominant groups could enslave them. But Homo spiritus by definition would not do this. Humility and self-sacrifice are features of this species. The apostle Paul shared a pretty good list of characteristics with the churches in Galatia: “love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.” Sure, at this point in history, a Homo spiritus will likely revert to Homo sapiens in self-justification and condemnation. But hopefully, they will repent and take the evolutionary step back to Homo spiritus.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Photo Card
Little Birdie Baby Announcements
Personalize your announcements with Shutterfly.
View the entire collection of cards.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Parenting angst commissioned by God
I read through Judges today and felt a pang for Manoah, father of Samson. When his wife informed him that a man told her she would become pregnant and not to partake of anything grapey, he thought as any man would, "Who's this guy talking to my wife? Is this legit, or is he just trying to cuckold me?"
Actually, the text tells us that Manoah prayed, “Pardon your servant, Lord. I beg you to let the man of God you sent to us come again to teach us how to bring up the boy who is to be born.” I hear a little bit of Gideon lurking just beneath the surface: "Can I really be sure . . .?" But I love that this is Manoah's prayer. My biggest issue with becoming a parent (now times two) is that I may not tell the story of God well. I could really use some help in communicating a big-read, nonversejack, here's-the-big-story-that-makes-little-to-no-sense-in-America story. But I digress.
Manoah obviously takes his job seriously. He wants to be sure how to bring up a Nazirite, and perhaps more simply, any child, in such a rotten society. And if we think parenting is about us or making sure our kids turn out well, this event from later in the story will shatter that expectation:
Samson went down to Timnah and saw there a young Philistine woman. When he returned, he said to his father and mother, “I have seen a Philistine woman in Timnah; now get her for me as my wife.” His father and mother replied, “Isn’t there an acceptable woman among your relatives or among all our people? Must you go to the uncircumcised Philistines to get a wife?” But Samson said to his father, “Get her for me. She’s the right one for me.” (His parents did not know that this was from YHWH, who was seeking an occasion to confront the Philistines; for at that time they were ruling over Israel.)
First, how does a parent argue with "She's the right one for me"? If they do, the reply will be "You don't know me! You don't own me!" And there will be instant alienation, if that hadn't happened already.
And does God really answer the prayers of some parents who are desperate to raise good kids with a rebellious teen? Like specifically answer with that? I'm starting to think that's possible, more often than we think. The God of Israel that we claim to love and serve isn't capricious like other gods, but he sure has his own ideas.
Actually, the text tells us that Manoah prayed, “Pardon your servant, Lord. I beg you to let the man of God you sent to us come again to teach us how to bring up the boy who is to be born.” I hear a little bit of Gideon lurking just beneath the surface: "Can I really be sure . . .?" But I love that this is Manoah's prayer. My biggest issue with becoming a parent (now times two) is that I may not tell the story of God well. I could really use some help in communicating a big-read, nonversejack, here's-the-big-story-that-makes-little-to-no-sense-in-America story. But I digress.
Manoah obviously takes his job seriously. He wants to be sure how to bring up a Nazirite, and perhaps more simply, any child, in such a rotten society. And if we think parenting is about us or making sure our kids turn out well, this event from later in the story will shatter that expectation:
Samson went down to Timnah and saw there a young Philistine woman. When he returned, he said to his father and mother, “I have seen a Philistine woman in Timnah; now get her for me as my wife.” His father and mother replied, “Isn’t there an acceptable woman among your relatives or among all our people? Must you go to the uncircumcised Philistines to get a wife?” But Samson said to his father, “Get her for me. She’s the right one for me.” (His parents did not know that this was from YHWH, who was seeking an occasion to confront the Philistines; for at that time they were ruling over Israel.)
First, how does a parent argue with "She's the right one for me"? If they do, the reply will be "You don't know me! You don't own me!" And there will be instant alienation, if that hadn't happened already.
And does God really answer the prayers of some parents who are desperate to raise good kids with a rebellious teen? Like specifically answer with that? I'm starting to think that's possible, more often than we think. The God of Israel that we claim to love and serve isn't capricious like other gods, but he sure has his own ideas.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Apostle Paul bore the curse
I'm reading through Deuteronomy, and I ran across a little series of items that rang a bell. If the Hebrews did not obey YHWH's commands and decrees:
"All these curses will come on you. They will pursue you and overtake you until you are destroyed, because you did not obey YHWH your God and observe the commands and decrees he gave you. They will be a sign and a wonder to you and your descendants forever. Because you did not serve YHWH your God joyfully and gladly in the time of prosperity, therefore in hunger and thirst, in nakedness and dire poverty, you will serve the enemies YHWH sends against you. He will put an iron yoke on your neck until he has destroyed you" (all Scripture NIV).
"In hunger and thirst, in nakedness and dire poverty" sounds an awful lot like a portion of Paul's litany of woe in his second letter to the Corinthians: "I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked." Before reading Deuteronomy, I assumed that Paul was reluctantly (or not) showing some marginally okay spiritual pride in order to shore his position against the "super-apostles." But after seeing this association, I think Paul actually puts himself in line right behind Jesus.
Jesus was the true Israelite who bore curses and shame on the cross, despite showing YHWH's extravagant graciousness to the poor and outcast in direct accordance with the Law. And Jesus was raised from death, showing that even all the curses of the Law could not overpower a righteous man. (Read a handful of psalms, and this theme will emerge.)
Paul wrote to the Galatians, "From now on, let no one [specifically those "super-apostle" types] cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus." He also was bearing the curse of the Law along with Jesus. In line behind the true Israelite, Paul also was a righteous man who unjustly suffered. He was living the new creation brought about by Jesus. Note at the end of Galatians just before his comment about the marks of Jesus: "Those who want to impress people by means of the flesh are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. Not even those who are circumcised keep the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your circumcision in the flesh. May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation."
In 2 Corinthians, Paul is confronting the same type of people who want to compel others to follow the Law, even though they can't themselves. In his teaching, Paul says he is following Jesus, who filled all possibilities in keeping the Law. He also claims to the Philippians to have kept the Law better than any of the Pharisees: "If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless."
Why then suffer the curses? Israel couldn't follow the Law, and even suffering the curses didn't compel them to return to YHWH. So Israelites who truly obeyed the covenant (that is, were righteous) had to continue doing so yet bear the shame of the curses on behalf of the unrighteous. Deuteronomy itself says, "Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there YHWH your God will gather you and bring you back. . . . YHWH your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live. YHWH your God will put all these curses on your enemies who hate and persecute you. You will again obey YHWH and follow all his commands I am giving you today. Then YHWH your God will make you most prosperous in all the work of your hands and in the fruit of your womb, the young of your livestock and the crops of your land." The bringing back to ridiculous prosperity signifies the restoration of creation. Physical circumcision no longer marks one as an Israelite; it's the newly created, circumcised heart. And yet the plan of God in this passage shifted so that it is the obedient ones who suffer the curses of the Law on behalf of those who can't obey. This was the only way to empty sin, death, and the curse of its power.
Suffering the curses of Deuteronomy is exactly the idea of persecution in Paul's letters. The enemies of God's people pour out their worst on the righteous (as opposed to chastising God's unrighteous people in Deuteronomy). God's people are formed more in his image, our hearts are circumcised, and we bear the shame of the decay of all creation. Then the enemies are invited to join God's people and suffer (precisely Paul's life story) until all suffering is abolished and all things are new.
"All these curses will come on you. They will pursue you and overtake you until you are destroyed, because you did not obey YHWH your God and observe the commands and decrees he gave you. They will be a sign and a wonder to you and your descendants forever. Because you did not serve YHWH your God joyfully and gladly in the time of prosperity, therefore in hunger and thirst, in nakedness and dire poverty, you will serve the enemies YHWH sends against you. He will put an iron yoke on your neck until he has destroyed you" (all Scripture NIV).
"In hunger and thirst, in nakedness and dire poverty" sounds an awful lot like a portion of Paul's litany of woe in his second letter to the Corinthians: "I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked." Before reading Deuteronomy, I assumed that Paul was reluctantly (or not) showing some marginally okay spiritual pride in order to shore his position against the "super-apostles." But after seeing this association, I think Paul actually puts himself in line right behind Jesus.
Jesus was the true Israelite who bore curses and shame on the cross, despite showing YHWH's extravagant graciousness to the poor and outcast in direct accordance with the Law. And Jesus was raised from death, showing that even all the curses of the Law could not overpower a righteous man. (Read a handful of psalms, and this theme will emerge.)
Paul wrote to the Galatians, "From now on, let no one [specifically those "super-apostle" types] cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus." He also was bearing the curse of the Law along with Jesus. In line behind the true Israelite, Paul also was a righteous man who unjustly suffered. He was living the new creation brought about by Jesus. Note at the end of Galatians just before his comment about the marks of Jesus: "Those who want to impress people by means of the flesh are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. Not even those who are circumcised keep the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your circumcision in the flesh. May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation."
In 2 Corinthians, Paul is confronting the same type of people who want to compel others to follow the Law, even though they can't themselves. In his teaching, Paul says he is following Jesus, who filled all possibilities in keeping the Law. He also claims to the Philippians to have kept the Law better than any of the Pharisees: "If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless."
Why then suffer the curses? Israel couldn't follow the Law, and even suffering the curses didn't compel them to return to YHWH. So Israelites who truly obeyed the covenant (that is, were righteous) had to continue doing so yet bear the shame of the curses on behalf of the unrighteous. Deuteronomy itself says, "Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there YHWH your God will gather you and bring you back. . . . YHWH your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live. YHWH your God will put all these curses on your enemies who hate and persecute you. You will again obey YHWH and follow all his commands I am giving you today. Then YHWH your God will make you most prosperous in all the work of your hands and in the fruit of your womb, the young of your livestock and the crops of your land." The bringing back to ridiculous prosperity signifies the restoration of creation. Physical circumcision no longer marks one as an Israelite; it's the newly created, circumcised heart. And yet the plan of God in this passage shifted so that it is the obedient ones who suffer the curses of the Law on behalf of those who can't obey. This was the only way to empty sin, death, and the curse of its power.
Suffering the curses of Deuteronomy is exactly the idea of persecution in Paul's letters. The enemies of God's people pour out their worst on the righteous (as opposed to chastising God's unrighteous people in Deuteronomy). God's people are formed more in his image, our hearts are circumcised, and we bear the shame of the decay of all creation. Then the enemies are invited to join God's people and suffer (precisely Paul's life story) until all suffering is abolished and all things are new.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Calories don't count on Fridays
For my prior macabre post, I looked at this Wikipedia article on Día de los Muertos.
The following description of the feast that people set out for their deceased loved ones totally reminded me of what people jokingly say about sweets, such as "Oh, it's only half a cookie, so the calories don't count" or "Calories don't count on Fridays."
"Some people believe the spirits of the dead eat the 'spiritual essence' of the ofrendas food, so even though the celebrators eat the food after the festivities, they believe it lacks nutritional value."
I say we designate days of the week or hours of the day for ghosts to consume the spiritual essence of cookies, brownies, cake, chocolate, candy, etc. I'm totally into that.
The following description of the feast that people set out for their deceased loved ones totally reminded me of what people jokingly say about sweets, such as "Oh, it's only half a cookie, so the calories don't count" or "Calories don't count on Fridays."
"Some people believe the spirits of the dead eat the 'spiritual essence' of the ofrendas food, so even though the celebrators eat the food after the festivities, they believe it lacks nutritional value."
I say we designate days of the week or hours of the day for ghosts to consume the spiritual essence of cookies, brownies, cake, chocolate, candy, etc. I'm totally into that.
The macabre and resurrection
I happened upon the origin of the word macabre the other day, and I'm amazed by how it apparently came about.
According to dictionaries, the most commonly accepted tale is during the horrors of Black Death, monks wanted to help the populace understand the inevitability of death for all persons. They created these, well, macabre, morality plays something like Tetzel used to sell indulgences as depicted in the movie Luther.
Evidently one of the originals portrayed the torture and ritual execution of the seven brothers and their mother in 2 Maccabees. This was known in Old French as "danse macabre," the dance of death, or perhaps the dance of the Maccabees. Throughout the Middle Ages, this kind of reminder of death cropped up often. It may have even been used on feast days honoring the deceased. (Think Día de los Muertos.) The theme entered the decor of places such as ossuaries and sarcophagi as skulls and skeletons.
What I find so interesting is while the Maccabean martyrs were being dismembered, they were talking about resurrection, almost mocking their torturers. They weren't the slightest bit concerned about the inevitability of death. But they were certain of the inevitability of resurrection. How would life be different if we saw it (and death) this way? We don't seem too concerned with skullish representations of death in America, but we seem to be even less aware of resurrection. What would it take to come up with an iconography of resurrection, rather than skulls and skeletons?
According to dictionaries, the most commonly accepted tale is during the horrors of Black Death, monks wanted to help the populace understand the inevitability of death for all persons. They created these, well, macabre, morality plays something like Tetzel used to sell indulgences as depicted in the movie Luther.
Evidently one of the originals portrayed the torture and ritual execution of the seven brothers and their mother in 2 Maccabees. This was known in Old French as "danse macabre," the dance of death, or perhaps the dance of the Maccabees. Throughout the Middle Ages, this kind of reminder of death cropped up often. It may have even been used on feast days honoring the deceased. (Think Día de los Muertos.) The theme entered the decor of places such as ossuaries and sarcophagi as skulls and skeletons.
What I find so interesting is while the Maccabean martyrs were being dismembered, they were talking about resurrection, almost mocking their torturers. They weren't the slightest bit concerned about the inevitability of death. But they were certain of the inevitability of resurrection. How would life be different if we saw it (and death) this way? We don't seem too concerned with skullish representations of death in America, but we seem to be even less aware of resurrection. What would it take to come up with an iconography of resurrection, rather than skulls and skeletons?
Monday, March 19, 2012
Antichrist
I remember so much talk about the antichrist when I was growing up. He was to be a key player in end times scenarios. However, I started to get skeptical when I discovered that the only place such a person is mentioned is in John's letters, referring to someone who denied that Jesus was the Messiah (Christ). And there were multiple antichrists.
In my study of what Jesus's Messiahship really meant (largely from NT Wright's work), it seems that he was the one who was the last great prophet to warn Israel of her impending doom. As Messiah, of course, he was Israel's king, but he offered a stark warning, and then he even bore his people's punishment on the cross. He offered the whole nation forgiveness from sin and return from exile in the sense of the absence of God's tangible presence. However, his warning was of what felt like a much more devastating exile: destruction of the entire countryside, including the holy city of Jerusalem and its temple.
If Jesus's first-level purpose before salvation of the world and restoration of creation was to warn people of imminent punishment, exactly in the spirit of Jeremiah, then who would be the antichrist? Paul sets the stage in 1 Thessalonians: "Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, 'Peace and safety,' destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape" (NIV). It's those people saying, "There's nothing to worry about! What? There was a prophet who said to repent? Nah." They are the ones contravening the Messiah's prophecy. They are the ones deceiving their loved ones into dying a horrible death at the hands of the Romans rather than listening to Jesus's warning to "run for the hills!"
I always thought John's letters were a bit rambly and circumlocutory. Now I see that his letters really intended to use circumlocution: "the use of many words where fewer would do, esp. in a deliberate attempt to be vague or evasive." There's an apocalyptic feel to the way he says, "Don't entertain people who come to town saying that this Jesus stuff is bunk and that we need to placate the Romans, because Romans will be Romans. You must live in love by serving the real King of the world, Jesus." Oh, that's a message the ruling powers don't like to hear, and you have to be careful how you say it.
In my study of what Jesus's Messiahship really meant (largely from NT Wright's work), it seems that he was the one who was the last great prophet to warn Israel of her impending doom. As Messiah, of course, he was Israel's king, but he offered a stark warning, and then he even bore his people's punishment on the cross. He offered the whole nation forgiveness from sin and return from exile in the sense of the absence of God's tangible presence. However, his warning was of what felt like a much more devastating exile: destruction of the entire countryside, including the holy city of Jerusalem and its temple.
If Jesus's first-level purpose before salvation of the world and restoration of creation was to warn people of imminent punishment, exactly in the spirit of Jeremiah, then who would be the antichrist? Paul sets the stage in 1 Thessalonians: "Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, 'Peace and safety,' destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape" (NIV). It's those people saying, "There's nothing to worry about! What? There was a prophet who said to repent? Nah." They are the ones contravening the Messiah's prophecy. They are the ones deceiving their loved ones into dying a horrible death at the hands of the Romans rather than listening to Jesus's warning to "run for the hills!"
I always thought John's letters were a bit rambly and circumlocutory. Now I see that his letters really intended to use circumlocution: "the use of many words where fewer would do, esp. in a deliberate attempt to be vague or evasive." There's an apocalyptic feel to the way he says, "Don't entertain people who come to town saying that this Jesus stuff is bunk and that we need to placate the Romans, because Romans will be Romans. You must live in love by serving the real King of the world, Jesus." Oh, that's a message the ruling powers don't like to hear, and you have to be careful how you say it.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Tarshish
Nope, this isn't about Jonah. This is about trading ships. It seems throughout Hebrew Scripture that ships were originally referred to as "ships that could go to Tarshish." It makes more sense to us to say "trading ships."
But that's not the point either.
In both Samuel–Kings and Chronicles–Ezra–Nehemiah, the text recounts that Jehoshaphat built a fleet of trading ships but they were wrecked before they set sail. A prophet noted that this was because he had made the ship-building alliance with Ahaziah king of Israel "who was guilty of wickedness."
It makes sense that God wouldn't be keen on an evil king. More sense that he would prefer a good king to not ally himself with an evil king. But I think the point may be one step deeper.
Jehoshaphat oversaw one of the most amazing military victories ever. Judah defeated three nations by trusting in YHWH and singing his praises. They crested the hill overlooking the battlefield, and God had already made the nations destroy one another. The only remaining task was to fetch the plunder. Again, this was all about trust in God, and he blessed Judah for it.
Now a nation must be prosperous to afford a fleet of ships. And God was indeed prospering Judah. But Jehoshaphat did not trust YHWH to provide the ships; he signed a contract with someone who had explicitly turned away from YHWH. That's a good reason to wreck the ships.
A final detail is that this was an apparent imitation of Solomon. Solomon was so enormously prosperous that his fleet of ships anchored in the same harbor generations before Jehoshaphat's wasn't really necessary, but God blessed Israel with it. In effect, Jehoshaphat was trying to say that he was as great as Solomon. Only it was YHWH who made Solomon great, and anyone who tries to measure up to that sort of greatness by allying with an enemy of YHWH is doomed to fail.
But that's not the point either.
In both Samuel–Kings and Chronicles–Ezra–Nehemiah, the text recounts that Jehoshaphat built a fleet of trading ships but they were wrecked before they set sail. A prophet noted that this was because he had made the ship-building alliance with Ahaziah king of Israel "who was guilty of wickedness."
It makes sense that God wouldn't be keen on an evil king. More sense that he would prefer a good king to not ally himself with an evil king. But I think the point may be one step deeper.
Jehoshaphat oversaw one of the most amazing military victories ever. Judah defeated three nations by trusting in YHWH and singing his praises. They crested the hill overlooking the battlefield, and God had already made the nations destroy one another. The only remaining task was to fetch the plunder. Again, this was all about trust in God, and he blessed Judah for it.
Now a nation must be prosperous to afford a fleet of ships. And God was indeed prospering Judah. But Jehoshaphat did not trust YHWH to provide the ships; he signed a contract with someone who had explicitly turned away from YHWH. That's a good reason to wreck the ships.
A final detail is that this was an apparent imitation of Solomon. Solomon was so enormously prosperous that his fleet of ships anchored in the same harbor generations before Jehoshaphat's wasn't really necessary, but God blessed Israel with it. In effect, Jehoshaphat was trying to say that he was as great as Solomon. Only it was YHWH who made Solomon great, and anyone who tries to measure up to that sort of greatness by allying with an enemy of YHWH is doomed to fail.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Image and rest
The ancient Near Eastern myths about creation are so interesting, mainly because they portray their deities as petty junior highers. It's hard for me to believe that people would tell such stories about their gods. But as Michael Moore (not that one), my Pentateuch professor, says, a significant, overlooked portion of these myths is often how political, economic, and social structures found their form. It's not just about how the physical world found its form (as we often assume with the Bible). Further, the myths themselves served to subvert the structures as they stood at the time.
The Atrahasis myth gives the account of the creation of humans. For some reason, it was essential for canals to be dug in Mesopotamia, and lesser gods were assigned this task. After a while, they got sick of the labor and revolted, and humans were created to do this work. The gods were able to rest indefinitely now, which seems to be a part of their goal all along. However, the humans got noisy, preventing the gods from resting, so this led to the flood. (That's a pretty spare summary. You can read more commentary that I found on a lazy Google search.)
According to the Bible, when God (Elohim) created the cosmos, he made humans in his image to tend and care for the earth. And in the creation poem, he also rested. However, God rested on the seventh day, implying that he still works 86 percent of the time. Later on, he gives his people the command to rest on the seventh day as well. So God invites humanity to do his work with him and to partake in the same benefits of rest.
This is a huge social polemic against the Mesopotamian myths. While the flesh and blood of one of the lesser gods was mixed with clay in order to create the slave race humanity in Atrahasis, this is nowhere close to God creating us in his image, giving us a noble task in creation, and breathing his very breath or Spirit into us.
The Atrahasis myth gives the account of the creation of humans. For some reason, it was essential for canals to be dug in Mesopotamia, and lesser gods were assigned this task. After a while, they got sick of the labor and revolted, and humans were created to do this work. The gods were able to rest indefinitely now, which seems to be a part of their goal all along. However, the humans got noisy, preventing the gods from resting, so this led to the flood. (That's a pretty spare summary. You can read more commentary that I found on a lazy Google search.)
According to the Bible, when God (Elohim) created the cosmos, he made humans in his image to tend and care for the earth. And in the creation poem, he also rested. However, God rested on the seventh day, implying that he still works 86 percent of the time. Later on, he gives his people the command to rest on the seventh day as well. So God invites humanity to do his work with him and to partake in the same benefits of rest.
This is a huge social polemic against the Mesopotamian myths. While the flesh and blood of one of the lesser gods was mixed with clay in order to create the slave race humanity in Atrahasis, this is nowhere close to God creating us in his image, giving us a noble task in creation, and breathing his very breath or Spirit into us.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Today is the day of salvation
My heart has been burdened with the idea of "being right" lately. Holy Spirit has been doing a mighty work over the past couple of years to save me from this way of death. While the strength of my reactions to "wrong" ideas has mercifully waned, I still need reformation to be merciful in my responses to what seems to me inconsonant with the truth of God's story.
I talked with a barista at Starbucks a couple of months ago, and her religious approach horrified my Self of Yesteryear. She was raised a Catholic and wandered in high school and college somehow landing back in Catholicism. But her landing pad has more to do with Buddhism than anything. I think she mainly attends Mass for the beauty of the theatrics (respectfully stated).
Back in the day, I would have heard the words "today is the day of salvation" from Paul in 2 Corinthians echoing in my head as I tried to convince her that she needed to become a Christian. But I was just struck with the idea that what was bouncing around in my head was actually "right now is the time to pray the sinner's prayer."
From a more holistic perspective, Paul's statement of the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy is "we have reached the climax of history when God himself has come to rescue his people—indeed all of humanity—from sin and its resultant exile/estrangement and from death, the previously ultimate exile." That's how I interpret what Paul is saying in context.
But what do we do if this steals the urgency of conversion? I think my own journey away from "wrong thinking search and destroy" is a good illustration. Holy Spirit has taken his sweet time in healing me from this dysfunction. Why would I think that a conversation in an afternoon would change my life and actions? God's Spirit is active in making the practical presence of the reality of salvation present throughout the world and in people's lives. Today I trust that he will use me to gently and powerfully bring salvation in his creation, both human and not.
I talked with a barista at Starbucks a couple of months ago, and her religious approach horrified my Self of Yesteryear. She was raised a Catholic and wandered in high school and college somehow landing back in Catholicism. But her landing pad has more to do with Buddhism than anything. I think she mainly attends Mass for the beauty of the theatrics (respectfully stated).
Back in the day, I would have heard the words "today is the day of salvation" from Paul in 2 Corinthians echoing in my head as I tried to convince her that she needed to become a Christian. But I was just struck with the idea that what was bouncing around in my head was actually "right now is the time to pray the sinner's prayer."
From a more holistic perspective, Paul's statement of the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy is "we have reached the climax of history when God himself has come to rescue his people—indeed all of humanity—from sin and its resultant exile/estrangement and from death, the previously ultimate exile." That's how I interpret what Paul is saying in context.
But what do we do if this steals the urgency of conversion? I think my own journey away from "wrong thinking search and destroy" is a good illustration. Holy Spirit has taken his sweet time in healing me from this dysfunction. Why would I think that a conversation in an afternoon would change my life and actions? God's Spirit is active in making the practical presence of the reality of salvation present throughout the world and in people's lives. Today I trust that he will use me to gently and powerfully bring salvation in his creation, both human and not.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Seven thousand
I heard the story of Elijah's flight from Jezebel again today. The odd thing that struck me had to do with how we view the "literalness" of the Scripture text. Specifically, is God's reference to the 7,000 who have not bowed to Baal a precise number or is it a number that illustrates a point to Elijah and those who followed after him?
The exact question that popped into my head was, "Would Elijah have been more encouraged by a precise number (like a census) or by knowing that God had preserved a complete number of faithful people?" What if the text said, "I have reserved 2,863 in all Israel who have not bowed the knee to Baal"? Or "I have reserved 64,551 in all Israel who have not bowed the knee to Baal"?
I think real encouragement comes from knowing that the completeness and perfection of God's remnant has been preserved. The way this number works is 7 x 10 x 10 x 10. Seven and ten are significant in themselves, but a thousand is also important as a complete number. So 7,000 would have told Elijah, "You are not alone. I have preserved exactly the people who needed to be preserved in order to accomplish my purposes."
This gets back to the doctrinal question. Is it a lie if it's not a precise number? Or did God pick the number and then ensure that there actually were 7,000? Or is the Bible not a product of late Modernism? I've long been an "inspired, inerrant" kind of Bible guy. I still am, but I think the definitions are changing. I now tend to see the importance of the number as one that communicates best to Elijah, and in this case, it's emotionally rather than numerically.
The exact question that popped into my head was, "Would Elijah have been more encouraged by a precise number (like a census) or by knowing that God had preserved a complete number of faithful people?" What if the text said, "I have reserved 2,863 in all Israel who have not bowed the knee to Baal"? Or "I have reserved 64,551 in all Israel who have not bowed the knee to Baal"?
I think real encouragement comes from knowing that the completeness and perfection of God's remnant has been preserved. The way this number works is 7 x 10 x 10 x 10. Seven and ten are significant in themselves, but a thousand is also important as a complete number. So 7,000 would have told Elijah, "You are not alone. I have preserved exactly the people who needed to be preserved in order to accomplish my purposes."
This gets back to the doctrinal question. Is it a lie if it's not a precise number? Or did God pick the number and then ensure that there actually were 7,000? Or is the Bible not a product of late Modernism? I've long been an "inspired, inerrant" kind of Bible guy. I still am, but I think the definitions are changing. I now tend to see the importance of the number as one that communicates best to Elijah, and in this case, it's emotionally rather than numerically.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)