Currently Taking Bets…
…for how many times the guys will go to Chipotle this weekend while I’m out of town (the guys being my husband and our foreign exchange student)…
Sin and Healing
This post by Leavened reminded me this morning of my reading in the book of Ezekiel 20, in which the exiled elders of Israel appear before Ezekiel in order to “inquire of the Lord.” The LORD refuses to be inquired of by them, because of their great sin, their history of idolatry and their continued profaning of God and his Sabbath. (As a side note, it’s interesting to me that the most common sins that the prophets list when discussing why Israel is being judged seem to be: sexual immorality, profaning the Sabbath, idolatry, and injustice. Just a completely random observation.) Perhaps it is easy to question the foolishness of the Israelites, but aren’t we basically the same? As soon as tragedy strikes we cry “Why me Lord? Answer me!” rather than acknowledging that the Lord owes sinners nothing. We long for healing –which by the way, God offers throughout Ezekiel 20 — “I gave them my statutes and made known to them my rules, by which, if a person does them, he shall live…” (v. 11, 13, 21). But we hesitate to see our sin, to note that perhaps it is because of the idoaltries in our lives that God felt it necessary to “strike” us, to get us to really deal with him beyond a superficial level. Not that every tragedy is the result of sin of course, but I wonder if we sometimes miss an opportunity (for that is really what it is) to repent of idolatry when pain comes.
Intellect in the Abstract: provocative thoughts ahead
One thing that has long bothered me about my graduate school experience is that discussions seemed to be so far removed from reality. For example, we could have absolutely marvelous in-class discussion about the kingdom of God, learn so much theroretically about what that means — and then have no understanding of what the next step looks like, or how to work that out in ecclesiology. Although engaging with a subject at an intellectual level, and using our critical thinking skills is – of course – important, without question — how much do these types of conversations actually serve the church, or the lost?
For example, the relatively recent Wheaton debate about whether or not a professing Catholic professor should have been let go or not — sparked much controversy about the relationship between Protestantism and Catholicism, the similarities and differences. Now, I was watching this from a distance and don’t know all the details, but from what I understand a lot of the conversation centered around intellectual issues — again, I don’t remember all the details, and I don’t know enough about this specific issue to know what I think about it, although I heard Alan Jacobs wrote a great article on it (which I can’t seem to find online).
This caused me to think back to conversations I had had while at grad school with various people on the subject of Catholocism — most of them were quite defensive of the Catholic faith, and understood it from an intellectual standpoint. For example, friends informed me that Catholics don’t believe in the deity of Mary, that they don’t actually trust in good works themselves for salvation, don’t really pray to the saints per se, etc. Now, this may all be true at a technical level, and that’s all well and good.
But two observations: 1) Most of these friends had had little to no experience with the Catholic church. Most of them had never set foot inside a Catholic church. 2) Most of these friends were not raised in Catholic families. 3) Most of these friends did not have any/many Catholic friends.
I am also willing to bet that most of the information that these friends were getting about Catholocism were coming from books, etc. that were written mostly by people who do not represent (ethnically or spiritually) most people today who would call themselves Catholics. They were written by a small selection of Catholic and other intellectuals, is my guess.
I found these intellectual defenses of the Catholic faith to be most unhelpful, because they didn’t represent the beliefs of the majority of Catholic America. Most of Catholic America is Hispanic (I believe). Having grown up in a 75% Catholic neighborhood (Hispanic and Filipino), I have realized that while the Catholic church may believe certain things about itself at one level, the majority of people who claim Catholocism do not know that it believes those things about itself. The vast majority of my friends who were Catholic were either practical agnostics (and usually pagans) or thought that praying the rosary and other such works would earn them salvation. At a very practical level, your typical Catholic off the street is hoping that he’s done enough of the right stuff to get to heaven.
So I guess my question is, why should I take the time to engage with Catholicism at an intellectual level if the majority of Catholics (who are mostly minorities living in the southwest, I believe) — don’t? How would defending the Catholic faith at a technical, intellectual level serve them? Or would it? And, should I trust an intellectual representation of a faith that seems so far removed from the experience of everyday Catholocism?
[And, just as a disclaimer, let me say that I have known Christians within the Catholic church who were trusting Christ for salvation and were growing Christians. I'm not condemning all Catholics but any means. I have heroes whose faith started in the Catholic church and there are Catholic charismatics whose works I've greatly enjoyed reading. I'm rather questioning the helpfulness of an intellectual understanding of Catholicism and what drives it -- a desire to appear tolerant, perhaps, or a reaction to the witch-burning of Catholics in general ("we don't want to be like those fundamentalists?")]
This is just an example of this issue of intellectual abstractions, by the way — I don’t necessarily hold this particular subject near and dear to my heart. Perhaps I just have more the heart of a minister than the heart of an intellectual! I wouldn’t be surprised if that were the case.
Feel free to weigh in!
“Real Beauty” video
This video gives excellent insight into what goes into the making of a model, and how unrealistic this picture of true beauty is. It’s pretty striking.
(HT: girltalk)
The problems with liberalism and conservatism
I found JT’s summaries of the main problems with liberalism and conservatism from a Christian worldview to be intruiging.
For the Bibliophile: Book Lists
For those of you, who, like us, tend to salivate when hearing about a well-respected thinker’s booklist, check out Desiring God’s recommendations on topics such as the arts, education, marriage, and various theological topics here, and Justin Taylor’s long and expansive book list on cultural engagement. Also, for those who may have missed it, see Justin’s blog for several leading Christians thinker’s current “most influential” list of books (you may have to scroll down a little bit).
The Lord will swallow up death
Is. 25:6-8 On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples
a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine,
of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined.
And he will swallow up on this mountain
the covering that is cast over all peoples,
the veil that is spread over all nations.
He will swallow up death forever; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces,
and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth,
for the LORD has spoken.
The commentator John Oswalt writes this about Isa 25: “For the Christian, what other meaning can this have than the death and resurrection of JC? In him, deah has been defeated once and for all, for all the peoples of the earth… This is the ultimate deliverance. We may be delivered from want and from oppression, but until we are delivered from death, and the sin which issues in death, all these other deliverances are a mockery; death is the final conqueror” (Oswalt, 464).
What a picture of that final day. The banquet is set by God himself, the great wedding feast of the Lamb (Rev 19), and then he takes away the one thing that keeps us from enjoying that feast with him- death (1Cor 15). Because the wages of sin is death (Gen 3) and death’s final verdict expresses itself in present sorrow and shame, our default response to God’s invitation would be to hide and cover ourselves just as our first parents did (Gen 3). God will swallow that universal curse, that shroud of terror, and he will replace it with “perfect peace” (Isa 26:3) and our hope for final salvation will give way to unspeakable joy as our faint and faltering longings for the glorious presence of God will in the twinkling of an eye find their sanctified expression. Praise the Lord, and may he haste the day!
David Wells on the Supremacy of Christ
Last week at Desiring God’s National Conference, I felt that the Lord was truly lifted up and exalted. I think this may have been the most Christ-centered conference I have ever been to. I was expecting a conference mostly on post-modernism, and so I was pleasantly surprised by the focus on Christ as the Supreme and already reigning, yet still to reign fully, King.
So, I’ll try to keep processing my thoughts on it although they’re vast escaping me now.
David Wells opened the conference with his thoughts on the supremacy of Christ in a postmodern world. John Piper later mentioned to a smaller group of people that this conference was a dream come true for David, a quiet British scholar at Gordon-Conwell whose remarkable books rarely get national attention outside the theological and philisophical community. The conference was based on his book Above All Earthly Powers.
What lended authenticity to David’s message (in my opinion) was the fact that he was actually a constant visitor to Zambia doing work with Rafiki House. He had obviously experienced many different types of reality in various parts of the world. He opened his discussion by announcing that Christianity was moving East and South, and that there is now more Christianity outside the West than in it. He astutely remarked that the geographical progression of Christianity was in line with its foundations; unlike religions such as Islam, Christianity has no geographic center, no locked language or culture of worship; rather, Christianity is a Person – that of Jesus Christ, who is unique and incomparable.
As he exegeted the book of Hebrews, he showed that the theme of the entire book, found in verses 1-2, is that Jesus IS God’s word to us now. The excellencies of Christ as presented throughout the book of Hebrews reflect the current supremacy of Christ in this world; his sustaining of the universe and creation of it in days past, his bringing the Old Testament to completion, his revealing God to us.
After painting a glorious picture of Christ for us, David focused on Hebrews of 11, pointing out the two sides of faith to us – the suffering, martyrdom of the dark side, and the side presented in that of Hebrews 11:33 –the side that enforces justice, conquers kingdoms, and obtains promises. (At a church that focuses somewhat extensively on suffering for the Gospel, I found this last point particularly helpful — although I understand that a theology of suffering is essential if one’s faith is to persevere).
Then came the Application, which was excellent. In the book of Hebrews, said David, the believers shrunk back from the faith because of fear of losing personal safety, of being persecuted. He contrasted this with Americans, who “shrink back” from faith mostly because of distractions — traveling, buying, the endless number of opportunites that consume our time, thoughts, and attention. We cannot seem to keep focused on Christ’s supremacy. Yet, our freedoms and riches come at a high cost — insecurity, isolation, rootlessness, anxiety, shattered families…we face psychological pressure in a relativistic culture that makes Christian faith hard to sustain. The urgent fills our minds, so that we can survive psychologically. We are not physically challenged, but emotionally challenged in our efforts to sustain faith. As a result, churches tend to focus on the emotional needs of people, and not on the supremacy of Christ. (It is our Western version of social justice applied without the gospel — make people feel good, usually about themselves but not necessarily about God.)
In dealing with two quotes of the Psalms in Hebrews (Ps. 8 in Heb. 2:8-9, and Ps. 110 in Heb. 10:11-13), he noted two problems with our trusting Christ’s supremacy. The first problem is that at present we do not see things outside of ourselves subjected to Christ, so we experience frustration rather than faith often. David made the wonderful point with which I could not agree more strongly, that Christ’s rule begins in us by the Holy Spirit of God, but that Christ’s resurrection not only began that work in us but also began the work of subjecting all things in creation to Himself. (I believe this is why so-called “liberal” causes such as the environment and social justice are to be done in Christ’s name, with joy, by Christian people). The second problem is that we still feel the hand of Satan in the world. God conquered Satan at the cross, but he can still take cheap shots at us as long as we’re alive. Satan has been check-mated, the game is “locked in Christ’s favor.” The enemy can still make many moves, but he cannot change this fact.
His concluding application were; our message (Jesus as Supreme deity) never changes in our postmodern culture (although our methods may change); that we must believe that since we live between the “already” reign of Christ and the “not yet” reign of Christ, we must believe that the glories to be revealed to us are worth our current sufferings; and that it is God’s pleasure that his Son be recognized now in preparation for that final day. So: Jesus is Lord, we’re headed for heaven, and shame of Christ now leads to Christ’s shame of us later. We can not shrink back; we have the poor example of the Israelites as a warning.
All that to summarize David’s message with a few thoughts of my own; now I will attempt to process some of these things at a more personal level. First of all, I have of late been struggling with the tempting thought that the church exists to meet my needs, desires, and expectations, when it does not. Christ meets those (and often through his church), but to place all of that expectation on the church itself is uncalled for and unfair. While the church should never ignore the needs of its members, and it is always right to work for productive, Spirit-and-Word led change in a church, it should serve as a red flag to me when I begin to experience anger at Christ’s bride for not meeting my expectations. Jesus never said that his bride would do that; but he did say that I would always have him, the all-sufficient Supplier of all things! This is not an excuse to ditch church, but rather a call to commit to the church out of love for Jesus Christ – to love her with all her imperfections the way that He loves her.
Secondly, there is the issue of distraction in the church. A friend told me of a vision that another friend of hers had had, in which it became clear that Satan’s “blinding” strategy in Asia tended toward the multiplicity of religions to be found there, while his strategy in Africa was demonic and other types of blatant spiritual warfare, and his strategy in America tended toward distraction from God. Now, I don’t know personally the person who had the dream, but it wouldn’t exactly shock me to find that Satan indeed uses those strategies in variosu parts of the world – I certainly experienced first-hand some demonic warfare in Africa this summer, have heard plenty from Asian students about “which religion is the true one (particularly when mom and dad are from different faiths), and have experience far more distraction than could ever possibly be healthy throughout my American life. Not that these strategies of darkness are limited to geographical regions by any stretch. But I do remember getting back from my first missions trip at the age of 20 and thinking “God is amazing! His work is incredible! What did I waste the first 20 years of my life on?” And I began to evangelize everyone I came in contact with — the guy at 7-11, my hairdresser…I changed my major to something more people oriented and found ways to minister in the years that followed, eventually landing in youth ministry. Distractions didn’t disappear, but meaningful, purposeful ministry did begin to crowd a lot of them out. Then I went back to grad school. End of story.
I’m kidding, it wasn’t quite the end. But I have to admit in the past couple of years I’ve been feeling that distracted, gross feeling of long ago — until we arrived in Africa this summer and the Lord reminded me that his mission field is white hot and ready. He showed me his supremacy in my greatest moments of fear, and proved himself trustworthy. I still have a long way to go in really trusting his supremacy, but now I have a prayer to grow with me: may I not shrink back, Jesus! May I enforce justice, inherit kingdoms, and obtain promises. Jesus is King; heaven is real; may I lay hold of that for which Christ laid hold of me and not shrink back in shame, that he might not be ashamed of me.
And if you read this whole thing, you are amazing. Really. I’d like you to lecture me on perseverance.
Why Preach?
Cotton Mather, an American Puritan had this to say about the pastoral ministry, “The great design and intention of the office of a Christian preacher are to restore the throne and dominion of God in the souls of men; to display in the most lively colours, and proclaim in the clearest language, the wonderful perfections, offices and graces of the Son of God; and to attract the souls of men into a state of everlasting friendship with him” (cited in Stott, “Between Two Worlds,” 31). 
Book Review of “Dominion and Dynasty”
Stephen Dempster, in his provocative book Dominion and Dynasty, argues that the Old Testament canon develops around the twin themes of “dominion” (geography) and “dynasty” (genealogy). These two themes are particularly prominent at the beginning (Genesis) and end (Chronicles) of the OT ; thus the lion’s share of his effort is devoted to these books, particularly Genesis, so as to clarify the Text’s overall “plot.” I will briefly summarize Dempster’s argument then articulate several commendations and reservations.
Genesis begins with God’s creative action, and “humanity is crowned the royalty of creation” (Dempster 57). Man and woman are made in the image of God (Gen 1:26-28), signifying that they are to rule as God’s vicegerents with God’s created paradise as their kingdom (59). The “cosmic tragedy” of their “flagrant rebellion” against the Creator in Gen 3 sets the theological and literary stage for the rest of the Story in which dethroned, exiled humanity will seek to regain lost glory in God’s land (geography) through the seed of the woman (genealogy) (66-69).
The tarnished hope of Adam is resuscitated in God’s covenantal promises of land, descendents, and universal blessing to Abraham, who is the “divine answer to the human plight” (77). Several hundred years after the patriarch’s death, God liberates Israel from Egyptian bondage with the goal of setting her in the land of promise (100). Israel’s persistent rebellion against God’s commands at Sinai highlights the need for a new covenant (104, 121). Moses, the “servant of Yahweh,” anticipates a new kind of leader for God’s people, a king: not Saul with his “height” and human approval but David with his “Torah heart” (123, 138-39). Yahweh covenants with David to build his “house,” and Dempster points out that David’s “house” brings together his dynasty (genealogical) and the temple (geographical).
After the Davidic kings repeatedly fail to lead Judah in the commands of Yahweh, the land promised to Abraham is taken away, Solomon’s temple is pummeled, and the people are thrust into exile. During the exile an eschatological expectation of a new David begins to emerge, a priest-king who would rule by service and represent the people by dying that they might live (178-79). The partial return from exile in Chronicles brings the Story to an incomplete end and anticipates profoundly the coming of the suffering servant Jesus, the son of David, the son of Abraham (Matt 1:1).
Strengths
Dominion and Dynasty is on the whole an excellent attempt at the difficult task of summarizing the heart of OT theology. Two strengths in particular should be highlighted. First, Dempster masterfully navigates the reader through the “forest” of the OT while carefully pointing out inter-textual allusions and literary devices in the “trees.” His argument for unity around genealogy and geography is compelling, particularly in his treatment of David’s “house.”
Second, Dempster helpfully points out that the dynasty that Yahweh blesses is not based on birth order, physical prowess, or popular opinion; rather, it is a dynasty of humility, suffering, and an obedient heart. This shows that God is in total control of human history and continues to guide it in his wisdom, which culminates at Calvary’s cross, the epitome of human folly and divine power and wisdom.
Weaknesses
I am puzzled by Stephen Dempster’s decision to adopt an OT “canon” with a different ordering of the books from either the Septuagintal tradition, now preserved in our English Bible, or the Masoretic order, preserved in the standard modern editions of the Hebrew Scriptures. Dempster’s order, for example, puts Jeremiah and Ezekiel before Isaiah, and it is based primarily on the claims of one passage from the Talmud, which dates to the 5th-6th centuries A.D. and thus its claims should be treated somewhat cautiously.
Despite these questions over canon order and literary setting, Dempster’s book is a careful piece of scholarship that adeptly captures the repetition of the twin themes “dominion” and “dynasty” in a way that heightens the reader’s appreciation for God’s patience with a disobedient people and his wisdom not expressed by human height but by the humble triumph of the “Servant” who would give his life as a ransom for many.
